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.

OK, heads up on this one. At Commonwealth Realm there's a barney (or possibly a blarney) over whether the Irish Free State can be described as a Former Commonwealth Realm (it wasn't) or a Former Dominion (it was) for the sake of tidiness. WARNING: arcane terminology and knowledge and gumboots required. -- Pete ( talk) 20:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mostly finished now, but this was an epic move, move 2, move review, move 3, move 4, all in the space of a few weeks. Result? The article stayed at its original title of Deadmau5. Probably thousands of lines of text over a single character. Debate still continues at Talk:Deadmau5 as to how his name is actually pronounced. Does it deserve a place here? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 02:24, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Was it an edit war? Surely lame, but a war? Red Slash 10:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit on the edge. I just think it qualifies, due to the massive amount of text, all over "5" vs "s". -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 17:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the point though that discussion is good (if lame!!) and edit warring is bad? I recall reverting one editor who just up and moved it, but that didn't seem like any sort of inappropriate edit warring or anything; more like a temporarily unaware editor that quickly learned better. Red Slash 09:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I do recall some warring over the 5 vs s in the text of the article - I think.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 13:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to make sense of a pointless argument on a Talk Page and someone linked to this Page. It really helps keeps ones feet on the ground and puts things into perspective. Think of what could be accomplished if all of this time and energy went to creating good content. Thanks for pulling this all together! Newjerseyliz ( talk) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Section Frequent date of birth to death punctuation contains two examples supposedly showing two different ways to punctuate date ranges. Except that the punctuation of both examples is the same, even in the source text. I'm afraid to be BOLD here. David Spector ( talk) 15:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It was changed by accident in [1]. I have restored the example. [2] PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't think creationism is a myth you're hardly going to be happy that the article is called creation myth. Along with the amount of times the word right, real, good, true etc. are put in quotation marks around here it's clear this site has an anti-religious bias. If you're about to post that reality has an anti-religious bias then don't bother, I see it coming a mile off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.87.126 ( talk) 23:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Your opening sentence doesn't make sense. The article about creationism is called creationism. The article about creation myths is called creation myth. They are different articles and there are lots of creation myths. See the second box at Talk:Creation myth for the meaning of "myth". PrimeHunter ( talk) 00:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How about this dispute ( Arbitration case on Tree shaping) on "tree shaping"? It seems like it should qualify for this list. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad this word was used, with a moment's thought you'll realize you're stating what is non respected content is in the same category as people with disabilities. Could a more thoughtful and descriptive word be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.205.238.62 ( talk) 17:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Humor and political correctness don't go along together. Learningnave ( talk) 20:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Learningnave, that's certainly a common point of view. That doesn't make it right. Another point of view, especially in those who have disabilities, have friends or people with disabilities in their family, or work professionally helping those with disabilities, is that both "lame" and "crippled" have historically been used in a derisive sense, rather than an objective and descriptive sense. Similarly for "blind", "black", and even "gay" in other contexts. Yes, this is about being aware and considerate of people's feelings. There is nothing wrong with using analogies and similes; they are good rhetoric. But there is something wrong with borrowing words in a way that belittles those with disabilities. And there is also something wrong with giving excuses, as you just did, to ignore people's feelings. "Political correctness" is a good descriptive term when applied to social norms (or even legislative norms) that institutionalize being considerate. But it is misused when one implies that political correctness is in any way a bad thing. We grow as a society through many mechanisms, and political correctness is one of them. If there is a humorous saying that requires suspension of political correctness, I have no use for it. I certainly object to its use in the voice of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia, when it speaks for itself, were to make more use of inconsiderate language, the world would soon notice and might justifiably figure that Wikipedia was getting too big for its britches, acting like a bully having fun at others' expense. We don't need that. David Spector ( talk) 15:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to explore some possible alternatives. If we can agree on one, we can nominate the page to be moved/renamed. Some rather lame ideas:

• Wikipedias most pointless edit wars
• Wikipedias stupidest edit wars
• Wikipedias lamest, most retarded, gayest edit wars

I highly recommend http://www.guymacon.com/flame.html as a source of inspiration... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that using the pejorative slur "lamest" in the title of this page is offensive to people with disabilities (recognizing of course that it doesn't universally offend people and that most people don't even think about how it might sound to someone with a disability). Wikipedia has an opportunity here to rise above ableist language by renaming this page. This issue has been brought up on this talk page previously ( use of "lame"), but nothing came of it. Macmillan Dictionary notes that the term is considered offensive, as does Wiktionary.

A new title won't affect the quality of the page and we can make sure that it is just as descriptive. While neither "retarded" nor "gayest" is even remotely an improvement, I think the title Most pointless edit wars has some merit. Funniest edit wars or Silliest edit wars could work just as easily. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 03:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The debate over the title of the Chelsea Manning article has to be breaking some records for length and lameness. Any chance this could get added to the list? NickCT ( talk) 05:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not really an edit war. It's not particularly funny either. Also it would be a shame if someone were to use the fact that it was listed here to make some sort of point while the move discussion is in progress. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 03:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. It is long, but there are some serious issues at stake, many of which are being presented thoughtfully.-- SPhilbrick (Talk) 11:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

It started off as an edit war, and we could wait till the move discussion is over. That said though, I'd agree some of the issues discussed here are a tad more serious than those we typically include on the lame list. NickCT ( talk) 12:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I would wait until the dust settles in a month or so, then have a look. Technically, it's a page move war but I think it's a near certainty that lame-ness will fall out of it. Just because one editor thinks it isn't funny, doesn't mean we all share that opinion! ;-) Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

@ Ritchie333 - Yeah. I largely agree with that. re "Just because one editor thinks it isn't funny, doesn't mean we all share that opinion!" - As a side thought here, is it more important of listing on this page that these wars are funny or that they are really really lame? NickCT ( talk) 14:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fundamentally, the page exists so we can look at things we've done and think "what on earth were we all thinking?" and chuckle over it. It shouldn't be to have a pop at other editors. The best additions to the page are probably ones where the editor adding it has been either an active participant or a close observer. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I am considering making a proposal with the usual support/oppose votes, but first I want to talk it over informally. At this time I am NOT asking for opinions about whether you support or oppose the proposal, but rather for opinions as to whether I am proposing the right thing, suggested tweaks, etc.

Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has become the "go to" place if you have a grudge or otherwise dislike the results of a discussion, mixed in with a bunch of legitimate entries that, put together, make just deleting the page an undesirable option. I propose the following solution:

MOVING FORWARD
I propose the following guidelines, to be placed at the top of this talk page:

• You cannot add a lamest edit war that you were involved in. If you think one should be added, place a request on the article talk page.
• You cannot add a lamest edit war until at least one month after the start of the edit war. If there is a question as to when it started, pick a date where everybody would agree that it started on or before that date.
• All entries must be neutral in the sense that it is OK to imply that the entire disagreement is lame, but not that one side is lame and the other side is not.
• We all look at the lists and, together, decide what to keep and what to remove.

FIXING THE EXISTING ENTRIES
I propose that

• Several editors commit to reading through the list, looking at the edit war in question, and listing what should be kept / removed.
  • If you think pretty much everything should go or that pretty much everything should stay, you may find that your opinions carry less weight than those of someone who appears to have thoughtfully considered what to keep.
• As we do the evaluations, we should add a comment too each entry such as <!-- Lamest edit wars January 1970 -->, chosen so that if you look at that page's history using the "From year (and earlier)" and "From month (and earlier)" search, you will clearly see the lame edit war. (Unresolved: what if the page has been deleted and thus nobody can verify that the edit war happened or is described accurately?)

Again, I don't want your opinion as to how you would vote, but I do want your opinion as to whether I can improve the proposal.

