text:
Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive17
Rating System Design
The time has come. The rating system must be designed and implemented. If you want to participate in this, now is the time to get involved. See Uncyclopedia:Rating System--Chronarion 02:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, that was so impersonal. So rough, I feel... hurt. User:Tompkins/sig 02:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've felt your concerns and revised my statement in the New-Dump. It now carries middle english flair. Imagine I had an eyepatch on as I cried out my statement. --Chronarion 01:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
The Robots are coming
Someone fill up Howto:Survive a Robot Uprising, thanks --Nytrospawn 20:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- And fix Black People --Nytrospawn 21:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Done and Done. I don't know whether to feel smugly superior or like your personal bitch. I'll just go nominate you for something while I think about it. Ok? Gosh, I hope so. 00:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- You should feel both, and indignation --Nytrospawn 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- A graced the page with a beautiful illustration. --Spin 04:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- You should feel both, and indignation --Nytrospawn 01:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
New box meta-template
First of all, Template:Box is meant to standardize template boxes, which are implemented using a whole lot of methods (usually copy-pasting code from other templates). It's fixed at 70% width to keep templates uniform, but customizable enough in everything else.
Simple usage:
It supports default values for optional parameters, in a sense that you don't need to specify these parameters. They are:
id=STRING bg=#color (default #eee) fg=#color (default #000) align=ALIGN (default center) title-align=ALIGN (default center) border=WIDTHpx STYLE #color (default 1px solid #aaa)
For examples, see {{protected}}, {{minitrue}}, {{crimethink}} (converted), {{a splode}}. - User:Guest/sig 19:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Recent Pages"
request that this hence forth be deemed "Soon to be Deleted Pages" --User:SimulacrumCaputosis/sig317:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's also where I get most of my many VFH nominations! There and the IRC cabal - David Gerard 23:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- There is no Cabal. 23:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
printing uncyclopedia articles
Um ... I decided I wanted to print out Russian Reversal and a couple other articles maybe ... and realized that there is no "Printer-friendly" option on uncyclopedia (like there is on many other wikis) What's up wid dat? --User:Nerd42/sig 15:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Find out how the others (mediawiki that is) did it and copy it here!--User:Elvis/sig 17:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- You hit 'print' and print it, and it comes out right through the magic of CSS. This actually works. Alternately, it's your own fault for using the Monobook skin instead of Classic, which is the One True Skin even if no-one's yet bothered putting the Google ads into it - David Gerard 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Stupid underline...
How do you get rid of the underline on a link? --User:Clorox/sig 02:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Preferences" -> "Misc" --User:Rcmurphy/sig 02:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think you meant something else, so disregard. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 03:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Do you mean in your sig? Cause i can do that for you if you want. User:Tompkins/sig 02:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
[[link]]--User:Isra1337/sig 02:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to use a template from a different wiki? (What I'm going for is a Babel template from Wikipedia) --User:Clorox/sig 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not directly as far as I'm aware but you could always copy the code of the template from wikipedia to here (although youmight find that bable templates work differently here, I havn't looked) --User:Elvis/sig 14:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A Noob Apology
To anyone I offended by not offering a Thank You for their help in answering my many questions: Thanks.
I would have been more formal, but everything here at the Dump felt rather anonymous, so I didn't really think there was a point. But now that I've looked more thoughtfully at some of the posts, I realize I was acting a bit like a leech. So once again, Thanks.
--McAtee08 01:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm confused...why are you thanking me for being offended? 02:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have specified by saying: "Thanks....for the help."--McAtee08 03:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's right courteous of ye. Enjoy Uncyc. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Naw, by being specific you'd have deprived me of a smartass comment. And we wouldn't want that, would we? 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The DoomPod article got deleted. So am I allowed to have a go at making a DoomPod article? Or does it have to remain dead?
You're allowed to make a new one, but you can't just repost the old one. Also, in the future, please sign your comments (use ~~~~). --User:Gwax/sig 17:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you! --00tinytim00 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia Book of World Records
I got this idea (I wasn't drinking this time) for an Uncyclopedia book of World Records, kinda like the Guniess book of World Records, only without facts (and not for drunk people . . . . ok they can use it too). It would essentially follow a similar format to Guiness, that is, it would have some large categories, and within those we have a record and short blurbs about it. We could easily fold the Worst 100 lists into the world record book as well. I think the Guiness Book would be an excellent target for parody, I mean, just look at some of the records in there, most clothes pins fit on a person's face, like that's useful (to non drunks). Anyway, just some food for thought. --Jsonitsac 16:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- This sounds like a good idea. Just make sure it's like, not horrible, and doesn't degenerate. Start an article, but keep the quality high within it. If it gets good enough, we can start folding things in. --Chronarion 00:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Noob Question
How do you add links to an article so it doesn't end up as a dead end?
And: If you are trying to put a picture or graphic in an article, what format must it be in? --McAtee08 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The instructions at Wikipedia are pretty decent these days, and things work basically the same here as they do there with the exception of some advanced things you don't need to worry about. --User:Isra1337/sig 04:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Plus McAtee, it'd be polite of you to thank people after they post replies to your questions. Thanks. -- User:Codeine/sig 09:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks.....again.--McAtee08 01:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- You are welcome. --User:Isra1337/sig 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia: The Book
Would it be possible to print Uncyclopedia as a book, and donate the proceeds to charity? Or would that still break the Creative Commons license? - TankRamp
- That's something that I've been wondering about recently as well. I'm not sure what the answer is but I can tell you that it is not an issue right now because there isn't enough truly good content on Uncyclopedia to make a print Best of Uncyclopedia. If we did sell it though, I would hope that the profits would go to buying Uncyclopedia more server power/donating to Wikia. It would also be kind of nice if we could get rid of those google ads in the corner. --User:Gwax/sig 21:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've been thinking about this for a long time, since somebody (Nytrospawn?) mentioned it at the Dump months ago. Unfortunately it's my understanding that using Uncyc content, under our current license, wouldn't be allowed because even if we didn't profit from it, the printer would. But I know little to nothing about copyrights, so I could very well be wrong.
- I'm not sure I agree that we don't have enough content for a book - we have over 130 featured articles at the moment, and from what I've seen non-mass-printed books aren't that cheap. I've ordered from Lulu a couple times at about $7 for a 115-page, black-and-white, no-frills book (not including shipping) - and that's with no profit margin, just manufacturing costs. I'd think we'd have to keep the length reasonable to make it attractive. (Note that I personally don't think a lot of the featured articles are funny, but the people have spoken.)
- Also, there is already an Uncyclopedia in print, so we'd probably have to go with another name. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 21:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Because a decent portion of our good articles are single-author, and because many of our top authors are still around, it wouldn't be impossible to re-license content specifically for a book. But in the case of images made from copyrighted sources, we would probably need to retain a lawyer to determine what we could print. --User:Isra1337/sig 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't know about copyriht, but I love the idea. Also I think that the authors of the printed articles that can be considered as such, should have right to be named in it if they want to. If you can't make money out of it, maybe the recognition can be helpful for some Curriculum Vitae. I hope ordering a copy from outside the states wont be too expensive.--Rataube 04:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Because a decent portion of our good articles are single-author, and because many of our top authors are still around, it wouldn't be impossible to re-license content specifically for a book. But in the case of images made from copyrighted sources, we would probably need to retain a lawyer to determine what we could print. --User:Isra1337/sig 22:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Id buy it. User:Rangeley/sig 14:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure.
- First who'd buy the book when you can just go online and look at Uncyclopedia for free.
- Second, how do we determine what's worthy of getting in the book or not? According to the front page we have over 16,000 articles, that means we'd have to pick and choose the articles that get in, and that would probably mean a lengthy voting process, and few of us care to vote in these type of things anyway.
- Third, the publisher would probably make us submit to an editor who may not think like we do and ruin some perfectly good articles.
- Fourth, we'd probably get sued by somebody. It helps that we're a relatively obscure site on the internet (better then a teenage girl's blog but still. . .) which helps us in terms of dealing with copyright issues. Also, we have some stuff on here which could easily piss people off. While clearly intended and distributed as parody, and the standard for libeling famous people is much lower then non-famous, I think we could easily be skating on thin ice.--Jsonitsac 16:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- 1. To some extent, the same goes for Sparknotes or the Bible. (That's right, I just compared Uncyclopedia to THE BIBLE.) I don't think anyone believes the Uncyclobook will hit the New York Times' bestseller list, but to a lot of us it'd be a cool thing to have.
- 2. Well, there are the featured articles, which in themselves are a lot of content. But yeah, if we wanted to use other stuff it'll be a pain to decide what should go in.
- 3. If we used a print-on-demand service like Lulu, we could control everything that goes into it. (Formatting and things are a pain, of course, but I'm sure someone here has some experience in the area.) It costs more per unit and there are some other limitations, but we wouldn't have to worry about having other people mess with our work (unless we wanted them to), or things like production numbers, etc.
- 4. I don't know much about laws'n'stuff so I won't say anything here.
- Re: Isra, it's true that a some of our best writers are still around, so getting their permission shouldn't be hard (assuming they don't want payment...), but some of them aren't. We could of course search through histories to find original authors and try to contact them if we wanted to use older pages, but that's a pretty tall order, 'specially for IPs. And even determining which individual edits could be used might be difficult (but again, I don't know too much about that stuff.) --User:Rcmurphy/sig 18:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not so sure.
If there was sufficient money, and it was being donated to chairity, like being given to orphans, I could become an orphan. Just let me know the dollar (or euro) amount, ok? 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
If you wanted to do a commercial version, what we can definitely do is simply ask the authors to write a final version of their pages for the book. It could be possibly to split proceeds a couple of ways in that manner, which both fulfills our license, and makes everybody happy. --Chronarion 00:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- If you do come up with a way to publish it make sure that it comes with a pencil and some white-out tape, so that the user can make his own edits. Or at least a picture of the afformented on the inside cover...
- Then there could be a TV mini-series based on Uncyclopedia, then a video game, then a film by Uwe Boll...ah! Just think of the possibilities! You'd be rich and famous, except maybe for the wealth and fame...well you'd be you, anyway.
Modusoperandi 05:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Our License
I think the key to our license question is found here. The key clause is "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation." I think, we could be in violation of the license for a totally different reason however. A CCL seems to imply that anybody can edit the work, something which is impossible if we were to put uncyclopedia in book form. Of course, I'm not a copyright lawyer, so if we do publish a book, we ought to check with them first. Jsonitsac 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Any one can still "edit" the works in the book in that they can make derivative works under the same liscense. --User:Isra1337/sig 00:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, from my reading of the license, we could publish a book under the current license as long as we sold it at cost. --User:Isra1337/sig 03:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair Use
Another major concern is over fair use, e.g. photoshoped pictures, or articles about companies. This wikipedia article seems to put it in layman's terms [1]. The main issue we have to deal with is are such items parodies or satire. It may seem like a weird thing to worry about, but apparently the courts seem to differentiate the two, and give more leeway for parody then satire. As I said earlier, we may be trampling on those type of issues with some of our content, but because we are a relatively obscure website, we don't have to deal with such suits. A book and more attention that it brings with it could change that dynamic. Jsonitsac 00:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think as far as text goes, we are usually pretty safe, but I would go so far as to say we would need to hire a lawyer to look at images. --User:Isra1337/sig 00:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
===follow the money===--Chronarion 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)ON! if Uncyclopedia does produce anything and the proceeds go to charity ... could we please try to pick a non-contraversial charity? like ... one we vote on maybe? --User:Nerd42/sig 01:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think that if the proceeds go to anything but server costs, even charity, we would need to relicense the content. If we do that, I would suggest proceeds go to UOWRPF - the uncyclopedia.wikia.com Writers' Rent Payment Fund. --User:Isra1337/sig 03:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- yeah, I think paying server costs is probably what it ought to do. --User:Nerd42/sig 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Can we take off administrative fees first? (you know, for processing) --User:Gwax/sig 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- DIRECT TO THE KILL ALL BABIES FOUNDATION! --Chronarion 03:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
QVFD with DynamicPageList?
We could make QVFD nomination more efficient by using the dynamicpagelist exetnsion. A user could flag the article with "{{!}}", which would add it to the Huff Requests category, where admins could check much like QVFD. All deletions are archived in logs anyway so the only forseeable problem with records is having to wade through the logs to find them. - Nonymous 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- A few problems with using DynamicPageList for maintenance monitoring:
- Additions to the list won't show up in user watchlists
- Comments cannot be added to the listing
- Pages cannot be struck without removing them entirely
- DPL is a nice feature, but it really doesn't work in these circumstances. --Algorithm (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- My problem is, again, that one must edit the page to categorize or template it. And that is just pointless for several reasons:
- Pages often get re-created. When we still had Template:QVFD, I would often delete pages two or three times in a row because people trying to tag them would recreate them after a deletion. This is stupid.
- If you find 5 or 10 bad ones in a row, you have to edit each one to tag it with a template or category. This is stupid when you can just add them all to the QVFD page at once or in batches.
- The authors can *easily* remove categories and templates from their pages, with high odds of not getting caught at it. Users can not easily remove entries from the QVFD. Because of this. relying on templates/categories for QVFD is stupid. If a page is good enough to not QVFD, and worth putting a template on, use {{NRV}}.
- The QVFD allows repeat offenders to be easily caught. If the page is re-created the red link on the QVFD turns blue. Almost all links on the QVFD should be struck-out (with reason given) or red. Easy to spot re-created or missed pages there.
- Larger history: If a page is edited to templateify before deleting, this just increases the size of the deleted history (which are never deleted, they remain part of Uncyclopedia's deleted histories indefinitely).
- As is, I can see no cause to have any sort of QVFD/category/DPL template in the face of such anti-reasons. Just put the page on the QVFD. It is a one-glance patrolled status page for all QVFD entries. And as stated before, (some people say "Don't delete my page without VFD or QVFDing it!")... QVFD = Deletion. The only (mostly) reason we have it is because not everyone can delete on site. Pages on the QVFD should be insta-delete worthy. Like spam, "my friend is gay", sub-stub crap, and cut-pastes. Excessively putting pages on the QVFD that are VFD/NRV/MTU is discouraged (or should be). My 3 cents. --User:Splaka/sig 03:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A Question Unanswerable
The help page said to put unanswerable questions here, so here goes:
The statement below is true
The statement above is false
Which statement is true?
- Well that's obvious... The third one. Since it's a question, it's correct by default. User:Tompkins/sig 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The third one isnt a statement, its a question.
Insufficient data --User:Nerd42/sig 05:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The question is faulty because it doesn't specify the set of statements from which to choose the true one. "Which statement of the above two is true?" would be better. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 05:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
False User:Dawg/sig 05:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Put simply, Tompkins wins. User:Tompkins/sig 21:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
That depends. Which of the two statements can create a rock so heavy that even him can not lift?--Rataube 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Emacs can create a core dump it can't edit - David Gerard 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Tompkins. "Tompkins wins." is both a statement, and is true. --User:Zombiebaron/sig 22:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC) fosslefy me
- Heh. User:Tompkins/sig 22:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there is only one sentence, broken into three lines, which together constitute a question referring to statements that do not appear to be present surrounding the question. Therefore, poop --User:Mindsunwound/sig 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The statements are contradictory and as such, neither is true. --User:Gwax/sig 13:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- The statements set up a false dichotomy. There are things which are both true and false, and things which are neither true nor false. So we must assume that either statement can quantum tunnel to its opposite state. As such, we have only probabilities of truth and falsehood, not the all-or-nothing dichotomy set up by the question.
</bullshit>----OEJ 13:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
New Search Feature
Kate (aka zwitter) has created a new search feature for Wikia. This is now live at Special:Search on Wikicities, Uncyclopedia, and Memory Alpha.
As well as finding results on the current wiki, it will show you 5 results from other wikis. Using the advanced search, you can select which wikis you want it to search.
