Talk:San Serriffe

Review

I've linked the contributions so far, on this talk page, to the article and its revisions. Click on the date/time to see the article as it then was. Same as on history pages. (It puzzles me that these links are not set up automatically. They seem obviously necessary. Without context, how can past talk contributions be taken seriously? And if we don't take them seriously why do we keep them? ) What I want to do next is to review / collate contributors' opinions, and explore consensus on an article which clearly kicks up interesting questions about policies, and/or about how policies apply to it. SquisherDa (talk) 23:50, 14 February 2017 (UTC) SquisherDa (talk) 03:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Fictional

Very funny! This is totally fictional - the part about ocean islands moving(!) is a giveaway. I suspect there's a good story behind the The Guardian reporting this as if it were real - somebody lost a bet? Say the name out loud, comes out as sans serif... Stan 14:29, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I submit that this is actually worth of an article. The original hoax is a very famous one. I'll make a stub and see what people think. DJ Clayworth 19:03, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Your word "hoax" seems to admirably indicate where it should be located. Moriori 19:16, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think my original version does rather better than the current purely factual stub: it (a) makes it perfectly clear that it is a hoax (b) gives proper references to the source (and to some of the secondary literature that has developed around it) (c) gives some idea of the flavour of the original (d) is funny. So I'm going to revert to it. seglea 21:12, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

April fool

We're on dangerous ground here. Actually I quite like the idea of having a little April Fool article in Wikipedia, but I'm concerned that if we leave it everybody and his dog will use it as an excuse to add anything to WP claiming "it's an April Fool". What's the criterian for adding stuff here? Does it have to be stuff that the Guardian published in the original, or does anything go? What do others think? DJ Clayworth 21:49, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There's certainly a place for famous April Fool's jokes (no list of hoaxes that includes kremvax, Piltdown Man, etc?), but being fundamentally a dry factual source that sucks the humor out of everything, Wikipedia mustn't present any hoax as if it were real; people not familiar with English, geography, etc, could easily take this as real, tell friends about it, then get humiliated and hate Wikipedia for being misleading. I think a good compromise would be to lead with "is a hoax", then have the body describe in detail. Many of the Tolkien articles do this; see Thangorodrim for instance, which first says "is fictional", then describes it as if it were real, but also shifts to meta-comments to talk about how it was composed. For San Serriffe, non-English speakers will appreciate explanations of what the names are making fun of ("Lower Caise" -> "lower case", etc). In general, the bar should be pretty high for "famous" hoaxes, but size of audience seems like a useful guide - say, at least 10,000 people must have seen it or heard about it. Stan 22:22, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll make a start on it Dysprosia 22:27, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Sorry to be a downer, but I don't think this (well-written, funny) article actually belongs in the encyclopedia. Considering that 1) the place is fictional, 2) it's not a particularly famous fictional place (only referenced in one hoax article), and 3) it's flirting with copyright violation (not much commentary, mostly a recapitulation of the article content), I'd think it should probably be moved to the San Serriffe hoax, and reduced to maybe one paragraph (describe the hoax, give some highlights, describe reaction, link to article). There's not much information on how the hoax was accepted, either. I guess I'm just thinking: the original was funny, and this article is mostly worthwhile because it rips off the original. Why, then, should we have this article? --ESP 22:38, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Recent revision now makes this an article about the hoax, which includes a description of the fictional nation as a sidebar. I vote to keep this article, as a prime example of "how to incorporate" stuff like thise. --Uncle Ed 14:48, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

As the resident party pooper, I have to point out that the material needs to be better integrated. "Fictional material follows" is not an acceptable solution.—Eloquence 21:01, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm inclined to disagree — I think this article should stay. The hoax is reprised to some extent in most April Fool's Day editions of The Guardian and is somewhat renowned amongst regular readers. — OwenBlacker 00:15, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As a Reichstag climbing patroller, I feel it's my moral duty to ensure that no one is thinking about Climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman to prove their point, in clear violation of the official policy explained elaborately at WP:NCR. This article is certainly notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Just because some people may have a poor sense of humor, which may cause them to feel an urge to climb the Reichstag to prove their point, it is certainly not allowed at all on Wikipedia. Thank you for your patience. --Puellanivis 02:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alternative name

San Serriffe is an island nation, also known as Hoaxe...

The last bit I suppose is itself an attempted hoax. Unless anyone can source it? Flapdragon 01:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Still no source for the assertion that the island is also known as Hoaxe. Unlikely. It would hardly be a very subtle joke and no typographical pun that I can see. Have removed. Flapdragon (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Style

The article is primariliy written in an in-universe style. I would add the template thingy, but i'm a wikinoob --Gigitrix (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

A pity that no mention is made of just how clever the whole supplement was. Famous brands were persuaded to take out advertising space including Guinness who touted the locally brewed version of their drink which had a white body and a black hesd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.48.20 (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Adze?

How is "Adze" a synonym for "Latin Alphabet" to which it links? Other than being made up of letters, but then again all the words are. If that is correct, it at least needs some explanation from someone who gets the joke. Długosz (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Read it as such: "A D Z E," starting slowly and progressing more quickly... it becomes "A to Z" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.249.201.3 (talk) 03:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of this entry is entirely silly

The Guardian once came up with brilliant joke,

I am an American, not from the north east or California,

and I don't understand it.

Therefore it should be removed from the 'pedia.

For ***'s sake educate yourself. It's what the 'pedia's for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.43.248 (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a point? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)}20:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, Kamala Harris's husband is Douglas Emhoff - Noor, Poppy (17 August 2020). "Is it feminist to be obsessed with Kamala Harris's husband?". The Guardian. Retrieved 18 August 2020. Errantius (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Drift?

The nation is reportly drifting in the Indian Ocean from left to right, but other sentences make it clear that a lot of the population are Arabs. Wouldn't THEIR part of the country drift from right to left? Can wikipedia send one of its many teams of surveyors to the islands to get the truth of this?69.86.126.190 (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Christopher L. Simpson