Template talk:Joke explanation
Regarding my last revert: I'm personally of the opinion that templates belonging to a category generally shouldn't link to that category in its text unless it seriously benefits the template to do so. Also, I did mean "it", as by including this template it is including an self-explaning explanation, which hopefully won't seg-fault the universe maybe. All debatable points, of course, and I'd welcome other opinions. --Algorithm (talk) 08:02, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think you've convinced me. My main reason for wording the text the way I did was a) to invite users to visit Category:Articles that attempt to explain jokes more strongly than a mere category link would, as it contains a fair bit of free-standing humour; b) I didn't understand why you said that each page containing the Joke_explanation template was attempting self-explanation. But thanks to your explanation of the intended explanation of explanation, I feel that this is now explained.
I love the phrase "crash the universe" by the way. One other issue arising... I see you've added Joke_explanation to David Mamet. The result looks fine to me, but it seems to me that if this is justified, then Template:Style joke should just contain Joke_explanation, as the only joke explanation that's going on on the Mamet page is in the Style_joke template. --CrunchyCapsicum 08:35, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)