Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive11

LOL wikipedia part deux

This just in from The Register:

Brian Chase, a 38 year old employee of Rush Delivery in Seigenthaler's home town of Nashville, Tennessee, admitted to making the edit and has apologized to Seigenthaler. The reason he gave to the New York Times was most revealing.

Chase thought Wikipedia was a joke site and he made the edit to amuse a colleague. From which we conclude that the spoof site Uncyclopedia, which consists entirely of fictional entries, is doing far better than expected, and that Wikipedia has a long way to go to rid itself of the image that it's a massive, multiplayer shoot-em-up game, or MMORPG.

The Reg article was linked from Slashdot. I think we all have a Moral responsibility to take another shot of Tequila to celebrate and/or commisserate. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 23:46, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

WE MUST SUE THEM FOR LIBEL! They have defamed our good name and insulted the quality of our writers and articles! How could they give so much credit to a site like Wikipedia that provides nothing but outright lies, then contrast our site unfavorably against them?! » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 23:55, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

"There's no Wikipedia entry for 'moral responsibility" -- There is now!

I say, next time Uncyclopedia gets slashdotted and teh high traffic makes the site crash 'n burn so we get error messages and slowness, WE SHOULD SUE 'EM! WHO'S WITH ME!? --Nerd42 02:18, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia manages to look credible enough in the first place to fool people is enough to impress me. It's only by some sort of internet miracle that it doesn't look like this. --Spintherism 03:23, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Looks like someone's been busy: [1] --User:IMBJR/sig 12:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's just immature vandalism. Why's this getting such serious attention? This is fairly common on wikipedia. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:42, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

New York Times --Nytrospawn 17:21, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh crap. Why did you make me click that? who cares that they think. --Nerd42 18:28, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I really hope you're making an attempt at humor by being sarcastic and that you're not that dumb.--Sir Flammable KUN 23:37, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uh, yeah, that was an attempt at humor/sarcasm, and had nothing to do with it being the old york times, though I am of course not a great fan of the old york times. --Nerd42 23:51, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• You seem to have dropped your comment. I decided to put it back up here for you. (Hugs!) --Sir Flammable KUN 03:25, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

which wha? was "Why did you make me click that?" missing after my last edit? Perhaps when I copied something to the clipboard I hit "cntrl+X" instead of "cntrl+C" or something. --Nerd42 21:51, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

He means this edit, ya noob. --Splaka 02:17, 18 Dec 2005 (UTC)

VFH Topshift!

I wanna try doing a topshift. So new articles on VFH should go on top. When voting, bump it to the top. I think i'll go faster. --Chronarion 21:53, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia_talk:VFH#New_world_order. Sorted. You owe me dinner. --Splaka 02:51, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

agree it's a pain trying to find them in alphabetical order. Newest on top, and there should be some time limit on how long an article can stay on VFH ... and hopefully it's longer than a week but not more than a month --Nerd42 22:56, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

My general concept is "by eyeball". I don't like to give rules unless the place would fall apart without them, that's my philosophy. So like, if there's something clearly not going to make it, whoever is running VFH would have the judgement call. --Chronarion 05:52, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

VFH seems worse with the new order. It is now much harder to find articles to vote for them. Also, older (and perhaps noteworthy) nominations get buried in the middle. This means that more flash-in-the-pan type articles and articles that are more heavily self-promoted get more attention. --Sir KP GUN 18:08, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps what we need is the articles in an alphabetical list, and a table at the top with a tally of the votes. Voters should both add a signature to the article section and a tally mark to the table. --Sir KP GUN 18:16, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that requiring two edits every time one casts a vote is making life easier for anyone, but perhaps organising these by dividing the nominations into sections based on what week/month the first nomination was made for an individual article and placing article names within those sections alphabetically may work? The problem with sorting articles by most recent vote instead of first vote cast is that the order must change every time anyone casts a vote for any of them. --Carlb 21:52, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can lock the VFH page and then just randomly feature articles, while making up votes from registered users to support our choices. Or just let VFH do what it's always done, and then have an admin-straw-poll over IRC and choose articles, while ignoring user votes. Bare minimum, the bitching might be a lot of fun to read. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 23:19, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

DYK?

What happened? DYK was one of the funniest things, why is it now boring and locked? I used to love the funny crap in DYK. It was popular for a reason. I feel that each day we become less and less of a wiki... --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:55, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If by funny , you mean childish and unamuseing......--Nytrospawn 17:58, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that managing our front page compromises us as a wiki in any way. The front page is the lynchpin of the whole site—if it's lame, it drives people away. If it's funny, it draws people in like the display window of a store. Once inside, they can browse around at the treasures and the trash, but we need to pull them in. A lot of us were unimpressed with the crappy submissions in DYK, and some would have DYK scrapped completely. I'm for keeping it, but it should represent the best we've got to offer. -- T. (talk) 18:46, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well this sure as hell isn't the best we have to offer. DYK may have been 75% crap, but the rest of it was excellent. This new stuff doesn't make me laugh. At all. Period. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:24, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this could have been better solved by making it more "okay" for individual users to delete other people's DYK submissions? --Nerd42 22:38, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo: This doesn't make it less of a wiki at all. Wikipedia does not let users edit the front page at all. And this is the best we have to offer: links to the best articles on the site.

What was once filled with random, meaningless, and crappy one-liners is now a useful way to re-highlight good articles.

The bottom line is DYK sucked. It was just a bunch of lame shit which was either self-referential or trite bashes of George W. Bush. Now it links to funny articles. So there. --Savethemooses 01:18, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We have "featured articles" / "recent articles" already. If you want keep this section (not saying you should) as a parody of Wikipedia's DYK, then what sucks most about theirs? (Ben Stein: "anyone? anyone?") That the facts are obscure and boring. "Did you know... that Frisian literature refers to written works produced in West Frisian, a language spoken primarily in the province of Friesland in the Netherlands?" So how about a "Do you care..." "...no, neither do we" section? Fool 18:38, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

er, yeah, but what about my idea. Unprotect it but empower ordinary users to become Guardians of the DYK, deleteing crappy linez and keeping funny lines... well tis just an idea - I'm not strongy opposed or in support of anything really. --Nerd42 02:11, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What, you mean ordinary users couldn't delete crap before? Fool 18:38, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes tis exactly what I mean. If they took anything off that wasn't very old, it would get reverted/put back. --Nerd42 15:15, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's what I say. Let the users delete crap from DYK. Personally, the new DYK is rather dull as it's the same stuff from the same featured articles that have beem coming up over and over. And is "Did you know..... Another anonymous user was given a 24 year ban? Sorry Nikki, you wont be getting the message" or a DYK relating to AAAAAAAAA! for the umpteenth time that huge of an improvement (I love that article, BTW, but I think it's starting to be overdone)?

Here's the way I see it - DYK was the place for some occassionally clever one liners that made you chuckle, "In the News" is the place for SNLesque takes on the news, the anniversary for an ocassionally good chuckle as well, and the featured article for a decent laugh. See, all these different types of types of jokes and whatnot come together to form one good thing.

I'm not like, totally going nuts over this, as it may seem from my semi-passionate response. I just think that the DYK is lamer than the old one. It really should be used by the users to use DYK to feature some facts from articles (which believe it or not, happened occassionally).

But the "Do you care...?...neither do we" suggestion was good though too.

