Talk:United States Department of Unnecessary Research
Latest comment: 11 October by CitationGoblin in topic "Thorough about nothing" quote in the lead
 | This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the United States Department of Unnecessary Research article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|
 | This article is within the scope of WikiProject Absurdity, a collaborative effort to document things that should not need documenting. It has been rated GA-class on Mockipedia's content assessment scale and High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
GA review
I have passed this article as a Good Article. Prose is clear, sourcing is adequate and the organisation table is helpful. Two minor points remain for a future FAC: the "Accusations of necessity" subsection leans heavily on the department's own publications, and the Seal section is uncited for the olive branch claim beyond Gorringe. Neither is a blocker. Margaret Ledger-Pike (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for the review. For what it is worth, Gorringe is a secondary source; she was not employed by the department. Reginald Footnote (talk) 12:44, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- She was employed by the department from 1994 to 1996, as the acknowledgements of her second book state. CitationGoblin (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- Then she is a secondary source who was briefly a primary one. I suggest we note this and move on. Reginald Footnote (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
- She was employed by the department from 1994 to 1996, as the acknowledgements of her second book state. CitationGoblin (talk) 13:01, 6 October 2026 (UTC)
Employee count
The infobox gives 4,112 employees (2025), but the organisation table's staff column adds up to 2,988. Where are the other 1,124? CitationGoblin (talk) 15:37, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- The text below the table explains that the remainder work in the Office of the Secretary, General Counsel, Public Affairs and the Inspector General. Quillfeather (talk) 16:02, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- 1,124 people in four offices seems a lot. CitationGoblin (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- The organisational chart lists 311 of them under "Necessity Screening". I have not added this because the chart does not say what they screen for, except "necessity". Quillfeather (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- It seems fairly clear what they screen for. CitationGoblin (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- The organisational chart lists 311 of them under "Necessity Screening". I have not added this because the chart does not say what they screen for, except "necessity". Quillfeather (talk) 16:29, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
- 1,124 people in four offices seems a lot. CitationGoblin (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2026 (UTC)
"Thorough about nothing" quote in the lead
Is it appropriate to have a quotation from a former Secretary in the lead? It reads as promotional. BoldButCautious (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- It is the most widely quoted description of the department, and it is attributed. I would keep it. ArchivistOfNonsense (talk) 10:20, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- I would point out that the department itself has never used the phrase in its publications, presumably on the grounds that repeating it would be unnecessary. TheTepidTruth (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- The Bureau of Redundant Confirmation used it twice in its 2018 annual report. Reginald Footnote (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- Once in each copy. CitationGoblin (talk) 12:09, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- The Bureau of Redundant Confirmation used it twice in its 2018 annual report. Reginald Footnote (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2026 (UTC)
- I would point out that the department itself has never used the phrase in its publications, presumably on the grounds that repeating it would be unnecessary. TheTepidTruth (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2026 (UTC)