 | This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously. |
PLEASE include two or three edit history links about the lame edit war. It would be also useful to list the date the edit war was added.
Several storms in the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season sparked edit wars over which satellite image should go in the infobox. These included an argument over which of two barely-distinguishable pictures of Hurricane Eta was the best quality. A more contentious debate emerged over two images of Hurricane Delta. Should the image of the storm at peak intensity be based on wind speed or barometric pressure? Does it matter if one image doesn't have the classic appearance of a hurricane? The editors involved could not even agree on whether there was a consensus, or which image was being used before the edit war began. The edit war was resurrected by an IP editor days later, opening up questions of possible sockpuppetry. One sockpuppet account was also involved in the talk page discussion. Hurricane Teddy fell victim to not one, but two edit wars, again debating which image best represented the storm at peak intensity.
.svg){kind=link}
A map of election results by Catholic Diocese: serious map or a joke gone too far? Was Catholicism relevant in the 2020 election in Pennsylvania, or wasn't it? Is a map of results by diocese useful, or does it provide no new information? Does the average person know what Diocese they're in? Do they know that about their voting district? How about the same map except in North Carolina? How about by State Patrols, is that relevant? After 83 separate talk page messages, multiple blocks for vandalism and edit warring, another block of the original editor for off-site harassment, and first semi-protection then—once that proved insufficient—full protection, the war seems to be over, with all deemed to be unencyclopedic images removed from the page.
Is the concept of contact between an anus and a mouth complicated enough that we need a picture to explain it? Or is the concept too icky to put in an article? Do we need to use a hide/show box to protect our virgin eyes, despite the fact that similar practices have been repeatedly rejected as policy? Is preventing someone from seeing something really censorship? Would biology students find a picture of a disembodied mouth licking a disembodied asshole informative? Not one but two debates have been spawned at the Village Pump over this page. An alert editor noticed that the tongue isn't actually touching the anus, and therefore is not a picture of what the article is about. An edge-enhanced photograph from the Afrikaans Wikipedia was used instead, and a cease fire seems to be in effect.
Has there been a homosexualization of this article? Edit war over which image should be the first, the straight one or the gay one. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Should this article include a large image of a human anus? Should the demonstration anus be male or female? Should the level of hair in the anus be "moderate"? Debates over whether cropped porn images of bleached human anuses are appropriate for Wikipedia abound.
Since Wikipedia is not censored, is it appropriate to include a huge picture of a tarantula for illustrative purposes on a page discussing the fear of spiders? Although this question can be pondered as far back as June 2005, this issue enjoyed nearly total dominion over the talk page, and accounted for virtually all edits to the article between November 2006 and February 2007. The picture was later changed to a cartoon of Little Miss Muffet (removed, and then returned) and ultimately a cute little spider crept into a template at the article's very bottom.
Edit war in June 2007 over the inclusion of a screenshot from Second Life in which the character pictured is holding a hammer. This led to the page being protected, and a straw poll [6] on whether or not the image should be included, along with accusations of sockpuppetry, single purpose accounts, and meatpuppetry, and eventual banhammers. Eventually the article was deleted anyway, making the entire argument moot.
Is a bathrobe better illustrated with a photo of a guy smiling at the camera making a thumbs-up gesture, Fonzie-style, or a photo of a different guy in a different bathrobe striking a dramatic pose in his bathroom? Should the chosen photo include a model at all, and is a toddler less suitable than an adult? These crucial issues led to dozens of edits in 2008, changing between at least seven images with frequently changed captions competing for the prestigious position of the Wikipedia bathrobe illustration, and inspiring the formation of The Illustrious and Honourable Bathrobe Cabal of Wikipedia. Consensus eventually favoured a pink fluffy bathrobe on a hanger. And then the dramatic pose image came back. And then the bathrobe on the hanger turned purple, and then ... Cue more edit wars!
Edit war in December 2005 over whether the picture at the top should be on the left and face left, or be on the right and face left, or be on the left and face right, or be on the right and face right. Image was eventually replaced with a higher quality version.
Edit war over which pictures should be used to represent black people, and how to caption those pictures. Be sure to practice your absurd captions on the pics on the talk page. Then, ramble on ad nauseam on said talk page justifying your edits. Don't forget to continue your diatribe in your edit summary.
Should the image to the right be captioned "Boops boops in a bucket" or "A specimen in a bucket"? This highly significant distinction was the subject of many edits (and reversions) over 8(?) years, resulting in the page being protected over this sacrilegious "vandalism", in the "specimen" state (which is clearly the wrong version!) A truly stunning discussion was hosted at Talk:Boops boops § Boops boops in a bucket :3 (note the gratuitous emoticon). Is it a suboptimal caption? Is it "vital to me and to science as a whole"? Do we all lack any sense of humor? (Absolutely not.) Culminated in a request for comment with four options. Eventually, "Boops boops in a bucket" was settled on. For now...
