Jump to content

Talk:Uncyclopedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ericj (talk | contribs) at 19:32, 29 August 2006 (→‎Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived to Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive_1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

First sentence

The first sentence of this article does not read very well. I know its the article on uncyclopedia but still....

It reads "Uncyclopedia, "the content-free[2] Its license and domain name remained unchanged. On July 10, 2006 the uncyclopedia.org domain was switched in ownership from founder Chronarion to Wikia, Inc." I'd change it, but I have no idea what it's supposed to say. PrometheusX303 14:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My View on Uncyclopedia

69.165.138.45 01:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)I think whoever created that site was a DUMB NITWIT! I mean,who would even GO to a site like THAT. I WOULD LIKE ALL WIKIPEDIANS TO JOIN ME IN THE DESTRUCTION OF UNCYCLOPEDIA,NOW WHO'S WITH ME?!? POWER TO THE WIKIPEDIANS! DOWN WITH UNCYCLOPEDIA![reply]

Hey, I remember you, you were the on that left this message, and then mysteriously removed it only 1 minute later... well, welcome to wikipedia, and please be civil! tmopkisn tlka 01:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should put this quote on the Praise section? Especially beacues we don't care about his opinions on us?. Also, I should probably direct him to How to get banned. Also, I strongly suggest reading the message on top of the page. It's bound to become a New York Times bestseller. AAAAAAAAA! 00:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? I love Uncyclopedia, it's hilarious!! --S-man 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It owns ^_^ incredibly funny and joke-packed. Wikipedia for info, Uncyclopedia for a good long laugh.--❊Đǣţĥ ɱøťőŕ 20:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. As one Uncyc user put it in a forum, "Wikipedia and Uncyclopedia are just two sides of the same coin", or something like that. Anyway, following the message on the top of the page, I think this subject should be stopped. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think I know that user. Wise one.--Rataube 12:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting to be a pretty big part of the edits on the page - should links to Uncylopedia pages be wikilinked like this: [[Uncyclopedia:Some page]], or made external links like this: [http://uncyclopedia.org/Some_page Some page]?

In my opinion, the policy of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references says that articles shouldn't have links to non-article spaces such as Wikipedia:, User: etc., and this extends to Uncyclopedia: links even though that "space" isn't on the wikipedia.org domain, for the same reason - other sites which mirror WP won't process these as links, so the article will not link properly. Is there anyone who disagrees with this interpretation? If not, then can we stick a comment in the article or something to stop people bouncing these links back and forth? Confusing Manifestation 10:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It was like that, but someone changed it to external links instead on interwiki links. However, I can't be bothered to find out who it was. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like interwiki links, as they can help users find info on subjects they won't find here. Although for Uncyc it seems less important since Uncyc is satire. Crazyswordsman 00:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem linking to the Uncyclopedia articles, my question is whether we should be formatting the links as proper external links or using square brackets. Confusing Manifestation 11:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make the external links to all those Uncyclopedia normal external links. They are currently "plain" links so they look like they link to another internal wikipedia page instead of an external link, which makes navigating more difficult (people quickly scanning the page looking for the external links automatically disregard them). Anybody against me making the change? Peter S. 20:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At least on the skin (or whatever) I'm using, the interwiki links look just like external links except for the small image at the end. So I don't see the problem. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 08:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. I meant the links in the table in the section In_other_languages - do those links show up as external links for you? Because they show up as internal links for me. And I think it's those links that should be made look like external links. Peter S. 08:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be blunt, yes. To not be blunt and expand on it, they look the same as external links except they don't have the image at the side. They're the same colour as external links too. Basically, what I typed beforehand. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I hope you do realize that the only visible difference between internal and external links is indeed that very "image at the side". Anyway, I've made the change now. :-) Cheers, Peter S. 13:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from that internal and external links are a different shade of blue... ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I never noticed that. Interesting, you've got good eyes! :-) Peter S. 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point being that, as interwiki links have the same colour as external links, and external links have a different colour to internal links, then it is still easy to tell the difference between internal and interwiki links, therefore the change from interwiki to external was more-or-less unneeded. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apprently there is no interlink (or i just do not know) to Uncyclomedia at wikia, so it is not yet possible to convert all of them to interlink. GSPbeetle complains Vandalisms 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message for everyone who hates Uncyclopedia.

