Talk:Möller's Law

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The following was written on Votes for Deletion after this page appeared on the English Wikipedia.

  • Möller's law. Hmmm. No Google hits - Godwin's Law by comparison has over 8000. No offense to Erik but there are many thousands of made up 'laws' and I don't think we should list them all. Angela 15:11, Oct 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Perhaps this should move to Möller's law ? -- BCorr ¤ Брайен из Детройте 18:32, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Appears to me to be wool (kind pulled over eyes). If this is a reral topic, it is way out my experience. And I also suspect that Godwin's Law is similar BS. The articles Spivak pronouns and sie and hir also seem pretty far out, but do have long histories of people working on them (guess I'm just not that into PC). Delete - Marshman 23:15, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Hey, don't blame me, blame Stevertigo, he added the link into Godwin's law, I just wrote the new article. [1] ;) Seriously though, Möller's law probably deserves to be moved to the Meta, if not deleted. Godwin's law, however, is certainly legitimate... at least within the context of Usenet. The gender/language articles are also real, even if they do deal with subjects that not terribly many people run into on a daily basis. :) --Dante Alighieri 00:09, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Godwin's Law is definitely legit. Möller's law should go. Fuzheado
    • By legit, I hope you mean it is a tongue-in-check reality (really happened on the Usenet), but not a law by any definition of the term. I could accept it might be "Godwin's Principle", but even then it is simply a POV expressed by humerous analogy. Unfortunately, by including it as "Godwin's Law", IMHO others have now been tempted to poke fun at Wikipedia by coming up with their own opinions framed in a similar "humerous" manner - Marshman 03:09, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • It certainly isn't law in the scientific sense of the term, but in the same sense as Murhpy's law. It's the standard way in which its known. In any event, no one is poking fun at Wikipedia, I wrote the article as an in-joke. Just move it to meta, no one disagrees. :) --Dante Alighieri 03:51, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Godwin's Law (or Godwin's Rule) won't make a farce out of Wikipedia. The reverse is true -- we're not doing our job if it's missing. It's part of the USENET/Internet lexicon, and is cited in Wired, Everything2, The Absolute Beginners Guide to Usenet and numerous FAQs. Some call it Godwin's Rule, but most refer to it as Godwin's Law. Do a Google on "godwin hitler" Fuzheado
    • On Google:
      • Möller's law: 0 hits.
      • Moeller's law: 0 hits.
      • Mo:ller's law: 0 hits.
      • Moller's law: 1 hit, which itself was some Wikipedia site. Wiwaxia 03:00, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Move Möller's to metapedia. --Menchi 03:15, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I've moved it to the Meta. --Dante Alighieri 06:22, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Should this be deleted?[edit]

This doesn't seem relevant enough to be translated. As per the copied discussion above, this should be put up for vfd or something......Theo10011 (talk) 06:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Most likely it will be kept because "it's tradition" or whatever, having been grandfathered in since 2003. Even more potentially objectionable content such as this one has been kept, so given that precedent I can't see a good reason to delete this one. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be prudent to not have this translated at the least? Someone recently marked this for translation. I can't understand of any value in directing translator resources to this. Theo10011 (talk) 05:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)