Suggestions? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This is not really a constructive comment, but why does wikipedia seem to attract so many people who want to make rules and regulations? I think like 95% of the policy and guidelines could be reduced down to core guidance that would be easier to get to grips with. What we have now is a never-ending and ever expanding maze of policy that no editor could ever learn in an entire lifetime. What hope do the newbies have? Regarding this page, there really is no need to make it serious and stick rules on it, because it is not an encylopedia entry... Lesion ( talk) 19:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

We certainly can and often do go too far, but in general, I would say that rules are needed because with certain *cough* editors, politely asking them to do something as simple as holding off on oppose comments is not effective. Not a big deal in this case, but if it was important to get you to hold off on opposing the proposal I would have had to propose a rule to that effect and tried to get community consensus for it, because politely asking you did not work. Do you see anything wrong with this particular rule, as opposed to rules in general? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 06:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I ended up looking into this because I volunteer at WP:DRN and because Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars is on my watchlist. Please try to take the following in the spirit in which it was intended.

Here is a timeline of the recent "edit war"

13:50, 20 October 2013: 2Awwsome files a case at WP:DRN concerning Frédéric Chopin [3]

16:29, 21 October 2013: 2Awwsome adds Chopin link to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars [4]

17:16, 21 October 2013: Volunteer Marek Reverts(1RR) [5]

17:31, 21 October 2013: Lesion Reverts (1RR) [6]

17:49, 20 October 2013: 2Awwsome warns Volunteer Marek [7]

18:14, 21 October 2013: Volunteer Marek Reverts (2RR) [8]

18:19, 21 October 2013: 2Awwsome Reverts (1RR) [9]

18:21, 21 October 2013: Volunteer Marek warns 2Awwsome [10]

17:16, 22 October 2013: 24 hours; Volunteer Marek drops to (1RR)

17:22, 22 October 2013: 2Awwsome Self-Reverts (drops to 0RR) [11]

18:19, 21 October 2013: 24 hours; 2Awwsome drops to (0RR) even if the self-revert is not counted.

My conclusion: you all need to get into the habit of following the advice at WP:BRD and WP:TALKDONTREVERT, you need to stop giving people warning on their user pages when they are at 1RR, and you all -- every one of you -- need to do better at working together and discussing issues rather than reaching for the revert button (other than as specified at WP:BRD. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 20:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

See my comments - the D - above.  Volunteer Marek  01:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The warning I gave was for source removal, not reversion. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 13:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Really, is the purpose of this page to give a forum for axe-grinding for disgruntled edit warriors who fail to convince others on some dispute or obtain consensus so they come here to try and achieve some kind of catharsis?

And btw, this joke got ... lame (and stale and weak), long time ago. Maybe it's time to preserve the page in some historical version and lock it up.  Volunteer Marek  18:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Kudos for not breaking 3RR on this page! It's not about who is in the "right side" of an edit war, but rather about the war itself. I reviewed the edit war in question, and it indeed appears to be an edit war on closer inspection, with edit summaries such as "not this crap again" (nice btw). This edit war was about the nationality of the composer, which is a running theme of edit wars on this page. Note that there was already a section on this article about the page in question. So the edit was adding a diff of an edit war which is fitting with the other edit wars on this page, to a section which was talking about edit wars on that page. Am I missing something about why that diff was not suitable here? All things considered, it is rather grown up of the person being reverted to post the diff here, although maybe your interpretation of their motivation for doing this would be more accurate. Who knows these things. Lesion ( talk) 18:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

He can add the diff if he wants to. The problem is with the wording "and removal of sources". The issue has been discussed extensively and what matters is the preponderance of sources on each side, per WP:UNDUE (putting aside the sources don't really support what he's claiming). I could just as easily add "and disruptive editing" or "and not getting it" or "and engaging in "I didn't hear that". Or some other version of "I'm right! I'm right!". We go down that road and this page becomes just a forum for continuation of these lame disputes, with each side trying to use it to present their side as a bit less lame than the other.  Volunteer Marek  19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If what matters is the preponderance of sources, find some. One source says he is Polish, another says he is Polish-French and another says it is disputed. If it is a minority viewpoint, find sources to prove it. And it's you who isn't 'hearing it', general consensus on talk page is Polish-French. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 19:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm wanting to add Highest-valued currency unit as a lame edit war due to edits around the Bitcoin (Is it a currency? What is a currency anyway?) but I'm not sure where it should be included. Politics? Lists? Which section would it fit best in? ZanderSchubert ( talk) 07:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably lists. 2Awwsome ^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 09:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It appears that there is only one citation after the word 'Hungarian' in reference to his nationality. 180.200.158.158 ( talk) 01:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't Senkaku Islands listed yet? I have zero interest in these barren uninhabited islands that Japan, China, and Taiwan want so badly, but there are always messages flying around Wikipedia about the war over the page's title. Lame! Ntsimp ( talk) 16:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I may have started a edit war against 70.27.98.190, and I am very strictly saying that, he has put an edit that says that WZJZ has been killed along with 5 other stations, and at the same time, it was also a "Wiki hoax." I believe that massacare involving a gang of woman so clever to kill stations and forcing the FCC to give them up is not real as it has never happened ever and would have been a first. It would have also been the most catastrophic event in broadcasting HISTORY!!! I believe this should be stopped, please sign or comment about this on 70.27.98.190's talk page and make him stop this.

Thanks! 50.9.114.198 ( talk) 02:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I fixed this problem, so this lame edit war has ended, but you can still reply to this man that did it, NOT ME, and tell why you did this and if you agree.

Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.114.198 ( talk) 03:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

This page on an Aztec mythical monster has seen an edit war regarding a "popular culture" section about the creature's brief appearance in an episode of My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. Edit summaries include ""In Pop Culture" sections are discouraged per WP:POPCULTURE (you cretin))," "gas all bronies," and one that nicely sums up this whole matter: "shut up about ponies goddamn" 69.111.73.139 ( talk) 01:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it, that sounds like it would definitely work here! Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this qualifies. September 19, 2014‎ there was a rapid-fire revert war at Dicksucker.

Dispute: Can Dicksucker redirect to Fellatio? (Dicksucker technically refers the person rather than the act.)

The odd angle is that the reverts were of a WP:DUMMYEDIT, abusing the editsummary to argue it. Alsee ( talk) 06:50, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

See where I mentioned WP:Lamest edit wars at Talk:Dicksucker. Flyer22 ( talk) 06:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Stalker! Grin. Alsee ( talk) 07:03, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to take a moment to thank all who have participated in creating this article. I think it is a riot, teeming with subtle and sardonic humor. I really appreciated it. (I do, however, think that the caution sign is totally unnecessary and subtracts from the effect. The average person who participates on Wikipedia is very intelligent and erudite.)

I’ve never been involved with an edit war and have never taken down anyone else’s contributions without first building a consensus to do so on the relevant talk pages. However, I once came close. I was astonished when after I had added a quotation to the Agathon article to discover it had been reverted in record time by another editor. Agathon? That immortal Athenian tragic poet whose name lies in the hearts of men and women everywhere? Come now. I tell you my blood was boiling, and I was all ready to revert the reversion and demand a hearing with the Wiki Supreme Court (or whatever) if this rogue editor persisted with such vandalism of my august contribution! However, I managed to check my baser instincts and engaged in constructive dialogue with the other editor and reached a compromise. Ah, such are the virtues of politic! After all, this was hardly the Climate Change or the Israel-Palestine Conflict articles. So one can understand why I was taken aback. Today Agathon, tomorrow Jerusalem! We can do it! HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Are U2 an "Irish band" or simply a band that happen to be from Ireland, since two of their members were born in the UK? All parties to this edit war were equally mistaken as they are neither an Irish Band, A British band, a British-Irish band or an Irish-British band. They are in fact a Dutch band and have been ever since they became resident for tax purposes in the Netherlands. Netgeek-UK ( talk) 21:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit war is here Persian Gulf naming dispute 78.148.75.177 ( talk) 15:40, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am requesting that the link from " ~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~ " under Star Trek (I/i)nto Darkness under Names be removed, as: ►It is a non-useful redlink ►the page it linked to was deleted, with a prohibition on recreating it. Alex33212 ( talk) 02:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems uncontroversial. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 23#~*~ StAr TrEk InTo DaRkNeSs ~*~ closed as delete, citing WP:XKCD —  Andy W. ( talk ·  ctb) 05:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The section "Deletion wars" contains both the lines "6: ... Earth (all April Fools' jokes)..." and "... pages that are nominated for deletion during April Fools. Examples include Earth (nine times)..." Which is it? Presumably this error has never been caught before because no one has ever read that far down the page. Will some wikihistorian please correct this contradiction? 50.46.200.131 ( talk) 07:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

