Talk:List of Ig Nobel Prize winners

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chronological order - most recent should be first[edit]

I think the chronological order needs to be reversed. I.e., instead of the most recent awards being listed at the bottom, they should be listed at the top. The most recent awards are, afterall, the most interesting to readers. I'll do this polarity reversal in a couple of days if nobody objects in the meantime. --84.151.208.142 16:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Most of the other awards are in order from oldest to newest. (Otherwise, I would agree with you.)Tiger MarcROAR! 16:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The jokes need to go[edit]

Someone needs to remove the hideous jokes in the list. Not because they aren't funny (which they really aren't) but because wikipedia is not a comedy. If the jokes are quotes from the actual event, then the jokes need to appear in quotation marks. --Badharlick 14:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page is a joke peace nobel price for star wars - buahaha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.88.252.77 (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if you want to add the quote marks go ahead. The jokes are from the awards citations, not wikipedia authors. Akb4 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. They're subtle and not really jokes anyway -- but funny wording. If you wanted to remove all the humor, you would have to change the Ig Nobel categories too because they're part of what makes these awards funny. And that would be out of bounds of WP. Tiger MarcROAR! 16:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
well for people like me, a student who wants to learn about the noble prizes, it is stupid! why do this to an encyclopedia?
You are at the wrong page, try the Nobel prize page. The Ig Nobel prizes are meant to be jokes. They are a parody of the real Nobel prize. Roger (talk) 09:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]



How do I get rid of the table of contents? --DoubleRing 21:19, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC) Oh, I found it, it's gone now --DoubleRing 21:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I redid the entire list. Because of that, I removed some of the links that were not linked to any other Wiki pages. If you find a page on a person and want to restore the link, be my guest. I originally kept everything in but it was hideous with all of the red. --Woohookitty 20:13, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are the prizes listed in any particular order on this page? If not, would alphabetical order be a good idea? Andjam 04:10, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Economics[edit]

What does it mean? Where exactly did they apply imaginary numbers? Why these companies? Samnikal 06:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The imaginary numbers are not the imaginary numbers of Mathematics, but more closely akin to fiction - the companies named illegitimately placed "profits" on their books, typically through arcane accounting methods that involved shuffling of assets through leases and buybacks with cooperative partners (Enron), or booking as sales transactions that were not yet realised, or even realizable (WorldCom) or by hiding expenses, and other methods (many years ago a disk drive manufacturer was caught placing bricks in boxes and showing the finished inventory, supposedly a disk drive, as an asset). - Leonard G. 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be something if these accountants had used the imaginary numbers of Mathematics! You're right that this is ambiguous so I will add an explanation. Tiger MarcROAR! 16:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Chemistry[edit]

How strange, rather than chemistry, this (swimming in syrup) should have been assigned by the awarders to Fluid Dynamics (Am I taking this too seriosly?) - Leonard G. 00:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes :-P Michaelritchie200 14:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I removed the erroneous explanation that " the increase in drag in a syrup pool is canceled out by the increase in "push" a swimmer gets on each stroke" . Most people think more drag means more viscous drag because syrup has a nigher viscosity, but actual viscous drag conrtributes little to the total drag in this case, so the real explanation is likely that viscous drag is a small fraction of total drag. Drag is mostly wave drag and a drag from "inertial" effects under the surface that does not depend on viscosity. Zaleski 12:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1993 Physics[edit]

Corentin Louis Kervran died in 1983. He never mentioned cold fusion. The chicken, "Cagliostro", is still laying. Dating from 1799 (Vauquelin) it is now 207 years old. Sunny side up its eggs look a palatable gold. (Lunarian 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

edeting[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to put the prizes in alphabethical order.

Agreed. This is the second mention of putting them in alpha order so I am going to be bold and do just that! Tiger MarcROAR! 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1992 Archaeology[edit]

I've always enjoyed reading about the Ig Nobels. Seeing them in Wikipedia got me to thinking about verifiable sources, and the 1992 story of the French scouts mistaking ancient cave paintings for graffiti made me wonder ... urban legend? I didn't find it at snopes.com, but searching for pages in French turned up only pages quoting the Ig Nobel award. Maybe 1992 is a bit early for news services to be all posted so it may have been in the media and just not posted on the web back then. But if this were just a claim in a Wiki page, I'd have trouble justifying it. Birdbrainscan 03:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2 seconds on google turns up: http://presse.ffspeleo.fr/article.php3?id_article=77 quoting this article from Le Monde:

http://www.lemonde.fr/cgi-bin/ACHATS/acheter.cgi?offre=ARCHIVES&type_item=ART_ARCH_30J&objet_id=401388 It did indeed happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.35.31.33 (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance rating[edit]

