Talk:Uncyclopedia

Archives
Incomplete, broken archive; ~ Mar–Oct 2006 Sep 2006 – not yet full

Note: This talk page has been blanked and its archives broken several times since it was created in 2005. Old talk page comments can be found in the page history.

POV

THe criticism section should at least include uncyclopedia's policy of no bullying. Robograndma 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding sources

I actually brought this up in the recent AfD for this article, but it was closed before any discussion could start regarding the question I am going to bring up. Basically, does this article have severe sourcing problems? It seems to violate WP:V and WP:NOR all over the place, with the material 'sourced' from Uncyclopedia itself. I hope someone could clear this up for me, because I'm curious-DESU 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe the website would be incorrect about itself? If Uncyclopedia states its policies as x, y, z, I don't see why that'd be unreliable. Indeed, if you read what the "reliable sources" say about Wikipedia's policies, you'll find they have a vast error margin. If there's anything you want to be a stickler about, maybe you could post it here and Jonathan can mention it to the next journalist asking for material? Can't promise they'll get it right though. Speaking as an Uncyclopedia administrator and bureaucrat, this article was completely correct when I rewrote it. There might be some kinks now in the content section or something, but... eh. A good combing through wouldn't be uncalled for, but I don't think Uncyclopedia is unreliable when stating what is written there. Seeing as you can check that it's written there yourself, with a click. Sort of "original research", but.. not really... just sort of "click and read"... don't think that's against policy... --Keitei (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that Uncyclopedia is unreliable about itself - but the same can be said of any website. What's getting me is that nearly all of the material is referenced from the site itself, and not an independent, outside source... I believe a number of articles about certain websites have been wiped due to the fact that the article was entirely (or almost entirely) 'sourced' from the site the article was about - despite the fact they were in the "click and read" format you describe. I'm not going to name any names, however. What I'm getting at is like, if one could use the site in question for sourcing the majority of the material in a wikipedia article... eh, I'm probably being picky, but whatever-DESU 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ED was killed for that specific reason. Given all our forum topics on times the media has mentioned us, why aren't those articles used as sources? --Nintendorulez talk 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't say much of anything. "Hey, look at this place, it's pretty cool. Funny sometimes." That's not much information to put in an article. What would you like us to do? If it's the stability of a wiki page or the "seriousness" that's a problem, we can probably publish a press release to cover the issues needing citations. I think that once notability is established though, there doesn't need to be outside sources... I mean, I hope not. "Independent, outside sources" are wrong a lot of the time. I don't think it's a problem, but if it is, let us know. --Keitei (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also full of Wikimedia/MediaWiki self-reference. Less so now, thanks entirely to me. What exactly has been said in reputable third-party news sources about Uncyclopedia? Milto LOL pia 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is built on references to Wikimedia and MediaWiki; why would you remove that? --Keitei (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's built on the MediaWiki software. — MichaelLinnear 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor content originated in parodying conventions of MediaWiki and Wikimedia. It continues to do this. We frequently mess with the software to imitate Wikipedia, poke fun at the default messages, etc. It is built on these practices. --Keitei (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a source for that? ;)-DESU 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would remove it because no one outside of Wikimedia cares, and because it's completely unsourced. Milto LOL pia 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trim time

I'm about to go through this article and waste everything that is unsourced or a self-reference. For the site's notability and media coverage, it's way too long, leading to sourcing problems. I figured I should probably start a heading first. So, go nuts on ideas/suggestions/whatever. Milto LOL pia 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go overboard. For example, citing Uncyclopedia would be entirely in order if the sentence being supported is about the content of the site. I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the content of the site is not a self-reference. It is explaining the content of the site. Check the inline citations, if they say what they say they say, then it is sourced. And they probably all do, considering I sourced it extensively when I rewrote it. --Keitei (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD may have been a fiasco, but some good points were raised, one being that taking what a website says about its own content is not a good idea. Besides, what about all the MediaWiki/Wikimedia comparisons? No one who is not active in Wikimedia is going to care about that. Milto LOL pia 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Looks like it'll be a while, a sysop who has been reverting me just protected it and reverted to her preferred version. Milto LOL pia 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism. Now, go get consensus if you want to rewrite this. pschemp | talk 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd kill to be on IRC right now. Boldness isn't vandalism, ya know. I don't need your go-ahead to improve an article. Milto LOL pia 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: now you won't have to suffer a 3RR block. pschemp | talk 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

? You're the one edit warring without so much as an edit summary, while I'm actively engaging in improvements on the article and discussion on the talk page. Milto LOL pia 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Article

I created this link: Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article, to create a possible featured article for april fools day. I've created the headings so far - maybe it would be a good idea to start from scratch with the page from here and then move it into mainspace? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was actually meant to stop a revert war occuring! How about creating a completely new article and then moving it into mainspace, we can discuss here and then implement on a subsection of this page - in my opinion it would be a good idea if we're thinking of a complete rewrite RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On this subject... What if someone were to make uncyclopedia a featured article as an April fool's joke Snoop0x7b 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just feature Toilet humour? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected due to vandalism by Miltopia falsly inserting an unrefed tag into an article with 34 refs and changes against consesnsus. Any major changes should be worked out somewhere else and the new version should get consensus before changes are made. pschemp | talk 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am actively in the process of fixing up the article by removing self-references and faulty cites, as I've said on your talk page and here. The protecting sysop protected it after a content dispute in order to keep me from fixing it up. That doesn't seem helpful. Milto LOL pia 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there's no point in the tag while sources are still on the page. I can understand if you want to find better sources, but don't call it unsourced while it is. --Nintendorulez talk 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Um... what the heck? If an editor is "vandalising", you block them, you don't protect from everyone. -Amark moo! 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • She can't do that because she knows that any uninvolved admin would know I wasn't vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't necessary, you know... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah wel, I'm not one to throw aside accusations against my integrity lightly. Still, you're probably right. Milto LOL pia 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we like, um, have it unprotected??-DESU
  • That would be nice. — MichaelLinnear 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you like, get consensus for your changes first? pschemp | talk 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you perhaps not fprotect a page because of one editor having a dispute?-DESU 02:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • SHe had to protect because she knew a block would get overturned. Milto LOL pia 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Probably. Heh, this is frustrating-DESU 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Next time I'll just let Miltopia break 3RR and then he'll get a block that won't be overturned. pschemp | talk 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • What, and that isn't preferable to preventing EVERYONE from editing the article? Plz to be reasonable-DESU 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Bah, I at least tried to facilitate discussion on the disagreements. I didn't get so much as an edit summary from you. Milto LOL pia 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Gah, all of you, knock it off. The protection is down, show's over. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Okay sir, I agree that this talk page needs more love and less bickering <3 <3 <3-DESU 03:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute. None of the other editors had a problem with Miltopia's revisions or seemed to think it was "vandalism". As I said on WP:ANI, I think the edits are well-justified within policy and the page should be unprotected. It seems silly to ask for "consensus" when you and Sean Black were the only ones who found fault with what he was doing. Grandmasterka 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's purely a content dispute that has turned into pschemp trying to get me to agree to her terms and acknowledge my "vandalism" so she can save face. Let's just unprotect the page and move on. Milto LOL pia 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Does this need a {{reliablesources}} tag or not? Consensus seems to say yes, but now I've been reverted impersonally as a vandal AGAIN. Does anyone feel strongly enough to re-insert it, seeing as how I'm getting gamed into breaking 3RR? I thought it was established that I wasn't vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the tag is not needed. It would certainly be in order for more sources to be introduced, but there are enough sources given that the overall tag seems to be a bit of overkill. Importantly, to my knowledge nobody has suggested that any of the information in the article is actually wrong. My suggestion is that you follow up on the idea you had earlier tonight and discuss on the talkpage the problems that you think exist. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps (as mentioned on WP:ANI), would {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}} be more appropriate?-DESU 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, my opinion is no, because there are several sources given. To the extent there aren't enough sources, the real solution is to find and cite more. Tagging is to draw attention to source problems that aren't being addressed. If you read up on this page, there is a group of editors who are looking to turn this into a featured article, so I am sure additional sources are going to be looked for. If the goal you two have is to improve the article, the best thing you can do is help. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But there are problems with the sourcing. The article draws too heavily on the subject web-site, and nearly all the material in the article is derived from it. There aren't enough reliable 3rd party sources. That is what Miltopia and I are getting at, and there have been many cases of articles about websites being euthanized due to this very problem-DESU 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the feleing that's going to get me blocked. If this is going to be featured, it needs to be llong enough, but unfortunately, that just might not be an option if it's not possible to find third-party sources. Milto LOL pia 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. The article cites newspapers and several other outside sources. If there are problems with specific sections or statements, use {{fact}} or {{verify}}, but the overall article does cite non-primary sources. Seraphimblade 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that up then. Milto LOL pia 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Their are a variety of sources using news archive search on Google news for Uncyclopedia. Some look like they ould help but they need a paid description to see. What is the policy on that? The Placebo Effect 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trimming revisited