British Rail Class 142/153/313
edit
This started on British Rail Class 153 when the replacement of one image of a train with another led to a two-day edit war [7] over whether it was more important to show that said train is one carriage long or to make the interior and exterior shots match. On a page with three edits in the preceding month. This was sorted when it was proved it was possible to do both, but similar debates then began (for vaguely different reasons) on British Rail Class 142 and, most spectacularly, British Rail Class 313 – where the talk page increased in size from 1KB to over 28KB in just over a week [8]. Sample edit summaries include "It's a dark photo", "It's NOT a dark photo", and "Reverted edit. Autism is not a factor". Similar "debates" continue to flare up occasionally, but nothing has quite reached that level of lameness ...
Thirty-four reverts in just over an hour. The pressing issues: Should one unremarkable photo be included? Is the cat depicted really smiling? Both users were blocked for thirty seconds – "a suitably lame block for a remarkably lame edit war" – after protection of the page had halted the reverts. One user resumed after protection was lifted the next day, leading to further twelve reverts over the same photograph. Another page protection put a stop to the lameness. As it turned out, the photo was deleted for not having any copyright status. And of course, don't forget those proud, brave souls who tried to resolve the matter by promoting the use of Happy Cat.
Where a picture of the character "Tiamut usually referred to as The Dreaming Celestial or the 'Great Renegade'" should go. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19].
Is it appropriate to include a picture of a cow with the caption "An unsuspecting potential victim"? People disputed this caption, largely because some considered it humor and no evidence could be found that it was. Many different variations were put forth from plain "A cow" to humorous "Mooo?" Consensus was to delete the image, even though the article spent some time with the picture of "A cow in its natural upright state". Now, despite the edit warriors' initial refusal, the article proudly features two images of cows lying down to dispute that they can lie down and get up. The old disputes can be found at Talk:Cow tipping.
.jpg)
A big row erupts in late May 2023 between bus enthusiast users on the page of what is considered Britain's most popular single-deck bus: should this page feature an image gallery for all the many body and chassis variants of the Dart? The gauntlet is thrown down on 24 May 2023 when the removal of the gallery in December 2022 is reverted, followed by that being reverted a day later, then it is unreverted again. Other users begin to intervene and revert, arguing WP:NOTGALLERY, then that is reverted but with the gallery trimmed, followed by a brief break to clean up the article text, with images eventually removed from the gallery and instead distributed under relevant subheaders. On the 28th, another user joins in and reverts on the grounds of "sandwiching and stacking issues", quickly reverted on a technicality, images are cut again then reinstated and moved around, then finally, it all settles down on 5 June with one final image removal reversion.
All the while as this is being fought, it all kicks off on the talk page, with such highlights being "wild accusations", "edit warring", "libellous statements", arguments that "deletionists have got their eyes on this and are going to start targeting bus articles" and eventually on one user talkpage, accusations of "behaving like a bully" and threats to take the edit warring up with the administrators. For now, though, the dust appears to have settled.
Truly, an edit war over dental floss! Apparently a photograph and innocuous description have somehow offended someone's sense of fair trade. For those who take their dental hygiene seriously, this became quite a crusade. Page protection was applied in December 2006 to help heal the bleeding gums.
The crux of an argument concerned a photograph of a building in Warsaw that houses the Australian Embassy; because other tenants also occupied the same building, should the caption state that the building was the Australian Embassy in Poland? The photo was removed and argy-bargy followed, with the photographer complaining the rule was inconsistently being applied.
Debate continues to rage over whether a picture and a video (presumably of a Wikipedia editor) of ejaculation is encyclopedic. Some editors object on the grounds that the subject is ejaculating without apparently touching his penis – can this be considered "normal" ejaculation? Another editor objects on the grounds that the image/video is "akin to a self attributed quote, or worse, an ... original work." Should the video and/or image be included but linked or otherwise hidden? Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, along with the usual pleading "for the children," including one post by a parent whose 12-year-old daughter had bookmarked the article, and who concluded that "gay perverts have overtaken Wikipedia" ... Obligatory Village Pump discussion can be seen here. See also Semen, below.
Revert wars, alleged sockpuppetry, and page protection: should the article on feces include this picture of a large human turd? As of early July 2005, the discussion on this issue alone had reached 12,900 words. Someone commented "Seriously, guys. You're arguing about poo." Brace yourselves for a second round when the editor who contributed the ejaculation video (see above) gets the idea of a companion video for this article.