I agree that "importance" is subjective, but the IgNobel prizes ("science that makes people laugh and then makes them think") get annual and enthusiastic press coverage. Many of the winners have done remarkably useful work. A few years ago, one team won a prize for discovering that malaria mosquitos (which are attracted by the smell of human feet) can be baited away from people by Limburger cheese. Yes, it was a funny story but it was also science with a potential to save many lives, and the team that won was given a boost by widespread publicity for their research from the Igs. Anyway, I disagree with whoever decided that this information was "of specialist interest only" by giving it a "Low" interest rating. Non-specialist media interested in the Igs include the Guardian, the Boston Globe, and Fox News. betsythedevine (talk) 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that giving a "Low" importance rating to this article doesn't mean the topic here is unimportant. Rather it is based on whether this article is important relative to the main topic of that particular wikiproject. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Rating articles, you can see that a "Low" importance rating really means that the "subject is notable in its field, but not highly regarded. These may be little known to most people." Hope this answer your question. Regards—Chris! ct 01:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, that you are heading this talk page with a big graphic box that states the article importance is "Low" just because this article is of "Low" importance to the people who specialize in Awards and Prizes. If this article is of low importance to your specialty, feel free to drop it from your list of projects.Or leave your infobox on the page if you want, but minus your unsolicited insult to this article. betsythedevine (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. Rating the importance is not "insulting" this article. In my opinion, this article is very important and interesting. But at the end of the day, the importance rating of the article is still based on each particular wikiproject guideline, and there is no way to change unless consensus changes. Also, I cannot drop this from the list of this project because it is related to it. And that is exactly why we have the importance rating system, to record and organize articles within this wikiproject. As far as I know, you are not the owner of this article, so you can't just rerate the article the way you want without consensus. If you really believe that this rating is wrong, feel free to comment on the project talk page. Unless consensus changes, the "low" importance rating stands.—Chris! ct 01:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, Chris. My unhappiness with the status quo was not intended to question your good faith. My objection is not to you or your wikiproject, but to the formatting of the wikiproject BOX, which ended up at the top of our talk page here, and states without any qualification that this importance of this article in "Low." I would be completely happy if the wikiproject box contained simple clarification that "The importance of this article to our wikiproject is Low." Any suggestions on how to go about fixing that? betsythedevine (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure but I guess you could start a discussion at the project talk page. Other editors associated with that project might be able to help answer your question.—Chris! ct 19:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ig NP and Nobel Prize for same person[edit]

How many of people show up in both lists? Is the grapheniator and frog leviator the only one? --Stone (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the first Nobel Prize for an Ig winner, although Roy Glauber won the Physics Nobel after having been part of the Ig Nobel show for about 10 years, and Roy was back again this year sweeping up paper airplanes. Editorial comment: This year's Ig show and opera were hilarious. betsythedevine (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the sweeper always someone with a Nobel? Roger (talk) 13:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are several "sweepers" each year. mostly people who have played backstage roles and are sensible and reliable. Overlap of that category with Nobel laureates is ... Roy Glauber afaik. :-) The usual role of Nobel laureates is to sign Ig certificates, shake hands with winners, and sit onstage until called upon to take part in one of the skits. Oh, and one of them gets to be the prize in the annual "Win a date with a Nobel Prize winner" contest. betsythedevine (talk) 14:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cites issue[edit]

I have noticed that the vast majority of the cites in the article are links to articles about the work or achievement for which the Ig Nobel was awarded but there are hardly any cites that actually prove that an Ig Nobel was awarded for the work/achievement. Roger (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My concern expressed above remains unaddressed - there are almost no citations supporting the actual awards as such. Roger (talk) 13:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The complete list is at the location listed under external links, on the improbable website (http://improbable.com/ig/ig-pastwinners.html). While this could be changed into references, I'm not sure what way would be best. Adding it as a ref on every entry seems really odd and adding it to the years (references shouldn't go in headers) even less so. The best solution might be to adding it somewhere in the summary paragraph, and if you want to do that, go ahead.Naraht (talk) 14:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Physics price[edit]

on icy footpaths in wintertime, people slip and fall less often if they wear socks on the outside of their shoes: interestingly, this technique, slightly modified, was used by pioneer alpinists before the development of ice crampons. Pierre Gaspard and his colleagues, who made the first ascent of the Meije, reportedly removed their shoes towards the end of the mostly rocky part of this peak (I'll look for the exact reference in the book Gaspard des montanges and will modify my comment accordingly).--Olivier Debre (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 mathematics prize[edit]

The name "Shoko Asahara" doesn't appear on the improbable research page.