The last thread was ruined, so I'm starting over. Just a sort of uncounted poll, who thinks it should be trimmed and why or why not? I think it should be significantly trimmed because there are very, very few statements not backed up by third party sources. Many aren't sourced at all - I'm leaving the first-person sources be for now, but trying to identify unsourced altogether ones. I'll be honest, it doesn't look like many of them will ever get cites. The website is notable, but not fantastically so - a smaller article would serve Wikipedia better in my opinion. Milto LOL pia 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And why would less information serve us better? ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the information present would be reliable, informative, and well-sourced. Wikipedia would be more sure of its accuracy and would be an eensy bit more dependable as a reference. It's basic article-trimming with regard to sources, it happens all the time. You guys act like I'm proposing a violent overthrow of Wikimedia or something... (kidding)Milto LOL pia 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The question wasnt whether the information presented would be better of if it were accurate, which is something that you have yet to prove is a problem here. I asked you how a smaller article, in and of itself, would serve Wikipedia better. This is a pretty interesting claim you are making. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it any clearer than what I said. Less reliable information is more helpful than ore questionable information. There's several policies and/or guidelines that explain it. Milto LOL pia 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with the question. The choice isnt between less reliable and more questionable, its between less reliable and more reliable. You have come in here, exceeded 3RR, made edits justifying them by saying it happened at "ED," and to top it all off accused an admin of making a bad faith edit in a "face saving: act. You need to discuss these changes before rattling them off, the page was protected because after 2 failed AFD's which resulted in a speedy keep, the page has instantly been barraged by you in a very controversial manner. You claimed you were acting within a consensus, but there most certainly cannot be a consensus when there wasnt an agreement, let alone discussion on this topic. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about trimming the article, not me. If you have concerns about me personally, take them to my talk page or another appropriate venue. Milto LOL pia 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable for facially-obvious types of stuff, and that's mostly what I see them used for here. The only time we need a secondary source is when someone's trying to say what the primary source does or probably does mean-if that's our own synthesis, it's original research, so that has to be sourced secondarily. However, for obvious stuff which requires no synthesis whatsoever (for example, what the slogan is), we can certainly cite a primary source. Seraphimblade 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about it's style of humor and motives behind administrative actions? That seems a little far. Milto LOL pia 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Press Coverage

I've removed this "press coverage" stuff - it needs to be integrated into the article, not just thrown in. I'll do it off and on tonight.

• That is a good idea, but the section should be deleted only after the integration is completed. I've reinstated the section for now, without prejudice to removal when the sources are moved to their places within the article. Otherwise, it temporarily appears that there aren't any sources, and we wouldn't want that. :) Newyorkbrad 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's probably a better idea actually. Milto LOL pia 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"While most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site, there are perhaps just as many articles about Wikia and/or Wikipedia that just mention its name briefly." Huh? doesn't add up . Scatterkeir 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late. You can fix it you know, if you want. tmopkisn ^tlka

Press coverage

Uncyclopedia has been referenced online in the New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Guardian, The Register, the Taipei Times, the Apple Daily, and the Arizona Daily Star.

Some revert specifics

Ok, the only reason this particular edit was revert was due to me going over the 3RR. Soon that will pass, so let's get some real reasons on the floor.

• The first difference: the Uncyclopedia logo being a parody of Wikipedia's logo is not supported by the thread linked to, yet it keeps getting reverted that way... also, linking to Wikipedia's logo page is a self-reference, which should be avoided.
• "In addition, though all types of humor are welcomed, Uncyclopedia does not sanction articles or comments merely meant to be stupid or vengeful." - unsourced - does it need a citation?
• "Uncyclopedia's content is licensed under the Creative Commons" - citation removed by Rangeley and Tbeatty. Does it need to be in there?
• "Additional people who are often 'quoted' are Captain Obvious, Russian Reversal, Some guy, God, and CATS," - "Some guy" - who is that? Does it need quote marks? And CATS. Does his identity need qualified by expanding out the pipe.
• Next paragraph shows an undo of a grammar correction, followed by...
• "The William Shatner page is also written as if each word is its own sentence. This is a parody on the fact that Shatner's most recognized character, James T. Kirk also seemed to speak that way." (emphasis guess whose?) - bold part is the part that seemed subjective. Wouldn't it be better to let the reader make judgments about Shatner on their own?
• "These appear in many articles which would normally have no references to drug use, and have become a recurring joke among the Unycyclopedia community." - O RLY? The cite needed tag was removed - is this a satisfactory sentence on its own?
• "Any pages created for the purposes of personal attack or bullying are removed as soon as they are noticed, as always; however, it is very difficult for administrators to monitor each page. As of July 2006, vanity pages that are questionable are either deleted or put under the care of one or more administrators." - same. Cite needed or not?
• As of the end of September, 2006, revised policy allows for the speedy deletion of vanity pages of non-notable entities. Keeping to the tongue-in-cheek style of the website, this policy was dubbed the "Codeine's Mum" policy, stating that if the mother of one of the administrators hadn't heard of the group or individual in question, they were considered non-notable and fit for speedy deletion." - bold parts, do they seem self-referencing to wiki terminology or not?

So, what's the opinion on this? Milto LOL pia 05:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How are talk pages of other wiki sites different from message boards? They do not seem all that reliable to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, but the growing trend seems to be including stuff right now. So, I'm going over the most basic hurdles first, in hopes that we cut down more poorly sourced material in the future. Milto LOL pia 07:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really eager to get discussion going on these particular points, including the logo reference. Can involved editors add their input here? Otherwise it'll just be another blind revert war. Milto LOL pia 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I created Sophia, Uncyclopedia's puzzle potato logo. (My userpage on Uncyc.) Sophia is indeed a parody of Wikipedia's globe logo. Rcmurphy 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that settles that.. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it? If the logo's creator said it was blue or a space ship, would we include that? I've never removed the statement that it was a parody myself, but I do think it needs a third-party source. Milto LOL pia 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you need a third party to confirm what I'm saying, even though as sole creator of the logo only I am certain of my true intentions for it. Doesn't make sense to me, but what about this as a source.

Now boasting over 18,000 articles of remarkable satirical quality, Uncyclopedia, with a logo featuring a potato named Sophia (a spoof of the Wikipedia logo) looks like it will become a movement on its own.

Rcmurphy 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect, maybe that same article can be used for some of the other bulleted statements above. Milto LOL pia 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could say I created the logo and that it is a hollowed-out baseball. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I could

1. prove that I am the same user (Rcmurphy) on Uncyclopedia, and
2. show that the user Rcmurphy on Uncyc uploaded Sophia originally.

It wouldn't matter, because from what Miltopia said, it's apparently not a matter of authorship or a first-party claim, but one of third-party confirmation. Which, I still assert, seems absurd in this instance. But I'm happy to leave the WP policy to others, so I will bow out. Rcmurphy 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The point we're making is that third-party sourcing is necessary, else you could simply say something crazya bout it - such as that it was based on [insert politician]'s face and we'd have to put that in. It's moot now, because you found a third-party source and I added it in. Milto LOL pia 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think this guy is the same Rcmurphy from unyclopedia, he doesn't smell the same. Second, a third party source could say something crazya bout it just the same as a first party source. But if wikipedia policies made perfect sense uncyclopedia would probably not exist and this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.--Rataube 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Implementation

The only thing anyone's brought up against these removals is a source for the logo being a parody which I've added to the article. Although Rangeley has reverted to the unsourced version, for whatever reason, I think we need to be insistent on keeping it based on reliable sources, so I've left the info in and re-inserted the source. Other than that, I haven't heard any objections to these changes, so I've been implementing them. In other words, anyone who's going to revert me should leave a note here on why these changes are bad. Milto LOL pia 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I find it extremely hypocritical that Encyclopædia Dramatica's article be deleted by people, yet this article persists. Both contain similar subject matter and unverified information. Either both should stay or both should be deleted. This shouldn't be a political argument on the content on the websites or notability -- both are extremely notable and mentioned on popular websites -- but rather their verifiability and response to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. Stexe 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom. Secondly, notablilty cannot be dodged here. ED wad nixed because of that and loads uplon loads of original research, which is not allowed here. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're the hundredth person to complain about this on Talk:Uncyclopedia! Just read ED's afd log. We've been cited in the papers multiple times, you guys were nothing but OR. --Nintendorulez talk 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Nintendorulez, play nicely. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask nicely that you stop removing the Article For Deletion notices, there are valid reasons for the article to be considered for deletion. The third nomination was "Speedy Keep" after less than 1 day of discussion and the fourth nomination was commented that it should be "Speedy Keep" after referencing the third nomination. There are EXTREMELY valid reasons for this article to be deleted, almost every source is self referenced and the entire article needs to be rewritten if it is to be kept. I'm going to give you guys a few days to rewrite the article and remove self references before I post it for AfD again. Thank you. Stexe 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ED got deleted because it was an attack page and contained original reasearch, whilst this article doesn't. You may also want to look at ED's 3^rd afd and Uncyclopedia's 2^nd afd. And please note that there is not really any point to continue nominating it for afd, as the results will come back the same; and you may be blocked for disruption. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there's a strong consensus of notability, so you would not get the results you seek via AfD. Also, anyone who voted to delete the ED article because it was an attack site is an unencyclopedic ninny. Milto LOL pia 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the admin's delete statement, it was strictly about the OR. Not the trolling. Nobody tries to delete GNAA just because of what they do. I'd appreciate if these ED trolls quit claiming that had anything to do with removal of the article. All I hear is "Waaah waaah waah ED got delete so u guyz gots to deltle unsiklopeedia too." --Nintendorulez talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only person who is saying that it Stexe and he at least had the propriety to use proper English, even if he is extremely misguided. In the long run keeping Uncyclopedia will become a precendent for having an ED article when it becomes notable enough. — MichaelLinnear 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that is a bad precedent to set? WP:NOT#CENSORED, even against articles on organizations which like to troll us. -Amark moo! 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was unclear. I thought that it was a good precedent. Stexe was trying to get Uncyclopedia deleted. I was saying that the precedent of keeping a website article would help allow another article on a similar type website to be written. — MichaelLinnear 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple other people were saying it. Look through this page's history, and botraped archives.--Nintendorulez talk 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time I see "ED troll" mentioned I laugh a little. :)-DESU 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops. Misinterpreted, sorry. I shouldn't try to multitask while editing. -Amark moo! 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the reason was, this AFD for Uncyc was a bad faith nomination anyway. I really don't want to go back to ED's third nomination because of all the controversey surrounding it, and all the trolling by everyone involved there (Wikipedia admins AND ED users alike). But nominating Uncyc for that reason alone is hardly good faith at all. It's spite, if anything. --Sir Crazyswordsman 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop talking about it then :-) Milto LOL pia 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review by CyclePat

This is non extensive quick peer review by CyclePat:

1. We should add more external and notable source. Currently the first 23 appear to be primary information.
2. The referencing of notability in othe news papers is ackward. I would suggest developping this section by writting a small paragraph on each one discussing what they press has to say.
3. If notability is going to be referenced using primary infomation there should be a chart with the most popular encyclopedia (or websites) at that time. (Let the people make the synthesised conclusion and hence avoid WP:OR by having a stronger referenced article) (ie.: Indeed, the number of articles on uncyclopedia should be compared)

Good luck in making this a featured article by April Fools Day! --CyclePat 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also remove citations that point to Uncyclopedia talk pages. These are as reliable as message board posts, meaning they are not reliable. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — MichaelLinnear 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak opose, though in general the concept appears to make sense, there may be a section which it is important to discuss the talk pages. In that instance it may be necessary to make reference to the a talk page to illustrate how uncyclopedia operates. If what you mean by removing discussion pages because they contain opinions that are re-stated on wikipedia... well, I think, again, we shouldn't remove all of them. It is primary information that doesn't necessarilly violate WP:OR and is verifiable. The importance is not whether the those page can or should be used, but it is on how they are used. Given the nature of the article at uncyclopedia, they should obviously not be taken for face value when it pertains to discussion of information itself. However it should be considered true for the fact that it exists and that such conversations have or are acurring. Here is my inferance: What I believe the two afformentioned voters that agreed we shouldn't such sources must be thinking is that it would be a good idea to ensure that the this article is properly balanced in regards to how many citation we include from the talk pages. It is more important to utilise the statisctical information that is gathered from database functions, the amount of edits, etc. from uncyclopedia then to concentrate on the type of conversations that occur on the discussion pages. --CyclePat 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand everything you wrote, but if an instance arises that we we need to discuss, we will do so. But talk pages are not reliable in most instances.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree: That's a good summary of my psycho babel. :) --CyclePat 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Uncyclopedia?

This article fails to mention whether vandalism is reverted on Uncyclopedia, like it is on Wikipedia, or just left there. After all, it is a nonsense site anyway. --MosheA 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a nonsense site, it's a parody site. There's a difference. I'll tell you that it is reverted, however, you'll need to find a source for that. -Amark moo! 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this diff? And also their banning policy? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The diff, maybe. You can't cite actual text on Uncyclopedia as a source; it's almost certain to be untrue or misleading. -Amark moo! 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the wiki universe, no one is even going to care. And vandalism being reverted on Uncyclopedia is nothing more special than vandalism being reverted on any wiki, so what's the point in mentioning it? Milto LOL pia 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Non-informative paragraph

"Self-reference is another common theme in Uncyclopedia articles." - this makes no sense. The article talks about referencing the subject of an Uncyclopedia article, not referencing Uncyclopedia. It basically says that there are ipod jokes in the ipod article, and Shatner jokes in the Shatner page. Is this paragraph even needed at all? Milto LOL pia 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While those aren't examples, self-references are used for some articles. Euroipods is a self-reference. Also Carlow Crab, Shot Your Fuck Up, WikiWars, umm there are others. Oh, the asperger's thing that went down recently. For instance, the content of the page Carlow Crab is a documentation of the campaign of the creator of the original Carlow Crab article to get his page undeleted. That's a self-reference, but I wouldn't say it's common. In fact, there's a whole subset who believes self-references are subpar and, actually, nobody cares about uncyc drama here. --Keitei (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wales founding Wikia

The reason it's important to note that Wales founded Wikia is because we have a responsibility to acknowledge the connection to Wikipedia if there is one. It's called full disclosure. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also worth a mention regardless, since Uncyclopedia is a Wikipedia parody and Wales founded/co-founded Wikipedia. Milto LOL pia 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IAWTC-DESU 08:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... why must we acknowledge any connection to Wikipedia, even if 3 levels removed? Do you think Brittanica makes a note whenever something they write about is owned by some company connected to their president? I highly doubt it. -Amark moo! 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should. Milto LOL pia 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe they do. Regardless, this is not Britannica. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not important to put in the lead. Uncyclopedia was founded independently and was later acquired by Wikia with no consent from the community. Wikia has never had any influence on the content of Uncyclopedia, the running of Uncyclopedia, the leadership of Uncyclopedia, or anything whatsoever. They have all left it alone, and the content itself is owned by the community (legally, see Creative Commons). Wikia merely owns the domain name and the trademarks. Asserting that the fact that Jimbo founded Wikia has anything to do with Uncyclopedia's founding (the acqusition was over a year later), content (Wikia has never stepped in, let alone Jimbo doing so), or leadership (which has always been up to Chronarion) is fallacious.

