From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Uncyclopedia was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Proposed Solution[edit]

For all the links have BOTH sites' versions.I.e.: for Wikipedia, Wikia Independent so that there doesn't have to be an eternal flamewar. --The Defender of Light Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing >Inventory< 02:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The 'eternal flamewar' is easily solved by edit protection and/or liberally handed out blocks. If one writes a statement using as a reference, then one puts as a reference. If one finds evidence supporting a statement on, then one adds as a reference. Changes of those references to another site who is also supporting the material is bad practice. Edit warring over that is even worse practice. All those are against our policies. Adding a second reference that is stating practically, essentially or completely the same is simply superfluous (some things have been covered by every major and minor news outlet in the world, we do not put references to all of those, just the ones that .. were used to write the information). In short: I don't see the need to change the references, what needs to change here is the behaviour of some of the editors active on these pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. Besides, neither site is a reliable source, and the fork is not notable. Furthermore, I see no flamewar whatsoever, aside from forkers occasionally popping in and saying we ought to change things--and that is a one-sided flamewar, if at all. -– Cathfolant (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
DungeonSiegeAddict...this is unnecessary. The article isn't here to make the editors from the wikia site or the .co site happy. The article is here to inform the general reader about uncyclopedia rendered through wikipedia policy. The sources that we choose to cite is based on due weight and not on spoon/fork squabbling.
Cathfolant, in April your comments were critical of the spoon. Now you use the same hostile language about the fork. Allegiances should be dropped when editing content on wikipedia and leaving snarky comments here does nothing to help improve the wikipedia article. --Shabidoo | Talk 01:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Hey, I'm basically just repeating what Spike has already said a jillion times; didn't see you object to him saying it. I only said it to point out why there wasn't a flamewar, not in the interest of my 'allegiances'. Separately, the same goes for you. -– Cathfolant (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
No. SPIKE never claimed that the fork was not notable, a comment like that reeks of COI. SPIKE's edits and comments on wikipedia regarding uncyclopedia have been totally neutral, constructive and has followed wikipedia policy. --Shabidoo | Talk 19:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
In fact, I was open to that claim. If one acquires the same merchandise as Joe's Tavern and invites all its customers to one's basement instead, it might lack notability, depending on who takes up the offer, and certainly is not more notable than the original. The recent Greggs controversy happened at the original site, because Google links to the original site, and it does so not just because of our corporate connection but because we acted to eliminate the apparent libel, while the Fork would jive about its editors' rights. However, I agreed that this article should be neutral. (Newbie Thememeer has broken this, and I have asked him to undo his edit.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 16:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC) PS--Thememeer did not, nor did he do anything else on the website in the 5 days, so I have undone him. Spike-from-NH (talk) 00:06, 22 November 2014 (UTC)