Talk:The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence
from VfD:
Do we really need this? yes Mikkalai 05:17, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I like the Simpsons, but this is just too much detail. Wikipedia is not an episode guide, and if we keep things like this that's exactly what it will become. Plus, having an encyclopedia article on it sucks all the humor out of it. Delete. [[User:Livajo|Ливай | ☺]] 05:26, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Please, no one-time jokes as articles. Rmhermen 05:46, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Why shouldn't Wikipedia be an episode guide if that's what people want ? --Centauri 05:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)\
- Why can't Wikipedia be a porno site, or an MP3 download site, or a dictionary, if that's "what the people want"? Wikipedia has a clear purpose: it's an encyclopedia. Some things belong in encyclopedias, others don't. IMHO a single, non-notable joke on The Simpsons is not encyclopedic. --Szyslak 06:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias were and are conceived, created and intended as repositories of universal knowledge. Nothing has changed in that respect in the last 200 years except the ability to actually deliver on that intention thanks to the wonders of digital data storage. All knowledge is by definition, encyclopedic, no matter how apparently trivial, or apparently irrelevant to you =- and yes that includes mp3s, porn and obscure articles on higher mathematics that only 3 people in the entire world are ever likely to read. --Centauri 07:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- IIRC the root of the word "encyclopedia" is "a general course of education." My personal tolerance for what belongs on Wikipedia is pretty high for the most part—I voted to keep previous VfD articles like List of Republican celebrities and List of notable eccentrics, and I was in the minority in both cases. But I think the inherent purpose of Wikipedia puts some loosely-defined limits on what is appropriate here. A typical Wikipedian looking for information on The Simpsons wouldn't find this interesting, and neither would most fans. As a hardcore Simpsons fan, it seems to me that this is a minor joke in a minor episode, and only the most extreme fan would really find it useful. It's ridiculous for someone to say "all knowledge" belongs in Wikipedia. If that's true, maybe I should write an article about how many times I went to the bathroom yesterday or how big my MP3 collection is. Is that not knowledge? And doesn't all knowledge belong in Wikipedia? --Szyslak 09:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well I am certainly no "hardcore" Simpsons fan and I find it interesting. Evidently others do too. Does that make us atypical? When I see people making assumptions about what others do and don't find "interesting" alarm bells start ringing. How can you possibly know? It is ridiculous to say that the only valid criteria for assessing worth are your own. --Centauri 13:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Right now the vote tally is 19 delete, 2 keep. If I'm trying to impose my personal will on Wikipedia, I have a lot of company. It isn't really about whether this article's "interesting," it's about whether it's encyclopedic. (That was a poor choice of words on my part, by the way.) This information might belong in an article about the episode this joke appears in. Then again, there are those who think "episode guides" don't belong on Wikipedia (I'm not one of them). There's a wide variety of views on what's appropriate for Wikipedia. Right now, it looks like a good number of Wikipedians support deleting this article, not because they want to "censor" WP but because they feel, for whatever reason, that deleting this article would make Wikipedia a better place. From what I gather, much of the Wikipedia community thinks there should be some criteria of "notability." Obviously, that can be a subjective term. But that's why we have mechanisms like Votes for Deletion, to reach consensus over issues like that. There are "notable" one-off Simpsons jokes (Worker and Parasite, for example). But in my opinion, this isn't one of them. --Szyslak 20:16, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Well I am certainly no "hardcore" Simpsons fan and I find it interesting. Evidently others do too. Does that make us atypical? When I see people making assumptions about what others do and don't find "interesting" alarm bells start ringing. How can you possibly know? It is ridiculous to say that the only valid criteria for assessing worth are your own. --Centauri 13:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- IIRC the root of the word "encyclopedia" is "a general course of education." My personal tolerance for what belongs on Wikipedia is pretty high for the most part—I voted to keep previous VfD articles like List of Republican celebrities and List of notable eccentrics, and I was in the minority in both cases. But I think the inherent purpose of Wikipedia puts some loosely-defined limits on what is appropriate here. A typical Wikipedian looking for information on The Simpsons wouldn't find this interesting, and neither would most fans. As a hardcore Simpsons fan, it seems to me that this is a minor joke in a minor episode, and only the most extreme fan would really find it useful. It's ridiculous for someone to say "all knowledge" belongs in Wikipedia. If that's true, maybe I should write an article about how many times I went to the bathroom yesterday or how big my MP3 collection is. Is that not knowledge? And doesn't all knowledge belong in Wikipedia? --Szyslak 09:46, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Encyclopedias were and are conceived, created and intended as repositories of universal knowledge. Nothing has changed in that respect in the last 200 years except the ability to actually deliver on that intention thanks to the wonders of digital data storage. All knowledge is by definition, encyclopedic, no matter how apparently trivial, or apparently irrelevant to you =- and yes that includes mp3s, porn and obscure articles on higher mathematics that only 3 people in the entire world are ever likely to read. --Centauri 07:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Why can't Wikipedia be a porno site, or an MP3 download site, or a dictionary, if that's "what the people want"? Wikipedia has a clear purpose: it's an encyclopedia. Some things belong in encyclopedias, others don't. IMHO a single, non-notable joke on The Simpsons is not encyclopedic. --Szyslak 06:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. DJ Clayworth 05:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, Smithers. Wolfman 05:57, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. One-joke entry, no potential beyond that. --Calton 05:58, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- To answer Mikkalai, no we don't. Delete. Antandrus 06:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Too short to meet the traditional definition of fancruft, but it's definitely cruft. --Szyslak 06:15, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep! This is what Wikipedia's all about. It should be part of an article on the episode in general, but in the meantime I have no problem with keeping it as is. I really liked this article. Everyking 07:36, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's not even significant in the context of the TV series, let alone in general. iMeowbot 09:28, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete The joke was not bad, but having articles for every cartoon joke? Pie in the face article? --Gene s 09:12, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- So maybe WP can be an episode guide, but an entry about a fictional award in a single Simpsons episode that had no influence on the rest of the series isn't encyclopedic. Delete. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 09:55, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Move any useful content to Homer J. Simpson and Delete. utcursch 10:00, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. No joke repository. Gtabary 10:14, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, nn Wyss 10:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete and then award yourself a Wikipedia Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence. P Ingerson 13:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Minutiae and Evil. Geogre 13:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete article about a joke, trivia. Gazpacho 14:25, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial. Wikipedia is not the place for the world repository for one-off jokes in the Simpsons. --Bucephalus 14:39, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I would support merging and redirecting all these one-off jokes to articles on the episodes. Do not, however, keep as its own article. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:40, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: DCEdwards1966 17:45, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete --fvw* 19:54, 2004 Dec 16 (UTC)
- Move information to episode article Brother Can You Spare Two Dimes? --Kaizersoze 20:19, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Only from a single episode - Andre Engels 02:32, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Harmless redirect to Brother Can You Spare Two Dimes? Besides being important enough to the episode, the musical number about the Award also lives as a track on a Simpsons album. Samaritan 03:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 03:25, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- If we're going to have an article on the episode, it should go there. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Mark Richards 21:18, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete non-existent award from fiction. Xtra 08:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: subtrivial fancruft. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:46, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect to the article for the episode. Even if it had been mentioned in any other episode other than the one it appeared in, the entire point of the joke is that it was of no real significance. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
end moved discussion
Start a discussion about improving the The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "The Montgomery Burns Award for Outstanding Achievement in the Field of Excellence" page.
