Forum:Trim back the Oscar Wilde Project?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Trim back the Oscar Wilde Project?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5173 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Background

This week I reacted in horror to the fact that, in over 100 articles, an Oscar Wilde quote was stored in a separate file, evidently for a single use. On VFD, I successfully argued for the deletion of {{OWQ}}, through which it was being read and inserted into a mainspace article:

This is perverse. Used in Linux Incorporated, the OWQ (Oscar Wilde Quote) template uses the single argument as the name of a page underneath Template:Wilde. In the case of Linux Incorporated, it references Template:Wilde/Linux Incorporated, a Wilde-ism template destined for use in exactly one page. This is a bizarre impulse to store all the Wilde-isms in the same place for no discernible reason. Instead, these quotes should be manually inserted into the page for which they were written. Spıke Ѧ 10:32 11-Oct-10

PS--Some of the templates beneath Template:Wilde may show no pages linking to them, if they are used only via {{OWQ}}, and some may have been intended for use on a single page that has already been deleted. Now, how many bytes did this technique save? Spıke Ѧ 11:13 11-Oct-10

(Rest of vote in Uncyclopedia:Votes_for_deletion/Archive218#:Template:OWQ, including notable material by Mnbvcxz trying to tip me off that there was a lot of stuff here tied together.)

{{OWQ}} was deleted, the 112 pages broke, I started the scut work and then, as I told Mnbvcxz:

I manually transcluded the respective Wildeism into the first three pages (Jane Austen, Bowling, and Nuclear explosion) and listed the Wildeism template on QVFD, but now see that the Wildeism template is used in a digest of all supposed Wilde quotes. The intent (as you probably already know) is to provide a complete, alphabetical list of everything we say Wilde said, on any page. As you touched on on VFD, this is Uncyclopedia taking its fabrications too seriously, but we ought not to proceed without wider input, and perhaps should not have deleted {{OWQ}}. Spıke Ѧ 19:04 13-Oct-10

The same Wildeisms are read by {{OWQL}} into this digest of quotations.

(Epilog: I requested (on VFD, to notify the voters who also supported the deletion) that {{OWQ}}, and the related templates, be undeleted, and this has now been done.) Spıke Ѧ 19:24 18-Oct-10

Proposed options

• Undo the change and regenerate {{OWQ}} from backup now done, or

• Complete the change and abandon the notion of assembling in one place everything that we say Wilde said on any page in Uncyclopedia.

Your opinions, and especially knowledge of Uncyclopedia history, are welcome. Spıke Ѧ 17:25 14-Oct-10

Responses

Delete. Anything to cut out the useless,duplicate stuff on this site. Shouldn't be kept, certainly not on the grounds that it was funny in 2007. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 18:31, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Comment. Is this not the sort of thing for which the Template:Wilde template was intended? Although including every article on which it's used in the category seems rather silly to me, innit used to keep all the quotes together, anyhow? (And I still want this silly heap of excess templates or whatever's going on removed. I mentioned that at some point, right?) ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101014 - 19:04 (UTC)

In an article Poi, coding {{OWQ|Poi}} grabbed Template:Wilde/Poi and inserted it in the article, through {{Wilde}}. Many, many other pages hard-code it themselves using {{Wilde}}. As above, my gripe is not with {{Wilde}} but in putting part of an article somewhere else. But the all-in-one-place Wilde quotation page grabs the same quotes using {{OWQL}}. Spıke Ѧ 19:11 14-Oct-10

Okay, that's just stupid. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101014 - 19:30 (UTC)

It's not stupid if you want all these quotes to appear in two places: The article that uses them, and another article with nothing but quotes. Any page that uses Template:Wilde gets included in Category:Oscar Wildeizms, so you can use the Category to see where all of the Wildeizms are. Do we need to see them all at once? Spıke Ѧ 19:59 14-Oct-10

It is when it seems like it should be possible to make the template transclude anything that it is used for to another page without having separate pages for each thing... granted, my seems like it should be possible sense only has a 73% accuracy, but still. I'll go away and stop talking about things of which I actually know absolutely nothing, now. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101014 - 20:37 (UTC)

Delete. This is legacy-cruft, and an encouragement to the uninitiated to do things that are cliche as hell and no longer funny. --Mn-z 20:59, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

Delete. Oh, and we should kill it. Did I mention we should kill it? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101015 - 21:31 (UTC)

Delete. For the record, my opinion is that Uncyclopedia assembling a gazeteer of what various articles say Oscar Wilde said, is Uncyclopedia taking itself too seriously. Pieces of mainspace articles should not be hidden in folders somewhere else for the sake of this angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin project. Spıke Ѧ 01:41 17-Oct-10

Keep. Uncyclopedia takes itself too seriously anyway. -- Style  Guide 18:24, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Instead of deleting it

Take a snapshot of it now and lock it in place as a historical document. (Link this forum & also have a stern warning that this meme is now dead and further edits will no longer be tolerated.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  14 Oct 2010 ~ 23:47 (UTC)

Or all the 2 people that are bothered about this could get wikipedia accounts and go there to edit and rid us of their pointless meddling.--Sycamore (Talk) 14:23, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, it is hard to take a snapshot of "it" as it is in over a hundred different files. Everything remains accessible in the History; moreover, the text of the quotes will remain, in each respective mainspace article. It should still be possible to assemble a report on all Wildeizms by searching for uses of {{Wilde}}. Sycamore, why does it seem that your opinion on every editorial issue boils down to what you think of other Uncyclopedians? Spıke Ѧ 01:47 17-Oct-10

And what do you have against pointless meddling? Without pointless meddling, engineers wouldn't have jobs and we'd all be living in agrarian society... *flails* Even the stuff that turns out not to be pointless started out pointless, you know. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101017 - 01:49 (UTC)

UN:VFD#Making up Oscar Wilde quotes

Mnbvcxz has now listed another piece of the puzzle, Making up Oscar Wilde quotes, on VFD, but recommended that the nomination spend extra time there in view of the possible controversy. Spıke Ѧ 13:22 17-Oct-10