Forum:Much of our "new user literature" needs a rewrite.

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 16:52, January 12, 2012 by EpicAwesomeness (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Much of our "new user literature" needs a rewrite.
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1556 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
Tony blair pimp

We should keep this, but the rest needs to go.

Well, Zombiebaron called it that.

Anyhow, many pages for newer users to read (for example HTBFANJS and Uncyclopedia:In-jokes) are becoming annoyingly 2005-y. They're impractically formatted, overly long, barely useful in most parts, and are just in need of clean up in general. For example, I've already started a revised in-jokes page in my userspace, which I'll go through, deleting and improving everything I can. But on the large scale, we need to do something. The "Don't Plagiarize" section of HTBFANJS is sixteen words long. Many other sections are lists. A paragraph making a point of not assuming that your reader is male is in the "Bias is not a replacement for humour" section. Things like this need to be sorted out so that new members, or IPs thinking of joining, can have clear guides on to what to do.

Who's with me? --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 16:52, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the next competition would be to revise HTBFANJS in no more than 144 characters. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 17:13, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
Before we even hop to those two, there needs to be some serious reworking on BGBU. We've said this a dozen times over the years, and many a bold, beautiful user has tried and failed at revamping it. We gotta try and fail again! --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 18:18, January 9, 2012 (UTC)
What that guy above me said. Sir SockySexy girls Mermaid with dolphin Tired Marilyn Monroe (talk) (stalk)Magnemite Icons-flag-be GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:27, 9 January 2012
Seriously, we can't ignore any of this. We need to do something, because there's nobody above us that says otherwise. We make up Uncyclopedia, and we need to keep it spangly. What's the point in running VFD and IC and everything when something as big and important as HTBFANJS or BGBU needs work, and isn't getting it? EpicAwesomeness (talk) 17:26, January 10, 2012 (UTC)
Did you just say 'spangly'? Have you seen spang's code? It makes those 'literatures' described above look well-formatted and organised by comparison. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 18:39, 10 January 2012
Yes, I said spangly, but I meant "nice and accessible". Now let's go make Uncyclopedia nice and accessible! Go! Mush! Mush! EpicAwesomeness (talk) 16:26, January 11, 2012 (UTC)
So... you meant the opposite of 'like spang'? Now that's peculiar. Good luck, though. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 17:02, 11 January 2012
Bugger the general consensus, but I disagree. Not with the in-jokes list - I've never considered it "new user literature", and it sorely needs updating. But HTBFANJS is a good guide to writing on a comedic style that is suitable for a parody Uncyclopedia. Given it's at the core of our PEE review system as well, and PEE review was designed to be a significant step in our feature article process, and Featured articles are the core of what we do here, HTBFANJS is like the core of the core of the core. Significant changes to that would be like pruning the tree that is Uncyclopedia by cutting out the taproots. It would be like trying to fix a diesel engine by filling the tank with liquid hydrogen. It's like a jumble of similes all piled on top of each other by a desperate writer trying hard to express a thought process without actually having to write down anything of significance. BGBU is an extended version of "Don't be a dick" - a statement that could potentially weed out good investigative journalists - but that can be done in a number of ways to say the same thing, but the crux of the message really does need to stay the same. HTBFANJS could potentially be extended to take into consideration the major changes that have happened over the last 7 years or so (Like the frame stuff could be extended to take into consideration the different namespaces, and what each of them parody. UnTunes is a parody of iTunes, for those that aren't aware, and UnDebate was a parody of Debatepedia. And something should be included in there about the overuse of quotations, as very few Wikipedia articles have introductory quotes, if any, and I get tired of having to commit quoticide. But beyond that I can see no area of HTBFANJS which is not still relevant. So beyond cosmetic changes, I don't see anything in there that should be changed, and a lot of what is in there shouldn't be. Pup 01:39 12 Jan '12
Indeed, it may not be the case that HTBFANJS needs a full rewrite, but it needs botox, dammit. That's what I've been saying, and if it needs it, we need to do it. --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 16:45, January 12, 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools