Wikipedia talk:Lobster

Survey

• Support as proposer. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Oh man, I was all set to set this up as as {{Proposed}} policy, but then I realized it's April 1, so of course no one will realize how dead serious I am about this. Bad date coincidence. But I mean, this is a problem -- it is rank copyright violation of our work, and even though we do want it distributed, with attribution please. If we didn't care or it didn't matter, we wouldn't license it the way we do. Licenses mean something, or should. Nobody is doing anything about this, and here's a good place to start.

I'm willing to consider suggestions for other words instead -- "redistribute", say, or perhaps "stiletto" or the proper name "Franklin J. Corbett" -- but we should settle on one. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Why not Zoidberg? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes, of course. While violations of the "attribute to Wikipedia" copyright terms are not an existential problem, they still matter, and are common. This is not a "joke", it's an attempt to address this issue. Copyright traps are a respected way of addressing this issue, long used by respected publications. There is no reason for us to be an outlier and refuse to address this. One may disagree, but to dismiss the whole issue as a "joke" is insulting to those who take it seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herostratus (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• No. While the concept of copyright traps may be serious, the examples make clear that this is not a serious proposal. The presence of the humor tag does not mean that the entire page is a joke, but just that there are humorous elements to it. Sdkb ^talk 15:44, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
• No: Copyright and attribution is already well covered under other pages. I don't believe anyone would actually support requiring that "All Wikipedia articles shall contain the word "lobster" or "lobsters". ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 10:20, 4 April 2026 (UTC)
• No if it stays in the WP: namespace, but if the OP (who is the creator) wants to move it to User:Herostratus/Lobster, then that would be fine. The essay appears to be advocating for WP:POINTY behavior ("Let's randomly corrupt articles just to show those other websites!"), so that might be the best outcome anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

If the solution should be different, fine. That is a content issue, not something to be dismissed as some sort of joke. It's been suggested that instead of "lobster", the proper name "Franklin J. Corbett" be used, or perhaps some other term. That is something that can be hashed out in discussions. Furthermore, are we to forbid editors from including the term "lobster" in any article? If an editor wants to use that term in, say, Lobster Johnson or Lobster-tailed pot helmet or Keith Nugent, is that edit to be refused out of hand with an edit summary of "Remove joke, further activity of this sort will result in a warning"? I mean, it's an essay. Editors are free to ignore it if they like. There's no need to insult those editors who do think it's useful. Herostratus (talk) 05:34, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

^{The title of the RfC/topic/thread isn't WP:RFCNEUTRAL, I suggest changing it. ⹃Maltazarian ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ 08:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)}

WP:RFCNEUTRAL applies to the 'question' or 'statement' only, not to things that precede or follow it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth fighting over, but for the record, my understanding of WP:TPG is that headings are required to be neutral. Sdkb ^talk 20:43, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes, WP:TALKHEADPOV. Usually, a section heading has to be wildly non-neutral or a personal attack for that to be invoked, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2026 (UTC)