All the following articles were found in five minutes of punching the random button.

For example, Purvis Young. A BLP that looks like a really bad CV, combined with advertising.

Are articles about record albums usually this and this crappy?

Yes, I'm sure Hunny Madu is a very nice lady.

Don't you think a Hollywood film director as famous as Robert Aldrich deserves a better article?

Needing refs: Joe Cascarella, Zirl parish church, Maja Marijana, RTV Å abac, and Bozhou.

Apalachee Bay refers us back to the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Why does Aishiteiru to itte kure contain two short paragraphs about the actual show, plus a cast list, but the bulk of the article consists of the lyrics to the theme song, repeated in katakana, romanized Japanese, and English?

Does an "encyclopedia" really need this? Or this?

Plus, about 60% of the articles I found randomly were stubs.
Perhaps this is one of the Hidden Rules of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, the list of Battletech characters is massively detailed and encyclopedic.

And you are surprised by this, why...

I'm not surprised. I'm just posting some mockery for the weekend.

As I've said before, Wikipedia is committing falsity in advertising.
They should be called something more descriptive. "Nerdipedia".
Or "Fanboypedia".

"Fanboypedia" would do nicely (as in Bite Me Fan Boy!)
Though I must confess, I do enjoy Memory Alpha and the Wookiepedia.

"Anyfuckincuntcaneditandinsertrandomshitepedia"

The first one, definitely yes; the second, probably not (if so, it needs some assertion of notability). Funnily enough, the first one is up for deletion, but the second has been left alone. It's a curious thing about Wikipedia: you can write an article on a current event, even with 100 sources from major publications, and some people will furiously argue for deletion, but you can write an article on some ship that's nothing but a list of design specifications, and nobody will say a word.





It's always easier to complain about the accomplishments of others than it is to make the effort to match them. If the article on some cartoon characters is better than the articles for subjects of greater traditional importance, whose fault is that? I'm certainly not going to blame the people who wrote about the cartoon characters.

Looks like the deletionists took a bite out of Battletech. For example, the link to Victor_Steiner-Davion leads right back to the list.

Meanwhile battletech.wikia.com just happens to be ready in case anyone wants to move some of that lost content.

Looks like Eric Barbour is "saying a word".

As for Kevin Rudd: WP:UNDUE violation of course. Detailed material like this belongs in a real biography of the man, a few pages out of a few hundred. Sitting here, it looks more like a puff piece written by the man's sycophantic supporters.

That you support this kind of time-and-talent wasting bullshit is no surprise. Come 'on back when every page of every world leader's day-timer is given excruciating, detailed, coverage.



Nitwit.

1. Articles on fictional characters are far, far, easier to write than computational chemistry or gene sequencing. I bet that Cla68 occasionally has to go to a library for some of the material he cites for his military history articles. Whoa! How ... 19th century of him!

2. If the employees are goofing off, scribbling on the walls or smoking dope while on the job, and the managers are just encouraging it and more, then it's the fucking managers fault.



It's now clear you simply can not understand the problem: they write about cartoons because it is easy, and likely all they know.

The ostensible goals of Wikipedia would be achieved if instead of creating an atmosphere of intellectual laziness you instead challenged your editors. You say to them: "We need better articles on statistics, not cartoon characters. Please do not write about your favorite Saturday morning television show: go to school, do your homework, go outside and play, or otherwise remove yourself from the terminal before you. Almost any other activity is better than you wasting time here. Get a life: you'll be a better person in the long run, and in a few years, when you've found your calling and passion, come 'on back and tell us all about it."

Remember, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not just a pile of utterly puerile, useless information.

But doing that would almost certainly reduce participation, which is, of course, the single most important measure of Wikipedia's success. Nothing, and I do mean nothing, can be allowed to interfere with maximum participation in the Wikipedia Experience.

When you work on a project, you work within a certain framework of assumptions. Wikipedia isn't the project you want it to be, and it never will be--you have fundamental disagreements with the project's underlying ideas. So go elsewhere, or be satisfied with Britannica and other traditional encyclopedias.

Well, the Japanese version doesn't have the lyrics. The song has it's own article, but doesn't contain the lyrics either. So, I'm at a loss.

By the way, Dreams Come True is one of the few J-pop bands with a lead singer who can actually sing and therefore isn't excruciatingly painful to listen to.

Yes. Little things like normal meanings of English words.



Let us not forget the project itself has essentially told you to take a hike. This strikes me as excellent evidence that the project isn't what you think it should be. So when are you going to leave? You ought to feel privileged about this too, since few other Wikipediots will receive such an honest message.

The word "encyclopedia"? Well, what is the defining characteristic of an encyclopedia? If a thing is defined strictly according to the form of its predecessors, then we have to make all sorts of adjustments to the language. As things evolve into more advanced forms, is it necessary to have a new word at each stage of the process? Furthermore, even if we accepted that Wikipedia is not in fact an "encyclopedia", which would make more sense: to alter Wikipedia to match the traditional form of an encyclopedia (which would also presumably require taking it off the Internet and publishing it in thick hardcover books), or to simply redefine Wikipedia as something else (an "information reference", for example)?



I feel confident that my views are based soundly on the fundamental ideas underpinning the project. There's a big difference between being on the losing side of some political kerfuffle and standing in opposition to the project's basic ideas.

At its most general an encyclopedia is not knowledge but the portal to, or an index of, the knowledge. Every instance to date has been exactly that. So viewed, it is a huge waste of time on both the editors and readers part to pollute it with frivolous detail like the exact contents of a square meter of the Earth at such and such latitude and longitude.

I strongly suggest that you get off your ass and go to a place where a large building is being built. Watch carefully as they dig a huge hole, then fill it with concrete and then, once a foundation is in place, the rest of the structure is erected in a careful orchestration of effort and cleverness.

Only in your kind of bizarro-land do people build the penthouse suites first, with gold fittings and velvet curtains, then try to hold them up (with Popsicle sticks?) as you build underneath them. Or whatever foolishness you have in mind that amounts to a supremely narrowly short-term, viciously greedy, and excessively wasteful construction strategy.

Do you really enjoy stealing people's time, wasting their labor?



The difference is only important to the ideologue's mind. Operatively, there is none: you've been asked to leave in almost all ways, and basic politeness (and common sense) says you really should.

Of course, I'm only digging in here because you told me to take my "views" and go elsewhere ... strikes me it should be with you as well, and this is true whether or not said "views" are in complete agreement with the "fundamental ideas".

In any case, my personal prediction is that if you were given free reign at the project, it would just drive the current standards of gross inefficiency to even more ludicrous levels. That you would probably define this as "tremendous success" is just another example of English-abuse...

Wups! 99% copyvio - now baleeted

Thank you, nice lady!

Gee, this little, simple trick worked out nicely!

Y'know, if I had lots and lots of time, I could do it for hours every day--and find
thousands of crap articles. Every day.

Wikipedia's Jimbo-suckers ought to be ecstatic that I do not have time to
post all of their atrocities. They could thank me and everything.