User talk:Freshgavin/BQOAN

suitly emphazi

What about this famous bad question? --froth^{T C} 01:15, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's in another joke archive somewhere, but I'll add it to the "classics" section anyways. Feel free to add stuff, I haven't had time to read the desk that much lately so I've been missing a lot.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  04:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Humor

Would you have a problem with removing the tag which is placing this in the Humor Category? You could do a User box instead, but I don't think that having this pulled into the full category is appropriate.Slavlin 17:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the humor "category" was discriminatory to that degree. I don't really mind, but in what way is this page inappropriate to be tagged as Wikipedia humor?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  13:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would be more a question of why would this page be appropriate to the Wikipedia category for Humor? Remember that, in addtion to the main pages, you should also be focused on what your user page is not to make Wikipedia the best it can be. User boxes might be a better option for you as they do not appear within the main categories.Slavlin 19:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Taken from my talk page to keep all details together.

I appreciate your comments, but I think you're thinking way too much into this. I'm not trying to exploit a "loophole" in Wikipedia by using my userpage for unauthorized activities; I just don't think jokes like that are appropriate for Wikipedia namespace, which is where this kind of stuff has been recorded in the past. There's even a half-serious page about RD in meta space.

For the record, I fully agree with those who disapprove of userboxen, though I don't see how this relates to the page in my userspace. Is it somehow personal to me?

Though debatable, the humor category is used as a marker on pages that are deliberately humorous, and as a reminder to people that they shouldn't be taken seriously. The category, and the category listing itself, don't serve any real purpose at all, for the humor template could be just as easily replaced by a an unlinked "warning" of sorts. You may feel differently about that, after all; it's not we usually handle templates on Wikipedia.

I don't really care; this is semantics. You're debating the page's right to have the "humor" tag on it, and to me that sounds like you're debating the page's right to exist at all, because the "humor" tag on it is superflous. I have no special attachement to the page; edit it as you will as a user on the reference desk.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  10:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the Humor category. The tag that you are referencing at the top is the one which adds it to Wikipedia Humor. No problems there. The Category:Humor is, from what I see within it, for articles which are part of the main namespace and are about a topic which is humor related, not for pages humorous in and of themselves. That was my concern. It was nothing personal to you. It just happened to show up in the humor category while I was looking through it and I could see nothing on the page that would make it appropriate for the main Wikipedia. It might be something that could be archived in Wikiquote though.Slavlin 14:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)