From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
edit Where to place it? (initial discussion in the Pee Review)
- I've just created this template and the corresponding cathegory. It's intended as a not-at-all ironic condecoration to articles of the kind bellow (I just quick-viewed them looking for some examples, maybe they can be loud-laughable and not apply to the template's definition).
- It's cute. I tried to fix the spelling and grammar. If I ever write something smart, it'll go on there.-- 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Nice! --21:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait, so this is made to mark article's with jokes that only small groups of "highly educated" people will understand? That sounds like vanity to me. But if you can find legitamate uses for this then it has a home in my arsenal of templates. --Sir Zombiebaron 02:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I thinks it's for pages that are all sciency or philosopholy 'n shit. No, I've never seen a page like that either. Still, it's good to plan ahead, just in case.-- 02:09, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- ZombieBaron: I planned it for semi-ironic use. You may remmember Mr. Jean-Luc Godard is a big dick. You can mark a page you think is the product of an intelectual wannabe, one you really think is too much smart-ass, on the contrary, one you just to want to mock becaust it's subject is too much dumb (that is, ironic use), or one with a highbrow subject with not necessarily a smart-ass approach - for example, saying as in the Wittgenstein's page that he is "David Bowie with Brains" is not random humor, but you have to know Pretty Boy Witty to understand why.
- But I'm not sure yet, maybe this is too wide and we have to found more restricted uses for it to be meaningful. Guess it's better for us to discuss a little more before starting placing it. I ask you all to edit the template's description and suggest more examples - and yet say if you agree with the examples I have posted above. herr doktor needsAraygun [scream!] 15:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- I removed it from the Gustav Mahler article. Frankly, it seems to me to be one of those templates that signals what one reader -- the one who placed the template -- thinks about an article. I see it as unnecessary editorializing: let the reader decide for himself if an article is the product of an intellectual-wannabe or a smartass, or whatever. There are places where opinions about articles are appropriate: on the discussion page, on Pee Review, and in VFD/VFH discussions. We really don't need them leading off articles. ----OEJ 02:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)