This settles it. Copernicus is not Polish, German, or Prussian. He is from the lovely country of Renaissance. Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Julius Caesar has never tasted a Caesar Salad. Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:14, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Whichever Final fantasy game is more canon, that's what her name shall be. Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

This reptile is in it's own order, the Rhynchocephalia. It's not a lizard or an amniote. Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:25, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If there is a conflict between British vs. American spelling, the British spelling should be canon, since Wikipedia was invented in Great Britain. I hope this will prevent further stupid edit wars. Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:30, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The article currently calls hummus a snack. In the West, hummus is eaten as a snack condiment, but in the Middle East hummus is eaten as a meal on all sides of the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.11.48 ( talk) 19:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Does he qualify for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons? Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 18:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:BDP says that WP:BLP "does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources". Jesus died, and that's the gospel truth. I submit that resurrection or reincarnation of a deceased person does not bring WP:BLP back into play.

Otherwise, people like the ancient Egyptian scribe Cleophas would also need a BLP tag. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

The well-documented 1960s Liverpool F.C. graffito " Jesus Saves" - "But St John scores from the rebound" supplies no reason whatsoever for including Jesus in Category:Association football goalkeepers. Narky Blert ( talk) 22:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

But Jesus is a living person, because he resurrected. The Bible is a reliable source, and it tells us that Jesus is a living person. If he is alive today, he is not dead, because nobody can be half alive half dead, except for Schrodinger's cat, but Schrodinger's cat is just a theory, and like evolution, it has been proven wrong by the Bible. And if you want to question me, look at the 1st amendment in the freedom of religion. It's a free country, right?!?!?!?!?!?! And if it's a free country, we have the right to be innocent until proven guilty! (sigh) Charizardmewtwo ( talk) 13:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

This is so easy to solve. No matter if you consider him dead or alive, Jesus is not a person. So no Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ha! Yintan  10:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The word 'Lamest' should be something that's not a slur, i nominate Silliest. ^[1] 212.51.117.25 ( talk) 17:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

In this case, it's supposed to be a slur. If we call it "Silliest" or anything else of that nature, it would encourage people to engage in edit wars just so they could be remembered as Silly, but much less want to be Lame. Supernerd11 _{Firemind ^_^ Pokedex} 00:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The point is that the term is to the disability community similar in offensiveness as the N-word to the African American community or "Redskins" to the Native American community. It's not just a slur against people who belong on this page, it's a slur against people with disabilities. Use of that term for this page is not only offensive but may discourage people with disabilities from taking part in using, editing, or verifying this page. Certainly the community can come up with a term that is not an offensive term for a group of people who came that way by birth or happenstance. "Most unbelievable edit wars" or "Most uncouth edit wars" or "Most awkward edit wars" or "Most obnoxious edit wars" would be non-offensive ways of describing this concept, would be more in keeping with a world view, and would be more accessible to people who do not speak English as a first language, while keeping presence on this page undesirable. If you still want a slang term, "Most uncool edit wars" and "Edit war buzz kills" or "Most half-assed edit wars" are slang without slurring a group of people who have nothing to do with those edit wars. Thisisnotatest ( talk) 23:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

the word you are thinking of is "retarded". thankfully the article is not called "Most retarded edit wars" 121.72.250.35 ( talk) 07:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And "uncouth" is classist, "awkward" is similarly ableist... maybe just drop the silly, lame oversensitive nonsense. 174.97.189.29 ( talk) 23:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Silly is offensive to the holy, happy people. I protest. It should be self-offensive to all of us. What about: Full-assed, lamest, blindest, dumbest, niggardliest, moronicest, idioticest, silliest, disablingest wars? then? Zezen ( talk) 16:15, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I propose most interesting edits wars or perhaps most notable edit wars 78.148.75.177 ( talk) 17:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the above suggestions are intended seriously, but "most interesting" is pretty close to the opposite of the idea we want to encapsulate: the title is meant to have negative connotations. One of Thisisnotatest's suggestions would fit much better, or something else along similar lines like "Most pathetic edit wars". Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

