nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
6,302
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 17:
Line 17: + + + +
→Standards: new section
(to Taj) Yes, we want to build a reputable encyclopedia, but that comes from having strong entries on serious topics. This entry and its examples are more of a fun page rather than some scholarly treatise. So there's freedom to have some silly anagrams, like the Obama one or the Ross Perot and George Bush ones. Should we remove the Ross Perot one as well? It doesn't say something positive about him, but I think it's ultimately harmless and clearly a joke like the Obama one. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:39, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
(to Taj) Yes, we want to build a reputable encyclopedia, but that comes from having strong entries on serious topics. This entry and its examples are more of a fun page rather than some scholarly treatise. So there's freedom to have some silly anagrams, like the Obama one or the Ross Perot and George Bush ones. Should we remove the Ross Perot one as well? It doesn't say something positive about him, but I think it's ultimately harmless and clearly a joke like the Obama one. -[[User:Foxtrot|Foxtrot]] 17:39, 30 September 2008 (EDT)
== Standards ==
This article is getting silly and I intend to unilaterally impose some standards. It is really only necessary to have one or two examples to illustrate the term so we don't need a great long list. This is meant to be an encyclopedia not [[The Daily Show]] or As there is a limitless number of possible anagrams the words ought to be correctly spelled English or recognized contractions, "Aaak" just doesn't cut it. However, a witty anagram into French or Latin should also count. It is amusing if the anagram actually relates to the first term or name so a random assortment of words that have no relevance will be removed. If you disagree then please debate your case below. [[User:BrianCo|BrianCo]] 05:17, 1 October 2008 (EDT)