Okay, I've said way too much.--Champthom 17:53, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

<choose><option>Did You Know?</option><option>Do You Kare?</option></choose> --Carlb 04:39, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

LOL wikipedia

Check it: some folks are setting up a Class Action Lawsuit against wikipedia. --Sir gwax (talk) 12:31, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh god. I... I don't know what to say. These bastards better not win their silly case. It was just immature vandalism, and people shouldn't act like it's the apocalypse. Honestly, this is worse than the media riot over Hot Coffee. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:42, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Suing as a means of income is as American as apple pie. It's more of a sure bet than winning the lottery, and is preferable to other alternatives like, say, working. ;) My only concern is: are we next? Well.... must be off. I'd better hunt down some slander/vanity before my name shows up on a witness list. -- T. (talk) 12:55, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's reassuring that we're neither the only people who claim that Wikipedia is inaccurate and dangerous, nor the least sane. --EvilZak 13:43, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh THIS is UNCYCLOPEDIA!!! I've been working on the wrong site the last few months......bugger! -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

14:24, 12 Dec 2005 Todd Lyons Rights for user "User:Mhaille" set "" (-sysop) -- T. (talk) 14:25, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Here's something interesting to add to your WP watch list: I started a Wikipedia article about this: Wikipedia:Wikipediaclassaction.org NPOV? Ah, the irony. --Nerd42 22:52, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh wait, never mind they already had one. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Class Action. I merged the two. hopefully didn't screw up their site too bad. --Nerd42 23:20, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

This is not such a laughing matter. If something so immature as this requires a class action suit, Imagine how Wikipedia may react to Uncyclopedia. This is nothing compared to what some people may do! --Kyle1 23:13, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, please. *rolls eyes* This lawsuit is going to fail even if they have to pull out the First Ammendment. There's no way this is going to succeed. And if it does, the worst that could happen is censorship. Wikipedia's not going to get SEHS so don't worry. ;) --Nerd42 23:20, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If they need to put ads on their website to afford hosting, I wonder how they are going to pay for a lawyer? --Paulgb 19:43, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has ads now? I thought they were donation funded? maybe eventually they'll manage to sell print editions of their best articles and crap. --Nerd42 20:27, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• How about, we flood them with spam saying "hands off from Wikipedia"? - Guest 09:34, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

I'm not sure if this is the right place to say this, but Grand Theft Auto : Lego Island needs to be reverted to a previous edit. Someone changed it to an unfunny version that has to do with fruit washing. --Kyle1 01:08, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

First, you might want to check your links before you save an edit. Second, why are you asking for someone else to do it? You can revert it yourself. You have the technology.--Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 02:00, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for both tips. I didn't realize I was such a noob. --Kyle1 00:43, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hey, better to report this stuff than let it go unnoticed if you're not sure about procedure. Several times I was going to respond, but, uh, I forgot. Sorry! --—rc (t) 01:47, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Grue Bites

Are grue bites survivable? If by some weird chance they are survivable, can you catch west-nile virus or Hanta virus from these bites? - Hawthorn Peebles 22:54, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No one has ever been bitten by a grue and survived, though a few people have been swallowed whole and managed to escape prior to digestion, which, and you can trust me on this one, is very difficult. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:34, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For a more serious and reliable reference on INFOCOM / Zork / Great Underground Empire Grues, see the Encyclopedia Frobozzica's entry on Grues. (it's the official Zork encyclopedia) --Nerd42 01:50, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Gold Mine?

What if we had a page similar to Requested Articles where people could post red links to articles which have huge potential? Let's say I'm writing an article about Cars, and I mention headlight fluid somewhere in the article, but I notice that it comes up as a red link. If I didn't have time to make the page I'd post it to Gold Mine, where someone would write it up.

The incentive to people writing the article would be to have (almost) automatically written a good article. Synomymous with Anonymous 13:55, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea. Perhaps we could call it "Requested Articles" or something. Because you are requesting an article, you know. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 14:40, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree and have taken the liberty of creating the page, but used Famine's suggested title. You retain full credit for the idea of course. Well done everyone. High fives all around! :) -- T. (talk) 14:56, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hey! I just wrote this nifty script that finds those red link things you were talking about and makes them into a list. You can read the list and decide which thing to write about so that the red links disappear automagically. Well done, me! -- T. (talk) 14:59, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nice work. I wish I'd thought of that. :) --Carlb 01:20, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I was messing around in the lab today, and I invented this awesome new thing called "sarcasm." Are you interested? It's very expensive. -- geoffsebesta 21:59, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, sure you invented it. I bet you have a bridge to sell me too, eh? Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:41, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You could always refer to Blinker fluid which is the classic version of unobtanium-based liquid car accesories.. and a neolithic contribution before I figured out how to write. Still haven't. -rfc 01:14 14 Dec 2005 (WTF)

Looks like we have blinker fluid but are fresh out of plaid paint. Also no luck finding a distributor cap for a 2004 Neon? --Carlb 05:14, 19 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia dating service

why? isnt it operating already and when? can we expect it. --Whywhywhy 10:49, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Personally ima after a girl with

Big articles, Nice edits, Great grammar, Beautiful italics, Misinformed mischievous mentality. --Whywhywhy 10:49, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

A girl? On the internet? I don't believe it. There are no girls on the internet. They're a myth concocted by the huge corporate dating sites so they can charge subscription fees. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:28, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

first they poison the milk, the ozone layer, the air but this time its personal... or could have been anyway. your going down corporations and this time its personal--Whywhywhy 15:04, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I suspect we'll end up with

Particularly cuddly middle-aged Star Trek enthusiasts who live in their parents' basement and have this notable odour about them. But their Internet knowledge is uncyclopaedic! - David Gerard 08:08, 13 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh my goodness

A friend of mine had a "prompt me" challenge on her livejournal. I submitted "Uncyclopedia Brown". She came back with: [2]

I remember reading the Encyclopedia Brown books; I think I also remember I found him to be somewhat insufferable. And so I am entertained by the idea of an Uncyclopedia Brown, at least as the Intarweb presents it -- a compendium of falseness, a children's book written by Oscar Wilde while high as a kite. I think I'd actually like to read that book, because I'd probably like it better than the originals.

I suppose you could see it as a metaphor for the Intarweb as a whole -- the world re-written by madmen and children, spinning stories long on punch but short on truth, a place where conspiracies seem logical and hallucinations as real as the desk their being typed at, where the line between fiction, fever dream and realness is thin and easy to cross.

I like it. In particular, I think "fever dream" beats "fiction" every time on Uncyclopedia - David Gerard 15:00, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think Ive recieved "fever" dreams from reading Uncyclopedia. --Nytrospawn 02:55, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think that the last phrase in that passage should be Uncyclopedia's mission statement. :) --Isra1337 12:03, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:45, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:42, 14 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For but its funny how uncyc actually seems less crazy than the world in some cases :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 00:53, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What? C+ at best. Sorry. --—rc (t) 00:59, 15 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uh... No... Its a bit too sophomoric for a mission statement. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 17:57, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't have that. Will have to figure out a version that is more freshmanic. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 18:36, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Word of the Day

What are the thoughts on partially replacing/augmenting DYK/RN with a 'Word of the Day'? I made Template:Wotd, which displays a different (pre-generated randomly) word every day of the year, using the concise code worked out by Isra1337 and Algorithm. It keeps the cruft to two templates, very slick. The current list of words are all valid scrabble words in the US or UK (taken from SOWPODS), but they could be changed later (although the code must be protected as it is easy to mess up). I am thinking something like:

Today's word of the day is zen Try to use it in your conversations. Knowledge is power.

possibly below or above the DYK template, or even inside it if the separate box is too obtrusive. Thoughts? --Splaka 01:03, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For. But can you make the link 'target="_blank"' so that people don't get lost? :) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I don't think we can mess with the target. However, what we could do is have it randomly link to google, google images, answers.com, wikipedia, wiktionary, or urban dictionary. Or possibly just a google "I'm feeling lucky". Note also that the list of words here is for demo purposes, not necessarily the final version. --Splaka 01:30, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. Link to "I'm feeling lucky". It's all fun and games until someone adds "goatse" to the list (then it's hilarious). -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 23:42, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

For, good idea. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 03:34, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That looks like truly horrifying template abuse. Well done! But read and consider Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates in case putting it on the front page makes Jason want to rip your throat out with a spork. Just to help bring such an event to fruition, I've put it on the Main Page experimentally. See what you think - David Gerard 17:57, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. Heh. I changed it to magenta to not contrast so much. --Splaka 03:04, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advisory, David, but it doesn't really apply in this case. The subtemplate used here is called from only one other place (so no scope creep) and is protected (so no vandalism). The additional server load is constant, not exponential. --Algorithm (talk) 06:01, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Link

Another thing. I have the example above linked to answers.com as that is what google uses for definitons, and seems to have the highest success rate to haivng an entry for these random words. Other possiblities are:

• Answers.com: zen
• Urban Dictionary zen
• Wikipedia zen
• Wiktionary zen
• Google: zen
• Google I'm feeling lucky: zen
• Google Images: zen
• Google Groups: zen
• Local link: zen
• Random link to one of the above with <choose>.
• No link.

