Talk:Oscar Wilde/Archive 3

Note that these discussions are also on previous archive pages. These have been reprinted here so that newcomers to these discussion can see the debates that have gone on before without having to search through the other items in the talk archives.

Oscar Wilde in modern culture

Does anyone really see the point of having this section? If we keep reverting Uncyclopedia, why do we allow equally meaningless and irrelevant stuff here? I like the Monty python sketch, but it is not really relevant to Wilde. Dabbler 03:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is reverted because some think that it's worth mentioning, but others think that Uncyclopedia is so obscure that it not many people are going to know about it. The question is whether the things being mentioned are well-known enough. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem that there is any sort of scale to measure this.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 00:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. It serves no encycloedic function. Funny though it is, very few people know about Uncyclopedia, so because it is directly related to Wilde it is mentioned as an external link. So let this die. Tyler 15:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

But does any of the modern culture section have a encyclopedic function? It seems Uncyclopedia is specifically targeted while other equally obscure or slight references are allowed to stand. I would either remove the whole thing or actually try to come to an agreement whether Uncyclopedia should be mentioned (and no, what we have now is not an agreement. Dozens of people have added the reference while the same handful repeatedly revert it citing some imaginary consensus. I don't know what definition of "consensus" that might be, but it's surely not majority opinion or grounded in consistent logic.)

I have no dog in this fight, but I've been watching it for some time now and, really, this is silly. --Franz 16:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the entire section should be deleted, and the incidents mentioned put on the artciles pertaining to them, if they're relevant enough.--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 20:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I could imagine a useful paragraph or two on the iconic use of Wilde as the archetype of a certain kind of wit widely associated with gay identity, and mentioning Morrissey and Todd Haynes in that respect would be relevant; similarly, Uncyclopedia and Monty Python parodies of Wilde's verbal style would be relevant in that context; most of these other references, as far as I know, say nothing interesting about him, they're just namechecks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been bold: References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture. I could only think of one category (Category:Popular culture); I'm sure it deserves others. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of removing the pop culture stuff from main articles. This has been problematic when I've tried it in the past. During the nomination to feature status of San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge there was discussion about the trivia section (see the bottom of the page) and it was suggested that the trivia section be moved to San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film, which I did and the article reached feature status. Recently San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge in fiction and film was successfully nominated for deletion the arguments being that it should be merged into the parent article! I often see the same problem with lists and categories. The lists come up at AFD and get deleted with the discussion that it should be a category. The category then comes up at CFD and the reason is that it should be a list. To prevent this cyclical waste of time and effort, we need to have cleared guidelines for these things and admins need to be empowered to enforce the guidelines, even over the will of the masses if they cannont raise a good argument to the contrary. WP:NOT doesn't cover this problem, and WP:TRIVIA is just an essay. -- Samuel Wantman 07:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The basic issue is that people who hang out on the "stuff for deletion" boards are people who like deleting things. The people who do featured article reviews like demanding changes to articles. I think it's basically insoluble. john k 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia?

• Oscar Wilde is a big, big deal on Uncyclopedia. Shoudl that be mentioned?

It is mentioned, on Uncyclopedia. Its a fact about Uncyclopedia, not about Oscar Wilde. Dabbler 16:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has been vandalised - now is it restored to a previous version

Ask and ye shall receive! Just go to the previous good version, click "edit" then click "save". But I've done it already. I suspect it was an accident rather than actual malice. Jeremy

The entry says "He was convicted on May 25, 1895 of "sodomy and gross indecency" and sentenced to serve two years hard labor in a London prison. There he wrote the famous poem The Ballad of Reading Gaol", but http://www.cmgww.com/historic/wilde/owbio.html says "Upon his release, Oscar wrote The Ballad of Reading Gaol, a response to the agony he experienced in prison."... so, which version is correct? 216.52.229.254 02:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I.e., did he write it while in prison, or after having been released from prison?) A5 02:37, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He did, however, write De Profundus while in Reading Gaol. Unless I remember incorrectly. Lizzie 19:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It seems that he wrote it after having left Redding Gaol; I changed it accordingly.

