Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lamest edit wars page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

WT:LAME

This page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Deletion discussions:
Speedy keep, 29 August 2007, see discussion. Speedy keep, 22 January 2007, see discussion. Nomination withdrawn, 20 November 2006, see discussion. Speedy keep, 29 August 2005, see discussion. Keep, 1 July 2005, see discussion. Keep, 12 March 2004, see discussion. Keep, 25 February 2004, see discussion.

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Cummings, Robert E.: Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia p103, Vanderbilt University Press, 2009. ISBN 0826516165

This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Joseph Reagle, A Case of Mutual Aid: Wikipedia, Politeness, and Perspective Taking, 2004

This page has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:

"Articles of War". Mother Jones. January–February 2007.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: date format (link)
David McCandless (August 2010). "Articles of War - Wikipedia's lamest edit wars". Information is Beautiful.
Luke Allnutt (13 January 2011). "The Lamest Edit Wars On Wikipedia Ever". Tangled Web, Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty.
Andrew Hendry (9 February 2008). "All you need to know about Wikipedia". PC Advisor.
"University Challenge - 2011/2012, Episode 35". University Challenge/BBC/ITV Studios. 5 March 2012.
Phil Edwards (17 September 2015). "Wikipedia's lamest edit wars show why the site is amazing and infuriating". Vox. Archived from the original on 19 September 2015. Retrieved 19 September 2015.
Noam Cohen (7 April 2019). "Want to Know How to Build a Better Democracy? Ask Wikipedia". Wired. Retrieved 8 April 2019.
Richard Cooke (February 17, 2020). "Wikipedia Is the Last Best Place on the Internet". Wired. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
Ben Lindbergh (January 15, 2021). "The Fight to Win the Pettiest Edit Wars on Wikipedia". The Ringer. Retrieved January 15, 2021.

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5	Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by .

Article interview inquiry

Hi, I'm a journalist who's working on a story about this page. Would anyone who's active here be interested in answering some questions about it? Thanks in advance for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenLindbergh (talk • contribs)

Which heading

I read on ANI about a bunch of sock- and/or meat-puppets warring for months by removing information about chairs in sub-Saharan Africa at History of the chair. What heading of LEW would that fall under? QwertyForest (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Awareness be added?

I just found out about this ridiculous dispute, because switching two words broke Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy for a large number of articles, and there have been around FIFTY edits about this. I find this truly lame. Wilh3lm^Talk 17:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

that is incredible. thank you. ltb d l (talk) 02:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Season 1 / Series 14

should this be added? 29,940 words, and It's still going on... I just think it's ridiculous, that's all Cal3000000 (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for edit wars, not long discussions. SnowFire (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LINKBOXES and SHORTCUTS

WP:LINKBOXES should list only the most common and easily remembered redirects. Putting a SHORTCUT in a LINKBOX has nothing to do with the working of the shortcut.

LINKBOXES should not be added until there is frequent linking to the page or the section, and then, the SHORTCUTS entered should only be the most common and easily remembered. The purpose of the LINKBOX displayed SHORTCUT is to tell everyone what the preferred SHORTCUT is. If there is not preferred shortcut, there should be no LINKBOX. Editors wishing to link can link to the section explicitly, without a shortcut. Only when this becomes frequent does it become suitable for shortcuts, and when that happens, you can see, from WhatLinksHere and shortcut PageViews, which has proven the most popular.

Yyannako (talk · contribs) is adding unjustified LINKBOX entries. They are pointless visual clutter. He should stop it. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was not aware of the guideline on Shortcuts and Linkboxes, and assumed that every Shortcut that linked to a page should be specified in that page. I should have realized that the extra Shortcuts were hidden for a reason. Yyannako (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts need only link to the section header.

If there’s trouble with section titles being ambiguous or not being stable, then the solution is template:anchor. Usually they are not needed, but they are common on policy pages for important shortcuts.

Linkboxes are for informing people that they should us the listed shortcut, as opposed to others that they might have seen or used. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]