The edit war was sparked over whether an image of the "one finger highway salute" should have been included. Several different pictures were added; the debate even included the lighting of the picture. Eventually it was settled. At least no one went out on the highway and rammed somebody to get a good shot ...
Edit war over whether or not to mention the fact that Standing appears to be sitting in his infobox photo. The photo was humorously captioned "Guy Standing sitting". Eventually, his legs were simply cropped out. Later, editors compromised to use a version of the photo that was not as tightly cropped, making it clear that he was sitting, with the caption "Guy Standing in 2012". The page has been changed to Extended Confirmed Protection due to the joke in 2020.
Edit war over what pictures (if any) to include of an invisible parody deity, and how to caption them.[20] [21] [22] [23] [24] It is later decided to use an image of a pink unicorn silhouette with a gradient fading to invisible. Also included is an image of a pink unicorn with its alpha channel altered to form an invisible image of a pink unicorn.
Do the leggings pictured have a floral design? A splattered paint design? Both flowers and splattered paint? Is it okay if we simply describe it as a "colored design"? A third opinion was requested, and per this page the respondent commented that the dispute was lame.
Edit war by multiple users and anonymous IP editors in October 2005 regarding whether to put a picture of the 7th Heaven actress on the left side of the page or the right. In the end, the picture was deleted anyway.
Should this drawing of the sexual position include a teddy bear? No, it's creepy and suggests paedophilia! Yes, it's incongruous, amusing, and adds atmosphere! Low-level edit war reverting between the two versions has been going on for over two years, with 46 reverts in 2006 alone.
A revert war over the top image. Some users felt that because the free image depicted an outdated model, it should be replaced by a promo image. Others cited the WP:FU policy that states that a free alternative should always be used. Heated debate commences on the talk page after it gets page protected. The issue still comes up time to time about why the free image is on the page. Since then, the PS3 has been released, a free image has been created, and the war has ended.
A picture of a nude pregnant woman has been the subject of numerous discussions.[25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] Finally in September 2011, it comes to a head. Basically, while a few want to delete the image completely, most simply want to move the picture to another section of the article and replace the lead image with something less controversial. The other side argues that this picture is the best image out there and to move it is a violation of WP:CENSOR. Over 50 60 70 80 100 people chime in on two RfC's, several ANI notices, a failed policy change at the Village Pump, major discussions at WP:NOT and a rejected case at ARBCOM that generated over 500 600 700K 800K 900K a megabyte two megabytes of discussion, and ultimately involved a rare Jimbo Wales RfC closure ... can we all say WP:TLDR? The lead image has since been changed to a fully clothed woman, and there has been little warring since.
"Should we have animals?" "Should we have a picture of this girl or another one?" "Should we have a picture of someone's principal?" "Should we exclude dye jobs?"
A user who "contributed" several photographs of his own phallus to articles takes an actual photo of his own semen and puts it (the photo) on the page. Cue an ongoing several-years-long revert war over the image on whether a badly taken picture should be included as a visual aid. Has since been replaced with a more clinical image of semen in a Petri dish.
Which picture should top the article: "Old style" Sonic or 3D Sonic? After some discussion, including an image-by-image vote on every image on the page, consensus settled on both, and montage of the two was created. Just to make this war more irrelevant, a single (3D) picture appeared in the infobox later, the dual picture was deleted and a 2D Sonic was later readded ... (Ironically, the current picture shows both Sonic variations in question from Sonic Generations promotional material.)
Does an image of an unaired episode pass NFCC #8 or not? From a dispute between two editors, it quickly scaled into a WP:ANI thread involving several admins. Sorted out now, with the WikiProject deciding that they fail unless otherwise discussed.
Upload wars on Commons of images used in English Wikipedia
edit.svg){kind=link}
An EU flag in the shape of Serbian territory resulted in editors disputing whether such territory includes Kosovo. Both versions (with and without) created didn't immediately stop edit wars.
Does Beijing-Guangzhou Line starting Fuxing service means its maximum speed is restored to all its glory (350 km/h) like Beijing-Shanghai Line? Other lines like Mudanjiang-Suifenhe and Lanzhou-Guangyuan were also affected. Years after 350 km/h fans conceded defeat to 310 km/h status quo enforcers, China Railway steps in and actually do the upgrade (only Beijing-Wuhan section is completed, for now).
Right off the heels of earlier image wars lasting over a month, an idea to make the map more accessible for colourblind readers quickly spiraled into an all-out color war over the best palette for the map. Over the course of three days, users repeatedly uploaded competing "colourblind-friendly" maps and reverted each other, until Commons administrators stepped in and blocked most of the image-warriors for at least three days each. Subsequent discussions were held both on Commons and on the talk page of the main article on Wikipedia for implementing an accessible version of the map. The discussions eventually resolved roughly two weeks after the end of the color wars.