Forum:The bigger not the better

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The bigger not the better

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3996 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

I have been a little out of ideas for new articles these days. So I went into thinking about templates. One thing that concerns me is the damn big articles. I'm not talking about the ones purposely made for you to read just the first lines, as The Song That Never Ends or Long article. And also not the big yet funny lists, as List of weapons that don't exist, but should. I'm talking about Flying Spaghetti Monster, the archetypical mamooth article, totally unreadable and totally sucking in its current state - It was an ungrateful surprise when I first met this godzilla waiting for some fun.

So, my brave comrades, I ask you three questions:

1. Is there a template and category for this kind of article?

2. If there is not, may I create them?

3. How shall we deal with the monsters? Rewrite? VFD?

Regards, herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 23:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Something that has always bothered me, what do you people have against huge articles? Are they really unfunny or do you just prefer 3-paragraph, one-joke articles that you read in about 2 minutes and chuckle once at?

In my personal opinion, the longer an article is, the more chances there are to A) randomly scroll through and find something funny you never noticed before, and B) serve as an invitation for n00bs to add new sections without screwing up entire articles. Leave as is if they're big, they're big, Doesn't matter. Mr. Briggs Inc. 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Eh?

The larger an article becomes, the more likely it will become unfocused, aimless, and bloated. Most of our quality articles are consistent throughout and have a sense of flow to them that a bloated article lacks. This is one of the biggest reasons why we discourage list-based articles; it's too easy to add on irrelevant, less-than-funny claptrap.

NeedABrain, we currently don't have a category specifically for these sort of articles, but it's certainly a good idea. As for templates, {{cleanup}} fits well enough. Feel free to create additional templates as needed.

The best way I've found to fix a wandering article is to split it into cohesive sections and give each of those sections its own page. You can also try to trim out the unfunny parts, but this could lead to edit wars and so should be approached cautiously.

Hope that helps. --Algorithm 02:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

'S a good point- there are too many articles which could have great potential (the George Bush one leaps to mind) which become ridiculously cluttered because everyone who's ever had a pseudo-quasi-semi-funny idea on the subject has added it, to the utter detriment of any kind of logical flow. --Sir Jam 09:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What about big and good articles, like Bloodbath World Cup 2006? -- Hindleyite Converse 12:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's significant that your name seems to crop up a few times in the history, I'll grant you, that is quite funny despite being a bit of a marathon. --Sir Jam 16:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that it is my article is not significant at all, just a coincidence... :) -- Hindleyite Converse 16:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, I think that may have just been a bit of article whoring- I was wondering why you were wearing that purple hat... --Sir Jam 16:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile Fisher Price continues to be a tightly focussed ball of whatever-it-is despite a hundred different people editing it.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

An Article can be long if the idea needs a long buildup or putting using it as some sort of emphasis om the joke. In fact there are loads of good reasons for articles to be long. But most are unknown. Lots of long articles are merely stretched by the author because of stub-fear. This does not maketh a good article More does it help the idea. And articles that go on for miles because pointless ad-dons suck. lots of long articles could simply be split up into 3 or more pieces to make the different subjects more accessible. -- Vosnul 15:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When reading a novel I am willing to go a chapter or two into a slow starter. When I'm reading in Intarweb mode and I hit upon a long page I read just about two sentences...and if it is not good by then I'm out of there. There are thousands of boring articles on Uncyc. I'm not interested in reading them. I suspect many other people feel the same way. That's why long articles carry an especial burden: they have to be economically written and have a sense of purpose. I don't agree that long crufty mixed-up articles should be left up because someone may find a pearl in the dung. Pearls come from oysters, not dung, and they are made a-purpose. Be an oyster and work hard on small shiny things, that's my (pointless, worthless) advice.----OEJ 18:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New Template

• Well, gentlemen, this is my idea for the template:

Template:Too Big It puts the victim into the cleanup category. Later on I will write the article about Chesty Morgan. herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do already have a busty goddess. We should change it to Sophia. But other than that, it should serve as a useful template. --User:Nintendorulez 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article is ready. Sophia is beautiful but as we're talking about too big... he he he herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 23:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

She looks like a man. Sorry dude, --Sir Zombiebaron 00:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm the first to agree, Zombie... She was a damn ugly rag. So the irony of "godess". There is a chance you can change your mind if you see the article here and her real history in the wiki related article. I found the idea particulary hilarious - the most busted porn actress of all times (starting a career in her mid-forties) the one who killed men with her breasts, saying an article is too much big. But if I'm alone, I give up and place the template in QVFD. Maybe the subject is too much obscure. herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 00:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: this template is a negative one. It's intended to carry a little - just a little - offense. This way, the uglyness is intentional. herr doktor needsAV2  [scream!] 00:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)