Note: If we just red-link it, it will be created several times during the day. This could provide amusement for the admins though. Something to delete (unless a good version was created). Thoughts? --Splaka 02:43, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I was about to suggest that we link to Uncyclopedia, as that site is guaranteed to have the word in question. At least, within 20 pageviews. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:51, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think linking to Uncyclopedia is the best option, it's a lot classier than linking to someone else. I mean, so what if people edit it a lot, that's what wikis are about. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:16, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Done. I see Famine already made Dingle ^_^ --Splaka 03:04, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Replacing DYK

I'd suggest that the existing DidYouKnow be changed to display one random item pulled from the DYK archives (see {{DYK}} for a general idea; the list will need to be cleaned up first to remove any unfunny entries). Each time the page was viewed, a different "did you know" fact would appear automagically.

The remainder of the space could then be contain {{fortune}}/a random thought of the day and the {{wotd}} word of the day.

That way, even with the 'edit' link removed from the mainpage, the contents would automagically change (either randomly or daily) instead of always being the same "Did you know: ...that 43.6% of statistics are made up?" stuff every time. --Carlb 04:05, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like it. How about this:

• Remove the editable Template:DidYouKnow and delete it! And salt the earth.
  • Insert Template:DYK. Protect the template. Link the edit button to Did You Know
  • Generate Template:DYK from Did You Know periodically (once a month?) inserting <choose><option> code. That way anyone can add to DYK but their changes won't appear until we generate the template (allowing editing of shit out).
• Add Template:Fortune below that. Can be left editable.
• Add Word of the Day idea to that, has to be protected. Only needs to be edited once a year.

This will limit cruft or at least allow a filter between the cruft and the front page. --Splaka 04:33, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• A filter? Methinks we need a whole sewage treatment plant. Some way of checking for duplicate DYK's may also be useful. --Carlb 04:37, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

With some input for RC, I edited Main Page (editable) into a demo of what it would look like. The Recent News might go better at the top though. --Splaka 06:50, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Looks good. :) --Carlb 18:46, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• How about featuring some words with articles that arnt worthy of (VFD) just as maybe a joke?--Whywhywhy 00:42, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Unification of facts for consistency

Is anyone interested in starting a project to unify all the various facts contained in articles to produce a single, somewhat coherent history? Every article contains a completely independent history, facts, and meaning. For instance, one article might refer to a certain war as happening at a particular time, while other articles about the same time period do not mention it at all. Also, too often do people use a concept in an article and include an inter-wiki link, only to find that the page they linked to describes the concept as something completely different. This is the kind of thing this project would fix.

Some discrepancy is actually beneficial however, as it can often be hilarious. The idea here would only be to correct things that it would make sense to fix. In a nutshell, the idea is to make the "Uncyclopedia universe" somewhat consistent. 71.241.243.71 14:55, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'm with you 107%, though this is more the sort of thing that people should be doing all the time than the sort of thing that should be a project. The biggest problem is all the damned n00bs who don't know the difference between parody and random drivel (Columbus sailing to India in 1492 is funnier than Columbus flying to Antarctica in 8000000BC). You might be interested in the Timeline Project, which seeks to create a central historical timeline. Also, we need more people with your attitude, create yourself an account and become a real person. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:36, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Alphabetization

I have noticed that individuals are alphabetized by last name in the musicians category but by first name in all of the subcategories. There are probably other categories with subcategories where this has happened. Is there any way to change this to make it consistent?--Naughtyned 11:44, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Why would you want to do that? --Pants, at work.

I guess I just like consistency, unless there's a humorous reason for being inconsistent. I mean, I enjoy articles that have wildly contradictory "facts" about the same subject as much as the next Uncyclopedian, but this is a case where incosistency adds no humor and constistency could simplify things.--Naughtyned 15:02, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

To put things under a category alphabetized in a certain way, you must specify the location of their appearance, via the category tag parameter. Eg [[Category:Musicians|Lennon, John]] will put John Lennon under 'L'. --Splaka 22:21, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Splaka. Don't know how I missed that before.--Naughtyned 19:02, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Everything in Category:IPod is indexed under I. Except the ones that are indexed under i. - David Gerard 14:54, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

We've hit the big time

We were mentioned in Business Today... EGYPT!!! --Savethemooses 14:34, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, noes! Unorganizationism!

I recently proposed an idea for a failed VFH template which can be found at Uncyclopedia_talk:VFH#Always_in_a_limbo?, but here's the template idea just in case:

Quazi-Featured Article This article was nominated to become a featured article; however, due to a voting discrepany in Florida involving Oprah and rabid squirrels, it didn't make the cut. It's the thought that counts, right? You can prevent Oprah's nefarious plans from working by voting for other articles at Uncyclopedia:VFH.

I got responses from one person who mentioned how much of a hassle it seems to be for the admins (or you, if you're an admin) to maintain the VFH. Soon I realized just how messed up it seems to be right now. Why is the list alphebetized? What's the time span for nominations? Shouldn't there be x-number of "for" votes more than "against" votes needed for an article to become a featured article? What is the meaning of life? All that jazz. I'd be more than happy to help clean up this system if any people in power seem to agree with me. -JBob 03:44, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

VFH is indeed quite unwieldy. I go through every so often and pick out the rotten apples, but the majority of the pages there have a significant number of votes, so I don't want to cut them down without giving them a chance. I have a quasi-system for choosing how long nominations get to stay on the page, but there are just so many nominations that I can't do that much to help it. Usually the page with the most votes (postive votes - negative votes) will be featured, but sometimes I choose an older article that has one or two fewer votes if it's been waiting a long time. And older articles have precedence in the case of a tie. Finally, the alphabetization. It is a little awkward since it's harder to find new nominations (though you could just poke around the page history). If people want to change the alphabetized list to a most-recent-nomination-on-top list (to give its formal designation), I'd be ok with that, although it might bring up other problems. --—rc (t) 03:55, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It would be best if we just featured all of my articles on a rotation. --Savethemooses 18:10, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Idea dump

I've come up with an idea for something to add the the Village Dump. Let's say I come up with a one-liner for a potential article. That alone is not enough to warrant an article, and would instead be deleted. Perhaps there could be a page to dump all these one-liners and other stub article concepts. Other users would view them, and try to expand on the ideas. Once enough jokes are there for somehting in particular, it getss taken off the page and made into an article. Thoughts? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 01:34, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like either Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization or Uncyclopedia:Pee Review to me. Have you tried looking through the Community portal? Doorway is on the left, second down. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 02:36, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Those are for already existing articles. I'm talking about something for articles-to-be. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say that it seems like this page has been around FOREVER, but nobody uses it. I thought on the main page there was a link to an "ideas" article. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:56, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nintendorulez: if you read, you might have noticed the following article linked to ON THE MAIN PAGE: Uncyclopedia:Requested_Articles.

I think this is what you were looking for.

That only really contains titles alone, I was thinking something with bunch of headings and ideas to get started on. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:59, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• shrug* I'd prefer it all be kept in one place... » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 04:31, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No Longer Making up Quotes

Per a pretty good suggestion from my nemesis Nerd42, I think it's well time that we took all our quotes pages and dumped them into a Wikiquote parody. I've started work on this, but one lingering question remains:

The obvious (and Nerd-suggested) quasi-namespace is Unquote:. It's short, sweet, and fits in with Undictionary and UnNews. However, when looking at Unquote, I immediately ask myself, "Where's the quote?" This lead to me initially make the Uncyclopedia:QuoteUnquote page. So I'd like to ask you to waste some electrons commenting before I just pick one and go with it: Which one? Unquote or QuoteUnquote. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:04, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's a difficult question. I like them both, however I like "QuoteUnquote" more, even though "Unquote" is easier to type. I know this will eventually come back and bite me in the ass because I'm lazy and I'll hate typing the longer one. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 01:08, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

QuoteUnquote is teh funnier. --Splaka 01:11, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree to both counts, but Dawg, you hit the nail on the head with the length part+consequences. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:17, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The more harder it is to remember, the less it will be filled with cruft. I say you make it Uncyclopedian Made-Up Quotes: (jk) --Splaka 01:23, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Definetly QuoteUnquote if only because the show of the same name gets the piss ripped out of it so much on I'm sorry I havn't a clue!!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:57, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Why not name the thing QuoteUnquote but have UnQuote as a redirect or something? Whatever you all decide is fine by me. :) --Nerd42 19:05, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure this is such a good idea?