The one thing that could be inferred by this which might be somewhat true is that Wikipedia's founder believes in the existence of this site. And that would be original research if articles hadn't reported that Jimbo likes Uncyclopedia (not quite the same thing though). It still would not merit inclusion in the lead of the article and is merely cursory to explaining the subject. --Keitei (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't to say that it shouldn't be mentioned, but WMF is hardly bound to do anything in the interest of Wikia, or even inclined to. I'd say the full disclosure would be more in the fact that Uncyclopedia was founded by Wikipedians (User:Chronarion and User:Euniana) and is full of Wikipedian humor than that the company which acquired the trademarks to an independent community well after it was established was co-founded by the founder of Wikipedia.

Additionally, the fact that we should acknowledge it does not mean we need to put it first thing in the article. Furthermore, we are bound to NPOV far more than we are bound to full disclosure, and it is undue importance to put that Jimbo founded Wikia barely after we've stated what Uncyclopedia is. --Keitei (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How can it not be relevant, though, that the same person who founded/co-founded Wikipedia also founded the company that hosts its parody? It's not liek it implies anything sinister, it's just an informative fact. Milto LOL pia 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with it not being in the lede. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why then did you revert my edit, which had an edit summary stating that it was covered later on? [1] ~Rangeley (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it, I Ctrl+f'd for "Wales" and only got the one in the opening paragraph. Is it worded differently? Milto LOL pia 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is mentioned as the owner in the infobox, and later on in the sentence "Huang transferred ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain to Wikia, Inc. on July 10, 2006.[6]" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for policy

There are plenty of third-party sources for Wikipedia policy, but I haven't been able to find any for Uncyclopedia. Isn't there anywhere where some can be found? Milto LOL pia 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "third party sources", but links to all of our policies and guidelines can be found here. -- Codeine 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It means, is this worth talking about? Whether it is covered in Jokes 'n' Gags Weekly can help us understand that. _-Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm just being dense, but are you talking about whether Uncyclopedia's policies have been covered in the media or whether the site has? If the latter, then the answer is a definite yes; the site has received both online and print coverage on at least three separate continents, links to (some of) which are provided in this article's footnotes. As for the former, I don't see why the site's policies would be deemed worthy of journalistic coverage. -- Codeine 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it's not too important to the Wikipedia article, then, either. I would have assumed that Uncyclopedia's clever parodies of Wikipedia poilicies might be mentioned in the article written about the site.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's history

Would Wikia be a decent source for Uncyclopedia's history? I don't mean policy stuff, I mean like, who founded it. That sentence remains uncited. I see no reason not to trust them on that. And I know "posts to wikis, forums etc. are not reliabel sources" but let's use common sense: it's not some dope with a keyboard writing up a page on some unmonitored wiki, it's a press release by Wikia Inc. staff. I'm going to go ahead and add it for now, but I'll watch this page. Milto LOL pia 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops, it already is sourced. And with that link. Still, leaving the thread up for discussion couldn't hurt. Milto LOL pia 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MediaWiki section

Uncyclopedia#MediaWiki currently reads like this:

The site uses MediaWiki software to mimic Wikipedia conventions, which itself is parodied with these following analogies: Uncyclomedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation), UnNews (Wikinews), Unquotable (Wikiquote), Undictionary (Wiktionary), UnBooks (WikiBooks), UnMeta (Meta-Wiki), UnSource (Wikisource), UnSpecies (Wikispecies), Uncycloversity (Wikiversity), and UnCommons / Uncyclomedia Commons (Wikimedia Commons). Image description pages are also branded under Uncyclomedia Commons, including a logo mirroring the Wikimedia Commons.

Uncyclopedia uses MediaWiki to imitate Wikipedia templates, such as its Wikipedia template (parodying Wikipedia sister project templates), and its Endspoiler template.

Egad! It's full of self-reference no one outside of Wikimedia cares about and is totally uncited. Oh, I know that there are links - but all they link to is the projects. There's no sources making comparisons, so that's original research. I'll leave it tagged for a couple days unless anyone replies here and then I'll blankify it. Milto LOL pia 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It's gone now. Milto LOL pia 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is this considerd to be a joke?

[2] I don't see why this is considerd a joke it is kind of important since uncyclopedia doesn't really say it's a paradoy of wikipedia and there was some confusion on this talk page[3].--71.170.41.7 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Because no one there honestly thinks that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. Milto LOL pia 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Um... what? I can't tell if that is a mistyping or not, but they do. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops... I meant the other way around :-P No one there honestly thinks that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia. Milto LOL pia 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

well untill we can verify that they don't honestly believe that i dont think we can speak for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robograndma (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

The alternative is to pretend that I'm an idiot. An amusing and easy to pull off charade it is, but not one I want to perform in this case. Milto LOL pia 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

...though it claims the reverse

I've got to say I have a fondness for this line, which appears to have been removed and replaced several times. Yeah I know it's only because it makes the joke on the mirror page[4] work, but you can defend it for inclusion on this page. It is after all true. It is not, in itself a joke or humour, because Uncyc does claim the reverse. No-one is going to believe that Uncyclopedia is right where Wikipedia is wrong. Frankly, it's not doing any harm, so why not have it there? Tbone762 19:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a real "claim" though. That would be like writing a biography of me and saying I "claim to have over 9000 edits" because it says that I do on my userpage, or like saying the screenwriters for Anchorman "claim that women's brains are a third the size of men's". It's not a serious claim, it's a joke. No one who authored that page actually believes that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia. Besides, there's no source for it. The link put in by some guy went to an Uncyclopedia footnote, which was a link back to this article! Which means the statement was sourcing itself. Milto LOL pia 20:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen this in an article about Uncyclopedia, if I can find this article (news article) would anyone still be objected to re-adding the statement? tmopkisn ^tlka 22:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim isn't real. The Uncyclopedia editors don't really think that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, and it's unencycopedic to include that joke on the pretense that they do. I just this above, read the part before "Besides, there's no source for it". Milto LOL pia 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a longstanding injoke on the forums and such, plus it helps subtly illustrate Uncyclopedia's brand of humor. And when it comes to sites like this, it's not that big of a deal if the site itself is sourced for certain things. I mean, if we stuck exclusively to the stuff that third-party sources have mentioned about us, we'd have a stub discussing a handful of mediocre articles, and a so-called 'cyber-bullying menace'. It's not realistic. Plus, most of the stuff on the third party sources isn't accurate at all. It's not like we can't use first-party sources at all, ever. This is a sitiuation where it would do no harm, and would be the best source to use. It's not like there's any room for misinterpretation of the articles, and you'd get accurate information. You seem to really like attacking this article... --Nintendorulez talk 23:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Rangeley banned him from the site last summer, for ED spamming. tmopkisn ^tlka

No, he banned me for uploading Squidwoman over a picture used in some news article about ED. Lol! Milto LOL pia 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say... tmopkisn ^tlka

Read the logs of that picture, and look at the time of that picture. Beyond that, I'm not going to do your thinking for you. Milto LOL pia 14:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Either way, you vandalized the site and got banned for it. --Nintendorulez talk 16:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, just dropping by to throw in my two cents on this matter.

