Talk:Kibology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Link Problems

A link in this article directs to a User page. Is this acceptable linkage? RickK 05:03, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maybe not. Of the two possible solutions (remove the link entirely, or create an article about the linked person) I prfer the first since I don't think the person so linked is important enough to deserve an article of their own. Dominus 05:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Allowed?

Am I allowed? Jonathunder —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 15 November 2004

As long as you're not Spot. -- "Froggy" Infrogmation 02:41, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Throughness

There needs to be more substance in this article, I have no idea what kibology actually consists of after having read this. --Belg4mit 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, not understanding is kind of the point. Lots42 01:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, is anything in this article actually true?

I've lurked on alt.religion.kibology for years, and this is the first time I've ever heard someone claim that kibology is a religion. It's a parody religious name, but there's never been a parody religion to go with it. The Usenet group would normally have been called alt.fan.kibo or alt.fan.james-parry, but that was what everyone else was doing and they wanted something sillier. That's the sum total of this particular "religion", as far as I know. -- BenRG 23:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been posting in alt.religion.kibology for god knows how long and I have no reason to disbelieve anything on the article page. Lots42 04:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the inventor of Kibology, I hereby endorse everything in this article. And I haven't even read it! -- Dominus 04:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The parody of religion aspect, as the article says, was significant early on but faded, not much remaining since Kibo's Neptunian disappearnce back in '95. -- Infrogmation 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since a core tenant, the only tenant of kibology is that it can not be known, nothing about kibology can ever be true. The name its self is a random guess because that too, can not be known. This is, or is not, the essence of kibology. Scottprovost (talk) 09:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC) The one thing that is true and is obvious by early postings. This was not a parody religion. We wanted a Usenet group where all things could be discussed including politics all religions, Abortion Atheism etc,, The only category where you were certain to get a channel was alt.religion since religious freedom and rights demanded it. So we created a religion or Kibo did while the rest of us ducked behind a wall and cringed. The Usenet Gods accepted it and Club Kibo was born. To keep the channel open we needed there to be no rules or offtopic subjects and so kibology was made secret. So secret that the members and Kibo himself could not know the doctrine. Since it is not knowable, anything could be on topic and nothing could be known to be off topic. Then the humor started leading up to our most famous Kibologist David Letterman Scottprovost (talk) 01:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This page should be merged with James Parry. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Related subjects, but there are notable aspects of Kibology which are not James Parry, and vice-versa. -- Infrogmation (talk) 03:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wackyparsing

Wackyparsing redirects here, but there's no mention of it in this article. This problem requires resolution. OrangeDog (talk) 01:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Love for Yonderboy

Sniff. I remember this one time... someone said I was prominent. But she might have had ulterior motives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.226.20 (talk) 02:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klippoth/Qliphoth

Not to be confused with Klippology (aka Qliphology. 173.28.244.122 (talk) 03:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oath of Secrecy

As one of the original Kibologists I can tell you I loved the group because it was the only place on usenet you could talk about anything you wanted without being "Off Topic" Since Kibology is a secret religion and no one is allowed to know what the religion is, it is impossible for any moderator to know if what you are talking about is off topic. Club Kibo was the birth of Free Speech on the Internet. Wikipedia is the death of free speech on the internet. <--- Will be removed for being off topic. Signed scottp@saavik.cs.wisc.edu Club Kibo 1991 [1] Scottprovost (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

Kibology is not independently notable. It is an obscure group that is best known for being James Parry's fan club. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 17:12, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support As wikipedians tend to disbelieve in the existence of Usenet, let alone its significance, I expect this will end up as deletion. But a merge would be better than two articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

§ This is a discussion regarding a merge to another page, and has been transposed to the talk-page of the target article to better preserve the comments. §

Additional comments should be made at Talk:James Parry#Merger discussion, NOT here. Thank you. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 20:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I 'm not completely opposed to the idea of a merger, but I think Susmuffin's phrasing of the nomination suggests rather spotty understanding of the subject and significant Recentism. Well, no doubt a future generation of Wikimedians will dismiss everything now in Category:Internet memes as "obscure" as well. -- Infrogmation (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]