Forum:"So-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about..."

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > "So-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about..."
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1554 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
For those without comedic tastes, the so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about "So-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about...".

I know in the past we have cracked down on overuse of templates, but this one has seemingly either filled the void left by others, or has reproduced through means not yet explained through science. I have removed it a few times from the articles I monitor, because I see it as lacking any real purpose other than as a distraction. If someone really needs to find an article on Wikipedia, I am sure they know that the first several results for it on Google will be from Wikipedia. But even with these removals, it currently appears on 2480 articles.

Is there any reason we should not curtail its overuse entirely like others? And before anyone else checks, the so-called experts at Wikipedia do not have an article about "so-called experts at Wikipedia have an article about." ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's convenient. For example, I use it on Legends of the Hidden Temple, and Billy Mays because not everyone is familiar with the subject, especially those foreign to the US. --~ Tophatsig 23:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike most templates, this one actually serves some kind of half-useful purpose. Putting things like "Jesus Loves this Article" on every single article, however, is just overkilling a joke. There's a difference between joke templates, which, after the 3rd time you see them you want to skewer your eyes, and templates that actually do something or other. And also, it stays out of the way, so it doesn't interrupt text like loads of other templates do, which can kill the flow of something.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 23:59 Aug 21, 2017 23:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
But people do not go to Uncyclopedia pages to find the Wikipedia entry on it, they go to see something funny. The question I always ask myself when people edit the articles I monitor is, does this edit make the article better? Not surprisingly, there was never a case where the addition of this template added any humor. While it isnt as abrasive as certain other templates, it is nonetheless a distraction from the articles content, takes up space, and meets the requirement for overdoing it by appearing on slightly more than 1 in 10 of the 23000+ articles here. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Never a case? Well I have to agree that there's probably a lot of places where it shouldn't be, but I'm sure there are reasons for using it, like articles with multiple layers of humor, where it's funny enough at face value, but the more you know about the subject, the funnier it is. Maybe the template should only be used to indicate that there's humor that you might not get if you don't take a quick peek at the Wikipedia article? I'm not suggesting that it's required reading (that's just silly) but no one's heard of everything.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 23:59 Aug 21, 2017 23:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify, I was speaking only of the times that it was added to the articles I kept track of. I do not think we should outright delete the template, but instead begin to aggressively curtail it like we did on occasion with the others, as this appears to have not been a target in the past. It probably does have some uses, such as in this topic for a reference, but beyond cases it actually adds humor to the article, I would say it probably does not belong. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Many English people would not know who Billy Mays is, although Americans are very familiar with him and how he yells in his commercials. The humor of the article is how he makes his sales. If some bloke clicked his link from one the Jesus template he's on would he know who this guy is? Better yet how about a reversed situation. Would an American know who George Formby is and why is article is funny without reading up on him first? There are many examples where a something is only prevalent in certain countries that a man in another country wouln't know about unless he read it first. The only way a wikipedia link is funny is if it's subject is funnier, and in that case there is only one set of articles it'd fit in. --~ Tophatsig 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a few basic problems with that argument. The first is, its not our job to inform people. People come here after they are already informed about a subject, in order to laugh about that subject. If someone wanted to learn about Billy Mays, they will not come here. The second issue is, do you really think that reading the Wikipedia article on Billy Mays will give people a full pre-requisite of before-knowledge necessary to find the article funny? You kind of have to see him in action to know what hes like, so should we also have templates linking to other sites that have video archives of him? Or do you make sure that articles are aimed to the "I just found out about this guy on Wikipedia a second ago" reading level, in which case you might leave out any references to things you couldnt fully grasp from Wikipedia's article? We have to assume that people who come to Uncyclopedia articles are doing so because they want to laugh about a subject that they already know about. Explaining jokes as you go isnt funny, and its a farce to think that a link to one site will give people everything they need (and even worse to have a million templates.) To summarize this point, as it seems slightly wordy, it isnt a good idea to limit ourselves only to humor that one could grasp after reading the Wikipedia article, but unless we were to do this, it doesnt make sense to hold up the Wikipedia article as a way to give people all the references. Thus, its not a good idea either way.
By adding humor, I am not saying the Wikipedia page has to be funnier than the Uncyclopedia page. The addition of the template itself would have to add humor, for instance in the bathroom humor page, I suppose the humor from it would be that its funny Wikipedia has an article on it at all. But where is the humor to adding the template on a page like Malaysia? In a case like this, it would be inappropriate. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 00:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You claimed "People come here after they are already informed about a subject, in order to laugh about that subject", but this is not always the case. You may be familiar with Wikilink Syndrome, a condition that often occurs when a person reading a wiki page encounters a link that refers to a subject they are not familiar with and clicks on it out of curiosity. On Wikipedia, Wikilink Syndrome can, for example, result in the accidental learning of the history of every Marvel Comic series ever (it's happened to me, at least). On Uncyclopedia, it can result in encountering articles whose subject may be real but obscure. The template is relatively innocuous, and, at the very least, assures the reader that the subject is real and not just a load of crap. --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 01:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the template does not have to add humor, it is very useful for articles on obscure subjects. Glancing at a wikipedia article on the same subject can help explain the joke of the uncyclopedia article to someone who would otherwise be oblivious to its meaning. But I agree that in instances such as the Malaysia article, it's unnecessary because most people know what Malaysia is. I hope. It's a...state next to Wyoming, right? --THE 01:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
/Me puts my head in my hands. THE! It's next to Wisconsin! Duh. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I like it. I like the way it bounces. It is kind of portentous. And it is useful for illustrating articles about perpetual motion and golf. Pieface 04:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to everyone that likes the template. It's one of the few exceptions I'd make to the "additions have to make the article funnier" rule. Apart from anything else which has already been mentioned (and I get a lot of wikilink syndrome especially) I think this template has helped a lot of good stuff stay off VFD. People sometimes nom things they don't understand, and a wikipedia template helps people get jokes. Also, I object to dumb templates, but I don't object to inobtrusive ones that might also lead me to something informative. As much as I'm all about the funny, I'm also a little bit about the finding out interesting stuff. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. I find this discussion an amusing parallel to a certain discussion that went on at another site... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
As I said below, it is not our job or responsibility to make sure people know what a topic is before reading our article. If they want to do a search at Wikipedia, Encyclopedia Britanica, Encarta, or wherever, they can do that - but its not our job, as a humor site, to put bouncing templates on our pages linking people to them, any more than it is their job to link to us in a bouncing template. It doesnt add useful information to their pages, and it doesnt add humor to ours. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 17:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The worst thing about this template is that the bouncy logo sometimes glitches for me. I remember the times when the logo wasn't bouncy. Those were good times. Good times... --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 17:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I quite like the template, it can be useful. I get what you're saying, that people will only look at articles where they already know about the subject, and if they come across one they don't get, they'll look it up themselves. Personally, I think there's less truth in that than there is in uncyclopedia, but I don't quite get what you're proposing here... are you saying stop people using the template, and ban them if they persist? Delete it and remove it from every single page? Have a "quoticide" type thing for it, where one person (who isn't the author) gets to decide if each page's use of it is good or not? What did you hope to achieve by bringing this up? Spang talk 08:34, 10 Aug 2007

Also, if you're gonna get all pissy about it, at least go the whole nine yards and bitch about {{unrelatedarticle}} and other related templates to {{wikipedia}}. Some are just stupid, but this is fine.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"I do not think we should outright delete the template, but instead begin to aggressively curtail it like we did on occasion with the others, as this appears to have not been a target in the past." As I said above, it has its uses, but its being overused (2480 pages.) I noticed that it was seemingly getting a free pass while other templates were being curtailed. I am sorry if this was interpretted as being pissy, I guess I didnt know of a different way to go about this than make a topic. I dont feel particularly strongly about this issue, so if it will make things better, go ahead and delete this topic. It seems to have incited a much stronger reaction than intended. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem with the other templates is that people put them on, thinking they're getting a free joke in there with no effort. Not to mention they're almost universally big and ugly and distracting. I don't think people use this template for that purpose, just as people said above, for giving people a little more background on a subject if they need it. And it only ever takes up space that either wouldn't be used anyway, or just makes the top picture go a little further down. I don't think its use needs curtailed just because it's a template used in a lot of places. Spang talk 09:41, 10 Aug 2007
So is the reason that it has not been targeted been that the goal is to put it on all pages? ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
How about the usual wishy-washy answer of a happy medium, something like what exists at present? --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
My thinking is, if its meant to be on all articles thats one thing, and if its meant to be only on some types of articles thats another. I just want to know the proper use for this template. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I guess the answer is some. But usually it'll be the author's decision - please nobody go on one of those quests to put it on everything, because they only end in tears. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
So its completely at the original authors discretion, or are there other factors which determine whether it should be used? Such as, its an obscure topic, it adds humor, etc. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider a link to Wikipedia nearly essential for an Uncyclopedia article. Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia: an Uncyclopedia article which has a one-to-one correspondence to an article on Wikipedia underlines the parodic connection. I once vowed not to write an article which did not link to an existing Wikipedia article, and to never write an article which did not have a live link to a Wikipedia at the top. I have softened that stance a bit, but the idea is to avoid abominations like "What I did last week" and "The war between Tuesday and some gorgonzola cheese" and write articles on things that exist and which a reader might actually expect to find in an encyclopedia. The link to a Wikipedia article is nothing less than proof of an article's relevance. As far as the reader using Google to find out information about a Wikipedia article...Nah. I don't believe most readers will do it. If there is a live link on the page, maybe they will check it out. But sorry, no, they're not going to go off an Google something just to see what the article is about. The template is small and relatively tasteful compared to many of the horrors we've got. Use it whenever applicable. It is our very badge of our parodic relevance. ----OEJ 01:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley: Do you do anything around here other than just show up and bitch once a month or so? Of all the templates we have, this one is about the lest obnoxious, and the least useless. Humor is very hard to get if you don't understand the subject behind the humor.

