Wikipedia talk:Lobster

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Department of Fun Bottom‑importance

	This page is supported by the Department of Fun, which aims to provide Wikipedians with fun so that they stay on Wikipedia and keep on improving articles. If you have any ideas, do not hesitate to post them to the discussion page or access our home page to join the Department of Fun.Department of FunWikipedia:Department of FunTemplate:WikiProject Department of FunDepartment of Fun articles
Bottom	This page has been rated as Bottom-importance on the importance scale.

Proposal

All Wikipedia articles shall contain the word "lobster" or "lobsters".

Survey

Support as proposer. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Oh man, I was all set to set this up as as {{Proposed}} policy, but then I realized it's April 1, so of course no one will realize how dead serious I am about this. Bad date coincidence. But I mean, this is a problem -- it is rank copyright violation of our work, and even though we do want it distributed, with attribution please. If we didn't care or it didn't matter, we wouldn't license it the way we do. Licenses mean something, or should. Nobody is doing anything about this, and here's a good place to start.

I'm willing to consider suggestions for other words instead -- "redistribute", say, or perhaps "stiletto" or the proper name "Franklin J. Corbett" -- but we should settle on one. Herostratus (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Zoidberg? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]