Talk:Josh fight

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... the event was covered by reliable sources, the number of which will only grow given the reporters that were there. The article is neutral, referenced, an appropriate length, and non-promotional in nature. --Ganesha811 (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Expanding on this: I completely understand why this was nominated, since it was basically a meme event. But after seeing the news coverage, I decided the event was worthy of an article. It clearly meets the WP:GNG - a short article is appropriate. Ganesha811 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Additional comment - coverage from national sources such as the AP and Fox News is additional evidence of notability - not just a local news event. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because over $7000 for charity (while a small amount, some good will come for the event) and while it's odd, after the covid-19 pandemic a little fun and odd is what we need. It's an interesting footnote in history and should remain. --92.239.188.74 (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it marks a historic occasion that evolved from an innocent thought. It does not promote any commercial event nor person and serves solely as a memorable moment from our time and might evolve into an annual gathering that will gain importance throughout the years. Let it be known, that even during these troubled Covid times people gathered for conquest of fun and joy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.102.147.224 (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because... (it is an internet phenomenon) --104.137.89.47 (talk) 21:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC) I believe that this article should not be deleted because it follows the rules of WP:GNG and the reason for an event shouldn’t detract from it’s reason for existence (https://en.m.wiki.x.io/wiki/Storm_Area_51#). There has also been no violations in WP: NOT Meme Archivist (talk) 20:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because it is litteraly about people named josh fighting for the name how is that important — Preceding unsigned comment added by EVEN-ELITE (talk • contribs) 21:06, April 24, 2021 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept up, although the josh fight was made on meme territory (which don't ususaly last long) i do believe this article should be kept up, for historical purposes, since in the future, people will wonder about these "historic events" it may not look like much now, but even a commercial can be a historic font, so i say save this event in history, so it is not lost and the people of the future can look back and take a piece of us, and maybe, a future kid can say "hey, that sounds really fun" Dusk Flare13 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Please discuss at WP:Articles for deletion/Josh fight instead of here. SWinxy (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Civil skirmish status

The Josh fight should be recognized as a civil skirmish; it was not simply an event. In its Wikipedia article, a skirmish is defined as a battle with "only light, relatively indecisive combat". Since people from within the United States named Josh were pitted against each other, it is also a skirmish that is civil in nature (i.e domestic). -- EVEN-ELITE — Preceding undated comment added 01:06, 25 April 2021

Not necessarily as an "actual battle", but this event is definitely significant enough and might possibly be discussed in future studies of social influence and modern technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ejenriquez (talk • contribs) 05:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done - No reliable source have characterized this in the same fashion of an actual battle, in the usual sense. If you can find such a source, you are welcome to revisit this topic. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 20:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

damn, I was just writing about this

and know I see someone already wrote it Turtleshell3 (talk) 03:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Punch whatever info you wrote in your sandbox into this article then2603:7000:1F00:6B91:885E:B57C:2429:7C4A (talk) 08:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok! Turtleshell3 (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Number of attendees

In the first part of the page, it says several-hundred attendees, however, in the later section, it says several thousand. Could someone clarify the amount of people? I'm not sure about it myself, but several hundred seems more realistic, judging by the videos I have seen.

Clint11480 (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Clint11480, I think you're right, I haven't seen any reliable sources saying thousands. I'll change it. Ganesha811 (talk) 14:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Image

Hello! The image used in the infobox is unfortunately a copyright violation. If someone could find a freely-licensed image to use in its stead, please upload it to Commons and use it here. Thanks. Chlod (say hi!) 09:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2021

Biggest fan of the event: Applewizard9995. "Applewizard9995 wouldn't stop talking about it for days" KobyDeuel (talk) 20:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Chlod (say hi!) 20:36, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It's also worth nothing that this statement has no encyclopedic value, and is likely non-notable, much like all inside jokes. Chlod (say hi!) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Add 2021 to the title

Maybe the title should be changed to something along the lines of "2021 Josh fight event". SkiSneath (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

SkiSneath I disagree with renaming the title, as I don't believe it is necessary. To my knowledge, there is no similar event that could be confused with this, so adding the year to the title is not needed. I'd like to know what others think about this change, though. Nordberg21205 (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary. Putting the year in the title is often only done to disambiguate multiple similar events, and this event is the first of its kind. {{u|Bowler the Carmine}} (they/them | talk) 01:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Common name _TheKuygerian^contribs
_userpage 03:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Josh fight/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• See MOS:LEADCITE, those citations can be moved to the main part of the article as there should be nothing in the lead that isn't covered in more detail in the main body of the article.

• Fixed. I left the WSJ citation as it is a direct quote - let me know if that was incorrect.

• It appears to have had some coverage in the UK too, anything useful in here?

• Response: I don't think so, it's mostly repeating what other journalists said, and the sentiment is covered by the quote from WSJ.

• "Arizona on " comma after AZ.

• Fixed.

• "invitation to go viral" this sentence is unreferenced.

• Fixed.

• Avoid single-sentence paras.

• Edited.

• "64 thousand likes and 21 thousand" not exactly I suspect.

• Fixed., added "over" to make more accurate.

• Link Reddit.

• Linked.

• "Nebraska as a site for" comment after Nebraska.

• Added.

• "the United States, with" no need to link that.

• Removed.

• "private property. The property" bit repetitive, slight re-phrase.

• Edited.

• "6-pack" six-pack.

• Switched.

• "brought in from home." this sentence is unreferenced.

• Sentence removed - may have been WP:OR.

• "from Omaha in " you've linked all the other sub-US locations, might as well link Omaha. The first time, i.e. previous section!

• Linked.

• "at Children's Hospital & Medical Center" you already abbreviated that, can use that instead of the full name.

• Edited.

• "was crowned with" no need to link, and "crowned with .. crown" is repetitive.

• Switched word to avoid repetition.

• "the Children's Hospital & Medical Center—" again, use abbreviation and don't overlink.

• Fixed.

• Ref 6 should be The Wall Street Journal.

• Fixed.

• Ref 17 is oddly formatted and needs access-date, publisher etc.

• Fixed, I hope?

• Be consistent with linking publishers/websites, in the refs.

• Generally removed except where "cite-tweet" demanded it.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! I've gone through and made edits accordingly. Thanks for taking a look at this and let me know if there are any other changes needed. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)