I don't think it would be such a good idea to create a space for quotes, unless you're just trying to create a Crap Sink (a place for excess crap to go so that it doesn't clutter up the main space, ref Heat Sink). I would hold up Undictionary as a shining example of what happens when we try to extend the Un[*] meme to other parts of the Wikiverse. "Shining", that is, in the way that crap shines when you polish it. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 22:38, 9 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uh, did you not get the notice that we weren't going to mention the fact that this was designed to be an outhouse for all the stupid-ass quote idiocy that's been rampant for quite some time here? I figure if it can all get dumped into one place, the rest of the site might get a little neater. Plus, it's easier to police this way.

The big question is whether or not it would be worth moving the Wilde: project there. I won't have that sort of time or ambition until the end of June, but if people think it's a good idea, they are more than welcome to try cleaning up all the wilde-associated templates. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:55, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps ... the whole making up quotes thing ... ought to try and get it's own seperate Wikicity ... possibly? hopefully i haven't said anything taboo or unbelieveably stupid there. --Nerd42 22:23, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

more crap about wikipedia templates

OK so the original templates were:

• Template:Wikipedia (by somebody else)
• Template:Wikipedian (by me, using the same deisgn)

(and I also made Wikipedia:Template:Uncyclopedian over on the Dark Site)

Since then, people have been creating templates for User Pages and articles with different names on wikipedia than on uncyclopedia. These include:

• Template:Wikipedia-named
• Template:Wikipediapar
• Template:Wikipedian-named

And possibly others. It looks as though Template:Wikipedia-named is particularly screwed up ... though that name is much easier to remember and type. Some help sorting out this mess please? --Nerd42 22:10, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have made what I think is an improvement to Template:Wikipedian with Template:WikipedianUser. The tables width has been resized to 238 so that it fits in the Babel tables users commonly have on their pages, an example is on my page. I also changed the piped link so that users can make it link to their actual wikipedia user page. (Users do not always have the same username on wikipedia as they do on uncyclopedia, again, I am an example.) -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

I have thought about it, NeoEva88, and come to the conclusion that your template looks much better than mine, and is also funnier. I suggest possibly moving/merging Template:Wikipedian and Template:WikipedianUser so they both look like your Template:WikipedianUser. --Nerd42 22:48, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Calling for help with group MOSKAU singing

Hi guys, I have no idea how to sing in german, so i'm looking for backup singing buddies for singing MOSKAU, the german retrodisco classic. I can't even pronounce any word in the lyrics other than MOSKAU and only then with the aid of a trained german shepard parking my card in the laundry machine. (link: http://www.koreus.com/media/dschinghiskhan-moskau.html)

So uh, anyone want to sing this and send it in so I can mix it into the uncy theme song for 2005? --Chronarion 05:27, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Try this with one of the german speakers: [[3]] --Splaka 05:32, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to take lessons? --—rc (t) 05:37, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer that it sound like horrible, so i'm not looking for german singers. --Chronarion 07:10, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hey chron, count me in. --PantsMacKenzie 04:12, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Here's the lyrics:

Moskau, Moskau!

Filthy ways to underpants

Whoops, I need insurance card

Oh ho ho ho ho HEY!

Moskau, Moskau!

Time is real and it's so close

Nast a is out barf a close

Oh ho ho ho ho HEY!

Moskau, Moskau!

Please respect Retardia

Men will drink some spit with towel

Oh ho ho ho ho HEY!

--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:51, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Do we all have to learn the special dance? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Calling for help with the uncyclopedia timeline

I've begun work on an uncyclopedia timeline. The main goal is to conglomerate year related stubs and articles into a super-structure of sorts and fill in the gaps that make for lots of year related "red links". Currently I'm working on dealing with all the years from 1AD-now and I need some extra manpower or it'll never get done. Please head over to Uncyclopedia:Timeline for info on the project and what you can do to help. If you want examples, check out 1BC, 1 or 1928. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:01, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Would it be worth using some sort of automated process to create the redirects where nothing already exists? --Carlb 00:59, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Probably. If an automated process went through and created redirects at all the nonexistence pages, I could go through and deal with the pages that already exist and I'm sure it would save me a decent bit of time. I wouldn't know how to make such a thing, but if someone else did, I'd be pretty thankful. It would be nice if it could handle everything from about 3000BC to 3000. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:02, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Gwax, sounds like a very interesting concept. I'd be more then happy to help if the project is still looking for contributors. I've previously compiled the Timeline of World history and Timeline of future World history as well as the vast majotity of earliest contributions were (and continue to be) year pages. I've been planing to reformat the year pages to resemble Wikipedia formatting when I can get some free time. MadMax 23:33, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Annoying image

So, I invented this really really really annoying little animated GIF ... does it inspire anyone? --Nerd42 16:51, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

... to start using the blink tag again? Yes. Yes, it does. --Overlordzoloft 16:59, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Makes me think of using a really powerful pogo-stick to jump into outer space over and over again. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:01, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly say that it inspire me... Must ... kill ... Nerd42 ... must ... kill. :) -- T. (talk) 19:26, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a spork of Desencyclopedie:Analogie using this image - David Gerard 14:08, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

er ... is that the Foriegn language version of the encyc dramatica? --Nerd42 15:17, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(Carlb 18:10, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) clubs User:Nerd42 over the head with a baguette)

YM "drowns Nerd42 in a paddling pool full of poutine" - David Gerard 00:43, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It inspired me. Lo and behold:

--[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 22:56, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Left Lean

Maybe people are slanted because cigars and dress squirts are funny, while a phony war of choice, rampant corruption, massive hypocracy, non stop lies, and utter incompotence are only funny if you really try. Wiki Tiki God 06:41, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

(moved from Red Shirts moved from Uncyclopedia_talk:VFH)

Comments from the author of Red Shirts

Regarding Nerd42’s attempted edit of the article. The article is about callous indifference and apathy. It is not supposed to be an example of callous indifference and apathy. There are plenty of other articles on Uncyclopedia showing callous indifference and apathy. For example, many of Nerd42’s articles show remarkable apathy (or antipathy) toward those with less material possessions and more melanin.

Why does the article cause so much pain? If you are feeling some discomfort while reading the article, then you are suffering from guilt or empathy. Fortunately, there is an easy solution. There are liberals who are more talented at feeling pangs of conscience and empathy. For a small fee, you can pay a liberal to feel extra guilt and empathy for you. In this way, you can continue to lead a lifestyle oblivious to the suffering of others. Many organizations exist to facilitate the free market trade in guilt and conscience.

What about political balance? The Red Shirt article is about indifference and a lack of empathy towards others. The counterpart balancing article is cardiac hemorrhagic fever (CHF), a condition where one’s heart bleeds. This is a serious condition, characterized by severe mental breakdowns. Sufferers from CHF expend unusually large amounts of metabolic and mental energy to sympathize and empathize with blood-sucking bed bugs, serial killers, and users of photosynthesis. I am sure that the conservative writers on Uncyclopedia are working ever so hard on the article on CHF.

What comes next? I promise that the next article I write will be even more poisonous and inflammatory.

Update. I have gathered enough poison arrow frogs to use as resources for my next article. I am hopeful that their poison is as strong as their bright colors are distracting.

With many regards and much good cheer, --Sir KP GUN 22:37, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Other comments written by others about about a 3-month old article

Two things I'd like to say: First, insisting the political bashing is even on both sides is ridiculous, uncyclopedia is obviously liberally slanted, but this really isn't a concern at all, it just irritates me when people are in denial about it. Second, my complaint is not just that the article is biased, but that bias is used as a replacement for humor. If you wanna hate on Bush and republicans, fine, but be funny, and the article isn't. Specifically I'm refering to the section Examples of the Red Shirt Effect in Use, it's a perfect example of a liberal bitching about how crooked he thinks the Bush administration is, it's not funny. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

Bear in mind that America is singificantly more right wing than the rest of the western world (or any other part of the world for that matter) even Tony Blair Micheal Howard maybe too left wing for some Democrates (free health care for all, shocking!), so what you see as liberally slanted may just be middle of the road for the everyone else (that being said uncyclopedia certainly is slightly left slanted, if of course you still use the left/right split and havn't movd to the Polical Compass approach). --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:31, 21 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. Shut it, whiny 'Merkin. We are here to teach you about humour, not just humor - David Gerard 14:06, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Is it a liberal slant, or is it just raging against the current machine? If Bill Clinton were still in office, we'd probably link Red Shirts to Monica Lewinsky's laundry problems. Of course, there's the little issue of the thousands of US and Iraqi dead, but Clinton had sex (no he didn't) (yes he did) (ah, blow me) (that's my point), which is much more fun to giggle about. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 15:28, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree that bias is more or less used to replace humor in that article. Some will find it funny (those that agree) and some will not (those who dont agree). When somethings 'humor' is limited to bias, I dont like the idea of featuring it. Featured articles should be funny in their own right, rather then by preaching to the choir.

