Forum:Vanity Page tag

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Vanity Page tag

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6356 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

A vanity page tag has recently been applied to an article that I maintain. I have to say, that it was the most idiotic thing i've ever seen on Uncyclopedia, because it shows clearly that the individual responsible for the VP hasn't bothered to look further into the subject. Anyhow, the article is about a regional music-based message board that once saw close to 1million hits per month.

Can i just toss the VP tag? because it's rather useless and the page is enjoyed by those that frequent the website that it's about.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by AphoticZenith (talk • contribs)

• You mean TorontoRaves? Is it about torontoraves.com? It looks like an inside joke that mentions names...which is pretty much the definition of vanity. Not the "book learnin'" definition, but a definition anyway.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Well, I say it's high time "ThirdEye" got taken down a peg in a public forum. Not so much because I find him distasteful, but because "TurdEye" is far too delicious of a pun to pass up. Lemon 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• We need Codeine's Mum to make a ruling I think.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  C's mum took that vacation in Canada, remember? It was clean, and the people were so polite. Do you know Dave, from Saskatoon?--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruling and Explanation from the guy who tagged it

Okay, as Codeine's mum isn't around right now, I'll have to apply the secondary vanity test. Per UN:VAIN, likely vanity articles will be deleted if it fails two or more of the following tests:

• If it is funny. (It's meh. Pass.)
• How many google hits it has. (22,500. Pass.)
• Whether or not wikipedia has a page for it. (Nope. Fail.)
• Whether or not any of the admins have heard of it. (I sure haven't. Fail unless some other admin has.)
• If it is funny. (Again, it's meh. Pass.)

By all rights, this should be an ex-article. However, you'll note that it's tagged {{vanity2}}. Vanity2 means that your article has potential to be allowable and/or funny. All Vanity2 is is a "heads-up," basically, "you have seven days to make this article allowable per UN:VAIN." —Hinoa KUN (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've got dibs on it for firewood in the next 24 hrs. I see no redeeming value in the page. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 12/1 01:57

So, let me get this straight. One of your requirements is... if you haven't heard of it, then it doesn't exist? I have to say, that's rather closed-minded. Further to the point, if you haven't heard of certain things, then what good is allowing all users to contribute to uncyclopedia. Heaven's forbid new content should appear on the site that you are completely unaware of outside of the confines of Uncyclopedia. Here's your moment of zen -> real vanity, my craptastic signature. --AphoticZenith 05:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a test: Go to Wikipedia, type your name into the search. Do you get any hits? No, right? Do you exist? Well isn't that closed minded of Wikipedia, a supposedly open mineded society driven encyclopedia. So, create a page about yourself, and watch as without a {{vanity2}} they delete it. Now, don't you like Uncyclopedia's way better? --Sir Zombiebaron 02:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm there. Granted, they use the obsolete two word variant (which is so last millenium), and there's no pics... Also, it has nothing to do with me. It must be a parody of an Uncyc page. Wikipedia does that all the time.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

They even stole {{wikipedia}}! But they replaced "Wikipedia" with "Wikictionary". How slovenly. --Sir Zombiebaron 08:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

...and someone should put merge templates on their pages for Zombie and baron, too.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah not only do I have a very long and detailed article Elvis, but they even have a whole category devoted to me!!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 14:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Hah^2&3! I have these two categories and an article!  Sir Tooltroll, Esq. CUN • Eh? • Oh! • UnTunes! •• I my cat! 15:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the vanity tag. Web forum are usually of interest only to their users. The article to hand mostly concerns itself with slapping the various owners of TorontoRaves with the old fag-tag -- not very funny, and double-not-funny if you neither know who the article is talking about nor give one single damn about who they are. Why don't people write a nice funny article about something that does appear in a real encyclopedia, like gneiss or Turin or dacquiri or snapping turtle? An alligator snapper with fangs long as Oscar Wilde's winkie and squinchy angry eyes glaring out at the world like like a drunken OJ Simpson contemplating the ruins of his book deal...never mind. Go ahead and write the history of a web forum. ----OEJ 01:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• It seems using Uncycopedia as a way to get back at people who were mean to you on the forums is more commmon than I had imagined. Lemon. 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)