In the article, Randall wants to make us believe friendship is a rather new phenomenon or trend and its "early" occurrences are something special, which may be true for bromance - at least for the term - but not for the concept. Sebastian --126.96.36.199 07:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I think you totally misunderstand the intentions of the cartoon. I think the point is a very simple one. It is similar to Liz Feldman's argument that people should not call it 'gay marriage': it's marriage. "You know, because I had lunch this afternoon, not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it" [} Or in this case: Call it friendship - marking the fact that it is between men as if that is in some way abnormal is a homophobic thing to do. Andries (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- In my experience, the term bromance is used to describe a particularly strong and close friendship, one which exceeds the normal bounds of simple friendship. In the same way that two close but non-related males might call themselves blood brothers. Noting that the term is almost exclusively used for male-male relationships (due to the use of 'bro') is entirely valid, and personally, I don't see any suggestion that friendship between men is abnormal in Sebastian's comment. --Pudder (talk) 16:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Pudder here.188.8.131.52 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not currently up to doing it, but I feel we need further details of, and definitely citations for, the articles that have been vandalised. Maybe we could even have graphs showing the view, edit, and vandalism spikes. Davii 184.108.40.206 11:18, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised that this lead to Wiki-vandalism? 220.127.116.11 12:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
The explanation currently seems to suggest that this is the page for "Bromance", trying to bring it into line with "Friendship". But with the "Friendship page" being the target of the comic, "How to improve the Bromance page" title text and the "Portmanteau of 'Friend' and 'Ship' (i.e. romantic linking)" bits, I read the comic as "If Bromance is being used for non-homosexual same-sex associations, then Friendship 'obviously' now means for homosexual same-sex (indeed, it appears male/male-only!) relationships. This is similar to complaints (which I personally have sympathy for) about the word "Guesstimate" being an unnecessary neologistic portmanteau in common use, as someone using it often actually means "Estimate" in its normal state of the term and thus must imagine "Estimate" is something far more strict. (Or else they invoke the term when they actually mean "Guess" in the first place, either to make it sound 'better than a guess' or with the same 'shove over attitude applied to that word, e.g. guess is "only ever out of thin air" rather than often-as-not based upon a semi-educated hunch if not more.) So, anyway, as it currently stands, I don't agree with the way the explanation goes. But I can't actually say it's wrong either! We now return you to your regularly scheduled programme. 18.104.22.168 14:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Completely off-topic for the comment, but a guestimate is an estimate without the math, using intuitive averaging, and thus, more kin to a guess than an estimate.Seebert (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- A 'guestimate' is of course already either a 'guess' or an 'estimate', depending on your personal dividing line is between "not using maths" and "using maths". "Intuitive averaging" would probably be "estimation" in my eyes. "Fermi estimation" (as seen in the What-Ifs) definitely would. Even if the limits to "guessing" and "estimation" are not equal, "guesstimation" would likely be the intersection on the Venn Diagram of guessing/estimation (i.e. it's both, not 'in-between'), and we'll be arguing over the exact position of two boundaries, rather than just the one.
- But I really came here to say that I go with the "Change the Friendship page to improve the Bromance one by proxy" idea, and didn't really want to quibble over semantics. 22.214.171.124 00:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, I meant to add that I'm surprised that Randall didn't "Bluetext" the word Ship, indicating a link to Shipping_(fandom). But then the fictional Wiki editors he's emulating are notoriously inconsistent with what they do link and what they don't link (upon the first appearance in an article), so it's accurate enough. ;) 126.96.36.199 14:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- (Although, to reply to me, given the inclusion of the phrase "There is also something called 'friend shipping, or a 'BrOTP' (a portmanteau of the terms bromance and one true pairing).", there'd be some weird recursiveness that arises if all the competing claims for word-origin are true!) 188.8.131.52 14:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I used the FoxReplace plugin to see what this would look like, with some hilarious results:
The first legislation on the subject was The Fanclub Act of 1792 which provided, in part: That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is hereinafter excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the Fanclub, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.... During the nineteenth century, each of the states maintained its Fanclub differently, some more than others.
184.108.40.206 16:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Pretty sure this isn't the first WP-related comic that then led to vandalism of the pages in question, and I'll be damned if it will be the last. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 22:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yep. I can find Wood (446: In Popular Culture), Spark Plug (903: Extended Mind) and Star Trek Into Darkness (1167: Star Trek into Darkness) after a quick check, and considering how bizarre edits some vandals make, there's got to be a lot more. -220.127.116.11 10:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- I'd prefer a slightly more modern method, but I fully agree with the general idea. -18.104.22.168 10:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. Longtime, now ex-, lurker here. As I read this entry, I developed a notion that perhaps only Sebastian has touched upon: that Randall was imagining a Wikipedia derived solely from knowledge and events from the last 30 years (or roughly twice the age of WP itself.) With the exception of the "Odd Couple" mention, that seems to be the case. (Despite Damon & Affleck being childhood friends, they didn't come into prominence until the early 90s). These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- I agree. 22.214.171.124 00:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I found a website to do it for me
- Some Professional Fake Wikipedia Page Creator help me to get resolved my Wikipedia related issues.