Forums: Index > Village Dump > The Content Warning
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1919 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.


Vote has ended (refresh)

See here for voting details. Go here for forum discussion.
2 votes per signed in user. Stacking of votes is not allowed. Please add comments to the end of the page, and leave the voting section for Symbol for vote For. or Symbol against vote Against. votes only.

Nominee 1: Current warning (Al/Pup/Romartus/Argh Isle)

Score: 0
  • Symbol for vote Sure and begorrah Aleister 11:52 St. Patrick's Day '13
  • Symbol against vote Against. didn't see the against vote option. --Mn-z 17:09, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

Nominee 2: Stripped down current warning

Score: 4
  1. Symbol for vote For.                               Puppy's talk page04:45 17 Mar 2013
  2. Symbol for vote For. Aleister 11:58 St. Pat's Day '13
  3. Symbol for vote For. Spıke Ѧ 15:31 17-Mar-13
  4. Symbol for vote For. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 16:54, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Against. --ShabiDOO 21:23, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol for vote For. --Snippy 08:04, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
  7. Symbol against vote Against.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 08:08, Mar 18
  8. Symbol for vote For. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:23, March 18, 2013 (UTC)

Nominee 3: Spike variant

Score: 8
  1. Symbol for vote For. --Mn-z 09:20, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  2. Symbol for vote For. Spıke Ѧ 15:31 17-Mar-13
  3. Symbol for vote For. ---- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 16:53, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  4. Symbol for vote For. --ShabiDOO 19:48, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
  5. Symbol for vote For. --Snippy 08:04, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
  6. Symbol for vote For.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 08:08, Mar 18
  7. Symbol for vote For. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:23, March 18, 2013 (UTC)
  8. Symbol for vote For. ◄► Tephra ◄► 09:41, March 21, 2013 (UTC)

Nominee 4: Funnybony variant

Score: 0

# Symbol for vote For. --Mn-z 09:20, March 17, 2013 (UTC)


I'm really worried it's not flashy enough. I mean, are people even going to notice it? Where's the marquee text? Why no fluorescent writing with a different color each line? And there's not nearly enough tiny text. I mean, for god's sake guys, there's not even an annoying flashing lightning effect!! Oh... wait... -- sannse@fandom (talk) 00:39, March 5, 2013 (UTC) (no staff hat on obviously, I'm rarely sarcastic with my staff hat on (except to my boss))

In classic Unc style. we were split and so the result was...what you see. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 18:11, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
I would say more sarcastic things about "design by committee", but then the last one was made by one person, and was even more of a disaster (actually, I take that back, I can't choose between them). So instead I think I'll settle for a biting comment about welcoming you all to the 90s -- sannse@fandom (talk) 18:39, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
I (for one) don't like it. There is already talk about "Trimming back the Wilde Quotes" and now we have that fucking Meme on the opening page!? With an evil, unfunny, discouraging looking text and black effect. The gay cat was preferable, and I'm not even gay. Please ditch that shit! It sucks.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 19:51, Mar 5
The clouds will move again soon. If we have to have a content warning we should have the most creative one on the web, and this may be it. As for Oscar, we're getting rid of his stupid quotes on pages but he is the site's mascot - and more people should be reading him. Wilde was a one-man uncyclopedia. Jason 20:33 5-3-'13
Think about it this way - what is the purpose of the notice? Seems to me it has three purposes: 1. to warn people of the content, 2. to get people into the wiki as quickly as possible, and 3. to irritate you for the malicious enjoyment of Wikia. No, wait, not that last one... honest!
So, two purposes. As I said. And, my worry is that this version is failing on both of them. It's damn hard to pick out the actual key phrases that tell people that insanity lurks here. And also hard to pick out the idea of what to do. Maybe not if you sit though several bolts of lightning, but certainly if you do what most people do and glance at it quickly before deciding to find a button or close the tab. I believe the best idea is to stop trying to be funny on the content warning, and concentrate on getting people in to find the real funny. -- sannse@fandom (talk) 22:26, March 5, 2013 (UTC)
Please change it asap. The old one was harmless. This one is definitely harming Uncyclopedia, and it couldn't have been more effectively designed to do so. Looks like sabotage.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 09:48, Mar 6
  1. Without storm clouds, With Oscar and footnote
  2. Without storm clouds and Oscar, With footnote
  3. Without storm clouds, Oscar or footnote
  4. With storm clouds and footnote, Without Oscar
  5. Without footnote, With storm clouds and Oscar
  6. Current version (with minor wording changes)
  7. No wisecrack variant
There are options. Argue, vote, and decide.                               Puppy's talk page01:08 10 Mar 2013

Argue, vote, and decide

Let me again tout my own Option 7 from the list above. What we have now tries too hard to make the new reader like us, versus simply inform them what they are in for. And I am told it sometimes occupies more than all the available screen real estate. Spıke Ѧ 01:30 10-Mar-13

Wise crack or dumb crack?

