Forum:The Book

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Book
Note: This topic has been unedited for 3586 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

If you've read That Gray Thing on the Back of Your Screen, you already know the differnce I'm about to point out.

On the background of the site there's a gray book image. The same goes for Wikipedia and other wikis. It symbolizes an encyclopedia. It used to look like this:


You see? It's a book. It looks cute and everything. Then somewhere down the line it was changed to this:


Wtf? That's not cute. It looks like an ugly mutated vaginia. I don't like it. In fact, I HATE HATE HAT it. My question is: Who did it, and could they please change it back? -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 20:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, I rather like the ugly, mutated vagina look. It says, "Hey, we here at uncyclopedia will accept you, no matter who you are or how hideously malformed your privates are. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon Baloon(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:44, Oct 2
Wasn't there already a forum about this? Anywho, I think it's supposed to be a flower, not a vagina. Though it is a very vagina-ish flower. And Kip, it's been there for quite a long time, it's not like somebody just changed it yesterday. Although, on the other hand, it isn't very satire-ish or parody-like. --THE 21:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Erm...It's a book spine. Anyways, if you want it to be changed, ask an admin to change it. It's not that hard with a little change to monobook.css. ~ Tophatsig 2/10/2007 @ 22:12
Yeah, I remember the vaginia comments from the previous topic. (They call it a vaginia in Virginia, I believe.) Wasn't the logic something like: since Wikipedia has a book in the background to underscore the analogy to a hardcover edition of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica, we should have something other than a book for our background. You have to admit the flower (an arum or calla lily maybe?) looks remarkably like the book without actually being the book. ----OEJ 22:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Could we actually change it to a photo-realistic image of a vagina? That would be cool. And make us look classy and slightly bohemian. Which would be cool also. -- Sir Mhaille Icons-flag-gb (talk to me)
I 2nd it. SpacerSpacerPremierTomMayfairChe RedPhone Unsoc Hammer and sickle
Vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina vagina     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   22:42, 2 October 2007 (UTC)  

It's actually an orchid. You see in it what you want to see in it (which is by no means a bad thing). And the reasoning for changing it went something along the lines of "It's a book." "I always thought it was a flower." "I wonder if anyone would notice if it was changed to that?" The answer is yes, but it took over a month at first, and it took you nearly 6 months. Good job. Spang talk 02:52, 03 Oct 2007

Actually I noticed it long ago. I just didn't want to say anything, until I made a screen shot of An article that contains nothing but a full stop, and it's hideousness below aggrivated me. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us 11:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Forum:Ah, why does a monstrous alien vagina flash on the screen before the actual article starts resolving?. It's like deja vu, except that you'll get that feeling you've seen it before. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 03:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools