Due to persistent vandalism, account creation has been suspended. If you would like an account, please contact Charlie Reams on Apterous.
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)
- 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)
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?
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)