All but one of the above starts with this, "Among its many virtues, Uncyclopedia contains objectionable content" - Groan! FAIL! That is neither a wise nor a stupid crack - it's just corny. There is no way to make the warning funny without being corny. Let it look totally serious - that will make the promise of humor so much better than a blatant "dumb crack." As is now it may turn away grown ups. I have not checked who is behind this current warning, so please do not take any offense - it's nothing personal or impersonal. Please consider: If we want to get people into the shark-filled water, then we shouldn't put mud between the ocean and the beach. It's Wikia's warning, not ours - God forbid anyone should think that we are responsible.

My vote goes for dog-faced Option 7. Cheers!--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 08:29, Mar 10

Actually it was mainly myself and Aleister. Have a look at Forum:The Warning Template, or, HowTo:Cover Wikia's ass while having fun. I've just put a significant number of hours working on this based upon communal vote, and consistently asking community for feedback, fine tuning it to work out all the kinks. Would have been nice if you'd voiced an opinion much, much earlier on this. Having said that, I am completely behind the text of the current one. And a bland warning template would make me close the browser within seconds.                               Puppy's talk page09:52 10 Mar 2013
Oh, sorry Pup! I wasn't paying close enough attention to what was going on. Certainly nothing personal, mate. I have a 16 year old son to bounce things off to gauge a better feel. And I don't consider intransigence to be a very good argument. I'm one vote for option 7. Cheers, Mate!--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 10:37, Mar 10
Actually, given the issues with the storm clouds - and the fact that we've already held this vote, I'm leaning towards without clouds, with Oscar and footnote. Although moving the footnote to the base (which is slightly different Wiki-fu required). Mainly because the concern is primarily that background. Oscar belongs there, as does humour.                               Puppy's talk page10:47 10 Mar 2013
I really love the warning notice as it is now, because it was well fixed when I just logged on and I'd just directed a friend to see it. If the clouds would move and the lightning get better we'd have an even better label. But damn, it looks like people don't get the joke that "is" the warning label. If we are going to warn people to keep away, do it with scary clouds and lightning and the promise of horrible things inside because, if not, why warn them at all? I'd much much prefer no label at all - with wikia's fairly new president in and maybe Jimbo Wales not wanting the competition to wikipedia, they decided to put a label on, and that is insulting, breaks the site's purpose, and takes half the humor away from someone checking on a page (my new Will Harridge page in number two on google, but will lose half its impact when someone clicks here and gets a warning label) - so, if all that said, and if we have to change it to a stupid bland look, at least keep the language or make it as simple as possible "Be warned, this site will traumatize children and people with insanity issues, wikia doesn't condone doing that except in the case of its nephew, who needs a good spanking. Here, terms and conditions." (keep Oscar for sure). Boring stuff like that. If we have to get rid of the great background, then I'm with Puppy on whatever he suggests. Aleister 13:20 boring boring time and date
Option 6 looks fine to me. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:39, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
I like option 7. --Mn-z 19:21, March 10, 2013 (UTC)
Aleister: interesting conspiracy theory, possibly even one of your best <3
Puppy: Yeah, I should have paid more attention to where it was going, sorry
I'd like to see anything that removes heavy background graphics and animation, and would prefer fairly minimalistic text. That's not to say no humor an all, but not so much that the idea of *CLICK HERE TO GET INTO THE ACTUAL SITE* is lost -- sannse@fandom (talk) 19:03, March 11, 2013 (UTC)
GAHHH! A few hours ago I wrote my Mom to see Uncyclopedia for the Pope FA. Then I called her just now and she said, "I saw this horrible warning and left the site." Some people have to realize that their shit does stink!--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 16:53, Mar 12
Perhaps cracking-wise with the navigation tools is a bad idea. --Mn-z 17:15, March 12, 2013 (UTC)

Let us avoid unverifiable anecdotes about how third parties reacted. My own mother is always on my side any time you jamokes cross me. Funnybony's Mom takes her place alongside Codeine's Mum on our Council of Prudish Elders. Let us also avoid comparing each other's work to excrement. It is marvelous to see how much spirited debate over a decision, which was absent when we were making the decision, is raised by having implemented the decision. Spıke Ѧ 17:34 12-Mar-13

Maybe Funnybony's mom would have left the site with any warning label. I like it just as it is now, it's very interesting, won't scare away anyone (except Funnybony's mom), and what's the purpose of a warning anyway? To warn people. To make them go away. As for my "consipracy theory", wouldn't the CEO and the owner of the site have to agree to put on a warning label, and, after hearing that people have set up a second site, to continue to want a warning label? We should either warn them properly and interestingly (as it is right now) or take the thing down and let us be uncyclopedia again. And I've left a note for Jimbo Wales on his talk page and he hasn't answered yet, so his interest in uncyclopedia is to keep it bottled (warned) up and hidden behind an obvious wall. There are much much worse things on wikipedia than are here, would you like me to link some of those? Conspiracy theory? Who else has the power to both put the warning up and not remove it even in the face of the majority of its valuable people jumping ship? Aleister 19:42 12-3-'13

I guarantee you that Jimbo spends no time worrying that Wikipedia loses viewers by virtue of there being a good parody of it. Spıke Ѧ 19:51 12-Mar-13

I had no idea there was any vote before. No one told me about it. I have many other things to do, and have never been a troll to search every nook of this place. I cannot speak for my Mom, but I can say I hate the present ugly, unfunny, hellish, demonic, stupid, corny, and repelling warning. Before, I didn't mind the Wikia warning. It was no big deal. Yet there was a fork as a result of it. But now it has been made a thousand times worse - taking a little problem and making it a big problem. This actually seems like insider sabotage from the Fork. Maybe the fork IS smarter than this place!?--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 07:37, Mar 13
Like the 'Codeine's mum test, perhaps we should listen to FB's mater's view. If she thinks it looks ugly then I would listen to her! --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 10:28, March 13, 2013 (UTC)

The real problem

...has nothing to do with my Mom. The real problem is Wikia being way TOO nice. Wikia should never have allowed anyone here to have any say in the first simple warning. And they should grow a pair of balls and take back total control of the warning page. Because now it's a blatantly obvious conspiracy to 1) Sabotage Wikia, and 2) Punish Wikia. And double agents pretending to be friends of this site are carrying it out. The only benefactors of this hideous warning page are supporters and agents of the fork. If you want to solve a conspiracy – just follow the beneficiaries. So Sannse, please stop letting this happen by taking back the option all together. Let Wikia make their own warning – as simple as possible - and do not give double agents any say in it. Otherwise I'm going to consider that Wikia actually wants this site to die, in which case, I'm outta here!--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 13:59, Mar 13

