Talk:Vagueposting
Add topicLatest comment: 4 months ago by AirshipJungleman29 in topic Did you know nomination
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 2 April 2026. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This page was proposed for deletion by EasternShah (talk · contribs) on 2 April 2026. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Vagueposting appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 1 April 2026 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Did you know nomination
[edit]- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:13, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
( )
- ... that there's a term?
- Source: If you have ever scrolled on social media and felt like you joined a conversation halfway through, with no context at all, you are not alone. Over the past few weeks, a type of posting has resurfaced online with the sole purpose of ragebaiting everyone. It is called vagueposting, and it involves being intentionally cryptic as a form of engagement bait. (http://web.archive.org/web/20260204123301/https://www.fastcompany.com/91485243/what-is-vagueposting-the-cryptic-social-media-trend-thats-driving-everyone-crazy)
- ALT1: ... that there's a term that confuses people online?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Pyrenula solomonii
- Comment: For WP:DYKAPRIL
Phibeatrice (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2026 (UTC).
- New enough, long enough. No issue of prose, the hook is bad[Humor]. QPQ is done. Now the issue here is the use of WP:FORBESCON (I tagged it so you can see) and the overquoting from said source that resulted in 46.5% in Earwig. Pinging @Phibeatrice: for response. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:15, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I reduced quotations across the board and removed the Forbes source. Pinging back @Miminity: for your awareness. Phibeatrice (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then,
Rejected[Humor] Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
- Then,
- Thanks! I reduced quotations across the board and removed the Forbes source. Pinging back @Miminity: for your awareness. Phibeatrice (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)
Are you sure this follows WP:GNG?
[edit]This term doesn't seem to have as much as widespread usage to require its own page.. ~2026-65120-9 (talk) 18:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Sources from Fast Company, Rolling Stone, Psychology Today, The Guardian, and others clear WP:GNG. Your subjective assessment of its usage is not an argument. Phibeatrice (talk) 22:25, 12 February 2026 (UTC)
- Okay i'm sorry im new ~2026-65120-9 (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2026 (UTC)