• WP:V states, in very clear terms, that the inclusion of information is dictated by verifiability, not truth. Miltopia seems to be working very hard on this article, working with verifiable info from 3rd party sources and bringing in some diversity (as the article, before he started working on it, was almost entirely constructed out of information from primary sources — some info bordering on OR — and is thus helping the article).
• I am with Miltopia on this one, and I too feel that that particular joke is unencyclopedic, and doesn't benefit the article in any way. Does Uncyclopedia really think Wikipedia is a parody of Unc? Tongue in cheek humour tends to undermine articles. I'm of the opinion that including that line just to facilitate a joke is of no benefit... though if there's a compelling reason for inclusion, I'll happily change my views on this — for what my views are worth on this subject :P.

Cheers-from K37 00:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you guys are saying, and it makes sense. If it were found in a creditable 3rd party source would it be worthy of inclusion then? Tbone762 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Most certainly I think, and I'd love for something to be found-from K37 01:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... searching time! Tbone762 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What about this? Seems to be a reasonably reliable source, award winning researcher and blogger for the Miami Herald-from K37 02:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Another one, seems even better as it doesn't quote exactly off Uncyc-from K37 03:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Treating it as a serious claim when it's not would be tongue-in-cheek humor on our part, and there's no place for that here. If someone wants to incorporate as an example of Uncyclopedia's humor in the main body, with a clear explanation that is is HUMOR and not a "claim", bear in mind that you're giving undue weight to a joke regarding Wikimedia. It seems like there would be several better examples of "Uncyclopedia's humor". Oh wait, there already are some in the article. Milto LOL pia 13:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

If you frequented the forums or chat, you'd notice constant jokes about Wikipedia being a parody of Uncyc. It's a pretty signifigant injoke. --Nintendorulez talk 16:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if I frequented it. So, does anyone who does not frequent the chats or forums say that? If not, there's no third-party sources. Besides, my point is there's all types of humor on Uncyc, and focusing on Wikimedia jokes when there are oodles of other topics would be undue weight and a self-reference. Milto LOL pia 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not as though anyone is suggesting we focus on anything. There are third party sources stating "Uncyclopedia claims the reverse," which is a verifiable sort of thing. We arent trying to give this claim any credence, or judging its seriousness. K37 found a third party source which uses the language. ~Rangeley (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

But you know it's not one, so sticking it in there like it is would be very unencyclopedic. Trying to find some loophole out of the fact that it's not a real claim is just trying to force Uncyclopedia's humor down the article's throat. Milto LOL pia 21:06, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be very unencyclopedic to take the claim and use it as fact, but by stating it as a claim, it is encyclopedic. Its how we handle other statements, for instance when the information minister of Iraq claimed there were no troops in Baghdad, he probably knew he was wrong, but we nonetheless note that he claimed it. The truthfulness of the claim is a side issue. What matters is that the claim is made, and we have verifiable sources saying the claim is made. Its not a loophole, its how it works. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Not when you, as an editor of Uncyclopedia, no it's false. It's an entirely different situation when the same people who edit the website regularly are saying it's anything but a joke. Milto LOL pia 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, he probably knew what he was saying was false, and afterwards you could probably strike up a good conversation with him about some of the better things he claimed. But just because they werent true, or because he didnt beleive them doesnt make them not something he claimed. We are not saying anyone honestly beleives it, we are merely stating the verifiable information from third party sources that the claim is made.

All your argument comes down to is "yea, but noone beleives it!" This doesnt mean it isnt claimed, and it isnt a reason to keep it out. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

As I've already said, including it as anything else but an example of Uncyclopedia's humor would be unethical, and that includes putting it in, leaving it's truthfulness. There's no way for us to know whether or not the info minister in Iraq knew whether or not that was false, even if it's your opinion, but Wikipedia editors know that this claim is false. It's not even a "claim" as you are describing it, it's a joke, because the clai is not serious and is not meant to be taken seriously, which is another important difference between this situation and the Iraq guy. The bottom line is, if you can't treat this article professionally than you should probably excuse yourself from it due to a conflict of interest. Milto LOL pia 21:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I dont beleive you understand the concept here. Even if we had proof he knew he was wrong, from verifiable sources, which peered into his mind using some sort of yet to be invented technology, which removed all doubt, he still claimed it. A claim is an action, its not a state of mind. Were we to have a sentence saying "which beleives the reverse," thats entering the realm of whether one really thinks one way or another. But we arent doing that, we are stating "claims the reverse," which we have verifiable third party sources claiming. Rather than allege that I have a conflict of interest which prevents me from acting in good faith, it would be more useful if you simply participated in discussion and presented arguments. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

How about, "jokingly claims the reverse is true"? It's a lame joke, so let's not pretend it's a legitimate claim. And pointing out that it's a joke kills any humor the joke actually holds. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, though "though Uncyclopedia jokingly claims the reverse" sounds better. ~Rangeley (talk)

Non-introductory

This information is not really introductory, it's just one example of thousands of Uncyclopedia humor. I really don't see the need for it to be int he introduction. It should be in the main body, as that joke is not central to the site, it's just one joke on the page. Introductory material should be limited toa brief overview, not spamming one joke as tongue-in-cheek humor, awkwardly worded to skirt around the fact that it's a joke. Milto LOL pia 21:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately this is a content decision. A great many people feel that it should be included, and that it adds to the introduction. We have gone over how it is indeed a claim that is made, and how it can be found on verifiable sources. I dont mind if the word "jokingly" is included, it doesnt have to be, but if thats what is wanted, thats fine. There isnt a rule that says it cant be included, so ultimately thats just your opinion that it shouldnt be there. I think it would be useful to get others views on this. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Though, I will add that adding "jokingly" without a source could be argued to be original research in the same vein that many other things have been labeled as such here. Unless we find a source which states the claim to be a joke, perhaps its best to leave "jokingly" out. ~Rangeley (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why would we propogate a known untruth? There should be no ambiguity that the claim is even possibly true. A source that doesn't say it's a joke is an unsatisfactory source then. On a side note, all that article does is quote the article... doesn't seem very different from sourcing directly from the article itself. The wording isn't even the same anymore. I think it's safe to say that that source doesn't work, maybe the other one K37 found would be better. Milto LOL pia 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

On the second part of the above paragraph of mine, the other source is better as it doesn't quote the source. Milto LOL pia 21:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

We went over this before, actually. It would be un-encyclopedic to propagate a known falsity. Were we to make the Wikipedia article state its a "satirical parody of Uncyclopedia," using this as a source, that would be false. But there is nothing false about stating that "Uncylopedia claims the reverse," because the claim has been made. Again, a claim is an action, not a state of mind. Were we to say that "Uncyclopedia beleives the reverse," thats entering the realm of what people really think. But we havent entered that realm. We have verifiable sources stating that Uncyclopedia claims it, thus we are fully able to say it.

