Wikipedia talk:The Last Word/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Humour tag
If this page is not going to be tagged as humorous, I believe it should be deleted. There's no point in keeping an essay with such abhorrent view (considering the author is being serious).
So, is this page really not a joke? Contrary to what good sense would imply? And contrary to what I thought this edit was implying?--Abu badali (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Get a grip. Of course it is satire! Anyone who really needs that spelt out is too thick to be allowed to edit.--Docg 20:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not impose such requirements to it's readers. You can't expect that the causal Wikipedia reader to understand inside-jokes from Wikipedia-editors sub-universe. --Abu badali (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- We do ask for some degree of commonsense from our participants though. And the 'casual reader' doesn't read project space. Are you seriously suggesting that someone might mistake this for straight debating advice?? Oh, come on?--Docg 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's a matter of common sense or sense of humor... the fact is: this is the first and only article I've ever encountered on wikipedia that was satirical. It's not that I didn't get it, I love the humor style, but (and I'm sure I'm not the only one) I'm wired to find and destroy information that isn't neutral and/or accurate. I had mental red flags popping up all over this article, lol. 168.158.220.3 (talk) 07:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
- Even in year 2010, that essay is still misleading, for readers with little time. It could be perceived that if you do not bother to post the last-word message, you show a lack of interest in some debate, or as accused elsewhere, you lacked the "courtesy of a reply". This topic is indeed, a very poor subject for dull sarcasm. It would be like sarcasm about signing every reply with "Regards" or "Thanks" to avoid promoting abrupt responses. Perhaps the author never worked with enough people to realize how often they misunderstand a long-winded section, as "TLDR" (2 long didn't read), so that's why people would read 1 sentence, stop, and miss the lame sarcasm. I would paint-box it "SARCASM" or else delete it, as disinformation. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
- We do ask for some degree of commonsense from our participants though. And the 'casual reader' doesn't read project space. Are you seriously suggesting that someone might mistake this for straight debating advice?? Oh, come on?--Docg 22:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia does not impose such requirements to it's readers. You can't expect that the causal Wikipedia reader to understand inside-jokes from Wikipedia-editors sub-universe. --Abu badali (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Essay
I don't think this should be both labeled as an essay and in the Wikipedia namespace. If it is an essay and maybe only the opinion of the author (as said in the essay tag), then it should be in the userspace, on the author's userpage or his subpage. I have nothing against the content at all, in fact I think it's great, but I think it should be labeled as it is intended to be viewed. —ScouterSig 20:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why not. It is an essay. Just a sarcastic one, and that's pretty obvious to the reader. What is the problem here? This seems like wikilawyering over tags.--Docg 20:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- It uses humor to get a message across, but the primary purpose is educational, not humorous. I've created a varient of the essay tag to make that clear. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- If it's "sarcastic", than it must be humorous. I'm against the customized tag. If it's not an "essay" as in {{essay}} not "humor" like in {{humor}}, it doesn't belong to Wikipedia: namespace. --Abu badali (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the customized tag. This essay is not about playing it safe with dense people who will misinterpret anything to their ends anyway.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm taking the discussion to an wider audience via Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Please, share your counter-arguments there. Please, remember that is not a vote. --Abu badali (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy with the customized tag. This essay is not about playing it safe with dense people who will misinterpret anything to their ends anyway.—Kncyu38 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- You just want the last word. :-) Ben Aveling 10:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that this essay is problematic and either needs to be in user space or tagged as humor and moved to Wikimedia. I believe that some readers will be confused. I am a comedian and a humorist, and I still think this. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- FFS, you believe people may be confused by this? What planet are you one? Stop this silliness--Docg 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, keep in mind that not only Wikipedia editors may read this page. --Abu badali (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- It is in category humor, it is marked as 'no-one's opinion', it is obvious satire. Even my grandmother couldn't get that wrong. Go find a real problem to solve. This is ridiculous.--Docg 23:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- If people are confused by this, they will also be confused by just about anything else in Wikipedia namespace. In other words the problem lies not in this page, but in the (few) people that are all-too-easily confused. >Radiant< 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have any reason to not mark an "obvious satire" page as {{humor}}? --Abu badali (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not every page needs a tag. It's fine. Stop trolling.--Docg 13:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do we have any reason to not mark an "obvious satire" page as {{humor}}? --Abu badali (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please, keep in mind that not only Wikipedia editors may read this page. --Abu badali (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- FFS, you believe people may be confused by this? What planet are you one? Stop this silliness--Docg 23:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
proposed header
I proposed a header, which I copied over from Wikipedia:The Truth and altered a bit. You can view it here. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- The custom one on this article at present is just fine. No need to change it.--Docg 21:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Userbox
A while ago, at my request, another user created a userbox for me. I hope that you all enjoy it as much as I have!
| 'But...' | This user always has to have the last word! |
{{User:MelicansMatkin/userbox/Last word}} MelicansMatkin (talk) 03:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Comments
Awesome page. I just had this happen to me, by someone who desperately wanted TLW, and actually utilized several of the methods you mentioned. Just one question: Who is Jimbo? Enigmaman 06:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Great page
Very true and very humorous. Congrats to everyone that contributed.--TBC!?! 21:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
What's the serious message behind this essay?
I don't get the message behind this essay. There are many stubborn people on internet forums and the like that will never shut up before you do. What's wrong with those type of people?--Alasdair 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Too bad it's impossible to cite this essay
I often wonder if the folks who I allow to have The Last Word think that they've 'won'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the contrary, you have won.--Father Goose (talk) 00:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Nelson's last word
was not kiss me hardy. That's only what most people think, and not the truth. Kayau Don't be too CNN I'LL DO MY JOB uprising! uprising! 13:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)