Wikipedia talk:Vandalism
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vandalism page. |
|
 | This is NOT the page for reporting vandalism.
This page is for discussion of the Wikipedia:Vandalism page and its associated official policy.
|
 | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Wikipedia. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | This page is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, Category talk:Wikipedia vandalism redirects here. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
 | This page has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
| Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 |
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Vandalism? Promotion?
editIP-addresses including
posted in late February many television series releases (like [7]) on pages like 2024 in the Netherlands like they are notable events. It don’t seems notable?. But is it also vandalism or promotion? Or should it all be moved to pages like 2024 in Dutch television 82.174.61.58 (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
should be protected
editthe page should be protected Truth protest (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I do not think that all humorous writing is vandalism, and this page could acknowledge that.
editConsidering that vandalism is done in bad faith, and does not need to be humorous. Vandals can attempt to destroy Wikipedia out of hate.
Examples of humorous writing that is in good faith, but still disruptive, is when adding constructive material in an excessively humorous style, or inserting jokes that are meant to improve the fun of reading the article (and therefore helping it), but the jokes are out of place. Wikipedia is a serious wiki, after all. Sites like TV Tropes are examples of sites with a lot of humorous writing in good faith, to the point where humor is featured in encyclopedic material.
There are templates to warn people who are adding inappropriate humor into pages, and where such writing is not proven to be vandalism (therefore not making those templates be redundant to those for warning about vandalism), and they are here, here, here, here and here.
How can this be acknowledged? Perhaps by mentioning something like this under "What is not vandalism" so that good-faith editors with too much humor can be seperated from those who want to damage this wiki, even if it can be hard to tell those two apart since humor happens to be common in vandalism. CarlFilip19 (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
images of vandalism for examples?
editI propose adding images as examples of vandalism, such as this
.png)
InsertCoolNameHere78 (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- I have to look at too much of this already. I'll quit if any of you make me start looking at it in my free time. Remsense ‥ 论 06:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
- No, we don't draw attention to trolls here, see WP:DENY. Please find something constructive to do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)