Talk:Loxodonta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Loxodonta as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Finnish language Wikipedia.

This article is part of WikiProject Mammals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use mammal resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

On 1 August and 3 August 2006, the article page associated with this talk page was the target of vandalism encouraged by The Colbert Report, a popular television show. All prior and subsequent edits are noted in the revision history.

Warning: This article was mentioned on The Colbert Report, and the host encouraged vandalism which added the claim that the population of elephants has tripled in the past 6 months, to create a fabricated but consensual reality. This has resulted in the locking of the article. Any successful vandalism will be reverted and may result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a joke; please don't disrupt it to amuse yourself. See Wikipedia:Hoaxes.

---

Why is this being translated from Spanish? There is already an entry for elephants in English. The only difference is that African elephants are not separated. Lagringa 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] he.link

please add he:פיל אפריקני I can't do it because page is protected. --Haham hanuka 17:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Done - MPF 19:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop culture

Just add a reference to African elephants in Pop Culture so that the Colbert fans can add their little "factoid" and reference the show. Others can add other pop culture references to African elephants, like Babar -- who is, of course, actually French. --captain nomes

I really don't think Colbert has made a big enough impact to be added as pop culture on this article (or the article for elephants). Only a very small percentage of readers would find the information useful/interesting, and this will probably be forgotten soon. If it belongs anywhere it should go in the article for The Colbert Report, but even there it would probably just be removed after a few months when nobody cares anymore. If Colbert really wants to get included here as a pop reference he's going to have to get a lot more attention. Herorev 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you two kidding? Colbert is one of the hottest things on cable tv right now. He's Emmy nominated and truthiness, his word, has entered the national lexicon. The fact that a bunch of people tried to edit the page on his orders more than shows that he has made a big impact on popular culture.

Sure, Colbert is certainly pop culture, but the elephant gag is not significant. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, the fact that this page has to be locked shows the gag is significant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.240.20 (talk • contribs) .

No, only significantly annoying, not significant pop culture. -UtherSRG (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

There are far less significant factoids included in other articles. I think this one is significant enough for addition. It's also significant in terms of how it has or may affect Wikipedia itself. --captain nomes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captain nomes (talk • contribs) .

Then should it not be discussed on the entry on Wikipedia (or an appropriate related article about the site in general), or on the article on the Colbert Report (noting that the related article on Truthiness already contains the reference)? It would seem that the Colbert reference, while popular, is not as extensive as, say, the supposed inability to tame the African elephant, or the representations of the African elephant in popular culture (Babar, for one); to include all these would be out of place on a biological entry (compare entries on other genera, for instance). Perhaps a "Perception of (African) Elephants in Popular Culture" article would be a better place for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.3.175.152 (talk • contribs) .

No. Wikipedia is not about Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert was named as one of Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People for 2006. Seems like a big enought impact to me.66.41.239.104 10:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything, a mention should be made on his article, or the TV show's article, as that is where it is noteworthy. It's nothing notewoorthy about any of the elephant articles that Colbert chose to single them out for his comedy. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with that. I just wanted to point out that he has made a significant impact.66.41.239.104 20:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...a month later and this page still needs to be locked. At what point will it become significant enough to merit a mention? 6 months? A year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.60.240.20 (talk • contribs) .

How long an article stays locked has no bearing on whether a fact about a TV show gets mentioned in the wrong place. Y'all have had your fun, now go play someplace elese please. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Imagine that someone invents the perfect encyclopedia. Better than Wikipedia, Brittanica, anything. Now, imagine looking up Loxodonta. What would you expect to find there? Personally, I doubt I'd find the word "Colbert". By the way, I'm a big fan of the show, and I'm embarassed that it's also watched by people too stupid even to come up with an original idea for vandalism. CalebNoble 02:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. I'm a big fan, too. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Er, actually, it wasn't that they were being unoriginal. It was that they wanted to, you know, play. They wanted to have some fun, show the incredible force that Colbert (and thus, the media) have, and mock the standards of wikipedia. Had i been watching that night, i would have joined in. But that's not really evidence. As a sidenote, i think that the Colbert thing should be mentioned in this article, considering other hoax-related articles that are metawiki, such as the Greenlighting Hoax. Also, a matter of curiosity, what current event in particular is this article linked to?--The Sporadic Update 18:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Check the External links for the current event. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert joke

i suggest we add Template:funnybut

to all jokers from now onQrc2006 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Not needed. It seems most of the vandalism has died down now. And 2 tags at the top of the article is plenty. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)