Talk:Listenbourg

Illustrations

Available pictures on Commons Category:Listenbourg. -- Tukp (talk) 05:31, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance

Due to its sensible content, this article may require special maintenance.
@DarkAudit: I reverted this disruptive edit, while the same IP vandalized at the same minute. Why did you restore the wrong version? Thanks Belbury, for the last update. Also pinging @Teiladnam: -- Tukp (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We were both trying to revert the same edit at the same time, and I hit my button a moment too late and got your edit by mistake. Sorry about that. DarkAudit (talk) 09:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Fine, then. Thank you for the explanation. It is the second disruptive edit I revert within a short period of time, and Belbury is helping too. -- Tukp (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Should consider page protection if most IP edits to the article end up being removals of the word "fictional", but let's see how it goes. Belbury (talk) 10:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Belbury. It seems that 2 days were too short. I have requested a 3 month renewal of the protection. -- Tukp (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, we got only 7 days, following these 2 days earlier. Unfortunately that's not enough. Thanks, Belbury, for your help to revert new disruptive edits. If further counterproductive contributions arise, we should seek further protection, again. -- Tukp (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability

Dear InterestGather, thanks for your interest in collaborating on this article. You're fighting against original researches, excellent. Your help is welcome here. But please, first take a look at the previous discussions, and also check the article history, before making controversial changes. This edit and the other ones you reverted aim to comply with {{Tone}}. What else do you propose? La Libre is a major daily newspaper in Belgium. Why would its content be unreliable? Read also the section Reliable sources on this page. We're far from WP:OR and there's a warning on WP:Huggle: "You take full responsibility for any action you perform using Huggle", so please use this tool carefully. If the algorithm detects a suspicious contribution, it doesn't mean that the suggestion is always right. You must verify first, and possibly discuss. -- Tukp (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for contacting me.

I seem to have made an error in attempting to revert one edit and all of your contributions in succession being reverted. Whilst I still believe that some of the edits you made may not be entirely valid under Original Research, you are making appropriate effort to ensure that the article is in a healthy state. I apologise for my overaction, under further inspection I can see you are making a valid attempt to work towards improving the article. Whilst I have been around for a while I still make mistakes and I have made changes to ensure this won't happen again.

I wish you good luck in your effort. ✯✬✩⛥InterestGather (talk) 09:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, InterestGather, for your understanding and constructive behavior. On a reciprocal respectful basis, I'm sure we can collaborate effectively. All the best, -- Tukp (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022

You can add site http://listenbourg.com 185.171.202.178 (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: As this site is just a picture of the flag and nothing else, it adds nothing. Cannolis (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Pageview

The article is currently visited 542 times a day. This performance is higher than many other fictional countries and famous internet memes. Current events or influences from outside Wikipedia, probably. -- Tukp (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

After one month this daily average has slightly increased, reaching 585 visits now. Probably the best way to enlighten readers about a misleading concept. -- Tukp (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Notability

Why is this an article ? Mistyhands (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Because it meets WP:GNG having had "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Belbury (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- Tukp (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:NEO ? Mistyhands (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NRV -- Tukp (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

fair enough Mistyhands (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

-- Tukp (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS. No evidence of sustained significance. A briefly viral hoax isn't encyclopedia worthy, no matter how many people commented on it. oknazevad (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

What matters is the independent coverage with hundreds of articles published in newspapers around the world. -- Tukp (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources

This article is currently using reliable sources to support its content. Verify for example NBC News, The Times, The New Zealand Herald and CNN have been validated by consensus. In foreign languages, Le Figaro, Television Française 1, France Info (TV channel), The Portugal News are all major daily newspapers or TV channels. A few other sources in English like Evening Standard or Insider are in yellow, which means they're not forbidden and "may be usable depending on context". If a particular source seems questionable to someone, the discussions are of course open. But for now, there is no "fake news" inserted in the description of this fiction. In line with WP:HOAX, we're contributing to an encyclopedic project. -- Tukp (talk) 09:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Tone

Hi everyone, I would like to improve the article's style. And concurrently, declutter the header by removing the template {{Tone}}.

The users Mucube and JesseRafe have already provided some help in phrasing, recently. And I think the writing could adopt more encyclopedic codes in the second and third sections (Viral spread and Responses). Thus I'm going to try to ameliorate the wording. Please feel free to perfect these modifications, and to bring your own input, according to your expectations. Thanks. -- Tukp (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi again, thanks for the helping hand. Notably for the major contribution made by Belbury, much appreciated. Now I think the style has been improved significantly. If there is no objection, I will remove the template the next few days. -- Tukp (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Reactions abroad (US, PT, ES)

Any coverage about how this prank was actually receieved by its intended audience — in the U.S., and by the most “affected” local populations northwestern Spain and Portugal? Tuvalkin (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)