Forums: Index > Village Dump > Encyclopedic meme
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1751 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

I've seen this meme on the site ... it has exploded. That articles should be encyclopedic. This is utterly new to me and I don't know how it started and why this has somehow become a policy. There is a sort of template that is being pasted on new users pages who write bad or cheesy stuff. There are three lines that made my eyes bulge out:

  • Uncyclopedia is not a place where you do everything just to be funny (if the result is funny doesn't matter...who invented this rule?)
  • Criticism: This is not encyclopedic (there are hundreds of featured articles that are not uncyclopedic...there is a featured article about a country that does not exist...this "policy" is totally new to me and has come out of nowhere. Non existant things does not equal vanity article.)
  • Criticism: It does not interest a general reader (according to who?...since when have we defined who our general reader is and what they want to read?)

HTBFANJS is the concept by which uncyclopedia fosters new users. A user can write about whatever they like. They can use any style. As long as it's not disruptive, chronically voted for deletion or goes against HTBFANJS. There has never been a strict law that says articles and their content should be as close to wikipedian ones as possible with clever parody sewed in. Just look around the site.

I have never heard of such limits before and it makes me cringe to think that there should be such limits and that new users should be threatened over them. Not all non-encyclopedic writing is bathroom humour and off colour randomness. Some of it is the very best writing that ever came out of this site.

My questions here are: When did HTBFANJS become superceded by this "encyclopedic" meme and this "for the general reader meme"? Why do we need any concept other than HTBFANJS? Should we create an open forum to discuss the essence of this project and what kind of new material, edits and writing style should be encouraged? --ShabiDOO 03:28, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Shabidoo, this is not a template. You got confused by my words at User talk:Tamerial horror. In this case, he created an article which he called A funny article that consisted of several lines and just told the readers that it would be funny to vandalize admins' talk pages. It is now deleted.
Concerning "encyclopedic meme", as you call it, sometimes, yes, articles don't have to be encyclopedic if they are funny without it but we tell the new users to be encyclopedic if they are creating something neither funny, nor encyclopedic, in which case being encyclopedic would help them to be funny. If you get what I mean. Anton (talk) 10:31, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
Copied from User talk:SPIKE:
"I think Spike just is refering to the fact that as a parody of an encyclopedia we must put on the most decent impression of an encyclopedia and then ruin the encyclopedic nature of an article with jokes in images and writing.
The best impressionists are the ones with the best accents but who say ridiculous things. That means that if the article at first glance doesn't look like something off wikipedia (without reading it) it looks like a poor impression. The only exeption are funny one-joke articles like Enigma Code and such which have a funny enough joke to comprimise the encyclopedic looking nature of the article. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 07:59, August 31, 2013 (UTC)"
Does that answer the question? Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:05, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
PS - Our general reader comes to Uncyclopedia as defined by google and wikipedia as "A parody of wikipedia." Therefore we must cater for the reader to read a parody of wikipedia. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 11:08, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that we are an all-purpose writer's playground. The main body of the site is encyclopedic, even though that term can be stretched very thin if the page is good. Then we are a place to write books (at least short stories, I've never seen a real book written here, are there any?) and the HowTo's and Why's provide another couple of categories to get very creative and speculative within. So uncy is many things, pure encyclopedia just one of them, imnho. Aleister 13:46 31-8