Vandalized? That wasn't my intent. And the second person who added the Uncyclopedia stuff wasn't me (the IP submitter). Bill Sayre 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"In the Godzilla vs. Megalon episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a character in the movie was named and frequently referenced as Oscar Wilde for wearing a very similar haircut."

If this can be included under "Wilde in modern culture" then I would contest that Uncyclopedia deserves a reference The Spith 10:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout adding that Uncyclopedia reference. As he's everywhere over there, I just thought...--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is linked to as an external reference, instead of being under "Wilde in modern culture". Why? Uncyclopedia is far more known than many of the others in that list, so it certainly is more part of "modern culture" than them, and the made-up Wilde quotes there are very prominent. 82.103.214.43 06:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

uncyclopedia

it should be noted that this guy is like a god on Uncyclopedia.--Jaysscholar 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should it be noted? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, and collecting information is kind of its purpose. Assuming Uncyclopedia is notable enough, I see no problem. Whether it is, though, is probably debatable, and I'm staying out of that argument for now. EldKatt (Talk) 08:44, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia is just notable enough that it deserves an article, and Wilde should be mentioned in that article, but Uncyclopedia should not be mentioned in the Wilde article. Wilde may be very important to people interested in Uncyclopedia, but Uncyclopedia is not generally very important to people interested in Wilde. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It's not that Wilde is considered important to them, it's the fact that phony Wilde quotes are in practiclly every article. Just mentioning that fact some where might be very inresting to someone intrested in Wilde. --The_stuart 21:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that an internet joke site makes fun of Wilde is not notable, and does not belong in this article. Please get some perspective -- the number of people worldwide who even know this Uncyclopedia website exists is probably in the thousands, at most. I am removing the mention from the body of the article -- Uncyclopedia seems to have its own article, so keep the Internet meme discussions there. --Graue 20:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ballmer's article entry references to his notability in Uncyclopedia. Something to think about...--Cumbiagermen 07:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this discrepancy to my attention. I have fixed the Ballmer page. CaveatLector^Talk 08:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Look Uncyclopedia is big enough to have it included okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamhaw (talk • contribs)

Regardless, there is still the section "Oscar Wilde in modern culture". Some of the items mentioned there are considerably more obscure than Uncyclopedia. samwaltz 13:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Samwaltz has a point there. The Starman comics? <sarcasm>Yeah, they're so well-known they have a Wikipedia article.</sarcasm> Ian Lawson? New Remorse? Hmmm?!--The Ninth Bright Shiner ^talk 21:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

See my suggestion a couple of sections down at Talk:Oscar Wilde#Oscar Wilde in modern culture. Dabbler 20:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree the uncyclopedia connection is completely non-notable and the jokes are pretty terrible to boot (go ahead say I'm biased I don't care). Quadzilla99 15:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor jokes on Uncyclopedia are not noteworthy. Wikipedia is not about to add every little quirk of various internet groups to articles. It may be worth mentioning on the wiki article on Uncyclopedia, but asside from that it has no place in this article. Rotovia (talk) 10:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia, redux

I see that Uncyclopedia-related material has now appeared in the body of the article; it was already in an external link, which I wasn't objecting to. I think this is inappropriate, and the kind of thing that it detracts from Wikipedia. Since I've reverted this before, I'm not going to be the first to revert this time, but would welcome it if someone else did. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

HEY! You should include the info on Uncyclopedia! Uncyclopedia REVOLVES around Oscar.

I went ahead and included it!

And I once again removed it per the conversation on this talk page. CaveatLector^Talk 04:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Could I ATLEAST add it to the reference section? It is IMPORTANT information, and isn't Wikipedia supposed to include ALL the information. What if someone did a report on Wilde and need to take about him in pop culture. ONE reference won't do it. The uncyclopedia info is NEEDED! Tingle

Wikipedia isn't supposed to include all information. It's supposed to include information that is considered notable and verifiable. In this case, it's far from clear. I personally lack the insight into the issue to have an opinion, but it looks like public opinion leans against mentioning this as more than an external link. EldKatt (Talk) 08:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde at Uncyclopedia.org

Shouldn't it be mentioned that he is a central person at uncyclopedia.org ?