They're not just notable, but notable because of how particularly useless they are. I'm not sure any of the other suggestions really mean the same. Yes, it could be a slur, but many words have many different meanings, and that's not the way it's used in this context. I might suggest stupid, but that could be a slur too if only you go back in time a little. Benjamin ( talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that the use of the term "pathetic" could be more appropriate. 78.148.64.187 ( talk) 19:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

This is really turning into a lame,uncouth,awkward,full-assed, blind, dumb, niggardly, moronic, idiotic, silly, disabling,interesting,notable,useless,pathetic, (GASP!!!) edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charizardmewtwo ( talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

In the U.K. (all rise) the term Lame is not used much. We use the term Sad in exactly the same sense. And as Wikipedia was invented in the U.K (see compelling argument below) I suggest Saddest edit wars. Irondome ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with "Most ridiculous". But complaining about the word "lame" is kind of... well, dare I say "lame"? There are plenty of words with more than one meaning. You might as well consider blind test to be a dig at those with less than perfect eye sight. Yintan  10:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Not sure whether this belongs in the fan section or the separate fan page. Sourcing is impressive: 'Washington Post' published a summary on this edit war over whether Garfield the cat is male or gender neutral--both sides of the warring factions cited sources of their own. [12] Leaving the decision to others on how to categorize (perhaps an incipient "Edit wars so lame they made real world news")? Skrydstrup ( talk) 19:39, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Any move war over the difference between a primary title and a redirect. Most recently it has had to do with Ching Hai, whose disciples call Supreme Master Ching Hai. The redirect has been there for ten years, but some of her disciples apparently want to insist that the form with the honorific be primary. They can find her anyway. Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The article name here should match the actual article name, right? Benjamin ( talk) 09:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not necessarily. We don't need to update this page each time a disputed page is moved. Some of them like Compact Disk/ Compact disk are listed here because of conflicts causing multiple moves. [13] [14] PrimeHunter ( talk) 12:06, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Not every time, but once the war subsides. Benjamin ( talk) 12:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

No. That's the whole point of this page and why I undid your edit. This essay is a record of how things were (and got out of hand) and not of how things are. Cheers, Yintan  20:08, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This edit request to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a semi-protection template to the top of the page so readers will know that it's semi-protected without having to click "View Source." 98.197.198.46 ( talk) 22:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, if you have to click "View Source" instead of edit, that's a pretty good tipoff, but done. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but even if unregistered and non-auto-confirmed realize that the document is semi-protected (which isn't a certainty, concerning that many of them are new to Wikipedia), they'd still have to click "View Source" in order to figure out which level of protection there is, if/when said protection will expire, etc…. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.198.46 ( talk) 00:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The main reason that I transcluded the pages was so there wouldn't be a content fork, where information would be added to the parent page or the appropriate child page—but not both. There are also other benefits, like improved ability to navigate through the editor. What do you think? The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 18:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I was writing a post here when you saved. Background: In October 2007 an editor moved the sections to subpages like Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds and transcluded them in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. It was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 3#"Cleanup" and quickly reverted. The subpages were abandoned but unfortunately not redirected or deleted. Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds shows no transclusions but the subpages have a few incoming links and show up in searches. Since 2007 they have been sporadically edited by users who probably thought they were in real use.

