Forum:Approval is the new Ballmer

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Approval is the new Ballmer
Note: This topic has been unedited for 6425 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


Rust-oleum.jpg
This page has been approved by a physical representation of Irony

This template approves a page talking about how crappy approval templates are. How paradoxically hilarious!

By which I mean all these piece of shit "Jesus approves this page", "Oscar Wilde approves this page", and "Mugabe doesn't approve this page" templates are replacing {{Ballmer}} and {{Kanye}} as the popular yet incredibly shitty canned humor templates that a bunch of unfunny assholes are planting on every fucking page they come across, making it impossible for me to read five articles without seeing the same fucking lameass joke I just read five minutes ago. And thanks for putting them at the top of the page, too, because obviously when I search for Hitler the first thing I want to see is Invader Fuckin' Zim. I'm sure the person who decreed the one-hundredth Jesus Approved page or made the fifteenth approval template did so with this smug grin like he'd just made an original joke that nobody'd ever thought of before, and is just imagining everyone discovering and consequently laughing at the concept of an Uncyclopedia article getting approved by someone. What an asshole.

Unless public opinion has changed since the last time we decided what to do with overused canned humor templates, I'm proposing that we do the same thing: Remove the 99% that are there for no reason at all and/or aren't funny, move the rest in-line, and discourage template spam by remorselessly huffing 'em. Here are the guilty parties:

If anyone knows any reason why these templates should not be deleted, speak now or forever shut the hell up. --EvilZak 08:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to kill ban the creators/spreaders of these templates. I'm busy today, so how's tomorrow? Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 13:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete all but Jesus, Minitrue, and Crimethink-they were here to begin with. -sighn7.png 14:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Man, that {{NRV}} one is the worst. I've never seen an article improved by adding that one. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and some are ok, as long as they start being put at the bottom of articles. Putting them all right at the top is just annoying. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The Mugabe templates make me laugh, but maybe that's because I haven't seen them three dozen times. But I agree with Spang -- if they start moving to the bottom, I have no trouble with them.--Procopius 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, as the Wickedpedia page describes, is "legislation intended to hamper the activities of any potential terrorists in Australia". The bill proposed several amendments to the then Australian Sedition Law, particularly in relation to "Good Faith" [1], that, according to some critics, would "threaten freedom of speech and expression and threaten to drive legitimate discussion about the war in Iraq and the war on terrorism underground" [2]. Due to increasing public pressure, some protection was added for the reporting of news and matters of public interest before the bill was passed into law in 6th December, 2005, one day after Template:GOODFAITH and Template:CRIMEFAITH were built. Today, the amended Australian Sedition Law is still much viewed as a threat to free speech [3]. So, are Goodfaith/Crimefaith just tired old Joe? You decide! -- The Colonel (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Crush 'em! I've never liked these templates, not leastwise because I've always suspected people add them to try and intimidate n00bz into thinking the pages shouldn't be touched. If it were me, I'd delete the IrkOK, Vegeta, Gbapprove, ACS, and Communists templates outright, along with at least one of the Mugabe templates (preferably the "evil" one), and remove the rest of them from at least half the articles they're on... And move whatever's left down to the bottom, except in a small number of special cases. I'll even help, if you're still at it by the time I get home from work!  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Feel free to rip all other templates apart when the time comes, but, by all means, leave the oz-related stuff alone. Read the explanation above. -- The Colonel (talk) 03:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Heh, don't worry - I read that, and I concur, actually. As long as they're only used in articles about Australia, they're not really doing any harm, though it would still be nice if they weren't up at the top of each one... (Is there a reason why they're all grey and dreary-looking, btw? They almost make you not want to read the article!)
Anyhoo, we just have to all be more diligent about keeping special-purpose templates from becoming general-purpose annoyances.  c • > • cunwapquc? 03:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa, spot on with the intimidation, I didn't touch any article labelled Bat Fuck Insane because of the description for two weeks, until I got the joke.--Wit (tawk) 06:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm for deletion of all but the 1984 ones, then more selective hand-cleaning of the Jesus and Kansas ones down to only the most applicable pages (I may also make a couple small exceptions for the communist one). They do serve a purpose on some pages; the problem is that they are overused and not funny when overused. Possibly consider just subst'ing and deleting the template itself (except the 1984 ones) to make it harder for the less-than-intelligent n00bs from template-spamming. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with Dawg. Here's the problem: While these templates are obviously misused (putting Template:Black Jesus on Oscar Wilde), they, like all jokes, have their select places in maybe 10 or 20 articles (out of a whopping 18000) where they are funny. For example, Template:IrkOK has its place on Invader Zim and alien related pages, and Template:Gbapprove is part of several jokes which I personally find funny (Danny Phantom jokes mainly). I put "Add your favorite template to every article you see" on HowTo:Get Banned in order to avoid stuff like this. We shouldn't punish the entire Uncyclopedia because of the actions of a select few. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 12:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I also support the only-at-the-bottom placement of templates, except 1984 templates, which are not technically 'endorsement' templates, but rather they are joke templates with a vague connection to endorsement. There is always a balance, though, you can't really flat prohibit anything because there's the possibility it is funny in specific instances, but if it is overused it is clearly not really that funny to begin with. That's the nature of these things, and striking a balance without setting rules is the way to do this. If anyone is up for carefully reviewing the use of these templates and recommending removals or additions, I'd certainly appreciate it. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 22:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have begun my purge + banning. If you are responsible for spamming one of these templates around, you might want to preempt my banning you by removing it from all related articles. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:28, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I took care of most of the Mugabe-spamming, I think... What a mess! I would have done more, but I got bogged down in general reformatting, I'm afraid.  c • > • cunwapquc? 04:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually most of these templates DO get rather boring. However, the Jesus, Black Jesus, Kansas, 1984, Communists, Confederacy, Ghostbusters, and Irken ones are pretty funny when used properly, and ONLY when used properly. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 16:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Have we reached any consensus yet?

