Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia/archive1

Uncyclopedia

Check external links

I'm nominating Uncyclopedia for featured article status because I feel that it meets all neccesary featured criteria. Teh Rote (talk) 02:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support: As the person who reviewed it for GA, I believe that this article of FA standard also. ISD (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Provisional Neutrality for the promotion of this article. It's FA quality in parts. The "Other Versions Sections" has overlink, - I believe it is much better to link to "list of uncyclopedias" than to link to Arabic, Latin, [...] in quick succession. It is also not as well organized as the rest of the article, nor does it note that "des" is as to "un", even though the meaning of "un" is prominently shown in the lead. I also don't like the usage of parenthesis. organization problems - does the lead properly summarize the article? it seems to talk more about the versions than about uncyclopedia itself, and fails the requirement of "stand alone". Is the information provided in the lead also provided in the body? No. - There is no note of the symbol of Uncyclopedia anywhere outside of the lead...--Kiyarrllston 16:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I've been watching and contributing to this page off and on for a little while, (mostly vandalism reversions and the like) and I feel like it has really grown a lot, and I'd love to see it featured. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 20:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. This page is the very model of modern Major-General. It has information vegetable, animal, and mineral. -- Zombiebaron (shout) 00:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support I think a little bit of humour would be nice, but no humor. That would be wrong. --Sevvvy (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 19; 5 in the last six months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I have like 3000 Edits at Uncyclopedia...doesn't that translate to about more than like 1000 here?--Sevvvy (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. As per Zombiebaron. The quality of this article has grown considerably in the past year due to strong support from the Uncyclopedia community to make it so. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 00:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Oppose External links only belong in the External links section. Epbr123 (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - As long as they do it on April Fool's Day. Oh, and somebody tells the ED community. Kip the Dip (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Sure, its a great article. 96.233.98.175 (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• First and only edit from this IP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see how that even matters. Teh Rote (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Zombiebaron, I mean Support. Is that allowed over here? I'm not gonna get in trouble, am I? Gustavo Chapman 3rd of Normandy (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 14; 1 other edit in 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose—1a, 1c and 2.
• I wonder whether the gushing reviews above have been written with reference to the FA criteria. I see a MOS breach in the very first sentence (no hyphen after "-ly"). "English language" as a double adjective should probably have a hyphen, although I could cope without if you insist. And a MOS breach in the italics used at the opening for a quotation, solely because it's that. "Its logo is a hollowed potato, named Sophia after the Gnostic deity, that serves as a spoof of Wikipedia's globe logo."—why not keep it plain: "Its logo is a hollowed potato—named Sophia after the Gnostic deity—a spoof of Wikipedia's globe logo." I see lots of prose and MOS glitches throughout. Tony (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC) PS I see references without authors' names; they appear to need auditing on several counts. Tony (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I fixed the problems you pointed out in the first paragraph. Most of the "gushing reviews" are Uncyclopedians that got here from the Uncyclopedia forums. --Jedravent (talk) 04:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, that would explain some of the accounts Supporting.[1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Is this where I vote? Is that the hole I punch? Did I just vote for Pat Buchanan? Awwww crap. --Savethemooses (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Great start but there is a lot more work to do:
  • The article does not meet 1a - it needs a neutral copyedit for flow, voice, and tone.
  • There are significant verifiability issues. The article should not being using Uncyclopedia or even Wikia related sites for sources in most cases. Neutral, reliable sources need to be found for most items, especially those that might be disputed. The vast majority of sources for this entire article are primary.
  • Pursuant to criterion 1a, there is not really a good narrative flow through the entire article. We talk about hosting, article content, and policies all over the place.
  • The listing of other language versions is larger than most others but contains mostly trivial content that might be better suited for a table. Prose is not a good choice when the same data is repeated for each entry.
  • There are minor issues as well - check for hyphens where em dashes or en dashes should be used. The "See also" section should not contain links to articles that are already linked in the main article.
  • The fair use rationale for the image in the lead is incorrect.
    • It looks correct to me. --Jedravent (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
      • The "Portion used" field is not correct. The image is not of the "entire web site", it is of one page of the web site. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The fair use rationale and copyright templates for Image:398px-WP VS Eincyc.png are incorrect. Addressed. --Laser brain (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • This has been fixed. --Jedravent (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support 1 Vote For Ron Paul (wait... just a miscount)--218.215.57.95 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • First and only edit from this IP. Nishkid64 (talk) 02:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Second and... not only edit now. Plus once I stopped one of your articles being vandalized once. --218.215.63.125 (talk) 06:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. This is probably the only subject on which I know something. As such, the Wikipedia page clearly reflects the history, history and history of Uncyclopedia. It should be pointed out, however, that Wikipedia's Uncyclopedia page is not nearly as funny as Uncyclopedia's Wikipedia page. As a not-really-Wikipedian, also however, I probably shouldn't vote. Modusoperandi (talk) 09:45, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support I'm proud that such an awkward article made it up to GA. Though I am not an FAC regular, and am not familiar with the norms an customs, I have read over the criteria and believe that the Uncyclopedia article meets it. The prose is great, the references include third party ones, the MOS is adhered to. I think this is an FA. DISCLAIMER: I admit that I'm not completely neutral as I am an Uncyclopedia reader and fan. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support. The article is verifiable, as it is using multiple print media as sources. Certainly text depending solely on Wikia-related sources would have already been disputed, replaced or fixed long ago, as their info tends to be too incomplete to be usable. (Japan and Brazil, the largest non-English Uncyclopedias, are both non-Wikia, for instance.) --carlb (talk) 17:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose till the issues addressed by Laser brain are fixed. By the way, I'm Dexter111344 over there and here. I'm not logged on here because I forgot my password, and, since I neglected to register my e-mail, I can't have a new password sent... It really sucks. Oh well. It's my own fault. --75.137.152.243 (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I finally remembered! Guess I hadn't been trying hard enough before... --Dexter111344 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Support Some of the issues have been addressed since I made my first vote. It's good enough now. After all, nothing is perfect. --Dexter111344 (talk) 00:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment There are no edits on this username for the past 6 months prior to this vote. Nergaal (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment Due to the fact that I had forgotten my password and had been making small edits from different IP's during that timespan. Most of those were, of course, slight grammatical and spelling corrections, nothing really big. Oh, I'm sorry, did I break Wikipedia's number one policy? Please note this fact was most likely never going to be pointed out if it had remained an oppose vote, even though I did state this fact, just in another manner. --Dexter111344 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
• Support as per Kip the Dip -- •Spillin Dylan•TALK• 22:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Total edits, 9; no other edits this year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Ok, so setting aside the canvassing - where are we with actionable objections? Which ones have been fixed, and which ones are still outstanding? Raul654 (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I've got quite a list; if you want to handle this FAC, I'll put up a list of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems the primary concerns are the reliability of references, quality of prose and random MoS issues. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