As for the general left lean, yes, that does exist. I have said before that the articles you might expect to be left leaning are, while the ones you might expect to be right leaning are often not, instead they make up crap that isnt humorous (Ted Kennedy for example). And from who I have met here, the simple explanation is that there are more liberal writers than conservative, and the articles reflect that. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:09, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

There used to be an American college liberal slant. That doesn't exist any more, as our user base has expanded vastly from the original Sinister Six. --stillwaters/Talk 20:59, 22 Nov 2005 (UTC)

And I fucking hate everybody, and try to make sure that that political POV is the most widespread on ths website. TY, that is all. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:36, 23 Nov 2005 (UTC)

The worst thing that satire can possibly be is opinionated. Satire should be objective and balanced. As such, if there are too many articles promoting the contemporary Americal liberal view, they must be balanced with a similar number of articles representing the contemporary American conservative view. Since these are the only two political points of view in the world, or that have ever existed, or that ever will exist; balancing them brings us to that wonderful position - NPOV political humour. For example "George W. Bush - how about that guy, huh?" Hilarious, if I do say so myself. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 14:55, 24 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Completly 100% disagree some of the best satire has been highly opinionated, wether left/right up/down yes there is a left lean here but that just means we need some funny conservatives (ignoring Jefrey Archer who is funny at not with) to d their funky thing!--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:01, 29 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you, but only for temporally-entertaining parody. Timeless humor, parody, etc, has no slant, bias, etc, because it is universally funny to all audiences at all times. Not that I'd ever want to implement such a requirement, but that's why. I imagine the next democratic party president (the next president, unless the old white guy club grows some testicles and nominates Condi "The Bulldog" Rice, then even I'd have to vote for her due to the lark of voting for two firsts - a black & female presidential candidate from a 'major' party) will get a great article like Bush. Clinton sucks because he isn't at the forefront of the ADD world public's mind. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:24, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Have you read Jonathan Swift, Mark Twain, or Voltaire? Some human conditions never change. Apathy and callousness. Ideological and religious rigidity and intolerance. Cupidity and stupidity. Greed and avarice. These human failings form the basis of much humor. While England’s anti-Irish policies are long gone, Swift’s essay “A Modest Proposal” is still side-splittingly funny. Greek comedies are still funny (despite, or perhaps because, of the politics). It is amazing how often the art that contentious politics can generate outlasts the politics. --Sir KP GUN 04:24, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

D'oh! When I said my piece, I forgot to put on the "this is sarcasm" tag. You're completely right, Elvis. Bias isn't a relevant gripe against a satirist; satirists ought take sides, and tends to be far less funny when they don't. As for conservative satirists, well I'm sure we'll see them in huge numbers as soon as there's a Democrat in the White House. I wish it wasn't that simple, but I really think that it is. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 15:08, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like the implicite assumption that Democrats are liberal........--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 15:18, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Cap'n Ben, I don't think we will see conservative satirists posting here in any great numbers. Generally conservatives have pumice stone for brains, and cannot write a complete sentence let alone a satirical essay unless they take massive amounts of Vicodin, and even then they are not funny, just loud and fat. Of course, I except neo-nazis from this. They can be and often are very funny indeed. But garden-variety political conservatives, like garden-variety cabbage, are just not funny.----OEJ 18:01, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, except for the American conservative commedienne Ann Coulter. She is very funny indeed, especially when she does John Cleese's silly walk routine with live eels hanging from her nostrils and that monstrously masculine adams-apple of hers bobbing like a urinal cake being flushed. But no, in all sober sobriety there are no funny American conservatives, just criminal ones. ----OEJ 18:01, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Dude, conservatives can be funny. Just look at this. The only thing with conservative humor is you have to be reasonably informed on the issues to get it, whereas left-wing humor is designed for complete retards to understand. (ie "Bush sucks!" gets a laugh) --Nerd42 18:35, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

WHAT! Listen, the only thing more soberly stupid than a conservative is a satirical riff by some idiot called OEJ on how unfunny conservatives are. (Gotcha...) But seriously, what could be funnier than a party known for small-government fiscal conservativism and isolationist policies racking up record big-government expansion and debt-side spending while pursuing starry-eyed nation-building? You just can't top that for comedy gold! Dick Cheney could go on Comedy Central and just riff on that for an hour, and everyone in the place would die. Laughing, I mean. But double-seriously, satire always tackles entrenched baloney -- Twain said that nothing is more effective against a colossal humbug than laughter. Hence Uncyclopedia. --OEJ

I think NeoEva88 was right on in many cases, though at this moment I can't really accuse Uncyclopedia(ns) of having a double-standard, as conservative humor that is funny idn't automatically silenced. (Example: Reasons to become an atheist hasn't been deleted because it is just as funny as Reasons not to be a devout Christian) However, this "liberal slant" thing extends beyond Uncyclopedia and into Wikipedia Land as well. It's an issue of a simple numbers game. I think there are more lefties out in Wiki land than righties. That's about it, really .... -Nerd42 15:56, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Wow, the day an article gets questioned due to bias on a fake encyclopedia entry is the day that we might as well be living in a fascist state. Right-wingers can find left wing humour funny, left-wingers can find right wing humour funny. If you don't, maybe you should do what Uncyclopedians do, and make another article with your own bias an humour to show the other how real politically slanted humour is done. Or, just ignore it, since I've never heard of a fake encyclopedia convincing someone to switch their political views. Now, if the article is too accurate to be part of encyclopedia and that's what hits a sore spot for you -- I can relate to that, and maybe someone should edit the reality a bit more so it isn't mistaken for a real article... --Dalar 20:11, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. The point is to write good articles that are funny to as many people as possible. I can laugh at both sides humor when it's actually funny, unforunately, often the more there is of one side, the less there is of the other, and at the same time the more there is of one side, the crappier it's jokes get on average. --Nerd42 22:05, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect there, little buddy! Last I checked, Liberalpedia is horribly offensive to EVERYONE. I do recall being flamed at by my own admins for stubbornly refusing to delete articles that are funny only to about ten people on an obscure forum about having sex with subwoofers while underground in NewMexicoFaqs.org.co.uk . The point of this site is that it should be funny to SOMEONE. Anyway, there's some natural left bent. Have you SEEN the internet? Anyway. The right way to win your battle (haha, I said right), is to write your own pages that disagree. i.e. 'reasons not to be an atheist' or whatever jazz. That's precisely a constructive flamewar. Destruction, or removing statements that offend you, is exactly what not to do. I think you are confusing jokes that are funny to someone with your own personal inclination to be offended at something, and I think that's just plain selfish. --Chronarion 05:18, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree entirely. I don't think it's necessary or even desirable to try to write jokes that please everybody. This is satire, not the Cosby Show. It's supposed to do more than just create a laugh; good satire's supposed to draw blood. I'm not very good at it; I'm a sentimental sort of a fellow and my article on Alternative Medicine is about as vicious as I get. The Red Shirts article that started all this, on the other hand, is to my mind one of the best political articles on this site, and the fact that it's so uncompromisingly savage id s big part of the reason for it's success, rather than a point against it. I am glad that KP did not pull his punches in the hope of rendering it more palitable (now there's a mixed metaphor for you), for it would have been a far lesser satire he produced if he had. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 03:32, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

 

I have to disagree entirely with you as well lolz. It's not about pleasing everybody, it's about making as many people laugh as possible. Thus, I think articles should be optimized so that they are funny to as wide an audience as possible.