Don't get me wrong here but it doesn't seem to me that Famine has paid any attention at all to my comments. Template:GOODFAITH and Template:CRIMEFAITH were nothing but a joke on Australia Sedition Law and used only sparingly on pages such as Amanda Vanstone, Peter Reith and those Australian politics related pages. In fact, I didn't even go and put them in all those pages in the first place - other people did, and obviously they liked the templates. I hate to say this, but, Famine, look! How many times have I seen you writing things about Australian politics? You can't just go and delete those templates because you are just tired of seeing their look-alikes and reluctant to take note of the subject matter in question. It's offensive enough to see them being mentioned here as part of the irrelevant "incredibly shitty canned humor", and it was even more so when you decided to push your own personal agenda by carrying it out without proper consensus, not to mention the fact was that you never cared about the ins and outs of Australian politics. I am totally disappointed by you and your sheer egotism, despite the many good things you have contributed this wiki as a whole.

-- The Colonel (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One may ask: So, where did people spam all these templates?

According to Famine's contribution list, these were the only places Template:GOODFAITH and Template:CRIMEFAITH were located in:

  1. 07:45, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m UnNews:Big Brother calls to send "Big Brother" to the memory hole (detemplating) (top)
  2. 07:45, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m WorkChoices (detemplating) (top)
  3. 07:44, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m History of Australia (detemplating) (top)
  4. 07:43, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Amanda Vanstone (detemplating) (top)
  5. 07:42, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Aborigine Apology Acceptance Act (detemplating) (top)
  6. 07:42, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Peter Reith (detemplating) (top)
  7. 07:41, 23 August 2006 (hist) (diff) m Liberal Party of Australia (detemplating) (top)

-- The Colonel (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

One may also ask: What did those templates look like?

Unfortunately, I was not cautious enough to backup the wiki codes and now the only way to retrieve those templates is to ask one of the admins.

-- The Colonel (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://en.uncyclomedia.org/wiki/Template:GOODFAITH and http://en.uncyclomedia.org/wiki/Template:CRIMEFAITH – Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.74.165 (talk • contribs)

One may also ask: Is it fair to say that Famine was "reluctant to take note of the subject matter in question"?

My opinion is yes.

Take Liberal Party of Australia as an example. Liberal Party was the one who came up with the Anti-Terrorism bill, and obviously, someone was clever enough to put a CRIMEFAITH (i.e. violation of Anit-sedition Law) template there and add an OW quote underneath that said "I support the Liberal Party and solemnly swear I am not saying this out of fear of being called seditious otherwise. Please don't hurt me...." Now with the template removed half of the joke is gone. Anyway, if you have a different opinion please don't hasitate to quote one of the "many pages" these templates were once spammed to and make your voice heard. After all, no one gives a damn about what you say.

-- The Colonel (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comments here

Retrieved from "https://en.uncyclopedia.co/w/index.php?title=Forum:Approval_is_the_new_Ballmer&oldid=1027106"