Foul! You and I are on the same side on the underlying issue (that the Content Warning should be brief and factual rather than advertise our, er, skills) but please don't call for the process to be changed just to prevail on this issue, nor threaten to quit over it. If I may guess the opinions of others: (1) Sannse doesn't even want the appearance that she is dictating content on the site, and only got into the Content Warning business based on the pressures around her, which ultimately flow not from the Wikia boardroom but from American courthouses; and (2) If Aleister thought that Sannse were going to override this decision--which we made with a Forum vote that you were unaware of and that I lost--he would quit in your stead, which would be an equally serious loss. Spıke Ѧ 14:36 13-Mar-13
The "Make Aimsplode an Admin" conspiracy and this "Grotesque warning" conspiracy BOTH are the same, and neither would be tolerated on the fork. But I'm not going to stand up for a wimp if Wikia won't show some spirit. Maybe the right thing is to join the fork. It seems like I have a lot more old friends over there. And they don't have any warning page, what to speak of such a hellish corn-ball creation.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 14:59, Mar 13
I just got accused of working on behalf of the fork.                               Puppy's talk page03:08 13 Mar 2013
I don't actually know anyone here, except Sog, MrN and Aleister, and Al's my best friend on Uncyclopedia. If they all think I should move over with them, and THIS chaos is the alternative!? Well, common sense occasionally prevails--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 14:59, Mar 13
For the record, the "Make Aimsplode an Admin" campaign was not tolerated here either; he was recognized as a prank candidate and removed prior even to the vote. The last time I saw this level of illogic here was MrN9000's tirade that my one-day ban of an Anon was denying the site its next Shakespeare. In that case, MrN went on to try to harm this website more directly, by luring away its key players individually, as he seems to still be doing. I conclude that Funnybony's issue here is not the Content Warning at all, but the fact that he has "more old friends over there." Funnybony, you have old friends here too, who are willing that you participate in both places; but if numbers matter and if your real campaign is that we all unite under Zombiebaron in place of Wikia, just go quietly. Spıke Ѧ 15:18 13-Mar-13
Bro, my problem is the goddamn content warning. I won't tell anyone to visit anywhere with a greeting like that. So if the fork had such a warning I would be just as pissed. But not only they do not have any super-harmful hideous warning, they have 0 warning. That is the issue we're discussing here. Wikia should have a minimal warning only, otherwise none at all.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 16:15, Mar 13
Again: I agree with you on a minimalist and straight Content Warning. Also on having no Content Warning at all, but that option is not on the table. As I always say to Aleister, the Uncyclopedia viewing experience is no more marred by having to pass through a Content Warning than viewing a realistic satire in a theater is marred by having to pass through a ticket window. And you used to agree with me on this, and that it was scant reason for anyone to quit the site. Spıke Ѧ 16:32 13-Mar-13
No, the problem is that people think obnoxious content warnings are funny, rather than annoying. --Mn-z 16:47, March 13, 2013 (UTC)
I don't believe for a second that anyone could seriously consider that corn-ball content warning as any better than an intentional virus, and I cannot believe we're even having this discussion about it.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 17:09, Mar 13
The horrid content warning is mainly by Puppy and myself, and we both love it. It's a work of art. And why doesn't everyone here agree that we should have no content warning, that it is breaking the back of uncyclopedia!!! It is the stupidest decision in wikia's history with uncyclopedia, and I see no reason for it, none whatsoever. Jimbo Wales has a major say in this, and as we all know wikipedia has much worse things in terms of porno than we have here. And SPIKE, of course I won't leave because you guys want a stupid boring warning. This new one is a masterpiece of playing with a content warning, trying to scare people away - which is the one and only purpose of a warning. Any warning breaks the wiki, and that is the problem, not the creative artwork which has emerged. (and thanks for the kind words, Funnybony, appreciated.) Aleister I'm gone anyway, am now the Pope of all godforsaken things.

Potential compromise solution #8

Removes self congratulatory tone (except as afterthought) and graphics. Cuts down on the wordiness, but has the feel of an uncyclopedia article. Keeps in our style of humour as part of the overall context. (NB: This is not my ideal option. This is put forward purely as a compromise, so we can all agree on something, and let's get back to actually writing funny shit.)                               Puppy's talk page10:42 13 Mar 2013

