Difference between revisions 6482075 and 9000962 on enwiki

Phrase referring to a long, drawn out, and somewhat incomprehensible debate over the proper presentation and formatting of [[United Kingdom|British]] [[peerage]]s.  The origins of the debate are murky at best, but seem to have revolved over how to best name articles concerning peers who were best known by their common names (i.e. [[Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell]]).  The debate played out over several weeks on the [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Peerage|WikiProject_Peerage]] page, the few insistent voices of the history majors being drowned out by a chorus of uninformed but very determined wikipedians.  The eventual result, a split vote on the matter, was regarded as a success by both sides.  The very determined wikipedians considered that they had won, and retired to their various caves.  The historians realized that no one would ever pay attention to them again, and gamely carried on.⏎
⏎
*This article is both unnecessary and uncalled for.  Delete once the vote is over.


Were they really uniformed? Maybe they were uninformed as well.

:I don't know.  A very interesting point.  Perhaps uniformed uninformed wikipedians?  We could have a discussion about the Wikipedia colors...
::I think the tricolor, eh lads? Don't want the Americans getting more ideas...

This page is more like a discussion page than an article on this wondrous phrase. Changes, I think, are in order. -- [[User:Lord Emsworth|Lord Emsworth]]

:Hey, I'm a history major, and I was on the dissenting side :) (Well, sort of) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] 01:16, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)