For help, see Help:Searching and the full manual at Wikia
Please report any problems using bugzilla at http;//bugs.wikia.com or send an email to our new help email address: [email protected]. --Angela 19 February 2006 09:16 (UTC)
- I hate this crap! When you search for seomthing it wont take you directly to the article, first you have to go through the little Google-esque crap. Give me back the old search! User:Tompkins/sig 19:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, it's terrible. And believe it or not, I don't care if the Muppets wiki has a page with the same name as my search. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 20:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, given that we're not on wikicities, I don't want to see stuff there. I know, I know, technically we are hosted by wikia and all, but we're not a wikicity. Also, those other wikis contain factual information, and it's really pointless for Uncyc. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- Bring back the old search. Without being rude, it's the lamest excuse for a feature ever. --Boy Toy bitch at me 20:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think this can stay, could actually be useful, BUT, the GO BUTTON HAS TO BE THE DEFAULT option, not the search!.--Rataube 21:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The go button has now been fixed. Also, you can now disable the "other wikis" search by writing 1 in MediaWiki:Wikiasearchdefaultlocal. Angela 22:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- "Fixed"? No likey... I miss having the "Go" button taking you to either the article or the creation-page for an article... :( --User:MoneySign/sig 22:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!! I DEMAND ANGELA'S BLOOD! User:Tompkins/sig 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I dont see the benefits of this... It adds some features that noone will use and just makes it take longer to get the results we are used to and expect to get. User:Rangeley/sig 03:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I hate it. While I appreciate the effort in trying to give us new features, I think the old system was more useful. ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 03:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- THE GO BUTTON NEEDS TO BE THE DEFAULT...not the Search It's useful in certain circumstances but it's annoying to have to be forced learn to click go instead of just hitting the enter key. --User:Mahroww/sig 07:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Currently if you put in an actual article title and hit go, it takes you to the article. Also, I put in MediaWiki:Wikiasearchdefaultlocal as 1, lets observe the results.... --User:Splaka/sig 07:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- But if you type in the actual article title and press enter (all from the keyboard without having to click the mouse) the default is Search which is needless processing time for the most part. If the default were the Go button it wouldn't be different from what people have grown used to. That seems like it'd be an easy fix. --User:Mahroww/sig 08:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The default is go, at least in Mozilla. If you get the title right of course. --User:Splaka/sig 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, not everyone uses Mozilla. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 17:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The default is go, at least in Mozilla. If you get the title right of course. --User:Splaka/sig 08:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I found two errors in it. 1) The shortcuts (such as UN:DUMP) don't work. 2) It does not recognise namespaces (typing User:Acid Ammo won't take me to the page). --Boy Toy bitch at me 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've noticed that too, and there's no way in hell I'm going to continue to type out Uncyclopedia:Village Dump. User:Tompkins/sig 21:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
*Against NOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO --User:Zombiebaron/sig 22:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Yes that means I don't like it COMMA you fool PERIOD
You saw nothing...I never wrote that...blame...ummm...Tompkins...he said that...it acctually seems to be fixed...--User:Zombiebaron/sig 22:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- I also must go on record and say that I absolutely HATE this new search. It's made navigation via shortcuts all but impossible, and creating new pages has become a much more abstruse process thanks to the Google-ific way the "results" are displayed. Also, as Acid has pointed out, it will not easily recognize User spaces unless they are typed verbatim (case sensitive!) This is, in no way I can see, a useful addition, and it actually ranks as a hinderance and a useless complication in my book. Please Revert. --User:King In Yellow/sig 16:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Revert. Our content is largely not compatable with that of Wikicites. Also, it's not recognizing shortcuts correctly. --Chronarion 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I actually think this is a fine feature for most situations, because it allows the user to search for information across multiple Wikicities. It just sucks to have it here. Uncyclopedians want an ocean of funny, not facts. Revert this well-made but badly-placed piece of shite!--Jordanus 04:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Im still alive
Just letting you guys know --Nytrospawn 19:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Want us to do something about it? 03:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes--Nytrospawn 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC) - Nytrospawn taken care of. --Boy Toy bitch at me
- Yes--Nytrospawn 22:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
A Noob Question
Someone put a lot of effort into writing a large, mostly unfunny article about the Amish. I want to give it a total facelift, but I know I need to place a tag first. How do you place a tag, such as NRV?
Also: How do you make the little colored "fact panels" that appear on the right hand side of a page about a country or a famous person? I'm talking about the ones that might list important dates, locations, or facts. --McAtee08 16:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hi McAtee08.
Firstly, Templates are placed by enclosing the appropriate name in curly brackets. For example:
would place this tag: --tag removed from archive for maintenance reasons--
will place the stub template like so:
Some templates can be timestamped - {{wip}}, {{MTUsign}} and {{NRV}} for example. What this means is that when placing the template, you should use the following format:
The five tildes (~) will place a timestamp ("This template placed on...") on the template when you click "Save page", like so: --tag removed from archive for maintenance reasons--
Much, much more info about templates and their usage can be found here, and a full list of Uncyclopedia templates can be found here.
As for the infoboxes, there's a blank template for creating them at Template:Infobox. For an example of how this works, have a look at Template:Infobox_France. What you need to do is create a page for the infobox template you wish to create, copy the base template there and then expand the information. Once you've saved the template (as Template:Infobox_Yourpagename), you can then place it on the page as I explained above, using the curly brackets: {{Infobox_Yourpagename}}. If you want to get into heavy template editing and creation, there is a host of information available at Meta-Wiki. Hope this helps. -- User:Codeine/sig 17:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Alternatively, an appropriate infobox might already exist. Incidentally, you don't need to place a tag before rewriting an article; just do it. Tagging is more useful for marking a page as needing to be rewritten by someone else (or such). --User:Gwax/sig 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
The Great Main Page Vote of '06
That's right, votes for the main page are here. The voting will run up to whenever the admins decide, and the winner will recieve their Main Page featured. Votes go under the appropriate headers, discussion goes under this line, blah blah blah. Any new entries are welcome. --User:Lugiatm/sig 11:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Note the position of the featured article, image, news and Wikipedia:Template:MainPageIntro on Wikipedia:Main Page. I want to fool people. --User:Nerd42/sig 05:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Rangley's edit is the most current version of the straight wikipedia rippoff. If you want to be able to fool peolpe, vote for his, since that is what the draft that is likely to be adopted looks like. --User:Isra1337/sig 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, if they make minor variations to theirs, my edit would include them. Its just intended to be a straight copy (with uncyclopedia things like word of the day, WOTM, etc), and not have any extra frills. User:Rangeley/sig 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- One thing I would note is that both my versions and yours lack some of the details we currently have, like edit buttons and links to UnNews and such. I don't know if you altered my rip directly or just made the same decisions, but I was going to stick those in eventually. --User:Isra1337/sig 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, it was just laziness on my part. User:Rangeley/sig 18:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we should nuke the word of the day and have the quote of the day instead. --User:Nerd42/sig 01:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yea, it was just laziness on my part. User:Rangeley/sig 18:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- One thing I would note is that both my versions and yours lack some of the details we currently have, like edit buttons and links to UnNews and such. I don't know if you altered my rip directly or just made the same decisions, but I was going to stick those in eventually. --User:Isra1337/sig 06:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Also, if they make minor variations to theirs, my edit would include them. Its just intended to be a straight copy (with uncyclopedia things like word of the day, WOTM, etc), and not have any extra frills. User:Rangeley/sig 06:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Rangley's edit is the most current version of the straight wikipedia rippoff. If you want to be able to fool peolpe, vote for his, since that is what the draft that is likely to be adopted looks like. --User:Isra1337/sig 00:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Looking at Rangeley's Edit, it does not match Wikipedia:Main Page closely enough to get my vote because of the difference between it and Wikipedia:Template:MainPageIntro, which is the most distinctive feature of the Wikipedia Main Page. Rangley's version, alas, has a much bigger headline. --User:Nerd42/sig 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you missed this, but we are not trying to copy their current main page. We are trying to copy their beta page that they will soon go to, found here: [2]. I see now that the search has been removed, I will make a quick fix to mine. User:Rangeley/sig 15:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- Oh ... I didn't know that WP was changing. I don't think they should. I like(d) the entry paragraph the way it was. But if they change, we should too, in which case yours would definately be the best. :) --User:Nerd42/sig 15:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Votes for Lugiatm's Rip
- Votes go here. --User:Lugiatm/sig 11:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For, although maybe the featured image box in the example is tad large. --User:Volte/sig 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Against, the featured image needs to be up the top. --OsirisX 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Votes for Isra's Hybrid
- Votes go here. --User:Lugiatm/sig 11:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Weak for. This is the one I like the most so far, couse of the location and size of the featured image. But I think it needs to resemble the wikipedia search-box at the top somehow.--Rataube 14:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For Also because of the featured image format. It would indeed be nice if the header could be redone in a more Wikipedish style, but I don't know if that could be done well with only half the page to work with. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 17:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. The featured article column should have a little more minimum space and a shorter blurb though. As it is, it's going to show about 4 words per line and shoot down about three feet for anybody who doesn't have a large resolution/moniter. --Spin 17:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Against. Looks horrible at 1024x768. --Algorithm (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment If the format needs it, I can always shorten the featured article length. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 22:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For: but someone should figure out how to make the size of the image be relative to the size of the browser window. --User:Isra1337/sig 22:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. User:Hinoa4/sig 00:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Votes for Isra's Other Hybrid
- Votes go here. --User:Lugiatm/sig 11:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For, best one there. --OsirisX 00:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- 4.0 --Carlb 00:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Votes for Tompkins' Hybrid
- Votes go here. --User:Lugiatm/sig 11:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I went to it...yes...and the image was that crazy Pac-Man thing...IT WAS FUCKING HUGE...scary...you might wanna fix that...--User:Zombiebaron/sig 13:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. ya.. I've been meaning to do that, it's the only broken one. User:Tompkins/sig 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Votes for Rangeley's Edit
- Votes go here. -- User:Rangeley/sig 15:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. I know there are a ton out there already, but me and Tompkins somewhat agreed to use this one, which looks a bit more wikipedia like. User:Rangeley/sig 15:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For Although none are really bad. Nice mockups, all. 16:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. Haha I only voted for mine because... well I made it. User:Tompkins/sig 19:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. Although I like Lugiatm's featured image format slightly more than this one, this is the best format overall. --Algorithm (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- For. Though all are quite good, this one has an edge, I think. Nicely done. ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 04:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- For Although I'd add a few little tounches like From Uncyclopedia's crapiest articles: or some such to Did you know... and maybe the Other areas of Uncyclopedia, if we are going for a straight spoof. --User:Elvis/sig 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- - User:Guest/sig 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- For: Ignoring that it'll take me a while to get used to the featured image near the bottom, this is the cleanest looking (and best ripoff) of the bunch. --User:Gwax/sig 18:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- For best incorperation of featured picture while staying WP like. Paulgb 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- For Best combined layout. --Chronarion 00:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Frankenstein Syndrome
I have experienced a certain common, recurring theme here. Popular topics or articles often gradually fall into a decadence that makes one wonder if anyone actually thought before adding to them, or if they just gathered random parts of humor (indeed, even parts marked 'abby-normal') and assembled them together into a monster. A prime example is George W. Bush. This is a featured article, though an older one. Looking at it today, I know it would not get featured (or shouldnt). It is a messy, messy article, has some bright spots, but it lacks any remnants of organization, flow, sanity, or anything like that. But even worse, I must say, is the United States of America article. I cant look at it any longer then a few seconds before I am forced to avert my eyes in shear terror. I have read a bit of it, but frankly the article is just so retarded looking its a battle just to follow it. Add in that it is poorly written and somewhat off the topic of the USA.
Just as attempts at creating life through decaying body parts can create monsters, such as the recent face transplant in France, so too can having hundreds of people try and take an article in millions of directions, which tends to happen with hot topics.
I know that we are going for collaboration here, but I think the sort of collaboration in some of these popular articles is pretty harmful. It seems that many edits are not necessarilly done to make the article better, or improve it, but instead to just throw in a random joke that may or may not fit. When you let this run rampant, you get a bad article.
What do I propose? There should be some serious rewrites of the popular articles, and in them we decide a direction to take them. After this direction is figured out, (eg. The USA article is written from an egocentric American view, the USA article is written from a terrorists view) and it is written in that fashion, you can have a good basis to figure out what is vandalism, and what is an addition. If it adds to the articles direction, keep it. If it detracts, remove it. I know this is a judgement call, but atleast it isnt shooting in the dark, or letting everyone and their great uncle add whatever they want to bigger articles to the point that they become Frankensteins. User:Rangeley/sig 04:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm very dissapointed to see this comment has nothing to do with Isaac Asimov.--Rataube 05:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I support this proposal for decolonization of articles as it were. --User:Isra1337/sig 05:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- The thing is that articles tend to do this uncontrollably. This means that people sorta have to adopt articles. I've adopted god to some extent.
- One idea I've had is to allow multiple versions of highly popular or controversial subjects. There are some topics that can be effectively mocked in a variety of ways; for instance, the USA article can be in a serious tone, an absurdist tone, a "USA rocks!" tone, or a foreign "Americans are dumb" tone. Or a crazy "WTF" tone. But when there's only one possible article for it, everyone who wants to put in their comedic $0.02 has to jam it all in there. The result: sheer, neverending chaos. So why not create standard templates for popular articles pointing to several distinct viewpoints or comedic slants? That way, the humor in each version will be more focused and coherent, and there can be a greater range of humor overall, not just a chaotic "one-size-fits-all".--Jordanus 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- All those tones can be just different chapters inside the same aticle. It's still cohrent if, besides the whole article, you add a chapter about how foreigners see it or whatever. I prefer the adoption idea. Some user deciding which edits stay and which ones go away, as we usually do with our own articles (I do it at least). We could make a section articles for adoption or something (different from orphaned pages). I'm still desappointed this is not about Asimov.--Rataube 14:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- One idea I've had is to allow multiple versions of highly popular or controversial subjects. There are some topics that can be effectively mocked in a variety of ways; for instance, the USA article can be in a serious tone, an absurdist tone, a "USA rocks!" tone, or a foreign "Americans are dumb" tone. Or a crazy "WTF" tone. But when there's only one possible article for it, everyone who wants to put in their comedic $0.02 has to jam it all in there. The result: sheer, neverending chaos. So why not create standard templates for popular articles pointing to several distinct viewpoints or comedic slants? That way, the humor in each version will be more focused and coherent, and there can be a greater range of humor overall, not just a chaotic "one-size-fits-all".--Jordanus 08:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I'll tell you the real reason I posted this: awhile back I rewrote the Allah article, which some had called a "cesspool of crap", into a more coherent version. I wrote the whole article from a Fundy Christian viewpoint which mocked Islam throughout the whole article, but did it in a way that made the Fundy argument look ridiculous. Since "Allah" is such a high-profile and controversial article, it garnered a lot of vandalism, crap additions, etc. Now someone has come in and completely rewritten it from a different point of view. The article is decent and funny, but then again so was mine. I don't want to monopolize the article and say that my version is the only one allowed, but I don't see how to accomadate both versions. Putting them all in one page wouldn't work, because they're so long, and combining them would just break the distinct tones of both articles. Which is why I support separating them into separate articles. You know, make "Allah" a disambig page which points to the different versions available: Fundy satire, the more general Uncyclopedia version, and any more that are appropriate. That way the different comedic slants can be kept coherent and there can be a greater range of comedy; readers can choose to read whatever version of Allah they feel like. Anyway, I'm not sure what to do because I don't know what the edit policy would be in a case like this. What do you guys think? --Jordanus 03:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- No joke: I was just looking at that article's history and thinking "didn't this used to be totally different, and also hillarious." I think you are totally justified in moving the new stuff to another page and restoring your version. Yours was great and it was the first one to be great. --User:Isra1337/sig 03:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I prefer monopolies. User:Rangeley/sig 03:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I ran into something similar with Babel fish. My text was about the aquatic creature (and claimed that the newfies were the original discoverers); in the next edit, someone else had overwritten it with an article about translation software. They were valid articles but were too different to combine (one's about computers, the other about fisheries) so the original had to be reposted under a one-bit-different name. --Carlb 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- This Lords and Ladies is what {{disambig}} is for!--User:Elvis/sig 12:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I noticed that Famine has RV'd the article in question, so as far as I'm concerned the issue's moot. I'll post a message in the Talk page to the anonymous user who rewrote the article letting them know what's been decided, and if they want to create a new article for their rewrite, that's up to them. That's what Isaac Asimov would've done. And thanks for the compliments, Isra!--Jordanus 02:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Adopting articles and religiously revising and reverting poor edits is really the only decent solution to the Frankenstein Syndrome problem. Speaking of which, I think that I'll go fix Kitten Huffing --User:Gwax/sig 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
A Noob Question!
I am a noob here. I already have experience as a Wikipedia article-improver, but I possess little background knowledge when it comes to using the Wiki format and how to make the best of the tools at hand. I am here at the Village Dump because I have many questions, and from what I can tell, this is the place to ask them.
I need to learn how to:
1. indent text (such as when typing a poem, or numbered list like this one) 2. correctly insert graphics into an article 3. make use of my signature
Another problem:
A beloved new article that I wrote had a NRV stamp placed on it a while it was fresh. I improved it and I think the stamp should be removed. Should I remove it on my own, or must I somehow consult with the much esteemed admins first?
I need a little help, or I will continue to be an incompetent noob and most likely get myself banned, therefore robbing Uncyclopedia of a valuable resource.
- Indents are made with a colon.
- How to put an image in an article.
- Click the signature button above the edit window.
- As for the NRV template, I think you can remove it on your own if you've improved the article.--User:AlexMW/sig 23:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Removing the NRV tag by yourself could lead to a ban if done wrong; you would do well to follow the instructions on the NRV tag itself and read Uncyclopedia:Pages for deletion section 4.1 to make sure you do it right. --User:Gwax/sig 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Those Crazy Frenchies
So, I've just been to Paris for a few days, and even in freezing February, it's as charming as ever. But it seems that the spirit of Uncyclopedia just won't leave me alone wherever I go. When the girlfriend and I went out to eat on the first evening, we picked a nice looking little bistro not far from the Seine, went in, opened the menu - and the first thing I saw was this. Trying to explain our fits of laughter to the waiter would have been nigh-on impossible ("Qu'est que ce, l'Uncylopédia?"), but I can reveal to you that "Un Andoillette AAAAA" is a very tasty sausage stuffed with mixed meats. One more thing (and I am aware that hearing about other people's holidays is deadly boring) - we also made the pilgrimage to Pére Lachaise Cemetary on behalf of all you Uncyclopedians to pay our respects to the founder himself.
"It's a nice enough place to be buried; if only the neighbours weren't all bloody French."
-- User:Codeine/sig 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Discussion WAS going on here. But we moved it to the dump.