It seems that the article is mistaken or the reward for him has been withdrawn. A rapid response is required, I think. あるうぃんす (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of the articles on the winners of the Ig Nobels include Shoko Asahara. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/sep/30/wasabi-fire-alarm-ig-nobel-prize?newsfeed=true for example. I wonder what happened.Naraht (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've watched the section of the program with the mathematics award. Shoko Asahara is not mentioned. I wonder how he ended up in all of those secondary sources.Naraht (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Include the dates?[edit]

The 2008 section has the date that the Ignobel took place. We should either remove it or add in the dates for the other years. I'm leaning slightly toward including the dates toward other years, but I'd just like consistency.Naraht (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit[edit]

To be honest, I think this copyediting should be reverted. In several cases the humourous meaning of the prizes are gone - and given that the Ig Nobel prize is all about humour, this is not a good thing (even in a encyclopedia). In some cases the reason for giving the prize is also lost. For example is the prize given to L Ron Hubbard one of the prizes that is to be considered (thinly) veiled criticism. That point is now gone by removing the final bit of the sentence: L. Ron Hubbard, ardent author of science fiction and founding father of Scientology, for his crackling Good Book, "Dianetics," which is highly profitable to mankind or to a portion thereof. As it now stands one might think he was given the prize for his excelent writing.

Dersen (talk) 10:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. The current text is misleading.Naraht (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm gonna be bold and revert to before the copyediting. ~I kept the introduction and the newly added 2015 prize. I'm really sorry to Hampton11235 who did much work on this, but the article was unfortunately broken in the copyediting process. Dersen (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Section Source Citation[edit]

As the page currently stands, the 2015 section has a citation, which shows up in the title and the table of contents. This seems like it isn't the best way to cite sources of a section, but as a new/casual editor, I'm not sure what is. What is the appropriate way to cite it in this situation? BWthink (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Science Education Award[edit]

The link to the Kansas Evolution hearings states that the hearings were held in 2005. It seems unlikely to me that the 1999 award was given for the 2005 hearings. While I believe the award is accurate, the link should be changed to reflect the actual event that occurred or removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrochuck96 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free[edit]

Text is always copyrighted, and much of this may have been copied verbatim from the copyrighted sources. Could someone look over them? ViperSnake151  Talk  22:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I propose to add the pronunciation to the prize's name: (/ˌɪɡnoʊˈbɛl/ IG-noh-BEL) MySmallContribution (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Already exists on the main Ig Nobel Prize page, so I don't think it belongs here.Naraht (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Obstetrics[edit]

Whoops...I didn't know that was the text on the Ig Nobel Prize website. It seemed like unnecessary product placement which I've seen a fair bit of. Sorry! :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mesospheric (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, if we ever decide *not* to follow the text as closely, then that will be one of the first things to go. And Bold, Revert Discuss is the way this is supposed to work! Thank You!Naraht (talk) 15:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Ig Nobel Prize winners. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Polish drivers' license link[edit]

The description of the 2009 award for the 'Prawo Jazdy' confusion links to a "Confusion with Irish driving licences" section on the Driving licence in Poland page, but no such section exists. Either a section describing this subject should be added to that page, or the link should be changed to something that actually describes what the link is meant to refer to. - 73.195.249.93 (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that section was removed a few weeks ago by @E-960. --Pokechu22 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary paragraph under 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology[edit]

Was reading through this and I noticed the absolutely MASSIVE paragraph under the 2004 Ig Nobel Prize in Biology. Not only does the paragraph look seriously out of place, but in my opinion, its content is only vaguely related at best. I've considered removing the paragraph, but I haven't yet, because it does contain some related information that could be written into the actual Ig Nobel Prize entry.

If anyone smarter than me wants to go ahead and do this, feel free.

B-1700 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Ig_Nobel_Prize_winners&oldid=1208248093"