And external links in the text, trivia prevailing over comprehensive coverage, unformatted citations, non-reliable sources. Lots of MOS issues. As well as the prose concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Strong oppose, and leaving this FAC to Raul654:

Comparison of content sections

Wikipedia	Paras	Uncyclopedia	Paras
1 History	6	1 History	1
2 Content and internal structure	4	2 Content (see Related projects)	5
3 Software and hardware	3
4 Language editions	5	5 In other languages	9 (choppy prose, two-sentence paras)
5 Reliability and bias	4
6 Criticism	6	4 Criticism	3
7 Cultural significance	10	3 Press coverage	3 (One-sentence paras)
8 Wikia and Wikimedia	1
9 Related projects	5	Under 2. Content	1

1a, prose: See Tony1 and Laser brain opposes for examples. They are better prose analyzers than I am, but even I can easily pick out a textual redundancy: As well as housing many articles designed to satirize Wikipedia-style content, Uncyclopedia also contains several secondary projects (known as 'UnProjects'). One- and two-sentence paragraphs (In other languages and Press coverage). Redundancies easily spotted: One of the biggest challenges that the administrators of Uncyclopedia face is the constant steady flow of articles that do not meet Uncyclopedia's standards. In other languages is particularly choppy and poorly presented, and comprises most of the content.

Second look, five days later. Redundancies still easily spotted, example in the lead: Uncyclopedias in languages other than English were soon created, eventually spanning over forty different languages. "In other languages" is still choppy two-sentence underdeveloped paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1b, comprehensive A comparison of Wikipedia to Uncyclopedia illustrates areas of missing and undeveloped content. Examples, nothing about software/hardware, finances, structure. History and development are scanty. Most of the other issues with this article could probably be overcome, but the article doesn't appear comprehensive, and some of the sources do touch on these areas.

Still underdeveloped, History is brief proseline, very little about software/hardware relationship with Wikia, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1c, sources Numerous primary sources, often referenced to Uncylopedia itself (Wikis aren't reliable sources), and some contradictions in sourced material (this says founded by Huang and unnamed counterpart, stillwaters isn't independently sourced).

Still relies heavily on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1d, neutral Sources should be checked for POV: "Uncyclopedia's growing popularity allowed it to ... ",

Still has unspecific Peacockery, like ... The vast majority of Uncyclopedia-related projects in other languages remain hosted either as independent domains or as subdomains of Wikia. (Specify the numbers, "vast majority" is puffery.) Stil an uncited ref to "growing popularity". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2, MOS Problems with incorrect bolding, dash and hyphen consistency, external links in the text, WP:GTL See also repeats links already in text, WP:MOSNUM numbers spelled out that should be digits, missing non-breaking hard spaces, WP:OVERLINKing of common terms known to most English speakers,

Still has external jumps in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2a, lead Underdeveloped WP:LEAD.

Better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2c, citation formatting Needs lots of work. Inconsistent date linking and formatting, missing publishers, authors, etc.

Still a wreck. Failure to identify publishers and other data, inconsistently formatted dates, numerous typos and misc. errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3, images Someone else should check.

Response below my sig, please; I'll strike items as they are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• Strong oppose. Obviously and totally. A good portion of this is sourced to an unreliable source—Uncyclopedia itself. The site is less reliable than we are, and I certainly wouldn't support Wikipedia sourced to itself. I like Uncyclopedia (I've contributed!) but this is a joke.

• Swat this down, Raul. We aren't a meme site. We're not recycling unreliable net chatter. This article doesn't even come close to meeting our citation standards. Marskell (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Why is linking to Uncyclopedia pages a problem when the point of linking to them is to literally show the reader what the text of the article is explaining, and to show that certain aspects of Uncyclopedia exist as described within the text? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 23:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's tough, I know. Policy does allow for dubious sources in articles about themselves—but they remain dubious. What you get, ultimately, is unreliable circularity: Uncyclopedia to describe Uncyclopedia. And, of course, because it's a wiki, any page linked to could be changed at any moment. Marskell (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:EL about external links, and WP:OR; you should provide independent, secondary reliable sources discussing those items, and then link to the sourced article. Also, see WP:NOT; Wiki is not myspace or an indiscriminate collection of links. Links belong in citations or in External links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

But the external links to Uncyclopedia are "meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article," from what I can tell, and there are numerous links to secondary resources as well--the links to the site itself are a complement, not a supplement. I don't understand why hyperlinking to Uncyclopedia pages that lack complementary Wikipedia pages is a problem, but if it's some kind of prose or style issue I can remove them very easily. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, one quick question, what do you think should be done with the external links in the "In other languages" section, in the paragraph about the portugese Uncyclopedia? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Lead needs to serve as a standalone summary/outline of the entire article. It currently fails to do this. There are other issues with WP:MOS, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, prose and article depth/size. If Uncyclopedia is as popular as the article claims, then why does the article only have 11KB of prose? Nishkid64 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment From the revision history, it would appear that the article is 30Kb long ("11KB of text"? Hyperbole!) specifically because it had been heavily copy-edited to shrink a much larger article; a lengthy table listing editions in other languages was one of the elements removed at some point on the long journey to GA status. I'm also unsure whether some of the items in the Wikipedia article are relevant or publicly-known for Uncyclopedia. We know about Wikimedia's finances because, as a registered not-for-profit, it must account for every penny. The same is not true of Uncyclopedia if various portions are privately-controlled. The section on the questions surrounding Wikipedian factual reliability inevitably is going to be longer (due to a greater number of differing opinions) than that for Uncyclopedia. The difference in the mission of the two communities makes that much inevitable. --carlb (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the "software and hardware" section would not need to have an equivalent, as that is all handled by Wikia. --Jedravent (talk) 02:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The made-for-Uncyclopedia software includes mw:Extension:DPLforum, mw:Extension:Simple namespaces, mw:Extension:RandomSelection and a few others, mostly key algorithms needed to modify MediaWiki operation in some way. Certainly it exists, but is it notable? --carlb (talk) 16:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The 11KB figure derives from Dr pda's Page size script, which outputs a kB value for the article's text alone. The figure is more relevant than the raw 30kB. To quote WP:SIZE, "For stylistic purposes, only the main body of prose (excluding links, see also, reference and footnote sections, and lists/tables) should be counted toward an article's total size, since the point is to limit the size of the main body of prose." The remaining non-body text is not content, and not prose. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 22:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