Also, there is nothing wrong with using sources that quote, as it is still not original research. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is when the quoted source is subject to change, like a wiki. A synopsis would be better IMO, but it's not that big a deal to me. If you're going to insist on adding a falsity however, i"m going to hunt for a better source. There has to be one that says it's a joke, it would be of detriment to the article's seriousness to treat it as anything else and I really don't see why you're pushing for it. Milto LOL pia 22:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, it is not a falsity - it does claim the reverse. If you can find a source which says it to be a joke, thats absolutely fine, but I am merely holding it to the same standard you have held everything else, including the word "satire." ~Rangeley (talk) 22:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, so that's what this is about. Well, it seems absurd to me to treat something like it might not be a joke when you, a writer for the subject of teh article, know it isn't, but do what you will. I still don't think it's introductory, for the reasons I've said above at the beginning of this subheader. Milto LOL pia 22:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not really see it as absurd, and I dont really think you do either. The unnamed counterpart was not specified as stillwaters, even though you or I know thats what their screename was. Until it is sourced, I can agree with you that it should be left out. I only expect the same from you on this issue. ~Rangeley (talk) 22:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

And you've got it. THe only issue I have at this point is whether or not it's introductory, for reasons I said at the top of this subheader. Milto LOL pia 22:39, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the quote should stay on the article, even because all wikipedias with articles about their same-language Uncyclo have the "althrough they claim the reverse" quote. I can't see why this one can't follow the small joke, it's not like 5 words more would destroy the article or something like that. What do you think we vote for it? (It's just my opinion, please don't flame me x.x) - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 20:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It really is extremely unprofessional to promote the idea that it's a real "claim" when it's just a joke. It's not a particular relevant joke, and it's non-introductory, as I've said countless times with no reply still. Wikipedia does not need to be following anyone's jokes. There's no use for them in encyclopedia articles. This is a very good reason why people who edit this website actively should not be editing the article about it. Milto LOL pia 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, nobody gets paid, so people only edit articles on subjects of their interest anyway. As an ED editor and someone whose articles where deleted from the site, you seem to be the one having conflicts of interest.--Rataube 16:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not something they are "interested in", this is a website in which they are regular contributors. And a conflict of interest for me would be if I were actually editing the ED article, not merely editing an encyclopedia on which that article was deleted. ED has no part in this, so quit obsessing and stick to the topic. Milto LOL pia 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant your articles deleted from uncyclopedia. Anyway, did you actually read [[WP:COI] or just assumed its content by what you know of the term "Conflict of Interests"? Read WP:COI, nothing to do with what's going on here, unless you could call Uncyclopedia an organization and ED its competitor, which I doubt very much.--Rataube 01:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, why the backtrack? We came to an agreement above which seems to have been forgotten. Its cited, its in a reliable third party source. ~Rangeley (talk) 05:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, we really didn't. You ignored concerns that it was non-introductory so you could spam your joke - not an "agreement" just because you ignore everything you disagree with. Besides, I really don't think the joke has any place - it's an irrelevant self-reference and a misrepresentation that you are knowingly perpetuating. The article treating it like it's serious to exploit the wackiness of the site is all fine and good, but we don't need to do that. Unless this joke is somehow more relevant than the thousands of others included, including it, much less in the atmosphere of seriousness it is presented with in the article, is an unimportant self-reference. At the very least, as I've said a million times that you keep avoiding, it is non-introductory and should not be so set off from the other examples of humor. Milto LOL pia 13:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

We have sources stating they claim it, it is not a lie that we have verifiable sources stating this. Your opinion is noted, but its merely an opinion. We are following the rules in including it, you dont want it in the introduction, but your opinion doesnt trump everyone elses in this issue of wording, I am very sorry Miltopia. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, generally the best way to dismiss somehting is not to say "it's your opinion". I'm not doing the same to you. If I did, we'd be in permanent stalemate... surely you can see that there has to be something more to this conversation? Anyway, judging by the number of people also reverting the addition of the joke, including several people who do not write for the website, I'd say it's more than just my opinion. Now, regarding the introductory issue: I've asked, directly, for your thoughts on it. I dont' know how I can make it any more clearer, but I want to make sure it is absolutely apparent that I would like your opinion about whether the statement, assuming it belongs in the article, belongs in the introduction. I think that would be a good starting point. Milto LOL pia 16:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Miltopia, I think you missed my point. You originally argued that it couldnt be said because its a lie. But again, it is not false - they claim it, we have sources saying this, end of story.

Where we are now is that you do not beleive it to be introductory worthy, but I do, because we have sources stating that they claim it. It provides more to this article. I see a lot of content has been removed because it was unsourced, the introductory is very short in comparison to other articles. We have sourced info now, and its still not good enough? I honestly disagree with this premise, we arent out to make this article shorter, that isnt supposed to be anyones goal here. We are out to make it accurate with verifiable information from reliable sources.

I have not dismissed your view. Instead, I have noted that it has devolved from "this is propagating a known lie" into "I dont want it here." You have not made a convincing case, again, this is a matter of content, not a matter of something being unable to be put there. I already told you why I think it should be there, you have already said why you dont think it should be there. Lets see what others have to say. ~Rangeley (talk) 17:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I say put it there couse of the many reasons alredy stated by Rangeley.--Rataube 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think its slightly anal to remove "although it claims the reverse". Uncyclopedia DOES claim that. There is no two ways about this statement. It is claimed by Uncyclopedia that Wikipedia is a parody of it. This is true. So why remove it? - Joe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.172.192 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC).

On behalf of 142.166.32.238: "I aplogise for placing ',though Uncylopedia claims the reverse.' I did not have any Idea that there was a debate wether it should be present or not." --142.166.84.118 14:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Stumbled back across this discussion after a long while... Ah the fun we had! Found another source for the quote by the way... [5] The BBC no less! I see what Miltopia is saying about non-introductory... Maybe it belongs somewhere further down? But the disputed statement itself is definitely true. It's just that it reports someone else's lie. Like, without looking, I'm sure somewhere on Clinton's page there's a reference to him not having sexual relations with that woman, and that wouldn't be removed as a lie, because it's true that he said it. And it's true that Uncyclopedia says this 'claims the reverse' thingy. Even though it's a lie. See? Tbone762 16:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This really isn't a lie though, it's a joke. There's a difference. It would be like saying "in some presidential debate or other, President Bush claimed that Kerry's response made him want to scowl." Only moreso, because Uncyclopedia is pure nonsense. Besides, there's still no compelling reason why this is more notable a claim than any else. Milto LOL pia 16:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

h2g2 isn't reliable - also, it appears that that entry was written possibly by an uncyc editor, Nerd42-K@ngie^meep! 22:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Moar tags

I just put some more tags on the international version section, just thought I'd leave a note. Milto LOL pia 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Info on policy

Who cares about Uncycopedia's policy? The answer is "Wikimedians and Uncyclopedians", such as yourself. These are the only groups that care about policy that much for the most part, why is there info about managerial decisions and policy and rules, do you really think the general public cares about that? Or do they care about founding history and types of content and other encyclopedic information? Milto LOL pia 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another problem paragraph?

Look at this:

Self-reference is another common theme in Uncyclopedia articles. For example, the rot13 page is written in rot13,, the iPod article has the second letter of every word with "i" in it capitalized, the Mortal Kombat page replaces all 'c's with 'k's , and the Caps Lock page written in all caps.

Self-reference? What does that mean? This isn't "self-reference", this is making a joke about something. Yet another paragraph that need to be blankifiticatified in my opinion. No sources calling the articles "self-references" (the sources link to the actual articles, not anything calling them self-referenced) and "self-referenced" is a very poor word indeed to describe this humor. I'm not even sure how to tag it, so I didn't. Milto LOL pia 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The Uncyclomedia Foundation

Hmm, is Uncyclopedia a project of the Uncyclomedia Foundation, or is the Uncyclomedia Foundation a play on the Wikimedia Foundation? Let's assume it's the first; in that case, the cited source says that the Organization was founded in 1860. I'm not entirely sure that's correct, nor that citing it is in the interest of factual accuracy. Milto LOL pia 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm calling BOLD on this one, I took it out. Any objections/reverts, I'll be happy to discuss before re-removing. Really though, having cited info about an organization that's a century and a half old owning Uncyclopedia is pretty ridiculous. Milto LOL pia 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dude, it's primary source information, and it says it was founded in 1860. I don't think they would lie. 71.0.240.220 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that in 1860, there was an organization called the Uncyclomedia Foundation? Milto LOL pia 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of articles

Isn't there a way to make a bot update the "10 largest uncyclopedias" paragraph to update the numbers of articles automatically? All the numbers can be taken from this one page, so I guess it's a piece of cake for bot programmers - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a better question is, is it really that important? Let's just leave it on the order of 10,000 and 5000 and not worry about updating, it's not like it's an advertisement or anything. Milto LOL pia 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's the way it is now. I saw a diff from my last edits here where someone had changed it back, but I guess they got reverted. Milto LOL pia 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Half of the section has been deleted. Maybe it just needed to be shorter, but the selection seems totally arbitrary.--Rataube 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• wow, the article really sucks now. You turned it back to stub status for what? I tought wikipedia purpose was to gather as many information as possible on something, and you just deleted all of it. If you want to cite only 2 or 3 foreign uncyclos I totally disagree, but I wont revert it, only sugest to at least cite the 4 bigest uncyclos, not random ones. - Raquel Sama ^★Talk★ 20:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Redirection to Uncyclopedia article

Why does a search for "AAAAA" on Wikipedia redirect to this article on Uncyclopedia? LeviathanMist 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Because "AAAAAA" is a hilarious and original Uncyclopedia joke. Milto LOL pia 17:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • That redirect should be deleted, IMO-K@ngie^meep! 10:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
    • PROD FTW!-K@ngie^meep! 05:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Source note

I'm questioning whether or not this is best, but it's such a clear fact: I sourced the statement that Uncyclopedia exists in Hebrew, Swedish and Portuguese with this link, it's a first-party source... not really sure about this. It seems ok though. Input plz. Milto LOL pia 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A wiki with it's own universe?

