Fun talk:Fidem Turbāre
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
So, this is basically a hagiography fanpage of a usenet poster?--ZooGuard (talk) 09:22, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it. I've removed the "quote" from the Straw man article where it just looked pathetic. Wěǎšěǐǒǐď
Methinks it is a Weasel 12:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- The prose does tend toward the effusive end of things. In a grumpier mood, I'd have summarily deleted it. Why not? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why not indeed. There are already a bunch of parody gods (Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn) which do actually have level of popular recognition. I can't see this one catching on at all. WēāŝēīōīďMethinks it is a Weasel 17:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- My physics, just look at her. She's the Mary Sue of parody deities. SophieWilder 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- In looking at the Rational Wiki, I find it confusing to understand what the goals are for this wiki. I see a lot of parody, but I also see a lot of serious articles. I get the sense that many topics aren't being taken seriously but that there is also a desire for getting more people interested in this wiki. When I first came to this web site (after following a link supplied in an old post by Fidem), I expected to see factual articles without so much parody (that's what uncyclopedia.org is for), so I was certainly surprised (although also entertained). This poster you're considering deleting the page for is active in a number of online communities (not just on usenet), and seemed like an ideal fit for a wiki about rationality since she's routinely presenting logical and rational arguments to refute crazy claims. On her web site there are also quotations that show that she has a history, and someone even sent her a postcard (also online) which seems to indicate that she is well-known. I think it would be a shame if this page was just deleted because she seems more serious and less satirical to me. --Randolf 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Lots of people are active in a number of online communities, including many people at RW. That doesn't automatically make them a good choice for mainspace content.
- Are you actually the author of that Fidem Turbāre website? I see it already includes a link to this page. Either way, I think we're giving an attention-seeker too much attention at the expense of making RW look childish. If you don't want this page deleted altogether, move it to funspace or your userspace or somewhere else we can forget about it. WěǎšěǐǒǐďMethinks it is a Weasel 18:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I made a short return from Wikibreak and moved it. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- In looking at the Rational Wiki, I find it confusing to understand what the goals are for this wiki. I see a lot of parody, but I also see a lot of serious articles. I get the sense that many topics aren't being taken seriously but that there is also a desire for getting more people interested in this wiki. When I first came to this web site (after following a link supplied in an old post by Fidem), I expected to see factual articles without so much parody (that's what uncyclopedia.org is for), so I was certainly surprised (although also entertained). This poster you're considering deleting the page for is active in a number of online communities (not just on usenet), and seemed like an ideal fit for a wiki about rationality since she's routinely presenting logical and rational arguments to refute crazy claims. On her web site there are also quotations that show that she has a history, and someone even sent her a postcard (also online) which seems to indicate that she is well-known. I think it would be a shame if this page was just deleted because she seems more serious and less satirical to me. --Randolf 17:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- My physics, just look at her. She's the Mary Sue of parody deities. SophieWilder 17:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why not indeed. There are already a bunch of parody gods (Spaghetti Monster, Russell's Teapot, Invisible Pink Unicorn) which do actually have level of popular recognition. I can't see this one catching on at all. Wēāŝēīōīď
- The prose does tend toward the effusive end of things. In a grumpier mood, I'd have summarily deleted it. Why not? Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
