Talk:Does exactly what it says on the tin/Archives/2012

Move page?

Any reason not to have this at Ronseal? It'd be a much more encyclopaedic title (yes, less fun, I know) Plus this article will never be longer than what it is now. Ronseal is a good place to have this, PLUS any other details on Ronseal. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 14:13, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

But surely this article is about the sociological effects of marketing and its impact on popular culture, rather than about the products advertised?

James F. (talk) 14:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Copied from village pump

I was thinking of adding this little article, and then had second thoughts about it, as I can see how it could be seen as not worth it and maybe even a little silly... But then again, there are plenty of articles on various other such bits and bobs of popular culture from around the world... Any thoughts? Angmering 15:29, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As you say, it has entered popular culture, and personally I think one of Wikipedia's strengths is its coverage of little bits of popular culture. Trilobite (Talk) 15:38, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I like it. It is however stubby and I can't see it ever exanding very much. I wonder if wictionary is a better home for it. Theresa Knott (Nate the Stork) 15:43, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

All your base are belong to us, so why not? -- Wapcaplet 15:44, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's cute, it's interesting, and there's plenty of space available for such tidbits. If somehow it ended up on VfD I'd vote to keep, so I say add it.  :) Antandrus 16:03, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As the token Mr. Deletion, I suppose I'd say that I'd want to see some evidence of spread. Being in the US, I haven't heard it, even on BBC comedy series or BBC World Service, so I'm about as clued-in as an American can reasonably be to British culture. It is also somewhat lexical. For whatever it's worth, that's how I'd respond to it. I love collecting slang, but I don't know how much Wiktionary does of it or how much of it Wikipedia would do. I think "All Your Base" is a bit different, and if you look at that article, it establishes that this was an early Engrish thing, as well as an early (and therefore notable for being pioneering) bit of the viral spread of geek culture on the Internet. Geogre 16:33, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

17,900 Google results. Non-inclusion in BBC comedy series or the output of the World Service doesn't strike me as a particularly good guide. There must be thousands of obscure phrases and cultural references not present in US comedy series or not picked up by their viewers. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:40, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definitely add. Or at least incorporate into an article on Ronseal. More recently, a toothpaste manufacturer (Aquafresh?) has begun a similar advertising campaign (here in Ireland at least) stating that its product "does exactly what it says on the tube". I would perhaps veer more towards having the content at Ronseal, just a tad more encyclopaedic. zoney ▓   ▒ talk 17:58, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Didn't Ross once say to Rachel "All your base are belong to us?" ;-) I also watch as much British tv as one can get in my broadcast area, (which isn't much), and I am still constantly surprised by terms like tosser. I like Angmering's article. In truth, I'm rather confused by the various Wikipedia is not a discussions. Either there is lots of hard drive space for covering the endeavors of humanity, or space is at a premium, and therefore hard decisions need to be made about what's in and what's out. I use the analogy of Captain Picard speaking to the Enterprise computer. If he were to ask, "tell me about Xyz," I wouldn't expect to hear Majel Barrett's voice pop up and say:

• Xyz is non-notable, therefore, you are not allowed access to it.
• Xyz is in the Star Fleet dictionary, and not the encyclopedia, so please wait while I transfer to a different namespace.
• Xyz only occurs in a List of three letter words starting with the letter x''.

AdmN 18:01, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Confused? When you go to a restaurant, do you expect hardware to be sold there? Encyclopedias are encyclopedias. Dictionaries are dictionaries. Neither is an atlas. Neither is a business listing. The "Wikipedia is not" is not about "YOU MAY NEVER HAVE THIS INFORMATION": it's about "this is an encyclopedia, perhaps you're looking for a dictionary." Geogre 13:49, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hi, Geogre. :) The thing is, I am of a generation that was the very last to use printed encyclopedias as a first and primary source of information. People today use the Internet, ie: connected, distributed databases of information. The things that make the Wikipedia project special, in my opinion, are the hyper-linked cross-references and the collaborative content creation. Unlike space-limited books, a database doesn't need to worry about what is noteable or to make any distinction regarding what kind of information something is... it just needs to have a good way to get the exact information the user is looking for.

When I go to an Ikea, I expect there to be both a restaurant and hardware. ;-)

func(talk) 02:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that making us transwiki back and forth is fine. It's just that we need to keep the nuts and bolts out of the condiment racks, and we need to keep the ketsup out of the rows of paint cans. I'm of the print generation, too, and I see my students performing research by typing in "keyword.com" into a URL field and hitting return. There is a point, even in the Internet age and the hyperlink era, to having information organized with like by like and unlike elsewhere. This is not merely a matter of logic, but also of usability. If "Black widow" turns up "A spider that is very poisonous," the article doesn't inform. People use an encyclopedia because they already know what the words mean, and they need a discussion and context. That's what the "Wikipedia is not" things are about: they're trying to ensure a consistent and consistently useful experience for users. Geogre 03:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please add, even if, contra Geogre, it is only known on "that sceptred isle/That earth of majesty, that seat of Mars/That other Eden" (warning, paraphrase): it's that whimsically useful article that reminds us wikipedia can be fun as well as useful. (PS, Geogre, when I use "that... article" as a stand-in for a whole class of articles, as I did above, there's I'm sure a (Greek?) term for this, but what is it? Synecdoche?) -- orthogonal 09:25, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, as the general response seem to be in favour, I have now added it (with a redirect at Ronseal too). Thanks guys! Angmering 11:18, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Phrase and slight adaptations has, in my experience become widespread in the UK even if people forget about Ronseal. Last week a new name for a financing branch of my company was discussed and an external agency commented that one "shows exactally what it does on the tin" meaning the name shows clearly what is on offer even though there are no tins involved! Dainamo 15:33, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep, keep, emphatically keep this in the Wikipedia (namespace). I've lived in both Ireland and the UK and anyone who contests that this parlance has widespread and generalized use has either never lived in the UK or Ireland or spent their last few decades there buried in a hole in the ground somewhere. Ropers 01:39, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Further evidence of widespread use

"People are crying out for a kind of Ronseal politics — they want it to do what it says on the tin."

David Cameron, Conservative policy co-ordinator, October 2004 [1]

Blimey, David Cameron. Whatever happened to him? 86.130.97.135 (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Who? Ryan4314 (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

2007-02-1 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 09:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Is there any way to actually obey this tag? Kappa 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Best Example?

"[S]hows where the title tells the viewer everything he or she needs to know about the programme without further explanation, e.g. 'Homes Under The Hammer'."

So this is a programme about demolitions?

Okay, sorry... :o) But facetiousness aside, I'm not sure this is the best example title to use, since it depends on someone knowing the meaning behind the phrase "under the hammer" (i.e. that the item is subject to sale in an auction). I know it's a very common phrase but I'm still not convinced it's universal enough to be offered as an example of a fully self-explanatory title. Or is it just me? - Laterensis (talk) 08:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ronseal programme

Regarding this sentence, I removed from the article for lack of citation:

in the television industry a 'Ronseal programme' is used to describe shows and putative shows where the title tells the viewer everything he or she needs to know about the programme without further explanation, e.g. Celebrity Wrestling.

This is probably true, but I can't find a reliable source, which leads me to believe it is industry slang, the notability of which is unclear. If there is a reliable source it could be re-added with appropriate context. Green Cardamom (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)