Does Uncyclopedia have it's own fictional universe? I personally think so because of fictional conflicts such as the "500-foot jesus vs mecha-hitler" battles, along with fictional events of the future. Flashn00b 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a bunch of jokes. Milto LOL pia 17:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Good article candidate

I've nommed this for "good article" status here ^_^ Milto LOL pia 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is hilarious that Uncyclopedia is up for GA, but hey, it seems close to passing, although the lead section could provide more explanation and convey the structure better. tonsofpcs _(Talk) 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia isn't owned by Wikipedia, is it?

I wasn't sure whether or not it was, but I surely hope not. The site is so NOT FUNNY and blatantly disrespectful to blacks and whites, in particular. I'm not the first to notice. The tasteless "humor" it condones speaks volumes of America's failure to take responsibility for it's values. Children observe these websites, for Christ's sake. Countless numbers of Uncyclopedia's articles are hurtful; furthermore, they are just asking for an uprising triggered by the immature comments that targeted groups might stumble upon...just as I did. I just wish there was some way to get rid of it for good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.201.118.165 (talk) 22:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

You can rest easy. It's actually owned by Wikia. — MichaelLinnear 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

God forbid we should allow satire to appear on screens in liberal democracies. Chrisfow 23:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was owned by wikipedia!!! and i thought wikia was a part of wikipedia!-hotspot

• No, Wikipedia is owned by Wikimedia and Wikia is run by many people with experience on Wikipedia. It's also co-founded by Jimbo and another high-profile Wikimedian. So some of the same people, different company. Milto LOL pia 13:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

That cleared up everything for me thanks-hotspot

AAAAAAAAA!

There should be a section on the famous AAAAAAAAA! page. A•N•N•Afoxlover 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

if you are going to propose adding a section, you should probably wait for others to chime in before just doing it. I've reverted your addition since there's no need to highlight what you claim to be their "most famous page". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said that. A•N•N•Afoxlover 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Your contribution (which you've now re-inserted [6]) makes the uncited claim that this particular article is "one of the most popular". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I say don't add it, as it could be POV (Some might say AAAAAAAAA! is the most famous page, but others might disagree). --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the sources in the article, some of the other content on Uncyclopedia is far more "famous" than AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! — MichaelLinnear 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Oscar Wilde? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde is mentioned in this source, but last I checked he was already mentioned in the article. — MichaelLinnear 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article should at least mention the following content: AAAAAAAAA!, Oscar Wilde, Kitten huffing, Grues, the blank Nihilism page [7], and the anti-Wikipedia content. A•N•N•Afoxlover 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you find a source saying any of those articles are famous? Btw, the article does mention that Uncyclopedia is a "satirical parody" of Wikipedia, i.e. it's critical (though I doubt its truth). Milto LOL pia 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can tmopkisn ^tlka 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh good, that will help this article progress a lot. — MichaelLinnear 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Then someone add it into the article. AAAAAAAAA! is famous enough that it needs to be at least mentioned in Wikipedia. Also, the redirect page needs to be added back. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from re-creating a previously deleted redirect. Deletion review is over here. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What was the first article on Uncyclopedia?

Who created the first article on Uncyclopedia? Was it the founder? What is the most recent article (not stub) on this site?Coffsneeze 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, my guess is that the first page created by a user on that site seems to be spade, which was made by Chronarion, the site's founder. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, this isn't a page for discussion of the subject of the article, it is for discussion of the article. Plz to keep on topic-K@ngie^meep! 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Serious statements only plz

The wisdom of adding joke claims into the article as though they are in any way serious is questionable, but there should absolutely not be any sort of indication that the jokes on Uncyclopedia represent the truth. There is zero possibility that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, if for no other reason than the fact that WP existed years before, so please don't introduce material into the article treating that silliness as "possibility". Milto LOL pia 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your point, but apparently there is a significant minority whose opinion is (a) different and (b) published. Smylei 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've said in my edit - stating that Uncyclopedia is a JOKING website and JOKINGLY call Wikipedia the copycat. --Edmundkh 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One thing at a time: The current version states that it actually might be true. Nonsense. Smylei, adding nonsense to articles is really bad form. Milto LOL pia 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about you. Apart from uncyclopedia, there are plenty of people out there saying that wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. I do not count myself in, but I just find it interesting to provide all the published viewpoints. Smylei 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there? I was unaware of any others making that claim. Who else says this? Milto LOL pia 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find them by yourself if you search the net a bit using "parody of Uncyclopedia". They are mostly blogs. But current reference no. 1 supporting the claim that Uncyclopedia is a parody is also a blog (Elisabeth Donovan). Of course, I could never imagine how could an average chump make up a cogent opinion that wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. I think that most of them are being dishonest. You probably go a little bit further assuming that they are dishonest and malice-free, which can sometimes be classified as joking. But we are not allowed to do these logical conclusions here, since they would amount to original research. For example, Daniel Griliopoulos presents the wikipedia/uncyclopedia discussion and claims that Uncyclopedia wins "because it has better pictures". For me this is of course a blatant abuse of logic. But the real question here is not whether wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia, or opposite, but how vulnerable we are to media pressure. Prohibiting blogs is not a solution, I find Riverbend blog to be much better source of true information on Iraq than New York Times and BBC together. It is definitely very just of you to try to use "patent nonsense" hammer here, but go and try to root out reference-supported patent nonsense e.g. from Iraq page to see how impossible it is when you encounter stubborn revert warriors. In my opinion, there is no known mechanism to ensure encyclopedic cooperation of people whose primary intention is to distort information. In my opinion, a fat CS student from Stony Brooks came to a conclusion that no matter how smart or stupid rules you make for an online encyclopedia, the result will always be something away from truth. It is also my opinion that Wikipedia can be considered a parody of Uncyclopedia in this sense, because vulnerabilities render the Wikipedia information unreliable, which can be achieved more honestly by forfeiting or outright forbidding "factuality" at all. A surprise fact is that Uncyclopedia also has a rule that the closer the article is to truth, the better it is. So the question of whether Uncyclopedia parodies Wikipedia because it was launched later or Wikipedia parodies the eternal Search of Truth is not so nonsensical. I cannot find any reference that would explicity endorse the viewpoint as I wrote it here. Apparently, Searchers of Truth are lazy bastards. Am I being serious enough? Smylei 17:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well, why would we include a statement supported only by dishonest sources exactly? I'm not following why you re-inserted the information. Milto LOL pia 08:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's an interesting fact that Uncyclopedia has that statement you know. I don't mean that Uncuyclopedia is telling the truth - it's b*** s***ing. But I find interesting that they accuse Wikipedia for copying them, so it would be nice to tell this here. --Edmundkh 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia makes thousands of interesting statements, what makes this particularly worthy of inclusion? Milto LOL pia 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the main motivation for this push for inclusion is, quite obviously, the "...claims the reverse" joke between the two articles. It isn't a particularly informative little tidbit, and it isn't particularly noteworthy, however. Wikipedia isn't a humour dump-K@ngie^meep! 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but Wikipedia is an Uncyclopedia parody. Why else would they register http://www.unicyclopedia.org as a domain? --66.102.80.239 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

