This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Horticulture and
Gardening on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
@
Johnbod:, why is deleting a bunch of random literary mentions of ha-has with no secondary sources wrong?
Dronebogus (
talk) 13:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Please explain how they are "random", and how the various physical examples mentioned are not?
Johnbod (
talk) 14:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Because they’re trivial mentions; physical examples… um… exist.
Dronebogus (
talk) 16:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I was asking about "random" - we can come on to trivial.
Johnbod (
talk) 04:06, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don’t think this odd digression about semantics is important here. Circling back to my original question, why did you restore unsourced, trivial fancruft?
Dronebogus (
talk) 08:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)reply
It was restored because it was a long-standing list of examples where ha-has are a plot device in well-known works of fiction, which like all good "in culture" sections demonstrates the spread and depth of the concept. Which is why I have restored them. There could be arguments about certain elements and sourcing added, but it ain't dismissable fancrust. -
DavidWBrooks (
talk) 14:17, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Some solid entries - Dawson, Stoppard, Pratchett - and a few more lightweight but defensible ones. Could possibly stand thinning but it's not a case for wholesale removal. --Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs) 14:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes, thanks both, "unsourced, trivial fancruft" is a ridiculous description, and you refuse to back up or explain your description as "random", not to mention "trivial". I've added an academic reference for the Mansfield Park ha-ha.
Johnbod (
talk) 14:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I’ve removed several that were just “hey this appeared or was mentioned in a famous novel!”, but if they were really notable they should all have independent references.
Dronebogus (
talk) 14:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
You seem to suffer from the common misapprehension that all the content of WP articles has to be "notable".
WP:NOTABILITY applies only to the subjects of articles, not what is in them. There has been an attempt to develop a concept of what is "noteworthy", as something the content needs to be, but this is in its early stages. Flinging random pejorative terms at content you don't like doesn't advance discussion.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Usually individual items listed outside of pure exemplification are expected to be notable. Otherwise I could just as easily put “there’s a ha-ha at my local college campus” or some obvious
WP:MILL nonsense like that as I could put in fancruft.
Dronebogus (
talk) 01:56, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't think that's true, actually. Very few college campuses have ha-has for obvious health & safety reasons. Isn't there something about this in the article.
Johnbod (
talk) 03:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)reply