HELP ED WIN AN AWARD! Encyclopedia Dramatica is in contention for the 2nd Annual Mashable Open Web Awards for the wiki category. With your help, we can beat the Wikipedia menace! Plz vote for ED by going here; you can vote once per day, per email address, ballot stuffing encouraged! Just don't forget to confirm the vote via e-mail. VOTE OR DIE!!!

Template talk:Notcrap

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

Jump to: navigation, search

Does anyone use this for what it's meant for anymore? Dr. Park N. Stones 23:22, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • It was always a bad idea. We don't have any other negative templates - there isn't any Template:Not_a_stub or Template:Nonmasturbater. If a crap article is improved to the point that it is no longer crap (NOTE: THIS NEVER HAPPENS), simply remove the crap template (NOTE: DO NOT REMOVE THE CRAP TEMPLATE). --Scarletto the sock puppet talk to Scarletto 00:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • It is used. See Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Notcrap. I created it so that I can easily prove that an article is not crap by simply adding not into a {{crap}} inserted by the Aussie. --Lucky Pierre QD 03:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • But it is not used appropriately. All those articles are still crap. --Scarletto the sock puppet talk to Scarletto 13:53, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Clearly, they aren't. --Lucky Pierre QD 16:39, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
        • ... Yes they are. I know; I've seen it. I know it's hard to believe.. to think that our religion is false.. but it's true.. This template is placed in a lot of crap articles by butthurt pussies. You can not possibly understand.. This kind of crappiness is not expressible in words. But that's none of my business; I've actually been banned for trying to encourage people to improve articles, so whatever. Repku 01:07, 17 September 2008 (CDT)

While having this little catchall category is nice and everything, eventually we're goning to need to seperate the uncategorizeable crap from the OMG this article sucks crap.

  • There is a rat in separate.--hardvice (talk) 17:08, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a rooster in the henhouse. --Lucky Pierre QD 21:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Why I think it's a bad template

  • 1. Unfunny
  • 2. You could {{notcrap}} everything.
  • 3. It's seems to imply that an article needs no rewriting -- not just needs no attention, but is beyond further improvement.
  • 4. Sometimes a person will be the first to create an article and that first creation will be marked {{notcrap}}. However, the article must be completely rewritten.
  • 5. No other wiki already uses it to useful effect.
  • 6. This tag is for articles with no problems. Let's face it, we all have problems. Seriously, what article can't afford to lose a few pounds? Or maybe tighten up that butt or need a little augmentation here or there (if you get my drift)?
  • 7. Too many articles get tagged as "notcrap" when they're not notcrap.
  • 8. Almost every article that has gotten this tag so far is heavily smudged by the fingerprints of Quasidan. Just stalk him for a day or six and you'll notice that guy never washes his hands after using the toilet. Would you eat off those hands? I wouldn't. There must be enough crap under those nails to fertilize a Kentucky corn field and still have enough left to burn for fuel in the meth lab.
  • 9. People like XXmUrdErdoLlsXx who like to delete pages without reading them. Actions like his border on vandalism because he didn't read pages first. OK, this isn't relevant at all, but I don't care. Um... maybe it is relevant because people like XXmUrdErdoLlsXx would still blank the page even if it was marked {{notcrap}}, right? So what use is {{notcrap}}? It's not like armor plating for good articles or anything, y'know.
  • 10. This crap has helped further crap many pages that have been about to be crapped, but once they crap it the pages were crap.

I hope you'll agree with me if you don't like it. If you like it then shut the hell up because I don't care. Scarletto the sock puppet talk to Scarletto 04:42, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why I think it's a good template

  • 1. funny
  • 2. You could {{notcrap}} everything.
  • 3. It's implies that an article needs no rewriting -- not just needs no attention, but is beyond further improvement.
  • 4. A person with ultimate authority on a subject has the ability to to create an article and that first creation will be marked {{notcrap}}, so that the article must not be completely rewritten.
  • 5. No other wiki already uses it to useful effect, thus adding to our already unique status.
  • 6. This tag is for articles with no problems.
  • 7. Just the right amount of articles get tagged as "notcrap" when they're not notcrap.
  • 8. Almost every article that has gotten this tag so far is heavily smudged by the fingerprints of Quasidan, more proof that I am not crap.
  • 9. People like XXmUrdErdoLlsXx who like to delete pages without reading them. Actions like his border on vandalism because he didn't read pages first. OK, this isn't relevant at all, but I don't care. Um... maybe it is relevant because people like XXmUrdErdoLlsXx would still blank the page even if it was marked {{notcrap}}, right? This way, we can ban people like him with valid reason: "banned for disregarding notcrap".
  • 10. Australians are retarded.

I hope you'll agree with me if you don't like it. If you like it then shut the hell up because I don't care. Lucky Pierre QD 09:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] For those who don't know what this is about

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Crap

[edit] When to use this template

I have noticed that this template seems to be being used a bit moar often than it should be. It is my opinion that this template should only be used for short, simple meme articles that are, by their nature, complete and in no need of further work. To elaborate: This template should only be used on a page that consists of one-liner content and/or a picture, is relevant to our interests, and should never, by it's nature, be expanded. Some examples of genuine {{notcrap}} pages:

These articles are, by nature, fully complete, and any further change to them would most likely detract from the quality of the article. {{notcrap}} should NOT be used on full articles, genuine stubs, or (obviously) articles that are actually crap. At least, that's my take on the matter. --Blu Aardvark 06:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • WORD! Maybe we can create another template for moar liberal bandying about that -like teh Terror Level- reflects a lower level of perfection and/or a superior stub or lulz in progress. However, I'm so high on Nyquil and Xanax that the preceding may be DISC. Or maybe I'm not here at all. Harumpfh. --Kitten McNugget 10:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
    • oic...i was thinking it was used for times when somebody labels a legitimate article as {{crap}}, in retaliation. Unfortunately, I have no Xanax-related excuses for my idiocy, so DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS! --Kobe 23:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Template_talk:Notcrap"
Personal tools

Bookmark and Share