Wikipedia talk:Haiku about Wikipedia policy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Essay is as an essay does

Not sure why my tag was removed but this page is very obviously an {{essay}}. (→Netscott) 15:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • If you look up the word "essay" in a dictionary you'll find that very obviously, a poem is not an essay. Must you really wikilawyer and revert war over this? >Radiant< 15:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Well you've found a decent adhoc solution so all is well. (→Netscott) 15:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I give bonus points
for anyone who converts
the tag to haiku.
>Radiant< 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundant?

With the new shortcuts added this page is beginning to look a lot like Wikipedia:Five pillars and a page or two that I've seen that aren't coming to my mind just this moment. (→Netscott) 16:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The "poem" now has
A shortcut to each haiku
And policy links PubliusFL 16:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Why the section headings (and corresponding shortcuts)? Well, CSD already has two entries, and without some kind of organization,
Multiple haikus
On each wiki-policy
Are hard to follow.
PubliusFL 16:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IAR

As amusing as it is to ignore the rules of form for a haiku on IAR, I'm just not sure we can allow it.it seems like it's just begging for trouble. Miss Mondegreen talk  09:27, May 26 2007 (UTC)

  • getting daft. sorry I started this. [1]
  • what? the first one is technically perfect (right? I can still count) and I think the second one is ok too, no? [2]

Technically. I thought I was being so very clever, but at this point it's clear it was just lame soapboxing. I regret my actions. I would like to pre-empt further soapboxing. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused now. The first one was problematic because it just wasn't really a haiku and it didn't really make the point that it was ignoring rules. I wasn't sure why the latter two were reverted--the first one is technically excellent and the second one--well I'm a champion of anti-haikus and this one works. It might also be good to write an anti-haiku for WP:POINT but it would have to be carefully done, like this one. Miss Mondegreen talk  23:35, May 26 2007 (UTC)
Okay. As long as we're not going spillover our WT:IAR problems here. I'd hate to be responsible for that.
On a technical note, no, I think the first one is just an attempt to "rehabiliate" mine (see edit history) and is not that good. We can do without. The second one's more clever. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 00:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I saw that earlier but didn't do anything. Writing poetry under a wiki just screams bad idea to me. Editing others' work, removing work....aggh! I did remove it though--IAR is getting long and it's a stretch with the postraphe and it's a version of yours so.... But still...this whole project seems like such a disaster. Fun, but a disaster! Miss Mondegreen talk  08:29, May 27 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice page but bad haikus

Just because it has
seventeen syllables does
not mean it's clever

--Father Goose 19:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No pivot word nor
Any seasonal word means:
Not haiku. (Yours too!) --Gwern (contribs) 20:06 10 July 2007 (GMT)
Technicality;
It is still fun to write them
Despite being wrong. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)