Looking at Red Shirts specifically, I think perhaps the images themselves are OK, but could possibly be made funnier to people in general by keeping the same "WE HATE BUSH" theme, but in a way that parodies the type of person who produces this kind of propoganda-parodying propoganda. (ie making the writer sound like a retard) I think I might do an edit of the page that tones down the captions a bit to become actual humor instead of like somebody's blog. --Nerd42 03:52, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I rolled back your edit because it broke the continuity of the page. Even if you don't agree with the politics of Red Shirts, surely you can appreciate that it's a well-written and forceful article? Instead of editing it I think you'd be better off starting a companion article of your own. --—rc (t) 04:03, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a really bad idea. If you want to improve articles, start with the bad ones - there's millions of them. If you're insistant, put your intention to do so on Red Shirts talk page first, because you're not talking about improving it so much as of subverting and indeed reversing it's intent. This will not make the article acceptable to a wider audicance, it'll just make it less funny. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:08, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cap'n Ben to disagree with Nerd to disagree with Dalar, who agreed with the previous post disagreeing with the agreement to be agreeable. I mean, when Charles Dickens wrote that the solution to the Irish Potato Famine is to eat Irish babies, it no doubt offended every infant who read it. When W.C. Fields mocked the French in Following the Equator Charles DeGaulle had him declared "Poisson d'Etat" so great was outrage in France. Social satire always offends somebody. Now, mind you, many of the less interesting articles here have as much to do with social satire as eggplant has to do with Betelgeuse. But the principle holds.----OEJ 04:01, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Dude, have you ever heard the sound of crickets chirping? On the interwebs, alot of different people see stuff. And since it's on the interwebs, if they're offended by it, they're retards. On the other hand, if you have an article that only makes one specific group laugh, making all others either scratch their heads or go, "Umm ... Well this is stupid ..." and go back to Google we haven't really served the purpose of the site, which I understood was to make people laugh, not to make Bush-hating Democrats laugh, or Christian-hating athiests laugh or make Christians laugh or make George W. Bush laugh, but to make PEOPLE IN GENERAL laugh. Otherwise the whole religion and politics section of this site becomes a mere extension of one side of the blogosphere. --Nerd42 04:10, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

GOTO: PREVIOUS REPLY ABOVE --Chronarion 05:19, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Cool. I see that there are a lot of articles on computer games. Since I don't play computer games, I look at these articles and either scratch my head or go "Ummm... Well this is stupid," and I assume that all other non-computer gamers would feel the same way. I therefore move that we remove all such articles, and I trust I will have your support.--Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 04:29, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• shrugs* Political articles, if they be satirical, mock one political faction or another. If they mock not, then they be not satire. Same for social satire. It really is that simple. There are plenty of nice clean joke sites if you want nice clean inoffensive jokes that make everybody laugh and make nobody mad. To my understanding, Uncyclopedia is not one of those nice inoffensive soft-and-gentle sites. But what the hell do I know, eh? I speak only for myself.----OEJ 04:30, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

From my perspective, this article has an axe to grind against the Bush administration. I generally don't find the extremely ideological articles very funny. The Red Shirts article makes an attempt at satire, but it doesn't make it for me. I myself have very ideological political views, so I don't consider them a "bad" thing. I think Bush and the Republicans have been more effective using humor as a political tool than the Dems. Both parties can go pound sand, as far as I'm concerned. The second criteria I use to judge uncyclopedia articles is the amount of disinformation, and I don't see any. --Overlordzoloft 04:44, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I agree that this article seems to have an axe to grind, so it's not as good as it could be. The day that this is the worst of uncyc though, is the day that I smile and ascend to rapture. --Chronarion 05:22, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

When you say humor, you mean like watching clowns at a circus, right?--Sir Flammable KUN 05:02, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nerd, this is the second time that you've objected to, then significantly edited a page because it disagrees with your moral/political views. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: If you want, moral, unoffensive humor, this is not the place. Do NOT take it upon yourself to significantly change pages if they disagree with you. Do NOT break page continuity, mangle the work of others, or editorialize on pages that disagree with you, only because they disagree with you. You're already in hot water with us as is for your history of rampant page moving. Don't make it worse by trying to turn this into "Ziggy"pedia.--Sir Flammable KUN 05:02, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any of you get what I'm saying at all or are even trying to. So just forget it, if it's beyond your mental capacities to actually try to understand what I'm saying. --Nerd42 21:45, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You're saying "the purpose of the site, which I understood was to make people laugh, not to make Bush-hating Democrats laugh, or Christian-hating athiests laugh or make Christians laugh or make George W. Bush laugh, but to make PEOPLE IN GENERAL laugh." Other people, including the founder of Uncyclopedia, are saying no, that's not the point, we should be trying to make someone laugh (within some limits). Am I wrong in this assessment? If I am, I think it's you who is being unclear. --—rc (t) 22:18, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

OK that's fine then. It's your site. ;) --Nerd42 22:23, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Lordie. You have descended into name calling. --Chronarion 07:21, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

So, it has been quite some time, and since I am the person who first started this whole thing, there's a lot more I'd like to say.

The article is not funny. It is simply a liberal bashing Bush, the only people who think it are funny are people that agree and want to chime in on the Bush hating. Good humor does not have to please everyone--it should offend a few in fact--but humor also should not just be designed to please a small group of people. An article should not be considered funny if it is only a liberal amusing liberals. The same would be true of a conservative article, except that they are not prominent on uncyclopedia. Everybody her acts like only conservatives don't find the article amusing, that is not the truth. The truth is, only liberals seem to think it is funny.

The author didn't even try to defend my criticism that the article wasn't funny and simply liberally biased, instead, he seemed to celebrate his bias. His self-righteous lecturing above made me want to gag. He ends it by saying "I promise that the next article I write will be even more poisonous and inflammatory." I recommend you focus more on being funny than on parading your liberal agenda. If I had it my way, the article would be deleted because it's not even funny, but obviously uncyclopedia's liberal user base would not allow that. All I'm simply fighting for is for the article not to be featured. You can go ahead and post your little pissy liberal blog entry here if you want, I just don't want it to be featured, it would be a shame to uncyclopedia.

The last thing I'd like to do is call off anybody editing the entry to make it less biased, as I said before, all I care about is that the entry not be featured. It's his page, let him do whatever lame political pissing he wants. -- neoEva88 MUN F@H PS CM NS (talk.to-do)

dittos previous post except for last paragraph -- Yeah, uh, my intent in doing that edit was to try and come up with something that everybody could agree on. It failed miserably, which is fine, twas just an idea. You're a bit late though, NeoEva88, left-bloggish articles have been featured before, have they not? --Nerd42 03:35, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: how about moving the images to Fox News? --Nerd42 04:01, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

NeoEva88, I think you have a point. As a moderately centro-anarcho-socialist European, I must appear a hopeless Commie to most Americans Usonians, especially, but not limited to, Republicans. I naturally loathe almost all that GWB really stands for (not to all of what he gives lip-service to), yet that "Red Shirts" article sounds to me so much of a caricature of left-wing arguments that I find it neither funny nor politically effective. If anything, it sounds to me like bad satire by Republicans of Democratic points-of-view as viewed by Republicans. It takes at least three degrees of humor to find it even slightly humoristic in a pitiful sort of way. Oh, I'm not going to move for its deletion — I'm in favour of free speech, even stupid people's and distasteful speech, and especially in a place like this. Maybe it should stand as an example of what is irredeemably not funny. -- Tonymec 04:31, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

dittos Tonymec on UNFUNNYNESS of article --Nerd42 21:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Just a little nitpicking comment: Shrub is not a conservative. If you disagree with him, you disagree with a cross between left-wing socialism and warmongering; hating both is cool by me. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:56, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Every article has an agenda, or it wouldn't be satire. Vote against on VFH if you don't like it. --Chronarion 07:19, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Er, not nessicarily. You can have satire without nessicarily having a political agenda behind it. Just look at the Zork series lolz. It's like, completely and totally neutral, doesn't say Zork games are stupid or cool, just does a parody. I'm not saying articles with agendas are nessicarily bad either. Just that I agree with neoeva that I think this particular article is not funny along with some others. --Nerd42 21:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Important point -- The Red Shirts Star Trek references are funny. Why not just stick with those instead of having a lame blogfest? --Nerd42 21:58, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

 

I'm still wondering how all you prissy blowhards got started - How is it that you can just go about assuming that the article is left-leaning without knowing the author or their motivations for writing it? To be honest, when I first read this, I was amazed at how well the satire of the leftish, anti-war, internet-blathering antics of the same sort was being done here. Yes, my first assumption was that it was satire against the anti-war movement. The oposite of Bush bashing. But then again, most of the people whining here (and when I say this, I am looking primarily at you Nerd42 - I want to make sure the right person takes offense) have a history of making pathetically transparent biased edits to articles.

Open your minds, and don't assume that someone has an agenda when writing articles. Some people here write inflamtory and biased articles simply for the sake of doing so. We aren't all political/religous/ideological zealots like you are - some of us are fairly random and independant. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:02, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if this would help or not, but I wrote a really poor parody of an anti-war group. It might be funny and it's certainly not pro-leftist (in fact, it might even be incorrectly costrued as support for the war)... It's clearly possible to write satire (albeit poor quality) with no leftist slant. A.N.S.W.E.R. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 10:43, 12 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Some of the best satire and humor over the ages has been based on politics or other issues, this is true. But this is not an example of a masterpiece satire. Ill agree with Chronarion on this, its not the best, but its not the worst. I dont mind the article in itself, but I dont find it to be feature worthy. To feature it simply because you agree with some of what it says, which may or may not be going on, is a bad thing to do. People should be careful of confusing what you find as funny or well written, with what your political leanings are. I dont claim to know this is what is ha pol pol pol pol pol pol pol polhat should ever be done here. Perhaps people really do find it funny, and not just that, but find it to be one of the funniest articles worthy of featuring. I cant speak for everyone, but I can speak for me. It doesnt seem clever, and I think that there are far more deserving articles out there. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:21, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Mostly agrees with Randeley -- Sounds reasonable enough. Famine, that you couldn't figure out which side the material is on shows how badly written and lame it is. --Nerd42 15:24, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

No, it shows that I'm open minded and can understand that satire doesn't always stem from personal bias. I hope that someday you'll learn something and get a chance to be right. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:05, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

satire doesn't always stem from personal bias: That's what I said in a previous post. 21:57, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC) I think in this case it does however. Didn't the author even say that at some point? --Nerd42 01:21, 7 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I might be too late to really add that much to the conversation, but I thought I would chime in. I think Uncyclopedia does have more articles satirizing the right than the left, as per Rangely's comment, but I don't think we can accuse Uncyclopedia of any systematic bias: I have taken multiple crappy articles and rewritten them with a right-ward perspective and no one has complained. Where a namespace I wanted to use to write such a piece was used by something else, no one has objected when I added a disambiguation page. When I have bashed the left, no one has shown offense. My point is this: I would really really hate it if Uncyclopedia fell victim to "fair and balanced" bean-counting between left and right slanted articles. The important thing is that the site be open to people who want to write funny stuff regardless of political affiliation; and I think it is. --Isra1337 11:02, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

As for Red Shirts specifically, I think it would be funnier if the author didn't seem like s/he had an axe to grind, but I still find most of the article funny, even though I am a Republican (Sorry Nerd42). Probably it isn't feature quality, but it is good enough that we should respect the way it was written in the first place, and allow the voting procedures for featuring it to play out normally. If anyone really cared that much about stopping it from being featured it wouldn't be that hard to rig the vote. --Isra1337 11:02, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to see a Fair/Balance/NPOV rule on Uncyclopedia either. And I'd agree there isn't any systematic bias or discrimination.

I'd also like to kind of make a statement to whom it may concern reguarding my recent comments.

If I were running the site I would no doubt do some things differently. I may disagree with administrators descisions and/or attitudes, but I respect them otherwise I wouldn't be here.

"It is the foundation of democracy that good and honest men will sometimes want to kill each other."

~ Somebody Patriotic or Other

or soemthing like that --Nerd42 22:34, 8 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What would you do differently? Red Shirts got enough votes to be featured, and thats all that matters. All you can do in a quasi-democratic situation such as this is state your oppinion, and vote. And it just so happens that this one got featured. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:06, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually the bits that got on the front page aren't bad at all. --Nerd42 22:12, 11 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nonexistant Undictionary redirects

I've noticed a lot of pages that just redirect to Undictionary, where there is no corresponding UD entry. (Placebo is a good example.) Call me a noob, but that doesn't seem right. Is there any appropriate way to deal with these, short of forcing myself to come up with a complete article for each and every one of them? --Andrusi 16:39, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Undictionary:P#Placebo does exist. It's the Extra strength placebo that we're missing. --Carlb 00:20, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Call for Image Judgement

I noticed an image I like got replaced, I really liked the old one and the new one is a little 'too good', frankly it gives me the willies. I just wanted to throw this up for everyone's evaluation. The best part of the original was the eyes and teeth of the tarsier. I personally like the original better, but a new pic that preserves the eyes/teeth of the orig would be dandy also.

Wiki Tiki God 06:14, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Old version

• New version

The original is much funnier, IMHO. --Overlordzoloft 16:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I vote for a random between the 2 --Whywhywhy 07:40, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The original one is humorous, the second one is too bloody. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:48, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I like the second one better because even though it is more "shocking" it appears less gross because of the more skillful rendering. --Make Big Money 10:28, 2 Dec 327 (UTC)

Feature

Euroipods as the feature proves that voting is stupid, and well done. I think it should stay feature for three or four hours. Oh look, it's three hours already! - David Gerard 08:24, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we have the resources necessary to do that. Only 4 people voted "for", and there are like a trillion articles with more than 4 "for" votes, so how can we keep it featured for four hours when whoever's running the voting system can't count that high? --EvilZak 20:13, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's not true. I can count and I go to preschool twice a week. :) --—rc (t) 00:06, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia overusage

I've noticed that Template:Wikipedia is getting used in more and more articles and I think the overall effect on Uncyclopedia is detrimental as it just says that we're not taking ourselves seriously. In my experience, all of the best satire and parody is the sort that, at least, pretends to take itself dead seriously. I mean, The Onion doesn't post signs all over saying things like, if you want real news, look at the New York Times; it claims to be "America's Finest News Source". In my personal opinion, the only appropriate places in Uncyclopedia for Template:Wikipedia are Uncyclopedia and Wikipedia, otherwise we should be striving for our own identify, not a wikipedia-based one. --Sir gwax (talk) 04:25, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia}} exists because otherwise we get people with this "how dare this article insult my country, it's full of lies" attitude, as if they don't realise that this wiki is a parody and the real info is elsewhere. --Carlb 05:05, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes the Wiki article is better than the Uncyc one. Like Flying Spaghetti Monster

Wiki Tiki God 06:14, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you check back in the revisions, they stole the article from US. --Chronarion 19:00, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Nah, I think it actually helps people understand the humor if they don't get it. I mean, if I read an article and I don't get it, and I see a wikipedia box, I click that and basically get the joke explained. So, actually, Wikipedia should be afraid of losing it's identity to an Uncyclopedia based one. --Nerd42 16:12, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I am woefully behind in my study of modern pop culture. I can't name a single porn star that hasn't already died. The template has been especially helpful for me in determining whether a name I don't recognize is that of a non-non-notable person. Besides, if we don't have a Template:Wikipedia, how can we convince the Dark Side that they should have a Template:Uncyclopedia? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 16:44, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Were you being serious in that post or just joking, Bob3? --Nerd42 16:47, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] 22:40, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

put this template in wiki . Also i added something to wikinews here. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wackynews --Whywhywhy 12:12, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Zork Reformat

I think the Zork, Zork2 and Zork3 serieses were all great ideas, but face it, they look like crap. So, I have devised a WikiIF style format (WikiIF = Wiki Interactive Fiction) which looks good and makes sense. It'a at User:Nerd42/Zork and please compare it with the current Zork pages. Note the difference in my version between things the user types and the computer's responses. And how all the room names are in bold and have their own lines, just like in a real IF game.

I propose a massive reformat of all Zork-ish interactive fiction pages on the site to follow this style formatting standard. But admins say I gotta submit it to public inquiry and not just start doing it myself, so here you go! What do you all think? --Nerd42 03:35, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

FYI -- in order to start wotking on this, I need some people to come here and vote yes reguardless of whether they plan to actually help or not. --Nerd42 16:06, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Instead of putting boxes around computer text (using the leading space), it would look better if the text were ordinary but just in a different font, perhaps the Courier New typeface for all computer output. If there's an existing pattern (for instance, you want the first line bold and anything with a leading > displayed as computer output, then this process likely could be automated to fix the existing pages. --Carlb 21:33, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, there is no format currently, that's the point. If you would, just copy the code from User:Nerd42/Zork, make another page in your own user namespace and show exactly what you mean. Seems to me, putting boxes around the players input makes sense ...