---

• 'Support Pardon me if I can't find the right place to put it, but this seems about right. Disclaimer: I edit Uncyclopedia. here is my userpage there, if you must know. And I only have 50-something edits here, while logged in. I'm lazy, and I often don't bother, so I have many under the various IPs I use. So, please, don't resort to the "OMG U R NOT A REAL USER U HAZ ONLY 18 EDITS" argument. EugeneKay 15:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: the edit count of Users and IPs is important. Users can create usernames and vote in their own nomination, for example; or ask a friend to create an account purely to support a FAC. As FACs are based on consensus, unchecked support votes could build a false consensus even if the article doesn't meet the Featured Article Criteria. PeterSymonds | talk 22:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You've also failed to provide any rationale for your support of this FAC. Nishkid64 (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The rationale for supporting this article's featuring lies deep within WP:IGNORE, do you see? --emc ^{(t a l k)} 21:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

EMC, Uncyclopedia-style rationale isn't going to work here. If we just support without providing reasons that stand up by themselves, they're going to think we're trying to stuff the ballot. And this isn't a ballot, it's a consensus. "For the hell of it" may work on Uncyc, but unfortunately this is a serious site. Follow TLB's lead - fix up the article according to the complaints of the people trying to shoot it down, and make it so it's hard to find an objection. --86.153.28.97 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely you mean, fortunately, ;). Marskell (talk) 11:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Strong object per Nishkid.Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: short history. --jskellj - the nice devil 12:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The prose needs a lot of work, there are MOS issues, and too many of the citations are primary sources. Here are a few examples of issues:
  • Try to clean up repetitive text (for example, "the prefix un-, a prefix that negates ")
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, in a single sentence don't mix numbers that are spelled out and numbers as numerals. (for example, "After four month, ...90 megabyes is not correct).
  • Please add nonbreaking spaces between numbers and their units or qualifiers (90 megabytes should have one, for example, as well as 23000 articles)
    • Done. --Jedravent (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The prose in the history section is very colloquial, and it does not flow well
  • Why compare the two uncyclopedia rules specifically to NPOV? Wikipedia has lots of policies, and it's not necessary to focus on one.
  • Please review WP:MOSDASH, because this article does not appear to follow it.
    • I removed one instance, but kept the other because it was requested by a user above. --Jedravent (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
  • There should not be external links in the body of the article per WP:EL
  • The other languages section has many short paragraphs and does not flow well.
  • The article relies far too heavily on primary sources. It should not contain this many citations to Uncyclyopedia, its derivations, or to Wikia.
  • There is no publisher listed for citation 30
    • Done. --Jedravent (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 17:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support It seems like a solid article, and it's been notably improved. I also think it would make for an interesting variety among the featured articles, in that internet-related topics are rarely up to scratch. Feebas_factor 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now I am worried that so many people rushed into supporting this article. First of all I am not even sure the lead paragraph does what it is supposed to: summarize the article. The lead only gathers several facts not even touched in the article.Nergaal (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Perpetual Oppose- I will never support this bad excuse of an internet niche as a FA. Why anyone will support this source of vandalism for Wikipedia is beyond me. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL on so many levels, this is the funniest comment I have seen for a long, long time, it's simply amazing how may levels this works on, Sir, I Salute You, you are a comedy genius.--ElvisThePrince (talk) 12:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor has already violated WP:IDONTLIKEIT once regarding Uncyclopedia when he attempted to delete the article. --Jedravent (talk) 03:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a policy. You can say I disagree with the essay (which is what it is), but since it is not a policy, I have not violated it, as violating it will bring sanctions from the community. Legally, I am not obliged to follow IDONTLIKEIT, and I don't follow it from time to time. It is within my rights to do so. Make that distinction clearly. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