This week The Nth User made a lot of synchronization between the subpages and Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars, and then changed the latter to transclude the 17 subpages at Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars like in 2007. It looks like a big effort but I wish it had been suggested here first. I have reverted it for now. I strongly agree with The Nth User that we should not have different versions at Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars and the subpages, or synchronize them manually, but I think a better solution is to redirect the subpages to their sections, e.g. redirecting Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Ethnic feuds to Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Ethnic and national feuds. The subpages could also be deleted but it would break some incoming links. We normally only use transclusion for a reason like transluding the same page in multiple places, or having dedicated discussions which can be placed in categories and watched by interested users. Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars has 621 page watchers. I guess few of them are only interested in watching a part of it while the rest would not bother adding 17 subpages to their watchlists. The page is getting large but I disagree that transcluded subpages give better navigation. People can just use the TOC and make section edits. With transclusions it confuses some users that they click an edit link on one page and end up on another page. PrimeHunter ( talk) 18:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Another problem with deleting the child pages is that they serve as main articles because some of the parent page's sections are unwieldily long. Actually, I originally wanted to transclude sections of the parent page into the child page, but sandbox tests showed me that I could only transclude entire pages, not individual sections, as templates. The N^th User I like to use parser functions. Care to differ or discuss? 21:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the subpages are meant to serve as anything since a few hours 9 October 2007‎ when they were created, transcluded, and untranscluded. They may just have been ignored while the real Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars was trimmed, or somebody stumbled by one of the subpages and added something. I don't think we should list too many lame edit wars to show on the main page. You may be interested in Help:Labeled section transclusion. PrimeHunter ( talk) 21:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason why perfectly lame edit wars could be omitted. If the parent page gets too long, we have a solution: The child pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Nth User ( talk • contribs) 21:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Can we please start a meta- editwar about WP:LAME? ((( The Quixotic Potato))) ( talk) 18:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Would a meta-editwar be an editwar on a meta page or a move-editwar about whether or not the page should be in the metaspace? Either way, I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia policy forbids it, and it definitely discourages it. The N^th User Care to differ or discuss? 22:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup this is definitely a joke. "Meta-edit war" refers to the fact that (presumably lame) edit wars have happened on this very page: see Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Meta-lameness. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 00:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

(reply to The Nth User's post at 21:09, 5 January 2018) You can. {{3x|p}}ery ( talk) 01:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay; I'll probably change it, but I'm going to wait and see whether or not anyone else will comment here in the next few hours or so. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 03:09, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

No one has raised any objections, so I'll start. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Anyone know when the T Rex self edit war was? It sounds funny and I'd love to see a link to the edits in question. Macoroni ( talk) 12:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I found it here Special:Contributions/50.195.51.9 on November 26, 2012. Funnily enough, one of those users from that IP address added it themselves to this page. Turns out it was on the talk page, not the T Rex article itself. Macoroni ( talk) 12:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

In all seriousness we can never let something like this be merged, removed or die, because it serves as a mirror to those who organize edit- Agincourts over petty squabbles. Double Plus Ungood ( talk) 22:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I like it too, but it seems kind of old? Like, a MAJORITY of all content is from 2009/2010 edit wars, (not that this is bad in itself, and I don't think they should be removed or anything,) but has nothing notable happened in the last 7 years? 65.129.144.106 ( talk) 03:51, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I guess no-one has just contributed to it recently. The original authors probably moved on, and the audience has probably shifted to new community-centered pages. I'd be all for adding new content, though. If you find something, discuss it, or even add it on! Cheers! Double Plus Ungood ( talk) 02:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Not so! I added some new content in January 2018. [15] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm not sure if these belong here but the talk pages on Vikings, Norsemen & Oeselians certainly look quite impressive right now :) Blomsterhagens ( talk) 17:05, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

What are the criteria for inclusion for this page? Is length enough? Could an edit war be very long, but not very lame? Is there any place to document content disputes that aren't really edit wars? Benjamin ( talk) 10:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Lameness is inversely proportional to the product of the likelihood of an uninvolved reader actually caring about whether one side or the other "wins" and the likelihood of said reader even noticing anything was different in the first place. By this formulation, long edit wars about significant controversial issues in politics are not lame (although they may still be sad/bad/a waste of time), whereas long edit wars about the taxonomy of vipera palaestinae are very lame. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that makes sense. Is there any page for cataloging other significant content disputes? Benjamin ( talk) 20:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