Also ... it's not just bolding the first line, it's bolding the room names because in most real interactive fiction games, the rooms have names and they are displayed like on User:Nerd42/Zork and some IF interpreters bold them --Nerd42 00:03, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Reformat's not bad, but the colorful graphic is way out of place on the Zork pages. The Zork text-banner you added is good and Zorky. I'd stick with that. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:32, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Hmm ... I guess you're probably right ... though that is the Zork logo that was on the game boxes. --Nerd42 02:17, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

User:Carlb/Zork uses fonts to separate commands from text and section headers as room names. --Carlb 04:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think using the <code> tag and leading spaces looks much better :P --Nerd42 16:01, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, anyone interested in helping with the Zork series might want to download the actual games and play around with them to get a feel for the real thing before trying a parody. --Nerd42 16:08, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uh, I don't really recommend that. I downloaded Zork a couple days ago out of curiousity and the stupid troll killed me twice, and then some idiot stole my torch (I think it might have something to do with that painting) and a grue killed me because I couldn't light the damn altar candles. And I thought Myst was frustrating. Go for the reformat, I guess. --Overlordzoloft 17:09, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

lolz, the creators thought of that, and released a hint booklet, (that link takes you to a web site containing the original text.) You can also get complete solutions from the interactive fiction archive. The hint booklet(s) are also availible in Z-Code format here, for those of you who aren't on a PC and are using a handy-dandy IF interpreter. --Nerd42 17:47, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I've written Inform code before, and I actually suggest that we use the inform style white text on black background, complete with top status bar. I think that would look better yet. See my page for example. User:Chronarion/zorkexample--Chronarion 19:02, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yuck. I'm used to seeing black on white on Uncyclopedia, not white on black. I like topbar and such, but the color scheme needs to change. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:44, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of doing it like that, and yours does look exactly like the game, but that would be really difficult to code all the pages to look like that, don't you think? --Nerd42 19:57, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

On second thought, yours would be a really good idea for the front pages of all te games, and mind for the rest of them. Whaddya think about that? --Nerd42 20:01, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Could we not use the same method we use that we used to change the logo on Tlh: to change the Zork pages?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:08, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It is funny (and worth it) on themed days, but this customized logo can easily get out of hand. We don't want the site-wide monobook to grow too big. --Splaka 22:42, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I'd assume so. What did you have in mind? --Nerd42 22:31, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The white text on black could be done using a couple of templates, {{zorkheader}} could be a table header which sets the black-on-white font and displays the room name, {{zorkcmd}} could set font/format for userinput and something similar could be devised for the list of options. An additional template could set some different typeface or colour for the user input, if needed. Their being templates would allow the style of every page to be updated just by changing the one template set. Slapping some arbitrary templates like these on every page may be a good job for a robot? --Carlb 23:32, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Ah. But uhh ... you just totally destroyed my nice text logo and uh, your link colors suck :P --Nerd42 02:55, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

What colours would you suggest? --Carlb 03:16, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

they've already been changed to yellow by somebody .... --Nerd42 15:59, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

The link colours are in {{next}} (for piped links) and {{zorkcmd}} (for static usertext), so changing these two changes every page in all three Zork games (ie: everything except Zork Abridged and Zork Π). Changing {{zorkheader}}, {{zork2header}}, {{zork3header}} changes background and body text for everything, as the pages in the three Zork games start with one of these and end with a plain |} to close the table. IOW, change the templates and every page in the game changes in one (or at most a few) easy steps. Splarka had changed the links to a lighter colour by changing the templates. --Carlb 19:21, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds like an excellent idea. Although besides a standardized formatting, it might be a good idea to go over some of the Zork pages (particularly those ending in "...and a grue eats you.") in regards to Quality Control. It would certainly cut down on the massive load of pages which would have to be reformatted. MadMax 23:24, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, of course. I assumed everyone was taking that as a given. But then again, "a grue eats you" is exactly how the real game ends 99..9999999997842% of the time. --Nerd42 00:24, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Never did understand that, in my country «une grue» is a crane (either the bird or the machine), not something particularly prone to eat a person whole. --Carlb 18:41, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Color scheme?

Just an FYI, I reverted the changes of Nintendorulez ([4] [5] [6]), who changed the link colors to blue and the zork background from black to white. I don't see any discussion here about it, so I am assuming it wasn't by consensus. Discuss. PS: I and a handfull of other admins decided that shade yellow was the least-annoying of a half dozen choices.--Splaka 04:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yuck... looks like Nintendorulez' version would've put blue-on-black links into many, many pages... no idea why he did this. --Carlb 10:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. The white-text-on-black-background sort of made me puke, so I kinda impulsively changed it. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 11:47, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

It's the classic look. --130.245.249.86 23:05, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Page names?

Somebody's gone and moved Zork3 to Zorktrix Reloaded. I came up with the name "Zorktrix Reloaded" and I don't like this move. I think it makes much more sense to have pages named Zork Zork2 and Zork3. --Nerd42 21:50, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, has any of the other pages been moved as well?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 22:50, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

# (undo) (hist) . . Zork3 moved to Zorktrix Reloaded; 11:56 . . Infobacker (Talk | block)

Infobacker moved it (the only move I see today by him), and seems be doing positive edits and creations to zork in all other regards. *shrug* --Splaka 23:01, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I am getting better at this, though slowly lol --Nerd42 23:21, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If the original was a trilogy, perhaps the Uncyc version should also have three parts Zork/Zork2/Zork 3 and no more. Stuff like Zork Π, if it contains anything unique or useful, should be merged to Zork 3 (which is currently rather sparse) or one of the others in the trilogy instead of endlessly creating and recreating the same article series under slightly-different names. --Carlb 01:03, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Agree -- well, there were other Zork games, (like Zork Zero) and there's lots of other IF written before and especially after the Zork games that had nothing whatsoever to do with them, but the originals were a trilogy yeah, and I see no reason for other non-trilogy-affiliated Zork pages to exist at this time. --Nerd42 02:45, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Follow the fashion used in Zork 2. Zork 3: Zorktrix Reloaded. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 22:59, 6 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Why is the page still moved? Zork3 is still a redirect page. The "Zorktrix Reloaded" name was my idea ... but I didn't want the page named that. Somebody move it back please? --Nerd42 22:50, 17 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Well, this is weird

Being far too lazy to type the ".org", I just typed "Uncycloepdia" on Google and hit the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button. It takes me to an article about it. So I backtrack to the first page of results. No luck. Page 2? Nothing. I sifted through several -- no, dozens -- of results. The Uncyclopedia home page doesn't show up until page 5. Actually, the Wikipedia template saying "Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia" shows up earlier than that. Veddy, veddy sad. --Jordanus 00:57, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a couple years ago I learned a neat little trick called "Googleing for yourself" --Nerd42 01:09, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that recently too. I'm in the habit of checking how many Google hits Uncyclopedia has every so often (the high was around 1.9 million, I believe), and a search for "Uncyclopedia" has always put the site up first, as far as I can recall, so this isn't normal. Of course, a search for Uncycloepdia only turns up three results, so that's a different matter. --—rc (t) 03:07, 1 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Strange. We definitely did show up as #1 for a long time, I guess google is messing with their algorithm. --Chronarion 19:03, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

If they mess with our algorithm I'll effin ban them, I don't care who they are. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 22:14, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

that doesnt make sense I mean my site (wackyhq.com) comes up first when wackyhq is searched for, and I get like NO visitors. Uncyclopedia is traffic ranked 20,509 [7] by Alexa meaning its in the top 100000. It doesnt make sense why a google search WOULDNT turn up with a domain relevant site first. --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 22:37, 2 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia.de comes before uncyclopedia.wikia.com! HOW? ----Clorox MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 03:30, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

That's odd, if the ranking criterion were number of Hitler jokes, then .org should come first by a wide margin. --Carlb 18:45, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

FWIW, Yahoo! still loves us. -- T. (talk) 08:15, 10 Dec 2005 (UTC)