Forum:Why do we need a Talk Page Header?

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 01:53, July 26, 2007 by AAA! (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Why do we need a Talk Page Header? (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2682 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I'm wondering why it is necessary for articles to have a talk page header. It seems to me that its a bit over the top, and frankly I find the tone of the wording to be not funny, but smug and quite offputting.

The point of Uncyclopedia is parody Wikipedia and have some fun. This just seems like a bit of bureaucratic manure. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Bureaucratic manure" is redundant. --Hotadmin4u69 [TALK] 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Redundant? Don't you mean tautological? In any case I take offense at your comment. Manure is really useful, and often fragrant stuff. Pieface 05:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it was originally to get some talk pages off the most wanted pages list. I think. Other than that, I'm not sure of their point. Spang talk 02:40, 13 Jul 2007

Can I just say: huh?? -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Talkheader. For example on Talk:I burning your dog. I thoroughly agree Prettiestpretty, and I was close to raising the subject myself as some users are going full tilt trying to stick this on as many pages as possible. It's not funny, and I find it a bit presumptuous (and dare I say it Wikipedian) to tell us what we can and can't talk about, especially on general talk pages which don't get any vandalism and might get bonus funny if we leave them to their own devices. To someone who's just written on a talk page and then finds this put above their words, it's a bit of a slap in the face. In summary, I support this template for pages that get a lot of crap, but I think it's redundant on most pages and, as it stands, also rather unfriendly. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact, can we get a vote on this? Because even more of this has been happening today, and I really don't want to waste any more of people's time than is necessary if we decided it wasn't a good thing... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been going full tilt, but not because I have any opinion about the talkheader itself. I was putting on oldvfd tags when MadMax told me he and Insineratehymn had been doing both at the same time. I started doing it because it was just as easy to do both at once as to do just the oldvfd tags. I really don't care what we do with the talkheaders. It hasn't been a waste of time since we were killing two birds with one stone anyway, but it would be a waste of time to remove them all (and who is going to do it?). I figure change the template completely, to a picture of a platypus or something, then leave it on those pages that already have it to make people wonder why it's there. My main concern is the oldvfd tags. I've just been continuing to earn my whirling ninjastar of vengeance awarded me by future admin the Odd but Unfactual sith herself. Sir Roger 06:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote

I see too many options for a simple for/against, actually:

  1. We can let this continue and spread everywhere.
  2. We can let this continue but change the template to be funnier.
  3. We can just stop with what's been done and leave it at that. (And optionally change the template.)
  4. We can reverse the process.
  • I think that templating all talk pages is a waste of time, since there's probably some Mediawiki thing that the admins could use to put things at the top of all talk pages if they really wanted to. And like I said, I don't want to waste people's time. I don't really care between 3 and 4, although if it's not policy to include them I might exterminate 'em when I see one. So that's my completely vague vote. Okay, enough long and ranty posts from me for now... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 20:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Simple For/Against. I can't acctaully see options. They got rid of that part of my brain during the operation. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against the template and For its removal. I can't see where the template is necessary, nor can I see where it welcomes discussion. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against template. 4: Delete all instances of the template. It's an insult to users, Wikidom, God, and probably the Black Hole at the Center of the Universe. ----OEJ 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against the template. It's unnecessary, awkward, and takes up too much room. --vyvyan 22:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahem... Modus, do you think you might be templasexual? There's nothing wrong with it at all, and we'll all be behind you one hundred percent if you decide that's who you are... --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm transtemplasexual. While I wear [[s and ]]s in public, my closet is full of {{s and }}s. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Modus, the first steps to getting help is admitting that you need it. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The only help I need is getting into this damned }{. I'm more of a )( shape. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
More to the point, I'm against having it on pages that don't need it. That would be most of them, as most don't have drama. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For option 2. Per modus.---Asteroid B612B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 00:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For, Option 2 P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Option 2 or Option 3 if the template is changed. Sir Roger 01:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ...with SAVINGS!!! -- Tinymooose.gif » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Umm... FU SPANG? --General Insineratehymn 07:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  • meh Parody Wikipedia, don't copy the worst of it -- sannse@Wikia (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Option four please. For future reference, I'd like to see some discussion in the dump before it happens. But I'm quite mad. Not as mad as MO, but quite. ~Jewriken.GIF 13:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • For option threes. For reference, the future will dump this discussion before it happens. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Drugs are bad m'kay? ~Jewriken.GIF 15:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia. I'm being a rebel and not picking a number. -- Hindleyite Converse 11:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I originally used the {{talkheader}} template to get a lot of the Template talk pages off the Wanted Articles list although I did think it had potential to be a humorous parody of a Wikipedia template. The template in its original version was simply a copy of the Wikipedia version with minor editing. I also found it helped with cleaning up various talk pages. I had nothing to do with recent rewrite, with the exception of formatting the main title, however its intent was never to censor what editor can or cannot say of a talk page nor was it intended to be a standard template for talk pages. If anything, it was an extension of basic policies of Uncyclopedia for those who overlooked Uncyclopedia:Beginner's Guide to Being an Uncyclopedian. I have no objection to its deletion and I'd certainly be willing to remove the remaining ones, however I do think the template does have potential if not taken seriously. MadMax 22:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Well from vantage point, this explaination makes sense. I guess what got me was that it started showing up as if there was an organized effort to have it placed on all talk pages - even those with no text or discussion at all. But I am still oppossed to its wholesale use on every page. Dame PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 01:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
That's what I said 4 lines from the top! Just... longer. And with a lot more detail. Spang talk 04:41, 19 Jul 2007
On a quasi-related note, I used the talk template as a basis for my talk page. I think it works pretty well there, but I've changed it to be funnier....kinda. Well.....no. Not really, no. Well, I like it at any rate, and I'd say that the template has potential if made funny(er?). P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Way to trivialise the situation. No, I mean that in a good way!  :-) I'm glad this template could actually be used for something funny somewhere. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The second pie, please, but with slightly less haste in slapping it on. ―― Sir Heerenveen, KUN [UotM RotM VFH FFS SK CM NS OME™] (talk), 11:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Four. It's annoying when you see "discussion" is blue, click on it hoping to read some discussion, and just get a template telling you that it's a talk page, but no actual talk. Not quite as annoying as Wikipedia where the template also tells you that "This article about a (whatever) is part of the WikiProject:Whatever series of articles." But still very annoying. solar penguin tooSquawk!penguin eggs 12:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Five minus one equals four When I first saw this template, I thought, 'Um, OK, what is this doing on Uncyclopedia?' If a template makes you think that, chances are it doesn't belong. -- Big_Brother_Sig_Part_1.pngCUN PLS VFH (MiniluvMinitrueUnsoc) 19:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Against - It scares me for some reason. --AAA! (AAAA) 01:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects