Talk:Fark

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Apr 30 to May 7 2004, consensus was not reached but page was made into disambig. Discussion:

Dicdef. redirect to Fuck? RickK 23:27, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

  • Redir to Fark.com, which has a sentence explaining this usage at the bottom. Meelar 23:42, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • transwiki and delete. I think a redirect would be confusing and a disambig page would be unnecessary. anthony (see warning)
    • I've seen Fark used as a synonym for Fark.com, so a redirect would be appropriate. Meelar 01:13, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
      • How about now? I vote to keep. --Brockert 02:22, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
        • "The considerations of what Wikipedia is not are not magically invalidated for disambiguation pages. There is no point in adding one-line dictionary definitions to such a page. One exception is jargon. Disambiguation pages can list terms defined in more general articles, e.g. Canton could link to Flag terminology." - Wikipedia:Disambiguation. But then again, this is really no longer a dictionary definition, but a disambig to fuck and Fark.com. OK. I'll vote to keep as a disambig page, per Meelar's comment. anthony (see warning)
  • Instead of deleting, try re-directing to Fark.com. 66.32.132.71 02:20, 1 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. -- Cyrius|&#9998 04:14, May 1, 2004 (UTC)
  • Redirect to fark.com. -Sean 10:09, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep disambig. page. Alcarillo 16:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

should contain more information on Fark.com--Derrickbecker74 21:38, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you go to Fark.com? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News 04:26, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Those who have deleted the reference to the many meanings FARK can have in the world appear to have a limited idea of what an encyclopedia is for: its purpose is not only to provide information about things you already know, but also to help you discover things you didn't know you didn't know.

So far I have seen no instance of people erasing the work of others who actually knew what they were interfering with, and I am surprised to find such a lack of imagination and respect for the minds of others in this part of the cyberspace.

None of the other things referred to is encyclopedia, hence disambiguation is pointless. — Dunc|☺ 17:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of understanding, lack of imagination and lack of respect

The remark above illustrates the lack of understanding, lack of imagination and lack of respect I had just mentioned:

— Lack of understanding, since a disambiguation page is a legitimate substitute for very short articles or stubs on subjects which would have to bear the same names anyway. To say that there is no point in adding one-line dictionary definitions to such a page is not official Wikipedia doctrine, and to follow such a principle would ensure that some opportunities to spare visitors the trouble of a somewhat lengthy search will be missed.
— Lack of imagination, since those pages may prompt visitors who are disappointed to find a mere two lines on the subject they sought to start pages linked with some of the items they list — something which, besides, has now been done here.
— Lack of respect since some people may find central to their concerns something which you find irrelevant. For instance, I knew of two FARK definitions, the Cambodian and the Albanian ones, and no, I did not know about Fark.com and I do not find it even interesting now that I do.
That doesn't mean I despise those who do, or that I feel entitled to deprive others of the opportunity to know about it on account of such preferences.

Anyway, if the somewhat obscure sentence above was supposed to mean that there is no other Wikipedia article than Fark.com to choose from under the heading "Fark", this excuse no longer exists for replacing the disambiguation with a redirect page since there is now another Wikipedia article under the Fark heading, with the title FARK (Kosovo). I do not see that any consensus was reached for such a change either, and it is therefore illegitimate according to Wikipedia rules.

I have now authored 30 articles for Wikipedia, 22 of which in French, and contributed to many others, and I am sorry to repeat that I have so far seen no instance of people erasing the work of others who really knew what they were doing.

[edit] Google has it right

The founders of Google have understood that a to distinguish capital letters in a search — or for that matter accented letters or double spaces — only increases the chances that you won't find what you are looking for. In the case of Wikipedia, it will lead, and has lead to duplicate articles and people wasting their time. Maybe you will want to look as clever as the founders of Google? The secret is: ask yourself about the purpose of what you are doing.