Talk:The Goon Show running jokes

Cleanup
This article needs sourcing badly, and loads of cruft needs to be removed.--Drat (Talk) 02:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...surely it needs sourcing well?


 * (Well, what sort of answer did you expect on a Goon Show article talk page?? -- EdJogg (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC))

Why didn't you wish to know that.
This article brings up a problem with referencing information gleaned from a primary source, in this case by listening to The Good Show. The reference is The Good Show, and all of us who have listened to The Good Show know that this article does an excellent and careful job of reporting what went out over the air. Would a secondary reference be preferable? Required? Rick Norwood 14:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Making the badge appropriate
I hate doing this, because I think the proliferation of badges on WP is a sign of extremely lazy editing. (If you have the time to add a badge, then you have the time to resolve the issue the badge refers to. Be bold.) OTOH, while neither of the badges currently attached to this article are appropriate, the one I'm adding is. Mind you, I don't see the harm in "quote farms," because I feel they have value -- but that's current WP policy, image-oriented rather than content-oriented though it may be.Hal (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Slap-happy badge mania
"This article may contain an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience." Really? And that would be distinguished from any other encyclopedic article, print or online, just how, exactly? We are told to assume good faith, but a badge this nebulously phrased should probably be eliminated as policy.

Even within that in mind, though, it's still completely inappropriate. Clicking through to the policy page page involved, we see the template should be used to flag articles that are:

1. Plot-only description of fictional works. 2. Lyrics databases. 3. Excessive listing of statistics. 4. News reports. 5. Who's who. (Horribly ungrammatical. It should be, "Who's whom.")
 * Who's whom? Please to be identifying the direct object in that sentence... Safebreaker (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

6. FAQs.

In any event, not one of those conditions apply.

Accordingly, I'm removing it. Revert if you must, but justify it here in the context of the policies involved. Hal (talk) 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "who's who" = "who is who"; verb "to be" takes nominative.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Turn in the barrel
I seem to recall frequent comments of it being someone's "turn in the barrel" - a reference to a decidedly dirty joke. Roger Bunting (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2016 (UTC)