Talk:Rule 34 (disambiguation)

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This page was nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion on 22 July 2010. The result of the discussion was redirect to 34 (number)#In other fields.

Disambiguation

Needs moar 34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.8.72 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a disambiguation page that links to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Cartoon pornography. 24.87.81.80 (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest changing the redirect to something more generic, like Rule. The reason for this is that anything with a chronologically ordered set of rules, with more than 33 rules, has a rule 34. Also, the 34th rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is in no way significant enough (in and of itself) or commonly enough used to be considered more significant than, say, homeland security's rule 34. or any other rule 34. Or, I guess to pay a bit of homage to the internet meme that keeps being mentioned here, to Rule of thumb 131.151.90.159 (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the upcoming novel with this name by Charlie_Stross can't be referenced on Wikipedia because the notability police have censored disambiguation. Is there a firm cutoff for how many copies a book is required to sell before it's no longer unnotable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.236.130 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Stross has just won his SECOND Hugo award, I'd say the number of copies needed is zero. The book will of course be notable, and needs to have a page. (Which would then have to link to a page about the meme, since the meme will have been referenced in a secondary source.) DavidHobby (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this back up

Hi, I just came to Wikipedia this afternoon looking to find out what this "Rule 34" is, and was redirected to a very unhelpful page about "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure". Clearly, this is not sufficient. I believe that there needs to be a disambiguation page here. kevyn (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Agree 110%. Why does "Rule 34" still redirect to some obscure legal page? It's beyond absurd when there is a vastly more prominent and obvious use of "Rule 34." An article on the internet meme is long overdue, it is very widespread and I would imagine finding notable sources should not be an issue.--HeroofTime55 (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the RFD I just opened here. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure" - Huh? Wikipedia is read and used over the whole planet. The internal rules of the USA ONLY govern that state, and are irrelevant elsewhere. Excuse me, but as a resident of the UK and Europe, this is yet another example of US-parochialism, assuming that their country is the whole world. If Wikipedia aims, as it claims, to be a resouce foe everyone, evrywhere, it might benifit the adminstrators to remember that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.162.81 (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-American administrator, I say: be calm, and assume good faith - this actually started its life as a stub article about FRCP Rule 34, which is why it was at first redirected to FRCP; but back in July that was changed by the RfD linked above so it no longer points there, as you will see by clicking Rule 34. JohnCD (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rfd

Please add the {{rfd}} template per WP:RFD to point to the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 22. TJRC (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Regards So Why 07:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 34 more notable

On the Charles Stross page, it says that his book, "Rule 34" will be published in 2011. There's an Amazon.co.uk page for Rule 34. Charles Stross writes, [writes], As you probably guessed, the novel is indeed named after that Rule 34. (with a citation to Encyclopedia Dramatica).

Is this sufficiently notable to make a Rule 34 (Internet Meme) page? Msilverstar (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that it is, EVEN if his publisher changes the title later. DavidHobby (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar topic, when the novel is published next July or so (but probably not before), we will almost certainly need an article covering it. If at that point this page is both still locked and the best title for such an article, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or bring it up at my talkpage. Good luck, - 2/0 (cont.) 03:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the other uses, if the book becomes notable per WP:BK its page should be titled Rule 34 (novel) and Rule 34 should stay as a redirect to this DAB section - I see a redlink entry for the book has already been added. JohnCD (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that Rule 34 (internet meme) also needs to be produced, and don't see why there's such resistance to it. Given the notability of xkcd itself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xkcd), I'd argue that the appearance of Rule 34 in it (http://xkcd.com/305/) is already sufficient to establish the notability of the meme. Adding the novel's title as another reference makes the case that much stronger. (And then Rule 34 would go to a disambiguation page between the two.)DavidHobby (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Humor wikis have articles about Rule 34: see here, for example (in Portuguese) (this page is safe for work and children, but there's porn in other pages of this wiki). Albmont (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Shenshia (talk) 09:47, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for disambiguation

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to change this to a disambiguation page, as there are (at least) four meanings for this term: Rule 34 (novel); Rule 34 (meme); request for production, Rule 34 of the U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Rule 34 of an elementary cellular automaton. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:11, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Rule 34 should be a disambiguation page. Kevyn (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. Although the last Rule 34 would probably just link to Wolfram code. The cellular automaton with that rule has pretty boring behavior. DavidHobby (talk) 00:34, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's no Rule 110, I'll give you that. ;) —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unprotected. The page protection is now reduced to indefinite semi-protection and move protection, so you can go ahead and create the DAB page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I removed the references, by the way, as we usually don't put references or article-like things in DAB pages. (See MOS:DABENTRY for the details.) I think it's also usual practice to put the entries with an exact name match at the top, so the meme article and the book article should probably go above elementary cellular automaton. I'm not sure about Request for production though - if it's well-used in comparison to the other two it might be worth keeping it at the top. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now "Rule 34 (meme)" links to a HUGE list of "Internet Phenomena". I guess that's better than nothing, but feel Wikipedia still has not resolved the issue. If we keep sweeping all of the "internet" stuff into one page, it will eventually get too big?DavidHobby (talk) 22:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, there is a chance it can become its own article, and the list has the information that was here before. I think that's better than linking to Internet meme, since it doesn't have any details. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:39, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Where do you suggest it link? TJRC (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Entry descriptions

Per MOS:DABENTRY, we need only just enough description in entries to expedite a reader finding the desired article. That means just enough to distinguish each topic from others. Sometimes this goal can conflict with a desire for technical accuracy, but it's important to bear in mind that we are not trying to define a topic in its dab page entry, simply provide just enough information for the entry to be distinguished from others, including for those who may have only a general understanding of the topic. A few editors (including myself) have been trying to find an appropriate description for the entry linking elementary cellular automaton. I'm sure various wordings would be suitable and we can find one, but it seemed worth noting here the relevant criteria. Specifically, we're trying to distinguish this entry from ones for a book, a legal process, and a meme, so we really don't need particularly specific language. I'd also note, in service of WP's primary purpose of edification and general audience access, that it's probably better to exploit obvious link names, and in this case I think that would include linking to "elementary cellular automaton" rather than "elementary cellular automata", since the numerical relationship between the two may not be immediately recognized by a general audience. ENeville (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link question

I came across this FRCP 34 link and wondered if it should be added. Keahapana (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No; "Never include external links, either as entries or in descriptions. Disambiguation pages disambiguate Wikipedia articles, not the World-Wide Web." WP:MOSDAB. TJRC (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rule 34 (Internet meme) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another move discussion

There is a move discussion at Talk:Rule 34 (Internet meme) — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 15:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Rule 34 (Internet meme) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dream SMP

What is rule 34 in the dream SMP 108.5.150.244 (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]