It appears to be seven citations immediately after "Hungarian", not nine. Should I edit the article over this lame, minor pedantic point or will I spark an editing war? aspaa 00:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The page right now is very long. I propose, sections be made based on Quality and barely funny needs to be culled out. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 13:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A great opportunity for more lame edit-warring over the lameness of edit wars! – Tera tix ₵ 09:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Earlier I did a couple italic runs of the page, but haven't read it in detail yet and look forward to doing so. But I just came across this gem in the article and wanted to share it so those who haven't focused some attention on it yet could maybe check it out: "....Bot v Bot v Bot v Bot.... In a spree of 60 edits in less than 20 minutes, four bots edit warred about which hidden comment should be added to the top of Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism."

Made me laugh for about a minute. Randy Kryn ( talk) 01:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

So, has there ever been an edit war on WP:LAME? (And now that I've asked this question, if the answer is "not yet", on the grounds of WP:BEANS I will indef block anyone who engages in one here. If I bother to notice.) -- llywrch ( talk) 08:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Best known for IP edit warred back in 2013 - [16], [17], [18], [19] Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

No - just to see if llywrch notices. — Ched ( talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Um. I probably won't notice. Sorry. -- llywrch ( talk) 17:22, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Particularly in ethnicity and nationality section? Kay girl 97 ( talk) 01:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Edit the sub-header for consistency: instead of Kyiv / Kiev, the capital of Ukraine change it to Kyiv / Kiev (and also to be consistent with Wikipedia:Lamest_edit_wars/Names#Involving_other_languages).-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 13:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 14:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mrjulesd!-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 19:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Could anyone please cover COVID-19 vs. Coronavirus disease 2019 and SARS-CoV-2 vs. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 disputes? There is even a template now in the beginning of Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. Note that a move review is now ongoing. Quite tangential, but just as lame: Spanish flu vs. 1918 flu pandemic and 1889–1890 flu pandemic vs. 1889–1890 pandemic. Ain92 ( talk) 20:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

In the most recent article about this page (disclosure: I am quoted but hadn't seen the article until today), the author notes at the top that this page uses ableist language (specifically our use of lame). The best alternative I could come up with "Most ridiculous edit wars". Before starting a move discussion I thought it might make sense to try and see if there is any brainstorming around a possible name. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Most ridiculous edit wars" was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars/Archive 5#Requested move 4 March 2019: "Not moved. WP:SNOW". I'm also quoted in the article. PrimeHunter ( talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I admit I didn't look through the archives so thanks for bringing that forward PrimeHunter but consensus can change and 22 months is long enough to suggest perhaps it has. Are you opposed to the move or just noting the previous discussion? Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 18:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

How about "Silliest edit wars"? Punchier than "Most ridiculous", addresses ableism issues. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

At List of Starship flights the question of wether some Starship test flights were a success, a failure, a partial success, a partial failure, a succesful flight with a failed landing or a successful flight and landing with a failed recovery have/had a good potential. My main doubt is that it may have degenerated from a lame edit war to a lame talk page discussion too fast for inclusion in this list. Personuser ( talk) 20:25, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Does the edit war on Dante (name), Jerry (given name), and Hyperion belong here? I ask because I tried to add it, but then it got removed. Going to try and reach a consensus before this becomes meta-lame. The person who removed it said that it lasted for under an hour and wasn't even notable, but other edit wars on this page fit the description. RteeeeKed ( talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say no. To be "lame" it has to go on for a considerable length of time, or create huge dialogs and other disagreements. -- Jules  (Mrjulesd) 21:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Tell me, some edit wars on this page go on for months and some involve hundreds of users. Would you compare this, one that lasted 1 hour and involved at most 10 users? Oh, and also, some of you knew what you were doing was WP:DIS. Samozd ( talk) 19:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

that's in the past now, stop bringing it up, i recognize how stupid it was RteeeeKed ( talk) 19:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)