However, bad faith nominations violate WP:AGF Teh Rote (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this person has violated a policy is irrelevant. What is relevant is common courtesy, and general manners. Arbiter, I humbly ask that you rethink or remove your vote, because, from my perspective, it is both insulting and inappropriate on this discussion page. Whatever horrible suffering this internet wiki has caused you personally(And I'm sure it has done you countless personal wrongs to make you feel this way), the merit of the wiki and its editors is not what is in question here. What is in question is the merit of the article that exists to describe it. Would you oppose the featuring of Adolf Hitler solely because he was a horrible person? That's just ridiculous. Frankly, I consider your description of Uncyclopedia as a "bad excuse of an internet niche" a personal attack to me and the countless others that visit that website every day. But it's not my place to make that judgment. All I'm asking is that you rethink, and, preferably, remove your vote. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Appears to meet all of the featured article criteria, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT is totally invalid.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 23:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Criterion three issues:
  • Image:Unbookslogo.png‎ is a hard call, because the source doesn’t take CR seriously (source tag says “released of any copyright by the uploader”, but adds “the individual pixels may be a copyright violation”). I’m inclined to believe that it is indeed PD, which would make its WP licensing incorrect. Copyvio per James086 below.
  • Image:398px-WP VS Eincyc.png is in violation of WP:NFCC#3B: “An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice” The browser windows and taskbar are Microsoft copyrights and could easily be edited out without impacting the comparsion presented by the image. (Why is it flipped on the horizontal axis?) ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 02:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • It's flipped relative to our browsers because Hebrew is read from right to left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jedravent (talk •contribs) 04:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I knew Hebrew is right to left, but I hadn't realized the GUI changed as well. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Image:Unbookslogo.png‎ is a copyvio... I think. The image description page of the original [2] (on uncyclopedia) says it was "Photoshopped from Wikibooks logo here". The image it links to is copyrighted, so the uncyclopedia user admits to creating a derivative work of a copyrighted image and while they may not know any better, the derivative image cannot be released into PD nor can it be claimed under fair-use by them (because it is misrepresenting the organisation - Wikibooks). That leaves the image on Wikipedia (Image:Unbookslogo.png‎). It is claiming fair-use which would be valid if the image wasn't a copyvio. On the other hand the WMF isn't really going to do anything about it but I don't think a FA should have copyvios. James086^{Talk | Email} 10:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I absolutely agree. It is a derivative work and a copyvio. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 13:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Parody counts as fair use under the US law, so we can treat the Unbooks logo in a way we'd treat any other unfree image. Puchiko (Talk-email) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
      • That's correct, but the image's use on WP is not for parody. It wouldn't be a copyvio on Uncyclopedia (a parody website), but here it is. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 21:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
• Uncounted Oppose;

1. many questionable sources, too many primary sources. Articles cites many editable pages on various wiki sites, not just uncyclopedia itself. Fails 1c.
2. Image:Uncyclopediamainpage.png needs to be low resolution, which it is not. Fails 3.
3. Image:Uncyclopediamainpage.png does not show a generic public view of the site, admin buttons are clearly visible, and there also appears to be a glitch in the navigation bar. Image was possibly edited with a photo editing program.
4. the other projects table does not have standardardized format. Some use this format whilst others use this format. Besides that, external links are generally discouraged in the main content of the article.
5. no date of screenshot provided in infobox.--Scaleswung (talk) 23:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• • (users first and only edit) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaleswung (talk • contribs)