Meta:Proposed page moves

←Requests and proposals

Proposed page moves

Archives (current)→

This is the page to propose page moves that might be controversial. These should be listed for seven days and implemented if there is no opposition. Any language may be used on this page, although English is the most common. Users who wish to use this place should place {{move}} on the page in question to alert other users, which adds the page to Category:Proposed page moves. The following are usually renamed without delay: Spelling mistakes Trivial changes (such as renaming an archive page).

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page
• Meta-l mailing list

Current requests

Submit your request at the bottom of the section.

Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles

Proposal

Rename to "No one cares if your friend is gay or lesbian" / "No one cares if your friend is homosexual"

I've just stumbled upon this page and though it was tagged as humor, I find little value that it adds to Wikimedia in general. I've realized looking at the page's history that it's been through multiple deletion discussions — that's already a big hint that the several people who voted delete in those discussions take offense to it and want it deleted. I am personally not offended by the title, but I can see a lot of confusion and misleading about the title; non-English speakers might mistake the nuance that friends of gays (who are presumed to be supportive of gays) are the ones banned from editing (and therefore banned from supporting gays). I've read through the essay in its entirety and most of the keep arguments in the various deletion discussions amounted to "take it in context; don't judge a book by its cover; its harmless". It obviously didn't seem harmless to the people who nominated it for deletion. Why risk offending a group of people who might misread the page, just to have a few chuckles? In an age where admins are desysopped for making "harmless" jokes "bringing the project into disrepute", where ArbCom and Wikipedia cares about its public image so much, Wikimedia needs to take itself more seriously. Why doesn't it do that?

For this reason, I think that we can come to a reasonable compromise at the very least by renaming the page to something more language-neutral like "No one cares if your friend is gay or lesbian" or "No one cares if your friend is homosexual". This would be followed by some much needed substantial rewriting of the page, to appeal to people whose first language is not English and might misread it.

P.S: if I am the friend of a gay person (who I support wholly), do I have every right to be offended? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The title of the page is totally inappropriate. The main text is just weird. It's an embarrassment. Tony (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to quote Meta-Wiki's Inclusion policy on this in case people think my arguments are baseless:

Acceptable: Meta is a wiki about the Wikimedia projects and Wikimedia Foundation. As such, the following content is appropriate on Meta:

• Documentation and discussion concerning the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects (see some current discussions). no
• Documentation intended to help users contribute and collaborate in other wiki projects. no, in fact its serving to divide some of our userbase despite its best intentions
• Multilingual cooperation of Wikimedia projects. no, see above
• Relevant essays or advocacy (see some essays). as a humor page, what exactly is it advocating?
• Primary research regarding the development of wiki projects. no

Not acceptable: Some content is not appropriate on Meta:

• Content more appropriate on another wiki project: encyclopedic information, published texts, user-created books, dictionary definitions, famous quotations, general news and images (unless only intended for use on Meta-wiki pages; see Licensing policy and Meta:Fair use). probably belongs on enwiki because only English speakers will "get it"
• Galleries of links or images. (Meta is NOT a repository of links, upload images to Commons so that they may be used on any Wikimedia projects) no
• Personal pages or blogs. yes
• Content that is paid. Users may freely view, use, distribute, modify, and exploit all Meta content, in any form, and for any purpose (including commercial exploitation) without limitation (except attribution). Allowable exceptions are discussed at Meta:Fair use. no
• Dedicated attack pages VERY BORDERLINE

In total, two reasons it's unacceptable and no reason why it's acceptable per Meta-Wiki's very own Inclusion Policy. This type of humor is for the immature high school kid, not a gigantic nonprofit public corporation like Wikimedia Foundation. It's better on a personal blog about Wikipedia if anything else. Therefore, I believe that a rename is a quite rather generous compromise I'm willing to take. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I would say rename or don't do anything. I like the page after reading its content. Gryllida (talk) 09:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It may make sense to put those into separate namespace or put the 'is humorous' banner at the top at your liking. Gryllida (talk) 09:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the renaming. I think it meets "Relevant essays or advocacy (see some essays).". It is a satirical essay about common vandalism patterns. Like "a modest proposal". Meta:What Meta is not #3: "Meta is not entirely formal, and many of its pages are meant to be humorous.". Is this supposed to be on Wikimedia Forum, Meta:Babel, Meta:Proposed page moves, or RFD? PiRSquared17 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Proposed page moves? Gryllida (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep,  Done.[1] --Nemo 14:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose rename, like mentioned earlier I think the essay title is intentionally puzzling. (I might suggest to move it to Essays:* or whatever namespace, or move the 'is humorous' banner to the article top, to help readers gain orientation.) Gryllida (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

  Hi gry. In fact, the page used to have both a humor notice and brief context hatnote at the top, but they were removed. By the way, there is no "Essay" namespace, but there is an essay category. I think the humor category is enough, along with perhaps a vandalism-related category. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  Thank you for the context. ☺ I don't really mind these things I mentioned not being done; they are merely of brainstorming nature, as a first reaction to the initial proposal. Gryllida (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the 32434534th proposal about this page this year. See also Talk:Friends_of_gays_should_not_be_allowed_to_edit_articles#Propose_rename. --MF-W 01:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh noes! The article actually has a useful talk page. Gryllida (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
• Didn't we just have this discussion? --Rschen7754 01:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, we did. Trijnstel_talk 20:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as well, for reasons on the various other discussions on this topic. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose rename. I believe I commented on the relevant talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
•  Oppose I'm done with this frequently recurring discussion. And put {{humor}} on top again. Having it on the bottom is not logic imho. Trijnstel_talk 20:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Move queue

Pages in this section are ready to be moved.