Content deleted Content added
Paul August (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 1247053212 by 2600:1012:A021:670:2D4A:EA7C:50A3:1FF4 (talk) no, this is definitely not okay. |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 25:
:::As far as I can see, the reason it never gains consensus is because a relatively small number of contributors are very opposed to it and repeatedly make their objections known. That's why I agree with Manning that an RFC process could be useful, as it might help to get a broader spectrum of views involved. If that then does result in a consensus (or even an observable majority) against including the link, then that's fine. But, equally, if an RFC supports inclusion, then it should be included. [[User:MarkSG|MarkSG]] ([[User talk:MarkSG|talk]]) 07:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
:::I disagree; this is a very small revision and would only be seen at the end of the article. Furthermore, the Department of Fun's purpose also applies here. I mean, the reason I was willing to join Wikipedia, other than furthering human knowledge, was that I found the little jokes around the site, such as [[WP:UNUSUAL]]. [[User:Samurai-of-bisexuality|Samurai-of-bisexuality]] ([[User talk:Samurai-of-bisexuality|talk]]) 15:05, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
:My first reaction to finding out such a harmless spot of humor is completely taboo was actually to take Wikipedia less seriously than before (I'm a very frequent user, and a strong proponent). Wikipedia has a couple rules I disagree with (none very strenuously), but this deserves at least a vote on the topic. It doesn't have to be a disambiguation link at the top of the article, but a link to it in the "see also" is harmless. A link in the first paragraph phrased as an example might even be completely appropriate, if done properly. [[User:Prgrmr@wrk|Prgrmr@wrk]] ([[User talk:Prgrmr@wrk|talk]]) 08:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Line 243 ⟶ 244:
:::I am slightly in favor of adding a recursive example, and I think most readers would expect one. Is this a situation where an RfC would be useful? [[User:Inavda|inavda]] ([[User talk:Inavda|talk]]) 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::::This has been discussed many times, and the consensus has always been that such a thing is non encyclopedic. I agree. [[User:Paul August|Paul August]] [[User_talk:Paul August|☎]] 00:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Although Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, many articles like WP:UA have some fun and entertain the reader. A small bullet in the "See also" section that says "Recursion - the article you're on right now" wouldn't ruin the reader experience while having some lighthearted fun. [[User:IxNoah|IxNoah]] ([[User talk:IxNoah|talk]]) 18:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
{{RPA}} Instead of giving undue weight to a few in vocal opposition we should broaden the scope of "consensus" to a true representative audience.
And so what if this one little edit goes against the "style" of this encyclopedia? Are you going to be purists to an encyclopedia that is inherently impossible to be truly pure? Over one harmless edit in what is basically a footnote section?
[[WP:IGNORE|Create an exception for this page specifically]] if it makes things better. That's the argument made by the proponents. [[Special:Contributions/2600:1012:A021:670:55F0:816E:CED2:AE4F|2600:1012:A021:670:55F0:816E:CED2:AE4F]] ([[User talk:2600:1012:A021:670:55F0:816E:CED2:AE4F|talk]]) 03:55, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
| |||