Talk:The 50 Most Loathsome Americans

The pic of Palin looks horrible

Do we want a better one that we host? P-Foster (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, but the pic itself (click it) is fine... something wrong with the thumbnail program? -- Limulus (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Purging this page and the image page itself fixed the problem.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Just tested it in another browser (Chromium) and the thumbnail now works fine... huh. -- Limulus (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the images, these were the ones that I had picked out when the article was on Wikipedia; feel free to pick 'better' ones ;) -- Limulus (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Also....

...suggest move to Fun space. P-Foster (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We host the Encyclopedia of American Loons page in RW space. Either move this there, or both to Fun. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 18:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sending the both to fun sounds good to me. What use are mildly insulting lists copied from other sites? Or am I missing something?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The idea for the EAL list was that people may want to write articles about these people - hence the red links. Something like RationalWiki:To do list.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that it was "copied", it currently shows who are the most 'loathsome' over the years... this is a rogues gallery :) -- Limulus (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I hope that those who create the red links also create the appropriate stubs.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I can't express my objections properly due to the late hour and the risk of behaving like an asshole, so I'll limit myself to this: Both the list and the see-also-ing of the page don't seem on-mission to me.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You might want to read one of the linked 'loathsome' lists; they are very amusing, but also rather biting. If you think we should strip out a bunch of the names (e.g. the ones that only appear once or twice), that would dramatically reduce the size of the list... -- Limulus (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented out the full list and added a truncated list of names that are either blue links or appear more than once. Comments? -- Limulus (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Crap

this. 21:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

ORLY? ;) [1] -- Limulus (talk) 01:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't belong in mainspace & I don't like RW being the site people shove things on that they can't get other sites to host. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Тиранес^{An pricey, yet vocalise balloon?} 01:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

You know

I was the person who made that entry on Wikipedia. I'm honored that Mrs. Taitz would address an article that I made. I wasn't trying to slight her or anyone else, I was just documenting a list a certain newspaper does, and had too much free time on my hands. Holy cow, it's like I'm an internet celebrity now. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fun (again)

So should we finally banish this to funspace?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 21:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Delete - not our list

So this isn't our list - why should we promote it?--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While humorous, we don't need it. I can just go to the site and read it.Ty^talk 12:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It's so off mission and, whilst it has a certain snark, it's not our snark (or boojum). Bad Faith (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we can do that if you want. It's not our list, after all. I'm indifferent either way. Although I still kinda like this article. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it looks like we don't care enough about what happens to this article to delete it. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 05:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Whilst it's not our list, it's interesting that we now have articles on most of these guys, & not a bad thing to have this page which links to them. If it was full of red-links & non-links, I'd be more in favour of deletion, but I think there's scope for keeping it in some form. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I was waiting for a few more comments before zapping it. But as Rabbitxhampster says, indifference seems to be the greater emotion.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 07:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd favour essay-spacing it, or possibly fun, rather than deletion. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 08:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be for deleting it since it's not our list, if more people felt that way instead of indifferent about it. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 17:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. We have no reason to mirror somebody else's list. ListenerX^TalkerX 17:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

If the list is online elsewhere, then we don't need it here, even in essayspace. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

With a new list out, we could restore this temporarily if anyone likes, and see how it works out. Delete it again if we feel like. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Try working on it in your sandbox, then move to mainspace when you're done. How does that grab ya? Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. It's not worth it. Rabbitxhampster (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)