You say, "...its not our job to inform people...". Actually, our job is to make people laugh. And if we need to inform them to do that, then we need to inform them to do that. I've found plenty of articles on this website which were completely incoherent to me until I read the associated wikipedia page, at which point they made decent sense.

Sure, it's somewhat overused, but in many cases it's pretty damn useful, and inherently important in educating the reader enough that they get the article. How, and more importantly, WHO determines if a subject is "mainstream" enough that it doesn't require that sort of information?

There are plenty of completely useless, obnoxious, humorless, and downright distracting templates to go on a tear about. Once those are gone we can worry about ones which are actually useful on a regular basis. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 08/11 14:40

Famine, I have a two part answer to that. The first part is, I apologize for the way I went about this. I came in with a certain assumption about what templates were for (ie meant to add humor to the article) and a certain assumption about people going mostly to articles on topics they already knew about. What I should have done is come into this without that assumption, and perhaps ask a more general policy question about this particular template. I saw it as a canned joke being put on tons of pages, pretty much everyone views it differently, and just establishing that could have probably saved a lot of time. Its for that reason that I apologize for the way it was done, no excuses about it.
Secondly, I dont appreciate you trying to take this to a personal level. If you think all I do is bitch on my period here, thats fine view to hold, but its not really helpful to say in this discussion now is it? I had good intentions here, it was poorly executed - and now its clear to me that I was wrong about this template. Thats about all there is to it. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
That is perhaps the best answer I've seen here in a long time. Thanks. I completely agree with you that if it's being used as a canned joke, it should go. In fact, I'm guilty of doing that myself a time or two. I think I'll go whack one or two of those right now, on principle. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 08/12 14:38


The truth is usually funnier than nonsense. The funniest pages are those closest to the truth

Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia which means that most of the articles are parody's of real articles on wikipedia. This means that not only are articles not only parodies of the things that they're about but also of the wikipedia article. Examples of this would include Moon hoax,Wikipedia(the first sentence is written similar to the wikipedia's article of uncyclopedia), and just about every article about a country. So havening {{wikipedia}} on pages that wikipedia has an article about can make people understand the joke better.--Scott 00:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely true. I learned more about the Maginot Line by having to make fun of it. I actually had to look crap up about it to make fun of it. Additionally, for readers to understand the brilliant satire of certain subjects, it is sometimes recommended they know about the subject on a factual basis before enjoying the parody of it on a fictional basis. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 09:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why this template should be removed from any pages where it is relevant. Perhaps we should concentrate on removing the Jesus/Satan loves templates, as they seem to have multiplied again since our last purge. Icons-flag-au Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Noone disagrees that the truth is funnier than nonsense, and I absolutely fail to see the relevance of that to discussion here. And further, we all agree that you need to know about a topic to find its article funny (at least most of the time,) but the disagreement is about actually having a bouncing template link you to the Wikipedia page. If you know about the topic, it neither adds humor nor serves a use but to take up space. If you dont know about the topic, you can easilly find the wikipedia page about it if you need to, and this would nto be at the expense of other users. It is not our responsibility to make sure that people know what a topic is before reading our article on it, and we shouldnt pretend it is. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but, people are lazy, and it's a link.  Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize  writings  SU&W) 23:59 Aug 21, 2017 17:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
What Dr. Skullthumper said. It may not be our responsibility, per se, but it's awfully helpful for certain articles. It reinforces the connection to truth for certain articles (for example, Blandford is a real place. I know of a Blandford, Massachusetts). The template is small, unobtrusive, and does no harm, unlike the dreaded Jesus/Stan templates, which are the equivalent of eye rape. It's not about some perverse "No Lulz Left Behind" Act, where we try to educate people for the express purpose of parodying what they learn, it's just a potentially helpful link that reinforces our "Parody of Wikipedia" status (even if our humor sometimes steps outside the realm of what snobby English majors call "parody"). --The Acceptable Thinking cap small Cainad Sacred Chao (Fnord) 17:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
This is such a stupid thing to be complaining about. This template is tiny. If people are going to have to go to wikipedia to understand a joke anyway, why not just link them to the wikipedia article? I don't see any problem with that. It's helpful, it's convenient, and it's small. The purpose of the template is not to add humor, the purpose is to save the reader a little time. --THE 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I actually think that the template can be funny, in some instances. There are those articles that have the template, and it makes you go: "Wikipedia has an article about WHAAA???" In cases like that, it can be kinda funny. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about a poll?

Here's a good solution to this: a poll:

Is Template:Wikipedia a bad thing or a good thing?

The poll was created at 18:35 on August 10, 2007, and so far 34 people voted.

--Sir Starnestommy Icons-flag-us (TalkContribsCUNCapt.) 18:34, August 10, 2007

This topic is not about it being bad... its about it being overused. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The poll was created at 21:56 on August 10, 2007, and so far 33 people voted.

(Sorry about that, everybody's mum.) --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 21:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools