Talk:Caturday

message: Nov.15, 2014 - Just look up #caturday on ANY social network and it is plain to see it deserves its' own "en wiki" page. It is not only a "meme". It may be known as crazy cat lady day; but guys like cats too, so it is "Caturday"! Cats (Felis catus or Felis silvestris catus) also like Caturday because they tend to get spoiled with love when Saturday comes around.
 
I suggest either redirecting this to or merging it with lolcat. Lunus 22:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

message: Caturday is the original terminology for the meme. I'm not that great with Wikipedia, but Caturday definitely should have its own article if lolcats gets one. Ironically the original page was deleted for "not being a noteable meme," and yet here it is, obviously notable enough. Just because the majority hold a certain view hardly makes it the correct one. --Demonesque 09:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caturday came first. It should NOT be merged with the LCD term for it. 

message: If you'd like to move lolcat here, I have no opinion on that matter, but it is plainly not efficient to simply duplicate that article here.  Propose a move on the lolcat page rather than undoing this redirect. Note that, as this would obviously be a contested move, you will want to bring some decent sources to the table demonstrating the use of this term. To have the same content in both articles and require that both be updated in tandem is patently ridiculous. MrZaiustalk 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Article already has a source mentioning its origins. Even that source is not entirely accurate, though. If you want wikipedia to be inaccurate, fine, I don't care. I did work, and I only didn't redirect lolcats to Caturday as It should because I knew it would just get reverted. I did work to make Caturday a seperate entry, and I won't do more work than I did. Enjoy your "lolcats," but Caturday will not redirect to it. --Demonesque 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both do.  What matters is that this is a duplicate of lolcat - Don't redirect lolcat here without discussing it first, as it obviously is controversial enough to at least warrant discussion, but don't duplicate lolcat here prior to that discussion either.  Common sense dictates that we should not have to maintain two copies of the same article.  We have redirects for a reason - See WP:MOVE and get started if you feel that strongly about it. MrZaiustalk 20:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I give up on Wikipedia. When an obviously correct but minority view cannot prevail, it makes me doubt that Wikipedia is what I thought it was. In all seriousness, I thought it was perhaps the best source of information to ever be compiled and maintained. This is just a stupid article about a so-so meme; but for obviously incorrect information to prevail just because a number of web articles referred to the meme with the incorrect name (several of the already cited sources refer to it correctly) shows me that I was wrong. "Lolcats" thus becomes wikiality. It could happen just as easily to serious articles and this a battle I just can't win alone. TL;DR: Fail. --Demonesque 05:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing correct or even defensible about maintaining two duplicate copies of a frequently changing document in any environment. That said, the change to the redirect would be fine if the meme section still existed, but it appears to have been pulled.  If it's restored, feel free to restore this redirect, but the lolcat redirect is more relevant now, with the 4chan page not referencing caturday at all. MrZaiustalk 13:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move or don't move - No reason to duplicate

message: It's fine to redirect this page to 4chan if you restore mention of Caturday there, but until then, lolcat is the only page that describes the phenomenon. Cut out the unexplained reverts until a fix is found for the 4chan page. That said, it seems like something of a waste of time, given the definition on lolcat. MrZaiustalk 18:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you. --Demonesque 07:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: No, yours. --Demonesque 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirecting to 4chan

message: I've offered compromises and done more work than you failures have. I tried to restore the caturday page, redirected it to 4chan when there was a meme section, and suggested that you delete the caturday entry entirely. I made my case, and all you idiots have done is revert and say "2v1 LOL!"
I won't let Caturday link to its submeme. That's more ridiculous than having a seperate page for Caturday. Put this on the lamest edit wars page, lock it, block me from editing, do what you have to do, but the history and cited sources back me up no matter how many people you rally to your wikiality. Try failing less in the future. --Demonesque 20:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing in 4chan about "caturday". Redirecting Caturday there would make no sense: there is no information about Caturday to be found there. —BurnDownBabylon 04:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do some editing first. Again, if you can post something reliably sourced to 4chan, your edits here would stick. In the meantime, the personal attacks and pointless vandalism are accomplishing nothing but bringing you closer to a block. MrZaiustalk 13:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthmore, the image macro article that redirected to before the protection hit makes only cursory mention of the phenomenon. To redirect there and not to lolcat in no way better serves the reader. That last edit should be undone, barring an explanation and expansion of image macro. Please note that "explanation" does mean just that, it's not an invitation to post more vitriolic and petty insults. MrZaiustalk 13:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, only one editor has ever proposed that it go anywhere other than lolcat, barring the introduction of related information on other articles. Rough consensus exists. MrZaiustalk 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editprotected requests are for unanimous, small edits to protected articles. Editors here should find consensus (not just rough consensus) about the location, and then request unprotection at WP:RFPP. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Point taken, but that is unlikely to happen, given the WP:POINT-style insistance of the currently blocked party. This is taking up an inordinate amount of time for a redirect. MrZaiustalk 04:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it is pretty clear that there is, at the moment, only one reasonable target for the redirect. Lolcat actually discusses, with reference sources, the Caturday phenomenon. 4chan does not discuss the phenomenon at all. Eventually, sources may appear that investigate and document the role of 4chan in the spread of the Caturday phenomenon; those sources might even support a free-standing article here. But until then, this should point to the article that actually contains information on the topic. The only editor who has continued to object to pointing Caturday at Lolcat is a user who has demonstrated no willingness to follow the path of dispute resolution and has continued to escalate personal attacks against other editors. —BurnDownBabylon 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TEH CONTROVERSIES! 

message: I've protected this page for the period of 1 week.  Take this opportunity to file a request for comment and settle this incredibly silly edit war once and for all.  --Haemo 01:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protected