So, should articles that were featured in 2006 but written mostly in 2005 stay in the list or not?--Rataube 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes. We don't need to be too strict. We are here for the fun. It was fun to vote for uncyclopedian of the year 2004 when in fact uncy wasnt created until 2005. I say any article featured before the creation of this page can stay.--Rataube 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. In the interest of keeping this going, I think feature date is a good cut-off. If we are to have top ten of 2006, we need to make a distinction. --User:Keitei/sig 18:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: 1) This would make it so that only featured pages could be eligable. Right now the rules on the page allow notable pages that were not featured, the features are just all up for simplicity. 2) We didn't plan ahead this year, so it isn't too unfair to make this year have 13 months. Next year can still be from the current cutt-off date to December 31st without any problem. --User:Isra1337/sig 00:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. Use the feature date as the cut-off. ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- YES: The cutoff should be articles featured before the creation of this page. It is simplest and fairest that way. --User:Isra1337/sig 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. We need a Top10/2005 list and a Top10/2006 list......and next year a Top10/2007.....that way it can be formatted as part of bigger section, AND in the case of 2006 be ongoing over the next year. -- User:Mhaille/sig 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yesh I don't see a big problem with having a 14-month Best Of this year and only a 10-month Best Of for 2006, and it's easiest to organize this way. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Hell no!! Just doesn't make sense. --User:MoneySign/sig 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- Feature! It's not that big of a deal.
User:Tompkins/sig 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- No. I'm with Mhaille. Let's set this up to be easy to navigate for years to come.--User:Bradaphraser/sig 15:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, since it wasn't elgible the year it was written. --Keithhackworth MUN [email protected] 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Angry Usernames
[3] Could someone clean up the first 63? --User:Clorox/sig 20:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Number 65 too.--Rataube 20:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I think Wikipedia decided that for Liscening reason they probably couldn't remove usernames, I'm guessing the same applies as we use a similiar type of liscence.--User:Elvis/sig 12:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Licensing should only be an issue if they have contributions which haven't already been deleted (and for which they deserve credit/attribution). I suspect they don't. --Carlb 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Making up ******** Quotes
Recently, the question of deleting all of the Making Up Someone-or-other Quotes Pages came up on Uncyclopedia:VFD, but I figured this was a bigger, more general question and should be brought up somewhere a little higher traffic. So, what do you folks think, do we want this sort of thing on Uncyclopedia?
Making up Sun-Tzu quotes Making up God quotes Making up Cthulhu quotes Making up Family Guy quotes Making up Matrix quotes Making up Anonymous quotes Making up February 3rd quotes (NRV'd 2/15) Making up Oscar Wilde quotes Making up Winston Churchill quotes Making up Christopher Walken quotes Making up Mark Twain Quotes Making up Noel Coward quotes (WIP) Making up Star Trek quotes Making up Thomas Jefferson Quotes Making up Arthur C. Clarke quotes Making up Benjamin Franklin quotes Making up Albert Einstein quotes
Personally, I think the whole idea is rubbish. --User:Gwax/sig 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
That is tough! Because I like a few of them a lot, and most of them not at all. Maybe we should just not feature them on the front page anymore... Except Cthulhu, since I voted for it.--Claudius Prime 20:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we need to keep all the ones I did, and Some User will probably agree that his need to be spared. And I wouldn't want to be the soul who deleted Cthulhu's. Most are excellent/good/salvagable, the rest like Feb 3rd should be huffed as part of quality control. -- User:Mhaille/sig 21:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- See crons comments re:lists below, I think the same applies.--User:Elvis/sig 23:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Seems to me there has been a real effort to fix these up lately. I say that the good ones should be kept and that some user should be empowered to kill the ones no one feels like fixing. --User:Isra1337/sig 23:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Clean out the worthless ones and turn the quality ones into HowTo: articles. User:Dawg/sig 00:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ehh, I thought about writing a really long-winded tome about this, but basically it all boils down to what Mhaille said: All of these pages should stay or go based on their own individual merits. I'll suspend my efforts to "spruce up" the rest of them until this is resolved, but I wouldn't be sad to see the ones I haven't spruced up yet get deleted, and even a couple that I have (Twain and Einstein, to be specific). Also, I'm not asking for any special treatment or authority WRT these pages (but thanks for the suggestion, Isra), and it doesn't much matter to me if the titles are "Making up so-and-so quotes" or "QuoteUnquote:So-and-so," or whatever. I just don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Basically it's your call, Gwax - put them all on VFD if you feel that strongly about it, but at least put them all there as individual entries, not as one big block. I'll support whatever the community decides. User:Some user/sig 00:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I for one am not a huge fan of these quote pages, and no one has ever put a gun to my head and said that I had to participate if I wanted to be on Uncyclopedia or else. But just because I don't haunt them doesn't mean that they lack merit, nor do they by their existence have such great power that ruin my expirience with the site. And if they exist on Uncyclopedia and I never visit them, what do I care if they flourish or not? I have a real problem with decisions that discount the work of others simply because someone else thought of its first, etc, or maybe a genre is getting stale, etc.
- Hell, not every article is going to be a humdinger, but why is there a rush to control creativity? Six out of seven "Making Up Famous Quote Pages" maybe the worst tripe in the world, but are we as a community so confident in ourselves that we will rule an entire class out without wondering if just maybe there is someone who hasn't heard of the site and would otherwise be able to pull something great out the "Quotes" format? And besides, these things are like fads, they have natural cycles and they'll fade as soon as the next catchy format pops up. I think we all need to remind ourselves that we were once new around here, and that something keeps us coming back and that's the opportunity to create.
- So I say let it die a natural death if its meant to die and lets focus on making this a great site through our contributions and not by slamming the door on creativity in content. Dame http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/b/b2/PPsigPPlips.gifGUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 02:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Turn them into Uncyclopedia:QuoteUnquote pages, or kill them all. In fact, I'll try to remember to do that next week. 03:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- QuoteUnQuote looks like a rather
half-bakedambitious project considering the complete lack of interest in it. Why don't you just leave the good ones as they are? --User:Isra1337/sig 04:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- QuoteUnQuote looks like a rather
- I dunno, I actually think Famine has the right idea. In fact, why don't we just "huff" the entire website? You know, clean slate, new broom, everything nice and neat and tidy, easy to manage and control. There'd certainly be a lot less for people to vandalize, and since nobody would want to write any new material (or "spruce up" old stuff) for fear of having the same thing eventually happen to that, we could all spend more time chatting, since that's what we all do best anyway! I vote for. Uhhh, that's assuming we're actually voting... - - User:Some user/sig 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason I put these all on VFD originally is that the whole "making up ____ quotes" is getting old and there are way too many of them. It was funny the first couple times, then they just became annoying knock-offs, much like aaaaa, zzzzz, yyyyy, etc. I agree, let's rate them individually. I would suggest keeping Oscar Wilde due to the dedicated template, and the whole "stick a Wilde quote on every page initative". I can see keeping God and Cthulhu quotes (let people choose the God they want). The others need to be huffed in my opinion. --User:Keithhackworth/sig2
- Depending on the lvl of humour I think the Making up X quotes where X=Famously quotable person should be default stay (if only because it may supply inspiration for someone if they are not 100% funny already) the others should live or die on their merits alone.--User:Elvis/sig 14:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've been waiting for this for a while, actually. I think that the majority fo the MUXQ pages need to be killed outright. It's really a shame that the fact that there are so many of these pages is indicative of the lack of creativity of many of our users. I agree with Keeping some of the more outlandish and classic MUXQ pages (as Keith stated), but I definitely agree all the rest need to go.--User:Flammable/sig 18:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
CONCLUDING: Good ones stay, obviously bad ones get quickly euthanized, those in the middle or that we are not sure to where they belong get individually judged at VFD. I think that's the implicit agreement--Rataube 19:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
but what of the quotes themselves?
We do appear to end up with many unfunny made-up quotes being plastered onto seemingly every page in the Uncyclopaedia - not just the "Google says George Bush doesn't care that Kayne West is going to f-ing kill Steve Ballmer" nonsense, but more often just quotes which really add nothing to the articles on which they are placed. Perhaps part of the problem is the sheer number of quotes being added - they needn't be applied like cheap perfume, in massive quantities long beyond the point where adding more of them has become counterproductive. They get boring rather quickly. Unfortunately, to clean this up now would mean selectively editing hundreds of pages.
