Talk:Tim Rice

Why was the snark on Tasha Ghouri’s page removed but the snark on Tim Rice’s wasn’t?

I don’t mind the snark staying, if the snark about Tasha gets reinstated- lots of pages have elements of comedy to them- Geoffrey Durham, Philip Franks, Joan Bakewell etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy Cooper (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 January 2024‎

I agree. Let Wikipedia do the po-faced stuff. We should be able to have some fun.--Launchballer (talk) 17:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That's with the important caveat that Wikipedia is actually doing the po-faced stuff, which it now does.--Launchballer (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A few of us don't like those type of comments and opinions on articles, so to stay on the safe side, I think they're better off excluded. TobyMcDonald 18:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

But by that same logic, if those who dislike snarky comments think they’re “better off excluded”, why aren’t they removing them from pre-existing pages? One rule for some guests and another for others? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy Cooper (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 February 2024

I agree with the issue of inconsistencies - if you want to go around removing this stuff then do so, but don't have a go at those of us who like being a bit more humorous. It was well established in 2009 that "it's not like genuine guest pages are serious autobiographies". The Doctor (talk | contribs) 20:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Christy - maybe they aren't aware of it, and I thought we should come to some sort of agreement before changing anything. Rhys - wouldn't it be better to write humorous comments and opinions on user pages, social media or forums? Other people shouldn't/can't edit those. And I wouldn't say a 15-year-old comment on a hard-to-find page is carved in stone. TobyMcDonald 18:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Some sort of agreement would surely be either a) snarky humorous comments are allowed no matter who the person is, or b) the articles all have to be completely serious and informative- not one rule for some guests and another for others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy Cooper (talk • contribs) 19:02, 5 February 2024

I also agree that we need to be consistent. If someone adds a humorous comment, and another person removes it, it will be a waste of everyone's time because the article will be unchanged. Therefore, it's way more sensible to not allow humorous comments in the first place, so we need stricter rules to avoid conflicts in the future. TobyMcDonald 20:07, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Exactly- so by that logic, shouldn’t things like Tim’s page be edited? Personally I’m in favour of the humour on pages- as long as we allow it for all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Christy Cooper (talk • contribs) 13:22, 9 February 2024

But the humour and opinions create conflict. TobyMcDonald 16:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm gonna chime in a bit saying that we should at least make something specific to the person, like what we had for Richard Stilgoe (the anagrammy stuffs) which I honestly thought was funny when it was still up. Definitely do a think-before-you-type situation for the most part but for me I think the Tim Rice stuff we have up here is funny. --Andres Sanchez (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)