{{subst:#if:|

---

{{{overcom}}}|}}

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{1com}}}|}}

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{2com}}}|}}

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{3com}}}|}}

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{4com}}}|}}

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{5com}}}|}}

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   {{subst:#if:|{{{6com}}}|}}

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   {{subst:#if:|{{{7com}}}|}}

Task list

• Change external links to references in History
• Include one or two examples to illustrate the "Oscar Wilde" quotes in Content
• Expand the content section as it is particularly weak. There should be a couple examples of popular articles (with citations for their popularity)
• Citations should come after punctuation, with no space between.
• The sentence "While most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site, there are perhaps just as many articles about Wikia and/or Wikipedia that just mention its name briefly." is poorly written - in particular, its meaning is unclear, it uses "just" twice and uses "and/or". Also, the word "perhaps" implies that it is unverifiable, so should possibly be removed.
• Merge or expand one-sentence paragraph in Press coverage. If these articles really are notable, can you briefly summarize what they are about in the paragraph?
• Expand and translate the unexplained acronym "SGAE" in in other languages
• Extenal links -> references in in other languages
• Citation needed for paragraph about the schoolgirl in Controversy
• Controversy implies there is disagreement over the topic. Only one side of the argument is given. Perhaps the section could be changed to Criticism. Alternatively, I think it would be better to refer to a counter-argument concerning Uncyclopedia's policy on not naming individuals.
• A section about the editing rules and guidelines within Uncyclopedia would be useful to better illustrate how it differs from traditional encyclopedias and wiki sites. It may be useful to contrast it with Wikipedia's rules.
• Because of the guideline about not linking to external sites containing factually inaccurate information, a brief warning would be useful next to the links to uncyclopedia. I agree that it is important for the links to remain, but there's a chance someone could skip the article text and go straight to the link, thinking it was a real encyclopedia.
• The article's stability is not satisfactory - there are many changes each day.
• The lead section should be expanded a little to summarize the topics in the main text. See WP:LEAD
• Uncyclopedia is under the Creative Commons share alike license. The images in this article don't have tags to reflect this. At the moment they are tagged as being from copyright sources, without fair use rationale.

- Alex valavanis 09:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

All right, let's make this featured.--Emperor Walter Humala · ^{( talk? · help! )} 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Oscar Wilde

I'm not sure if Uncyclopedia's jokes have anything to do with this, but there was a sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus involving many Oscar Wilde misquotes. I don't know if this should be in the article or not.

If you can find a reference supporting this, then sure. Otherwise, it's probably Original research and should be left out. - Alex valavanis 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the sketch, but I'm not sure how much it relates to Uncyc's association with Wilde. – Riana ^talk 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Content

The Content section needs to be rewritten. Uncyclo is just a bunch fictional Oscar Wilde quotes--71.170.41.7 16:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What parts exactly do you think should be improved? Milto LOL pia 21:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The content section already suggests that uncyc uses repetitive Oscar Wilde misquotes everywhere - so where's the problem?-K@ngie^meep!

Sorry what I meant was that the content section only said the repetitive Oscar Wilde quotes and nothing about the other content on uncyclopeida.Uncyclo isnot just a bunch of fictional Oscar Wilde quotes --71.170.41.7 03:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I would encourage you to find some sources that say otherwise, as all we have are sources that mention Oscar Wilde misquotes, so we can only include that-K@ngie^meep!

This has quite a bit more. ~Rangeley (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

New Main Page

• As of April 7, 2007 they have completely changed the layout of the main page, filling it with ad spots and the like, I think you should change the picture of the main page of Uncylopedia in the article to keep it up to date..it doesnt resemble the wikipedia main page anymore. - Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.121.241.149 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

It's a reskin. We make several of these a year, usually to celebrate some kind of event (real or otherwise). Don't panic, it'll all be back to normal tomorrow. -- Codeine 11:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I went to uncyclopedia.org and it was a fake Fox News page with some article on Oscar wide, but all the links were links to Uncyclopedia and the main page. It was in celebration of Easter becaue the article was one of Easter. This should be noted somewhere in this article. Randomfrenchie 20:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• No thanks, not without a reliable source-K@ngie^meep! 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe there could be a section about the reskinning of the main page, with a couple of links to past reskinnings.

There used to be one of those, and there is still an active archive on Uncyclopedia itself. tmopkisn ^tlka

here tmopkisn ^tlka 00:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

History

Restored history section, deleted by anon IPs. Is there any reason to remove the history? --h2g2bob 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it was just page blanking vandalism. However one of those edits by an anon IP was a good one updating website information. I restored the information he added. — MichaelLinnear 23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Linking to all Uncyclopedias

It seems to me that posts to wikis in general are not considered reliable by Wikipedia, but those on a wiki like Uncyclopedia would be logically even more unreliable due to its non-serious content. So, my reasoning for pushing for the Wikia link and not the Uncyclopedia link is for that reason. Yeah, I know that wikia dot com is a wiki too, but it's one that is heavily policed by the Wikia Inc. staff and not just thrown together by any anonymous yahoo with an internet connection, which would negate the WP:RS concerns normally present for wikis. Additionally, the only Uncyclopedia projects the article discusses (and the only one it has sources mentioning) are the ones hosted by Wikia, so... yeah. Don't see much reasons to link to others for that reason as well, I could create an "Uncyclopedia" of my own on editthis.info and it would have no less reason to be mentioned on here than other non-Wikia ones. Anyway, that's my input regarding these reversions. Milto LOL pia 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Many Uncyclopedias not hosted by Wikia are just as big as, if not bigger than, those hosted by Wikia. And I don't see any reason why including a link to a larger list of wikis, instead of the list linked to currently, would be detrimental to this article. Longer list = more accuracy, believe it or not. tmopkisn ^tlka

Ok, well, these Uncyclopedias not hosted by Wikia that are just as big as those that are, where are the sources for them? Where are they talked about at all? And this "not seeing any reason" - do you have any comment on the various reasons I brought up, or are you just going to pretend I didn't say them? Milto LOL pia 18:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are the sources for the Wikia wikis? Where are they talked about - Wikia? Does the fact that Wikia has a page mentioning them make them any more notable than those that Wikia doesn't mention? As for your other reasons, I would argue that Uncyclopedia is just as heavily-policed as Wikia, and that its staff just as dedicated as the staff at Wikia (most of which, by the way, do very little to police Wikia's pages, and instead spend their time helping other wikis hosted by Wikia.) Now, if you were to go to editthis.info and create an Uncyclopedia in a (legitimate) language that did not yet have an Uncyclopedia, then I think it'd be important that this Uncyclopedia be mentioned as well. tmopkisn ^tlka 20:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried a quick Google test to search (by name) for each of four largest non-English Uncyclopedias... 144000 Google hits for アンサイクロペディア, 131000 for Desciclopédia, 107000 for Désencyclopédie and about 105000 for Nonsensopedia. Desciclopédia has had media coverage in its home country, and is (by Alexa rank) one of the 550 largest sites in Brazil. アンサイクロペディア is growing by more than twenty pages a day and will soon be the second-largest of all the Uncyclopedias. To comply with WP:NPOV, the only criterion for inclusion needs to be notability, not choice of one particular web hosting company over another. --66.102.80.239 20:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: Neither アンサイクロペディア, nor Desciclopédia are hosted by Wikia. tmopkisn ^tlka

Wikimonster

Why is the Wikipedia Monster deleted whenever I put it on here? Darth Skynyrd 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why, but there's a few policies and guidelines that might answer your question. I'd recommend reading WP:NOR, WP:V AND WP:NOTE, just to get a feeling for what's generally ok and what isn't on WP-K@ngie^meep! 23:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)