Dumb Shit on Wikipedia

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Positron said:
Everyone who reads about movies in Wikipedia has seen this sign.

View attachment 148802

To be fair this is often a valid complaint, but how come articles on TV cartoons and comic books can be as long and spergy as the authors like?
Click to expand...
Because there are some details not everyone needs to know about, I guess?

I mean if they really wanted to do so, why not just make a wiki on that particular show/movie/comic/other piece of media?

Uncanny Valley said:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_inflation
Click to expand...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_fetishism
 
  • Feels
  • Autistic
Reactions: FuckYou and Uncanny Valley
AnOminous said:
Episode lists aren't that bad. What's bad is when they have separate articles for every episode, character, and anything else related to some autistic thing, which in fact they used to have.
Click to expand...
I don't like when they have individual articles for episodes. I guess I'm just a layman, but it seems to me episode 4x11 of MLP shouldn't get its own page unless that specific episode has some kind of cultural impact on more people than just the spergs who give it an article on the MLP wiki in the first place.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Elim Garak, UnsufficentBoobage, GandT and 3 others
Alec Benson Leary said:
I don't like when they have individual articles for episodes. I guess I'm just a layman, but it seems to me episode 4x11 of MLP shouldn't get its own page unless that specific episode has some kind of cultural impact on more people than just the spergs who give it an article on the MLP wiki in the first place.
Click to expand...

Some episodes of animated series do get this treatment. For instance, Scott Tenorman Must Die. Of course, a cartoon where a kid murders another kid's parents and feeds them to him in a chili to get revenge for ripping him off by selling him his discarded pubic hair sort of has a cultural impact outside the series itself. I'm not sure how many other South Park episodes have qualified for this, but Trapped in the Closet (the Scientology episode) also did.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Mr. Awesome Man, GoldfishGroup and 5 others
Apparently for years now, some nobody named Richard Madenfort has been adding his name to the personnel listing on albums and songs, claiming he was a member of Alice Cooper's band and has played with Carrie Underwood, and on the TV show Nashville.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikip...oard/Incidents#Richard_Madenfort.2FRick_Marty

How much free time can a person have to spend years, years, misleadingly adding your name to other artists' articles?
 
  • Winner
  • Informative
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, GoldfishGroup, DadaistVizor and 4 others
Tehshigelisok said:
Apparently for years now, some nobody named Richard Madenfort has been adding his name to the personnel listing on albums and songs, claiming he was a member of Alice Cooper's band and has played with Carrie Underwood, and on the TV show Nashville.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Richard_Madenfort.2FRick_Marty

How much free time can a person have to spend years, years, misleadingly adding your name to other artists' articles?
Click to expand...
Doing that for years is a little disturbing.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, The Pink Panther, Mr. Awesome Man and 5 others
Jungle Princess said:
Doing that for years is a little disturbing.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is not the only time I've seen this happen. For many years, an anonymous editor kept adding his own name to a couple Olivia Newton-John song articles, claiming that he sang backing vocals on those songs. This even got to the point that a couple other sources quoted the wrong name. I added a source verifying the correct name of the backing vocalist (which was not hard to corroborate, since the correct backing vocalist has his own article), but the anonymous editor kept reverting it to his name. There were times when he would revert it to his name not even a minute after I fixed it. And he kept editing from different IP addresses, so an IP block was completely ineffectual. Temporarily protecting the article didn't work, because he would hit it up again only minutes after the lock expired. The only result was to permanently semi-protect both articles from being edited by anonymous users.

I could see why someone might do something like this once or twice, especially to a lesser known song. After all, the article is likely to have fewer eyes watching it, and so it might go undetected for longer. It's not like this person's saying they sang backing vocals for, say, Justin Timberlake. But to keep re-inserting yourself again and again, for years? Clearly the sign of someone with too much time on their hands.
 
  • Feels
  • Informative
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Elwood P. Dowd, GandT and 1 other person
AnOminous said:
Episode lists aren't that bad. What's bad is when they have separate articles for every episode, character, and anything else related to some autistic thing, which in fact they used to have.
Click to expand...
They've really cut down on the character articles, to be fair. For example, in Family Guy, there's one episode where Peter learns that his real father is an Irish drunk named Mickey McFinnegan. Mickey appears in exactly one episode, and even then it's only towards the end. Regardless, he had his own Wikipedia article for a while before they finally decided he didn't need it. EDIT: oops, quoted the wrong post.

Similarly, they used to have lots of articles on minor or one-off characters from cartoons. Some examples that come to mind include a character named Tak who appeared in one episode of Invader ZIM, the South Park version of Saddam Hussein, and Willy Wonka's dentist father from the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory movie. The last one isn't a cartoon, but it still illustrates my point.

They also used to have this thing where they'd have two different articles for the same character if they had an alter ego or something. I already mentioned in a post how the demon from the Exorcist used to have two different articles for its real self, and an alias it used briefly in the first movie. Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader once had separate articles, as did Beavis and the Great Cornholio from Beavis and Butthead.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Mr. Awesome Man, GandT and 5 others
Some classic Wikipedia hoaxes. Many of these were up unchallenged for years:


A fictional girlfriend for Gregor Mendel. Yes, the peapod guy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Morgan_Dee_Voon


Fictional TV show about OP’s cat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Olimar_The_Wondercat


A fictional murder case ala Dateline.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Murder_of_Andre_Marshall


Fictional torture device Phil would love to have:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Crocodile_shears


A fake war that got a “good article” status:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Bicholim_conflict


A fictional war in which Michigan’s Upper Peninsula attempted to secede from the USA. Surprisingly detailed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia/Upper_Peninsula_War


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia
 
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Carpenter Trout, UnsufficentBoobage, Elwood P. Dowd and 4 others
millais said:
Any good "edit war" type drama on Donald Trump's page?
Click to expand...
They've been fighting over what photo the article should use for months, usually trying to use the worst looking photos they could find (meanwhile the Hillary article kept an 8-year-old photo).

They just put this one in.

upload_2016-11-10_21-56-6.png
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Elim Garak, DadaistVizor, GandT and 3 others
Hellfire said:
They've been fighting over what photo the article should use for months, usually trying to use the worst looking photos they could find (meanwhile the Hillary article kept an 8-year-old photo).

They just put this one in.

View attachment 152473
Click to expand...
They'll be fucked when he gets his presidential photo/portrait done and convention goes that they'll have to use that.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BlueSpark, GandT, DadaistVizor and 1 other person
  • Winner
Reactions: UnsufficentBoobage, Whatisgoingon, ICametoLurk and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back