• Sure, mention it at uncyclopedia. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• This has already been done to death on this very talk page: read it. Personally I wouldn't have a problem with it, but there is a definite consensus that this fact is not worth noting in the article. Robin Johnson 16:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• I'd say an external link to Making up Oscar Wilde quotes, but that's it. Crazyswordsman 02:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Good idea - I'll put this in. We'll see how long it lasts. Robin Johnson 13:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Someone removed the external link; it needs to be put back. Sir Crazyswordsman 06:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

No. We now have an article References to Oscar Wilde in popular culture, and clearly this belongs there, not in the article about theman himself. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Uncyclopedia.org talk

Even though I would not disagree with a reference to uncylopedia.org, I personally find the following rather... "un-encyclopedyish": "Wilde continues to provide material for venues such as Uncyclopedia, an unabashed parody of Wikipedia. (Given Wilde's love of parody, he would perhaps have encouraged rather than disparaged such a light-hearted enterprise.)". Needless to say that I believe the last line should be removed asap (the only reason Im not doing it myself is because there has already been so much discussion...), but I also believe that the note about what uncyclopedia is really does /not/ belong in the oscar wilde article. A link to the uncyclopedia.org article should suffice.--bb 14:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a POV and so violates Wikipedia policy, no discussion needed. Dabbler 14:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of Uncyclopedia stuff(yes, again)

I, personally, feel that there is evidence enough above that the bit about Uncyclopedia is more than notable, and I'm sure that Codeine and Villahj Ideeut would agree with me here. However, you obviously saw that it wasn't, and felt strongly enough to violate the 3-revert rule. Can you tell me how you feel, RepublicanJacobite? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so...we're just ignoring this...ok... - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia (once and for all).

We need to sort this out once and for all, here and now. The fact that Uncyclopedia has "adopted" Oscar Wilde as their "patron saint" or something is of no relevance to the man himself, who died fully 100 years before its existence. The question that should be asked as to its relevance is not whether the folks at Uncyclopedia like Wilde, but whether that information offers anything in the way of a greater understanding of Wilde himself. I argue that it does not, that it is, in fact, the most trivial piece of information in that particularly section, if not the entire article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

By that logic, a lot of the "Oscar Wilde in modern popular culture" could be removed, because it isn't about him specifically, and occurred many years after his death. The mention of his importance on Uncyclopedia serves to further illustrate his legacy, as does a lot of his section. You may have never heard of Uncyclopedia, but I have never heard of Todd Haynes' 1998 film Velvet Goldmine. Should that be deleted as well? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is pretty much irrelevant, per se, but certainly irrelevant with regard to Oscar Wilde. If you think other things in the article are also irrelevant, they too should be eliminated. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

But why? Why is Uncyclopedia irrelevant with regard to Oscar Wilde, when the numerous references to and quotes from him that exist on the site clearly point to his notability there? I maintain that the whole point of the Wilde in modern popular culture section is to provide examples of and defend Wilde's notability, which the mention of Uncyclopedia clearly does. Am I mistaken in my understanding of this section? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Because when an unimportant thing makes a reference to an important thing, it's of no interest. When an important thing references something, it may or may not be worth knowing, but when an unimportant thing does, it's of no significance. It's the importance of the thing making the reference and not the importance of the thing being referenced, that makes it worthy of inclusion. In general, trivia sections are discouraged, and rightly so, as so many of us can't distinguish what's important (e.g. Gilbert and Sullivan basing an operetta on Oscar Wilde) from completely disposable factoids (e.g. a mere mention of Oscar Wilde on, say, The Family Guy or a web site). You're right in understanding that many things placed in the "popular culture" section should be removed. - Nunh-huh 06:46, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The thing I find ironic here is that had I not made an effort to improve the readability of a reference that has been in place on this page since sometime in 2006, it would in all likelihood still be there. Guess this is what happens when one tries to help Wikipedia. -- Codeine (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)