Wikipedia talk:The Last Word

Humour tag
I have removed this (again) because it is a) wrong b) unhelpful.

A. This is a serious essay. It was written (by me) to make a serious point about conversation and interaction. It was not written for humorous intention - or aimed at making people laugh (although I'm quite happy if it does that too). Sure, it uses the genre of satire (which is humorous) - but humour is not its purpose. The purpose is quite serious. The {humour} tag also says:


 * This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Please do not take it seriously.

No. It is not kept "because it is considered humorous". If that were the reason, I'd delete it myself. It is kept because it makes a serious point - and people ought to take that point seriously. Tagging this as humour mistakes the method (satire) for the purpose (to make a serious point). It makes not more sense to label an essay by its method than to label it as to whether it is written in the first or second person.

B. It is unhelpful. Sure, if the satirical method could be misunderstood, there would be a point in alerting the reader. However, this essay uses such overstated satire that there's not any risk of the reader missing it, unless the reader is a moron - and we can't really cover the dangers of that. It is also unhelpful because prominently marking it as humour serves to dismiss the importance of the article to any serious reader. I personally don't read wiki-humour as I find unfunny. But the point here is not whether one finds it funny, but whether one "gets" the point and heeds the warning. I'm fairly untroubled by any inaccurate category being placed on this - but prominently and wrongly dismissing it as humour makes the essay worthless.

If it is simply amusing humour, then let's delete it now.

In any case, why the obsessive-compulsive need tag and categorise everything? Can't people go do something useful?--Scott Mac 14:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with SM. The humor tag is inappropriate. It is a satirical essay, not a humorous one, similar to User talk:Toddst1/Join Wikipedia! Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to tone it down. Being really intimidating and protective about the article you personally wrote, is not a good argument. This is exactly why I don't want to talk with you. Quit with the insults and intimidation, please. (I'm (also) referring to the archived discussions: /Archive 1 Doc=Scott.)
 * Why exactly is your article so special that it doesn't need to be tagged? Again, see WP:SARCASM and the other ones. It doesn't matter that it's obvious.
 * It's not a "serious essay", who are you kidding? If it were, it'd tell the reader what the actual priority should be when having arguments. But this is just a joke. If you insist that it isn't then maybe it should be deleted, as useless and misleading.

— Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, not one of your points answers any of the comments I made. Explain please how this helps the reader?--Scott Mac 01:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how it "helps" the reader. It's entirely sarcastic and needs to be tagged as such. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why?--Scott Mac 02:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice, and you're entitled to your opinion, but have you noticed that we don't actually have a Satire tag, and that the tag you were adding doesn't say that the page is sarcastic? Satire ≠ humor.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I for one found this essay funny and laughed, especially the bits of capitalising your argument or using bold! My other concern is that I know the essay is being sarcastic, but why take the risk that somebody who's a bit younger and naive comes along and literally decides they should barge into WP:AfD and use ALL CAPS and using WP:TLW as a magic word. --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Such a person would be too stupid, or too immature, to edit wikipedia.--Scott Mac 12:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's only your personal opinion. Such a person may be young and a bit unsure of what to do. Should we encourage them in the right direction and get them contributing more content, or should we mock their lack of maturity and experience? --Ritchie333 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I felt the best tag was the template:Humorous essay one as it highlighted there was a humorous side but was mindful of a sobering message/underlying point to it all. I am not keen on the straight "humour" tag.Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We are now pandering to tendentious objections raised on behalf of extremely hypothetical idiocy. No one is actually stupid enough to read this essay and think it is intended as an encouragement to battlefield editing and that therefore they should engage in such. That is just not going to happen. If it did, the hypothetical person doing it would have to be so stupid that they could not possibly become a serious wikipedia editor - and no tag at the top would make a jot of difference.--Scott Mac 21:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you think these objections are "tendentious", but in my real world experience I have seen children of 13 do exactly what you have described, because they're shy teenagers uncomfortable with adult norms! They're not stupid, they're just young. Eventually they grow up and may well become more serious editors. --Ritchie333 (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already (see above) allowed for immaturity. They may well do exactly as you've suggested - but if they currently are too immature to think this page is serious advice they should follow, they are currently not old enough to edit. Under your augment, we'd give an Urdu translation of the tag, because, hypothetically, a non-English speaker might be uncomfortable with the English on the page, and we don't want to discourage them, as they may well learn English and become serious editors.--Scott Mac 12:21, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's a strawman argument. I was speaking from my own personal experiences. I don't directly know anyone who speaks Urdu as a first language, so that's irrelevant to my point. How does one know they are not old enough to edit? Anyway, I'm going to put the stick down slowly and back away from the remains of the horse as gracefully as I can and agree to disagree on this. --Ritchie333 (talk) 14:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know what Scott's opinion on WP:SARCASM is. That one also makes a serious point, btw. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never read it. I don't read things tagged as humour, because if they tagged as such, I assumed they are there to make people laugh rather than make a serious point.--Scott Mac 18:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant what your opinion was on the article having the tag, but I guess I got my answer. How do you explain the fact that other satirical articles are tagged and yours isn't? If you're so sure blatant sarcasm doesn't need to be pointed out, why not remove the tag from other articles (or propose their removal)? They all make a serious point of some sort, so existing merely for fun isn't an issue. I just honestly don't get what the difference is. For the sake of consistency they should all either be tagged or not be tagged. If the more popular ones like WP:SARCASM are tagged, people expect to find the tag on all satirical articles. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is huge. The suggestion that in order to argue x on page y, I have to go and do it everywhere else is silly, because it would mean we could seldom do anything. I have no inclination to spend my time doing that.--Scott Mac 21:24, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I reckon consensus is to re-add the tag. If anyone agrees with Scott, shout soon before I re-add it. --Ritchie333 (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * re-ad which tag? The humour tag is actually inaccurate - and that has not been disputed. Actually, two editors agreed with me, two with you. So, I don't know where your consensus is. --Scott Mac 00:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The irony of this discussion when related to the subject matter of the essay itself...but anyway I think template:Humorous essay is ok, but a straight-out humour tag undermines the message. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Read the text, how does this not apply? And TLW wouldn't even exist if it wasn't intended to be funny (it would just be something like "The priority in an argument is to reach an agreement, not to "win"," and be merged into some other page).

These tags have been added in the past and discussed in the past, but Scott's intimidation tactics seem to have kept it off so far. — Jeraphine Gryphon  (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Intimidation tactics? Where? Intimidation means threats (look it up) - I see none. The problem with your tag is that it is false. The page is not "intended as humour". It is intended to make a serious point (using sarcasm, yes - using humour, yes). Casliber's suggestion is fine, if you want a compromise. (Although I hate compromising with this tendentious obsession with unnecessarily compulsion to be tagging everything - but if it keeps you from going ape...). Ironically, this is exactly the type of obsessive behaviour I wrote the essay to combat. --Scott Mac 09:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the only way to settle this.... --Ritchie333 (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I've added a disclaimer to humour to cover situations where humourous essays may still be intended to make a point. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Firstword
I think this article is quite useful, as well as humorous. We should consider expanding it or adding another on the 'firstword' tactic. The firstword is inarguably superior to the last word. Some editors start reading threads at the top, and then go to some tl:dr point point, never reaching the lastword, so the firstword matters more than the last. Additionally, it is the firstword that frames the debate. Everything else is just a reply.

If someone else already started a discussion that didn't highlight the points one wants made, this is not a problem. Forking (starting a new conversation to supersede the old) is always an option, and a sure way to get firstword. This works even better if one is verbose about it and accurately hits the tl:dr point. If it is short enough so that it gets read but long enough so that nothing after it gets read, the firstword becomes the onlyword that matters.

Editors should be sure to do get firstword before crossposting to other forums. This ensures that the crossposts will link to the correct discussion, not the wrong one. That way the less-than-intrepid will follow links to the new fork, ignoring the previous, unfavorable discussion. The forker will appear to be the conversation-starter, consensus-builder, and peacemaker no matter how late he was to the game. BitterGrey (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)