What to do with this fine mess? --Carlb 01:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it makes life easier I've voluteer to "take care" of the Quotes section, just like RC does with VFP and VFH. Obviously that doesn't restrict others from contributing to what is in the section, just means that someone is personally chraged with keeping it in order. Aye? -- User:Mhaille/sig
Making up Nerd42 quotes
I have become known as one of the biggest advocates of Making up Quotes pages in general. I look at this part of the site as being no different from UnNews or what used to be UnDictionary. It's supposed to go like this:
Uncyclopedia = Wikipedia UnNews = Wikinews UnDictionary = Wikitionary UnQuote = Wikiquote
If making up fake quotes on Uncyclopedia is limited to Oscar Wilde, then I think the entire shebang needs to be moved to it's own wiki, as there seems to be more than enough interest in the activity. (judging by the number of edits that quotes pages get) If this entire project is shut down, I would appreciate it if some Uncyclopedia admins would inform Wikicities that Making up Quotes is no longer allowed on Uncyclopedia so that if/when I suggest starting an UnQuote wiki, there will be no doubt as to whether Uncyclopedia already does this or not.
Either it's OK to do it, or it's not. That is not to say that each of the pages shouldn't be judged on an individual basis. But that's not what's happening here, is it? I see them being judged as a group. --User:Nerd42/sig 05:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Not they are not, almost everyone agreed that they have to be judged individually, and that's what is goin on, see VFD--Rataube 04:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- The people voting no seem to be judging them as a group, or that's what I'm trying to say. They're being nominated for VFD as a group, and the discussion seems to be over whether the type of article should be allowed or not. (as a group) Oh, um ... I am not saying any rules are being broken here ... man, everything I say seems to have all these implications I don't mean for it to have ... :(
- Why aer people trying to get these pages deleted anyway? Alot of people seem to like them, so why do other people want to delete them so much? --User:Nerd42/sig 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll try to answer this as best I can, though I'm not sure an answer is really called for. There are currently five separate VFD entries, and while some of us have voted to delete all five, your suggestion that the pages are being "judged as a group" there is completely unfounded. They are being judged as a group here, and the fact that three of the most influential administrators on the site have used phrases like "kill 'em all," "the whole idea is rubbish," and "all the rest need to go" is disturbing, even if it's completely understandable from an historical perspective. But this isn't a question of what's "allowed" and what isn't; it's simply a matter of how the site should be organized, and how we're going to maintain quality standards.
- Either way, the reason people want to delete those five pages is the same one that applies elsewhere: because they suck. I happen to believe that some of the people voting to keep them are doing so because they're fans of Family Guy or Star Trek (or whatever), and to delete the related "Making up quotes" page would be like deleting Star Trek itself somehow - which is silly, but maybe that's how people think. I don't know precisely. I just know that trying to make anything funny out of Star Trek is beyond my capability, and nobody else was doing much with it either, pretty much since the page first came into existence. Same with the others. Unless that changes in the next couple of days, I say delete 'em; they'll never meet the standards I've set (all modesty aside, of course) for the others. To those who disagree, you have my sincerest apologies. User:Some user/sig 02:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopedia's Top 10
We could vote for the 10 bestest besst articles of 2005. Opinions?--Rataube 17:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's a good idea, but it might be kinda hard to organize, with the admins approval I could probably whip something up pretty quick. It'd be like PHP except it'd start blank and would be for articles instead of pictures. User:Tompkins/sig 17:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here. Feel free to make modifications, especially in the directions part. User:Tompkins/sig 17:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. A couple things:
- 1. For simplicity's sake, I think we should disallow Against votes. I'm guessing that was your idea anyway, but it should probably be in the instructions at the top.
- 2. How to choose which articles are included on the list? For example, Zen was created in 2005, but so far this year it's been significantly edited. We could go by feature date, but that would exclude a good chunk of pages that were probably formed in 2005. Or we could just leave all of them in and not worry about it.
- Once you're finished with it I suppose we could move it to Uncyclopedia: Best of 2005 or something. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 18:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- For simplicity's sake, I think it would be best just to allow all of them. But it doesn't really matter either way I guess. I'll add something about no against votes, and yea I was planning just for but it's a good idea to be very specific i guess. And once again, feel free to do these things yourself. Heh. User:Tompkins/sig 18:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
So are we gonna change the main page or what?
I know that ther's already a topic down there some where, but i think people pretty much forgot all about it. I think it's about time we get serious about changing it. Even though wikipedia hasn't yet, it'd be funny if we did it before them, because then we could pretend they stole it from us. Anyway, yea... should we take a vote or something? User:Tompkins/sig 16:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- According to the Wikipedia page:
- "Editing will continue through Saturday, February 18th, inclusive. The final election will start on March 1st and will run for 3 weeks. In between we will have a period to rest, make further refinements,and test out the draft for bugs on different browsers, resolutions, screen sizes, et cetra."
- So we still have some time if they stick to this. I agree we should change ours before they do. It'd be funny and I like the new page format much better, except for the Featured Image box being below the others (in their draft, at least). --User:Rcmurphy/sig 18:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've already got several versions to choose from, but I have been making more as en.wp has changed their draft. I think we can wait a while, still, but i encourage you to make comments on the drafts' talk pages. --User:Isra1337/sig 22:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I think we should change soon. Their draft actually looks pretty good. User:Rangeley/sig 23:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- OURS ARE BETTER!!! User:Tompkins/sig 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Forum, part 2
Okay, so working off of Chron's ideas, I've hacked up a new version of DynamicPageList that supports forum formatting, and created a sample implementation here. I could use some help coming up with a good look-and-feel for the layout and sections. Once it looks good, I think we can start using it here. What do you all think? --Algorithm (talk) 00:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- You know how on recent changes there is the button that lets you set a time and then after that, it only shows edits made after that specified time? Can something like that be done with this so that only threads that have been changed after time X will be bolded, or something like that? --User:Isra1337/sig 01:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- And how will this work with watchlists?--User:Isra1337/sig 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not certain whether your first suggestion will work or not, but I'm looking into it. As for the watchlists, they won't work on the forum listings; you'll have to watch each topic individually. I might be able to jury-rig the listings to update themselves whenever they're rendered, but even then it wouldn't trigger until someone viewed the listing. --Algorithm (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's great, but I still think we should remain open-minded and have a vote when all possible ideas are put in. I'll set up an Invisionfree forum as a preview, and someone with experience with phpBB should also provide a sample. --User:Lugiatm/sig 09:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'll do that. --User:Hinoa4/sig 16:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I like this, this is exactly what would be nice. --Chronarion 07:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Greatest Men Ever to Live Equals Dumbest Category
An unregistered user (188.8.131.52) is slapping, what I feel to be, yet another useless category/template onto article after article without actually contributing to anything. It looks like this-
I'm I alone in thinking we have enough categories? On some biographies there is already five or six categories and now this template is creating more junk...
Give me your feedback users...--Claudius Prime 20:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --Spin 21:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My only complaint is that J.D. Salinger is not on that list. --User:Savethemooses/sig 22:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks useless to me. I vote you can kill it. --User:Isra1337/sig 22:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Done. ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 23:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Take the category back, clean it and merge it with the article. The category was there long before the template. We'd rather have categories like this one than list-articles. If they are not spammed they make no harm.--Rataube 16:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- At this point, a list which duplicates an existing category adds nothing that couldn't be autogenerated (hint: DynamicPageList) so is hardly worth creating. --Carlb 23:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Charmed, I'm sure
What a purrrrfectly wonderful diversion this Uncyclopedia is for the casual browser. Anyone care to show me around? Faster Pussycat Kill Kill 20:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Uncyclopedia:Best of for (some) good stuff. See here for everything else. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 20:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I reccomend Pot v. Kettle and J.D. Salinger. And this page is a repository for the best stuff on Uncyclopedia. --User:Savethemooses/sig 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Heh heh. Don't you ever feel lonely on the inside? User:Tompkins/sig 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- I reccomend Pot v. Kettle and J.D. Salinger. And this page is a repository for the best stuff on Uncyclopedia. --User:Savethemooses/sig 22:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
THIS IS AN EMERGENCY, I REPEAT, AN EMERGENCY. RATAUBE HAS KIDNAPPED MY FAMILY!!! I don't know what happened... he just all of the sudden snapped! Out of nowhere! At first they were just empty threats, but now he's doing it for real!! He's out of control, he took my family and left a note on my talk page!! Oh whatever shall I do??!?! I love my family with all of my heart. PLEASE HELP ME!
(The original ransom note can be found here.}
- User:Tompkins/sig 00:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
The World's Tiniest String Quartet.
--User:Hinoa4/sig 01:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Artistic Nude Sophia
Everyone knows that Sophia was a porn actress before she founded Uncyclopedia. Well, now I think all the admins fancy her a little bit and so somebody has made a picture of what he thinks she'd look like naked. This is good for all you potential logo makers who like reskinning, but not good for Splarka who has to add all future logos in the site coding. This image was used a base for images like Zombiepedia, so you can get a good idea of the sexiness. The image is ALREADY THE RIGHT SIZE. There is enough room at the bottom for text, which ZB has reliably informed me is Bookman Old Style, 16 pt, strong, regular. With 24-pt U and A. or 22.8pt, small caps, capital U and A. --User:Lugiatm/sig 12:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
This was my only clean pair of pants. Thanks a lot.... --Spin 01:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Lugi: I consulted Moneysign. He'd made that as a bigger file to make it easier to edit. Since you resized it and made it a PNG, it should at least match the current logo... so I uploaded the blank one I'd made for Image:Aaaa.png over it (it has the precise hue and proportions, Money's was based on Image:Puzzle_Potato_Large.png). I also added it to Nihilism. --User:Splaka/sig 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Heck, I uploaded the image Splarka's referring to so people have a choice. (read: so I can extend my gallery) --User:MoneySign/sig 07:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize uncyclopedia's logo is a potato until I was told, thought it was just some kind of twisted puzzle. Is it just me?--Rataube 13:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Nope...lots of people have said that. Apparently it also looks like an egg. :\ --User:Rcmurphy/sig 15:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Same here. At first I thought it was just a really weird shaped version of the Wikipedia logo. --OsirisX 06:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- Me too. Perhaps if Sophie had potato "eyes"? --User:Keithhackworth/sig2
- Yeah, I originally thought the logo was just a deflated, browned Wikipedia logo. User:NeoEva88/sig
- We had a 3d-tater before, if anyone wants to digg that up. --Chronarion 07:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second ... so the potato's name is Sophia? I thought Sophia was a lady on the telly from the 1950s --User:Nerd42/sig 05:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's also the greek word for knowldege. philosophy = knowldege love or potato madness--Rataube 04:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
In fact, while I'm thinking about it, are we sure that the anti-list policy is quite right? There are some contexts in which lists can be fantastically useful (ex. United States Presidents). It occurs to me that perhaps a different policy is in order, more along the lines of crappy lists should be treated like all other crap, pages containing good lists should be named "List of...", where "..." is replaced with content. Or do you peoples like the anti-list policy or some other version of things? --User:Gwax/sig 05:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- As usual, there's no blanket policy on this. Really crap lists are removed, and the idea is that it shouldn't eat up the whole page. Things that were really bad include "List of people god hates", which inevitably sounded like a phone book. So, the bad lists die, and if they're any good, they're kept.--Chronarion 06:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I suppose a namespace could be a possiblity for really good ones.
Until recently, Chuck Norris, Vin Diesel and Mr. T had long lists of so called "facts" on them. As a result of admin views and vague Uncyclopedia policies, these lists were deleted (primarily because they were only minorly original and they were great big lists (we don't like lists)) and there has been a rather forceful attempt to squelch reposts. However, there has been some discussion on the talk pages and it seems to be the case that we may very well have been the Internet's best source for Chuck Norris facts and a lot of people really liked them. To this end, I put forth, for your consideration, the idea of creating Chuck Norris/Facts (and co.) as a means of keeping the facts in Uncyclopedia but preventing them from clogging Chuck Norris (and co.) with more than a single link. What do you folks think? --User:Gwax/sig 05:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Split the page then. There's little harm in that, but lists are rarely pruned, which is where one of the problems lie. --Chronarion 06:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a big problem with having a seperate page for facts. The problem is when people just copy and paste facts from the random Chuck Norris/Vin Diesel/Mr. T facts generator. Uncyclopedia is not a humor repository, it is a source for original satire. If people are going to make up their own funny facts, I don't see a problem with creating a new subpage for it. ----126.96.36.199 20:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- The lists are hilarious, original or not. They need to be somewhere and Uncyclopedia is a good place for them. If it makes things easier, put them on a seperate page. --OsirisX 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't have a big problem with having a seperate page for facts. The problem is when people just copy and paste facts from the random Chuck Norris/Vin Diesel/Mr. T facts generator. Uncyclopedia is not a humor repository, it is a source for original satire. If people are going to make up their own funny facts, I don't see a problem with creating a new subpage for it. ----184.108.40.206 20:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- HOLD ON. A majority of Chuck facts were written a LONG, LONG, LONG time ago as Vin Diesel facts. We need to make sure none of those wind up on the lists. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 17:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wouldn't it be more likely that the "Internet's best source for Chuck Norris facts" might be http://www.chucknorrisfacts.com/ -- or did they steal their facts from us? It's like a chicken-and-egg question (though we already know the answer to that one). --User:BobBobBob/sig 01:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Do we need a "Vanity" Namespace
As we have added a couple of namespaces recently, I'm wondering if we should have a Vanity space, to more clearly differentiate rabid-fanboy pages from the rest of this site. A user randomly clicking through our site and stumbling across a flame-filled page of user-lists from a message board they've never heard of is probably not going to be all that impressed. As per the "keep the site not shit" rule, clearly differentiating the non-article/non-content pages from the rest of our content might improve the overall feel of the site. In addition, from an admin standpoint, while they would need to be directed there initally, we could more easily ignore some of the flamey page edits if they were contained to their own little corner. 16:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Meh. Just instahuff vanity pages, nobody cares. - User:Guest/sig 18:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, nobody likes vanity, just make it A SPLODE. --User:Lugiatm/sig 20:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wish we could, but we've received a directive from on high to allow articles on fansites and such. Regarding the vanity namespace, I'm of two minds. On one hand it would certainly be nice to set vanity apart from the rest of Uncyc, but giving it its own namespace almost seems like encouragement. Perhaps we could make it Garbage: or Fanboy:. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it's funny, keep it. If it's really lame, burn it. It's not a blanket exception. --Chronarion 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- But who decides what's funny in these cases? Personally, I'm pretty sure I won't find anything about a Power Rangers vanity site page funny, but I'm sure it hilarious to them. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 06:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Admins, pretty much. The thing is that if it's at least MOSTLY readable and well written, it can stay, i.e. steam forums, which was amusing. If it's like RangerBoard... --Chronarion 07:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- But who decides what's funny in these cases? Personally, I'm pretty sure I won't find anything about a Power Rangers vanity site page funny, but I'm sure it hilarious to them. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 06:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- If it's funny, keep it. If it's really lame, burn it. It's not a blanket exception. --Chronarion 04:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- Don't get too rabid please. Someone marked 4chan "vanity" when it's only tangentially about the website and is actually about network geeks - David Gerard 00:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wish we could, but we've received a directive from on high to allow articles on fansites and such. Regarding the vanity namespace, I'm of two minds. On one hand it would certainly be nice to set vanity apart from the rest of Uncyc, but giving it its own namespace almost seems like encouragement. Perhaps we could make it Garbage: or Fanboy:. --User:Rcmurphy/sig 20:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
How Not To Write an Article
I've noticed a trend amongst a number of people when discussing whether or not an article should be deleted; namely, I've noticed that every once in a while someone suggest keeping a complete shit article because it's a great example of how not to write an article or, it's so completely terrible they think it's funny. Personally, I hate this and it really pisses me off. That noted, however, I'm not the sort to go and trash stuff other people want to keep for the wrong reasons just because I think it's crap. In order to try to appease others and still provide a means for getting rid of this kind of drek, I propose the creation of a new namespace for articles that are so bad, we want them kept (something like BadExample: WrongCrowd: Crap: HowNotToWriteAnArticle: or such). Examples of things that I think should be handled in this way are Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit, Fisher Price and a whole bunch of other such things. --User:Gwax/sig 21:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, rcmurphy would never agree to this. Apparently some actual, non-IP users find this crap funny. Although Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit is funny. Reminds me of Woof, Meow, Developers!, etc. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 22:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- And the commentaries on cunt cunt and Fisher-price are hilarious. Though, I don't think we need a namespace for this. We only need ONE article. Perhaps something like Uncyclopedia:How Not to Write an Article. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 18:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly support Gwax's proposal. I suggest namespace "Anti-humor:" --User:Isra1337/sig 22:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm gonna go with Isra's name. Sounds good to me. User:Tompkins/sig 22:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- I hereby pledge my support to "Anti-humor."--User:Bradaphraser/sig 22:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd support a category for this kind of thing, but certainly not a namespace. The presence of a namespace implies wide-scale approval, and I think we want to limit this type of inanity to a dozen pages or so. --Algorithm (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- 2nd that. ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- 3rd. I admit, I laughed myself sick at the Fisher Price retrospective, and even Cunt^4 got a few chuckles out of me. Crass vulgarity can work sometimes, if the subject material is taken as serious art. However, I think that these things do need to be kept segregated from the general population and closely monitored. A category would allow this, but a namespace, like Algorithm said, might encourage more asanine behavior (as I feared in my comments on Fisher Price's VFD nomination.) --User:King In Yellow/sig 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
That bastard Stephen Colbert.