When a new Uncyclopedian builds a story-arc of articles on his personal fantasy country or planet, I teach him about our joint project, which with respect to mainspace is exactly "a parody of Wikipedia"; wherever you want to take it, with whatever your personal biases and humor styles are, but always superficially presenting itself as an encyclopedia article. New Uncyclopedians who write articles overly based on the week's current events, I do guide toward UnNews, and more rarely, those who seem to need to nag the reader I gently push toward HowTo. There are many other ways to have fun, but it is better counsel for a newbie about whom you don't know everything, that he first master the basics.
And when a new Uncyclopedian uses even his userspace to code a reference card to who got voted off the island every week in the current TV season, we give him a sterner warning and delete his work; and this started a year ago with Bizzeebeever, who got the rules changed to reflect this.
The essence here should be to work on this common project and keep the reader in mind. The authors who wanted "an all-purpose writer's playground"--that is, for the focus to be themselves and not the reader--famously quit the site last January. Those who stayed here should carry on with the work for which we stayed. Spıke Ѧ 14:11 31-Aug-13
Although I respect and agree with what you said Spike, your last comment may have sent two keen supporters of "all-purpose" (and two great writers) packing. I think encyclopedic-style stress should be placed on mainspace articles (as stated previously) however I believe HowTos and Whys and such like can continue despite the fact they are unencyclopedic as they are a large part of the community and I quite frankly find them fun to write as well. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 14:55, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
All of this sounds very good. Encyclopedic pages are the bread and butter of the uncy and its mission to be a Wikipedia clone, just with a clown face and a satirical manner. Spike hits another homer when he says that new users should be educated in this, and know that the really really far out stuff can go elsewhere, but we do have a pretty wide limit. Lots of room to play in (reason I use the term "playground" is Funnybony told me a long time ago that uncy is a playground for adults. I've described it as that ever since. And the other writing areas, such as UnNews, UnBooks, UnPoetia, HowTo:s and their bastard children, expand that limit to just enough outside of a pure encyclopedic atmosphere to allow lots and lots of latitude about topics and other adventures. Has anyone ever written an entire book here? That concept should be an interesting playground in itself. Should we have the ultimate contest, writing a book in a given time period (four months. Maybe six months sounds about right, and as rules creator of this contest which shouldn't be held unless five people sign up, from any site. With extensions given when requested. what the fuck am I getting into here, it sounds like too much work but WTF) to be placed in the UnBooks section of uncy. Well, I digressed, so back to topic, Yay!, Spike and ScottPat. Aleister 1:57 31-8-'13

SPIKE...I agree completely that it is a good idea to encourage new users to write about things that are avoid vanity articles and bathroom humour and to encourage satire and in that sense I agree with your goal. You are right. I myself wrote embarassing trash at first...but I was encouraged to write better and given direction...NOT LAWS (beyond HTBFANJS)...and a broad canvas to discover and hone in my own style...which all of us are still doing anyways. But it is completely different to tell new users WHAT style of articles WE expect, what WE don't want, what articles WE want them to write based on one's own idiosyncratic view of uncyclopedia. Encouraging good writing and suggesting what will improve it (and your suggestions are usually good) is one thing however...telling users what encyclopedia expects and what not to do...when encyclopedia has never created or envisioned such a policy...and when so much of our material and featured material contradicts this something else. Very confusing. It's not the advice...its often good's the way it is being communicated as law instead of personal opinion...and communicated quite agressively some times. --ShabiDOO 18:32, August 31, 2013 (UTC)

Shabidoo, want to have an IPod Car? Anton (talk) 20:19, August 31, 2013 (UTC)
But seriously, could you give specific examples of "legalistic communication", along with examples of how that communication could be better communicated? I think everybody here is trying to communicate as best they can, in good faith. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:15, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I have always considered UnBooks and UnScripts etc as perfect areas to write and place ideas which you wouldn't find in the main encyclopedia parody space. Perhaps better would be that new contributors are given links on the welcome message for examples or point directly to that page where all the featured articles are kept. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 08:34, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
I point new Uncyclopedians to alternate namespaces in the very first paragraph of my welcome message: "If you aren't interested in a fake encyclopedia but in writing fake news stories, we have UnNews, and there are other projects for scripts, lyrics, how-to guides, and so on." (Romartus, who welcomes more users than I do, has adopted the same text.)
It's nice to see that we don't have a huge policy disagreement--nor, as the start of this Forum suggests, unprecedented, unilateral, and baseless imposition of will--but merely a tone-of-voice problem. I famously fail to attach to expressions of my opinion the pleasant language identifying it as personal opinion, which has led ScottPat to complain that I have access to a Pirate Code that he does not. But likewise I have never bought into Uncyclopedia as a "community" (a herd speaking with a single voice) and if I ever claim to be the voice, I'd want to rephrase it. Looking at the examples above, it is not so much me claiming to speak for Uncyclopedia but certain editors persistently claiming to speak for others, such as one, nearby, issuing an apology to an editor who did not deserve one, "on behalf of Uncyclopedia," a pronouncement not even an Admin should make.
Oops! the above, likewise, is not Policy but my personal opinion. Spıke Ѧ 15:48 2-Sep-13
I did not complain, I specifically said that being the Pirate Code was a good thing. I originally entitled Spike that for solving grammar disputes anyway. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 16:30, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Everyone is being very polite and non-confrontational here. This is reducing the level of drama that we have all come to expect from our forums, and means this forum fails our basic standards of communication. In order to ensure this forum is not deleted due to not meeting Uncyclopedia standards, I would just like to say fuck you all - you're all wrong!                               Puppy's talk page03:55 05 Sep 2013

I fucked myself five minutes ago. Twice. So did everyone else. --ShabiDOO 16:53, September 5, 2013 (UTC)