Here's a tip: Click the big red X at the corner of the screen when at Uncyclopedia. AMAZING! The website has magically disappeared, and you no longer have to complain about it. --Nintendorulez talk 17:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need to give you a Ninjastar now. You're my personal saviour. Crazyswordsman 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This was the guy who hung around Encyclopedia Dramatica bitching about stuff. But since this comment is from today I'll assume he's changed. 71.112.141.236 01:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
He was only offering constructive criticism on articles like Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit, Fisher Price, and Euroipods over how they could be improved. But the admins shut him down for reasons I don't want to get into. Crazyswordsman 13:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still like Nin... tmopkisn tlka 19:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone except RC "Euroipods" Murphy does. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with that site though, and both this and that site are good as well. 24.188.203.181 02:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All sites are considered good to their users (apart from vandals). Otherwise they wouldn't be used. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a big red X. Clearly you are insane. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.134.122 (talkcontribs) 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
While on Wikipedia, please try to remember to sign your posts on talk pages, and avoid making personal attacks, whether or not they are meant to be taken seriously. Confusing Manifestation 12:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What ^ said, and you're probably using a different computer. Try searching for any "X" on the top of your screen. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 13:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please help

I dont know where to put this but I want to contact an admin named Mhaille, but I cant in Uncyclopedia because I was banned. How do i contact him??? And tell him I'm sorry.

Seeming as this is the talk page about the article, this message is inappropiete (however that's spellt, it's early in the morning and I can't be bothered to spell properly). However, if you tell me your username on Uncyc then maybe I can help. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 10:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Email him. --Keitei (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I fully realise that most of the people here are uncyclopedia editors so of course you will be quite nationalistic about your site however still here on wikipedia we do things differently:

  • It is not good practice to flatly revert things. You are supposed to work to improve what is said, not flatly remove it.
  • We value fair and balanced articles- that is they show both POV. It is quite clear just from this discussion page not everyone agrees uncyclopedia is the best thing since sliced bread.

What I say about uncyclopedia vfd most new articles is 100% true, one of the reverters was quite stupidly epitomising the rule himself on articles I created(/resurrected) there to prove the point. I have tried to compromise and toned down what was said however you are behaving like this is uncyclopedia and just flatly reverting.--Josquius 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is there to improve when the claims made, that its not editable by everyone, and that regardless of quality most articles are deleted? Both of these claims are entirely false. Rather than keep adding them and complaining when they get removed, perhaps you should improve what you are saying and use facts/sources. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd check I didn't mention regardless of quality last time (however that is still true). The thing about sources is by the very nature of the 'crime' the evidence is removed. At uncyclopedia it is standard practice to remove anything that is not a 100% complete article, its really not a 'open to anyone' thing like wikipedia.

And sources- ah always with the sources, how predictable. There's nothing more annoying then people ranting about sources. As you are well aware uncyclopedia is a minor site and so all 'sources' would be solely in the site itself- and since this is about deleted articles you will not find many of them. For sources though...Oh well go look at the most recent articles at uncyclopedia, you will find 99% of them do have deletion notices, also pops up in a few people's discussion--Josquius 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

99% is way too high. You're just sore because stubs get tagged at uncyclopedia. There is a reason for this, and if you read the pages on the site about the project and how to contribute, you would understand why this is. Unlike wikipedia, where someone might come along and add factual content to a one-line stub at some point in the future, at uncyclopedia, since there is no fact in humor, just ends up with a lot of junk if the stubs are not removed should they not be completed. It's the nature of the beast and well-documented. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such policy at Uncyclopedia, no matter what crack you're smoking. Whether it actually happens is up to a reliable source from a third party, not Wikipedians. Until there are sources that can reasonably prove that Uncyclopedia does these things, they are mere speculation and don't belong in the article.
Additionally, Wikipedia does do this; ever heard of {{prod}}? --Keitei (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that it is original research and cannot be proven in any way. There's no way to calculate 99%, no way to prove 100% go to VFD (they don't, this is just outrageous), nor any other claim in the section in dispute. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About 3 from every 4 new entries get deleted. That's true. The quality standards are high and most newcomers don't reach them on the first attemps, also true. Some of them get pissed, also true. And yes, lenght is usually part of the quality requirements for a pseudo-enciclopedic article. However uncyclopedia is indeed open to anyone. It's open to any person which is not the same than being open to any entry. Wikipedia isn't open to any entry either, otherwise uncyclopedia wouldn't exist. So if you want to write that uncyclopedia's high quality standards pisses people off, well, go ahead, but don't say the site isn't open, couse that's a straight lie. You may also want to point that others consider the quality standards to be the key of uncyc's succes, and some users insist there are not enough deletions. However, being that this is an article on such a "minor site", the whole issue doesn't deserve more than a single sentence or no sentence at all.--Rataube 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is indeed open to practically any entry. Its deletion policy is a lot fairer and short articles are perfectly acceptable- for a short article is better then nothing. The only time articles get deleted outright is if they are a blatant troll/other idiocy. Considering that half of the discussion about uncyclopedia you find on internet forums on here is people saying they don't like it I'd say criticism deserves quite a big place in the article. It seems far more then 3 out of every 4 deleted to me, I once had a go at uncyclopedia and only one of my articles survived and it wasn't really my best written one at all- it was however my longest containing a lot of unfunny blabbering. Whatever ends up happening stop removing NPOV tags. The NPOV violation isn't in removing my attempt at a criticism section- its the original reason that I did attempt to create such a section. --Josquius 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Find a reliable source. --Keitei (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NPOV tag because I couldn't find anything in the article or on the talk page to warrant it. Until I'm actually provided with a reason for assuming that this article as it stands is of disputable neutrality, I really don't see why I or anyone else should not remove NPOV tags. EldKatt (Talk) 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The new section had a distinct POV. Forum postings are POVs of various persons; they are not facts by any stretch of the imagination. Stick to the facts, don't make up percentages. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Josquius, this is all quite silly. Firstly, you seem to be basing this entirely on your own experiences, and you have explictly stated that you have written articles that were deleted — Bias, perhaps? As Keitei says, criticism needs to come from specific, third-party, reliable sources, none of which you have offered.

Also, you are getting your facts wrong on several points. "3 out of 4" is a metric that you just, uh, made up, so it's meaningless in as much as Wikipedia is concerned. Additionally, speaking as a Wikipedia administrator who has deleted quite a few articles, I can say that your statements about Wikipedia's deletion policy are, to be frank, utter nonsense.

Now, please, feel free to continue discussion here, but note that unless you provide citations for the material you wish to add to the article, it will be removed.--SB | T 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean: I think you are getting mixed up here. It was someone else who came up with 3 out of 4. And my view on wikipedia's deletion policy is perfectly true. Go look around the site, you will find many very short incomplete articles just saying the likes of 'Marshborough is a town in western Shropshire' And no, it is not based entirely on my own experiences, look above you and you will see quite a few people don't like uncyclopedia, so many the discussion topic has a disclaimer. Bias: Probally. However since some of the people here are mods and the like at uncyclopedia its fair to say that is also bias. The way to make a NPOV aritlce is to merge the bias. It's really being quite childish to flatly revert attempts to improve the article by attempting to add a minor section with the other POV. If criticism needs to come from a specific source: as I said that is really dishonourable play however as your kind sticks to such things a quick look around brings:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiebaron/archive1#Eh.3F - he says it himself. He puts the deletion tags on all not 100% complete articles

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#NRV - some seem to make a game of it

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#Author_of_Rosyth_school-student -as you can see the talk pages of these people are full of it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/142615 - On a different note of criticism 'Not all the humor works. Some of it is vulgar, sophomoric and mean, and much of it is senseless. It is the Internet, after all.'

So quite a bit out there, mostly on uncyclopedia itself. And I have no idea where to look--Josquius 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Making any conclusion based on the primary sources you cite is original research at its most obvious. You need to find some reliable secondary sources for the particular criticism you want to write about; not merely primary evidence to base your own criticism on. That's just the way it is. EldKatt (Talk) 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Josquius: Neither of the user talk pages linked to is that of an administrator. NRV isn't VFD, it's the uncyclopedia equivalent of a prod for content that is amazingly incomplete and it exists to aid in both transforming cruft articles into full articles with the ancillary purpose of removing failed cruft articles from the site. Interestingly, a good percentage of NRV'd articles survive because the writer completes the article. Some very good stuff that isn't complete is given a 30-day prod to make sure nobody deletes it too hastily (sadly, even these scare some users). Really poor articles with no hope whatsoever are placed on QVFD and are promptly deleted, while VFD gets the stuff that isn't funny but somehow fell between the cracks. All this could have been gleaned from reading elsewhere, too, so I've wasted a lot of time trying to distill it down for you. Honestly, I don't think anyone at wikipedia cares how the process works at uncyclopedia. Ericj 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]