IDEA ALERT: We should have an anti-Colbert reskinning, "attacking" him and such. That would put the issue right at the forefront. We get a lot of lurkers who just come to read and link stuff to their blogs, and they might not see the village dump. Who up for it???--User:Savethemooses/sig 00:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, and then we should spam his inbox with screenshots. Yes, yes indeed. User:Tompkins/sig 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. A reskin is too much, but there should be SOMETHING that mentions this on the front page. Maybe under Chron's State of the Wiki?User:Bradaphraser/sig00:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Idea sounds good, but we don't nesicarily have to do a re-skinning, we could always just put the Colbert article on IC and then make it a feature article.--Jsonitsac 15:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Come on, people. This has to be OVER THE TOP for it to get noticed and for it to work. That means a well-done reskinning and a well-done front page parody. --User:Savethemooses/sig 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- See, for those who have never watched the Colbert Report, he is really, really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY... [infinite recurrance of reallys] ...over the top. Really. So, if we are going to make fun of him, we have to imitate his style, and a loony reskin would suit the idea perfectly. --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 19:41, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
- you know, stephen did appear in newsweek recently. maybe we could involve them somehow.--Jsonitsac 23:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like nothing more than blatant reference begging to me. We'd be walking the ED-esque-attention-whore-tight-rope, but if you think you can pull something off and make it suitably outrageous and funny, best of luck. --User:Spintherism/sig 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think we can. All we have to do is get noticed and mentioned somewhere. A newspaper would be best. Case in point: a girl who won a drawing contest with a picture of Colbert got some airtime. Tons of other times Colbert has mentioned references to himself in the media. BUT THIS ISN'T ABOUT THE PUBLICITY!!1!11! It's about DEFENDING our RIGHTS to TRUTH! And stuff. I have a really awful first draft which is completely half-assed, but it's the general idea. If somebody can put together a nice new anti-Colber logo and uber-patriotic front page, I'd love to do the words. We can put Colbert to JUSTICE!!! --User:Savethemooses/sig 14:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Interesting start, but it needs a lot of work, like big pictures of the american flag, eagles,
swastikas,and professional graphics to make it work. Maybe large U shapes all over the place? And the Word of the Day should be Wørd of The Day, or even Wørd øf the Day.--Jsonitsac 17:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- It seems like nothing more than blatant reference begging to me. We'd be walking the ED-esque-attention-whore-tight-rope, but if you think you can pull something off and make it suitably outrageous and funny, best of luck. --User:Spintherism/sig 05:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Come on, people. This has to be OVER THE TOP for it to get noticed and for it to work. That means a well-done reskinning and a well-done front page parody. --User:Savethemooses/sig 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
His Word last night was Jesi. Bastard ripped the plural of Jesus right from Uncyclopedia. Who do we call to sue? I think that we should seriously mount a (good-natured, unless you were thinking otherwise?) email campaign. Who knows, maybe we could get some airtime... --User:Savethemooses/sig 00:37, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, the first step would be to make a page, methinks...--Bradaphraser 00:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, now that that's done, how's about a slander campaign on the article to try to get on his show?--Bradaphraser 00:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I always knew he was up to no good. We need to start an email campaign as soon as possible. Ready set go. User:Tompkins/sig 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- http://ccinsider.comedycentral.com/cc_insider/2006/02/new_colbert_rep.html#comment-13554776 Haha, it's the best I could do. User:Tompkins/sig 02:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Here's an email adress to the Colbert Nation: [email protected] --Jsonitsac 02:56, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- I always knew he was up to no good. We need to start an email campaign as soon as possible. Ready set go. User:Tompkins/sig 02:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Don't we have a pretty open license though? --User:Gwax/sig 16:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yer but it's for non-comercial likesy init (I guess the beeb could use it then?)--User:Elvis/sig 00:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
- Wow. I was pretty pissed on IRC last night to know that I missed Colbert Report, but to know that I missed such a monumental word? Although seriously, Jesii isn't exactly property of Uncyclopedia. It's the plural of Jesus. It's like trying to copyright "the", or "You're fired". --[[User:Nintendorulez|User:Nintendorulez/sig]] 17:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- Jesii is absolutely not the correct plural. In fact, it is possibly the most wrong, more wrong than: Jesi, Jesera, Jesora, Jesa, Jesuses, Jessen, Jesies, Jesuss, Jesus's, Jesus', Jesoes, Jesuves, Jesices, Jesum, Jesantes, Jesta, Jesux, Jesot, Jesuit, etc. For one thing, it is in the wrong declension to go i -> us, for another, only ius words become ii, eg: Radius -> Radii. The most technicaly correct plural of Jesus is Jesus. But that isn't funny. Jesii is. --User:Splaka/sig 22:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
- That man is a coward, and unless he admits it on the air, he's only proving my point. And since we're stealing from each other, you sir, are dead to me. - Nonymous 00:07, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe that church of subgenius has been using Jesii for a while. --Chronarion 06:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Stealing from Uncyclopedia... that's like taking candy from a mentally handicapped baby. Doug 04:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Here's what I sent to the [email protected] address:
Subj: Please Direct This To Mr. Colbert (PLAGIARIZER) Immediately!
Mr. Colbert,
Last night while viewing your show, I was left in shock and awe when you said that your Word was "Jesi", or a plural form of Jesus. Then I saw your smug little grin, and I could tell that you thought that you had thought up this word just like how you "made up" the word "truthiness" (nice try).
Well I have news for you. uncyclopedia.wikia.com, a very fine organization dedicated to spreading the REAL truth, invented the plural for Jesus long ago. Observe: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Jesii
Now I know what you're thinking. "But I spelled it with one 'i', not two!" Very clever, Mr. Colbert. But we can see right through your subterfuge (see? I can make up words too). You're trying to steal our possessions, alter them, and then sell them off as your own. I know the biz; I worked as a bootlegger in Hong Kong for 12 years. But this isn't Hong Kong, my friend. This is America.
I, as well as the rest of my many friends at Uncyclopedia, concur that if you do not address and apologize for the fact that you stole from us ON AIR... you're a coward.
--User:Savethemooses/sig 01:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Just added the first official Wilde/Ballmer quote on that Comedy Central website.--Jsonitsac 15:28, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I accidenly got drunk tonight, and just as accidently caught this particluar episode in re-run mode. My hands hurt from the extended run of obscene gestures I made to the TV for the stealage of Jesi, even if it was spelled wrong. We must strike back. With Great Vengence. 03:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but let's wait til we're all sober. User:Tompkins/sig 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The biggest dicks on uncyc
Created and posted by request of Splaka. Here are the relative sizes of our estimed admins' members as measured in deletions:
- --User:Isra1337/sig 08:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- Mine is finally big enough for autofellatio! Bah. --User:Splaka/sig 09:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- God, I am ashamed at my lack of effort in the last few months. But really...I deleted 500 articles in one day during Forest Fire Week...how is it possible that I only have 1500 deletions? What time-frame are you looking at here? Regardless, it looks like it's time for me to go list, NRV, stub, and orphan hunting. By the end of the month my goal is to clear 2000 deletions, minimum. 00:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Time frame for "length" is since the begining. Time frame for "girth" is from your first deletion to the time the chart was made. --User:Isra1337/sig 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Finally, some sort of stats to help with my withdrawal symptoms. :) Now... how 'bout them edit counts? :) ~ User:Todd Lyons/sig 01:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- I'm a little disappointed that the day people decide to make a measurement of each other's "old man" coincides with the weekend when I'm dying of the flu. Oh, and it was cold. -- User:Mhaille/sig 01:16, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
God....Keitei has more girth than I do...now that's depressing. Guess it's time to switch from Kiss posters to something else... 01:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Famine, if you're slimming down, it's because you haven't been eating again! --Carlb 05:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I lost over a month of deletions and I've had trouble keeping up for a while...just too much to do outside of the site. I wish I could delete more. User:Dawg/sig 05:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Whwne will you all learn thats it's not the number of deletions that counts but what you have deleted!!--User:Elvis/sig 11:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- You have a point there. People like Famine have like 10 times the quality of deletes that Splaka has, since he's deleted crap like the Main Page before. User:Dawg/sig 13:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
True, but we expect to see a certain level of deletion, suffering and mayhem in the wake of one of the Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse. --Carlb 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
- Isra needs to make new stats. I just went on a deletion spree! If it isn't nailed down and doesn't have someone defending it, it's burning! User:Dawg/sig 11:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, I admit it..I'm the scrawniest, weakest of the Horsemen. About the only thing I can defeat them at is a pie-eating contest. 00:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Mind you, Pestilence comes back from the ratrace looking tired and haggard at times too. Not to worry... --Carlb 11:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
How can mine be smaller than Keitei's!?! Well.....you guys got me --Nytrospawn 19:07, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Worst 100 Reflections on the Year
Once this reaches a full 100, we should make it an official article. --User:Savethemooses/sig 03:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)