If we must, this is a good compromise. Boring, but still has the feel of creativity. Maybe leave the link on Funnybony's page (or check with his mom, seriously, if his mom likes it maybe it's a go.) Aleister 22:47 that day
"Uncyclopedia contains objectionable content...with handy guides on how to get laid." Sorry, still convinces Funnybony's Mom we are a porn site. Spıke Ѧ 22:55 13-Mar-13
And why? Because, admit it, you know that everyone will read this one page once, it is the biggest stage at Uncyclopedia, and you can't resist showing everyone how clever and witty you are (to the extent even of changing the blue-links to burgundy). That is not the job at hand. Spıke Ѧ 22:57 13-Mar-13
We have some of the best pages on HowTo:Get laid on the planet. But you may be right. Can we at least keep some of the good stuff, or are we going down the road to nothingville. Why not just say that "Like our sister site, wikipedia, we must warn you not to enter this site. Wikipedia and uncycopedia - two halves of a whole - both may cause you to laugh so much that you may not be able to get out before you read all four million of our articles." The point is we should bring wikipedia into it. Aleister
(FU edit conflict.) Yes, it is the job at hand. We have a total of 10 seconds to engage the casual reader. A bland content warning doesn't engage that reader. That was the reason why Al brought up the warning on the other forum to begin with. That's why we started on the path of changing it. If you don't like that one sentence, look at a way to change it that will be agreeable rather than just asking that further cuts be made. As Sannse stated above, the CW serves a dual purpose. A bland CW covers only one. That's why I've presented a compromise - and I do mean exactly that - I'm aiming for a concession from all parties, including me. So far this forum has managed to determine we have an even split, and that members of the community are resorting to being deliberately inflammatory in order to get their own way. This continued wankery is hurting the community, and I want a resolution. Continued intransigence on either side will simply continue to split the community.                               Puppy's talk page11:17 13 Mar 2013
A content warning exists to click through, not as joke in itself. The warning message isn't meant to engage the reader, or rant against our webhost, but convey information. The flashy-annoying warning gives off a random/self-referential/self-congratulatory/joke-is-the-audience vibe. The content warning can't attract anyone, but can scare people away. Therefore, the content warning should as short and to the point as possible. --Mn-z 13:18, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry if my immediate last comment was too strident. I have lost this vote before (and have implemented the decision) and don't care if I lose the vote again; but I told you what I believe. Nor do I care if "intransigence splits the community" since, as Puppy also notes, we are already evenly split. Somewhat echoing Mnbvcxz, the content warning is not necessarily our chance to engage the reader (which is sort of synonymous with "the biggest stage"); it is a cover-Wikia's-ass device we are obliged to have, with which we might hope not to repel the reader. Spıke Ѧ 13:42 14-Mar-13
What is it about this forum that keeps people edit conflicting me? A content warning is a necessary evil. South Park starts with a content warning, but uses humour as part of that to draw in the viewer. Our demographic is similar to the South Park demographic, and nobody can deny that show's success. This has removed the “flashy-annoying” aspect, and is keeping it short and to the point. But much like the South Park version, few people turn off or switch over due to the warning, and in my case at least, it drew me to watching the show. I'm presenting a compromise solution - after a vote had been held, and that version was voted in. There was plenty of room for discussion. I don't see a need for another vote, but am happy to meet part way to resolve a split. No movement means status quo - and the detractors from this compromise are the ones who are after a change.                               Puppy's talk page01:48 14 Mar 2013
The difference is that this site is a website, while South Park is a TV show. A "funny" content warning gives the same vibe as other crack-wise navigation templates only on a much larger scale: it creates the feeling the humor was created for the sake of the writer, rather than the person reading the text. The casual reader should be able to tell that the content warning is a cover-Wikia's-ass device, not think that the content warning is some practical joke on the reader. There is some evidence that the current warning template IS scaring away readers, which would empirically confirm the theory that navigation wise cracks are not funny to the casual reader. --Mn-z 16:05, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a stalemate means the status quo. Would you please recast this as a formal vote with fewer than eight options--say two: #6 and #8--set an automated deadline as you did previously (say end-of-next-Monday), and invite the active Admins? Spıke Ѧ 14:03 14-Mar-13

Warning is the wrong word

All this warning of sex and violence sounds terrible and is more discouraging and/or embarrassing than funny. How about something very simple like this:

Content Notice

Uncyclopedia is a humor wiki that’s not for everyone. So if you’re someone other than them then come on in and have a laugh. Anyone can edit and even vote, including you, provided you understand how to be funny and not just stupid.

We review all changes, but you might read something corny that we would have deleted, before we are able to do so. You can complain or offer compliments to any administrator about material that you find offensive without being funny, or worse, funny without being offensive.

Wikia, Inc., which operates this website, does not have a clue what’s going on here, so don’t blame them for your own bad taste jokes.

To learn more boring stuff visit Wikia's Terms of Use. But why bother? Seeing is believing. Come on in!



Or some such.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 21:00, Mar 15

Content Warning is the default name. Changing that is difficult. (Doable, but annoying.) The link to HTBFANJS won't work, but the nod to it is a good idea. It has the bones of a decent content warning. I'm happy to run with it.                               Puppy's talk page10:15 15 Mar 2013
Content Warning is in the name of the pages. We are unconstrained as to what the heading on the page says. Spıke Ѧ 22:48 15-Mar-13
It adds in the name as part of the WediaWiki element. To change it we'd need to do a display: none on the current h2 header for the page, and then add in a faux header. Maybe Content banana would be a better term?                               Puppy's talk page11:10 15 Mar 2013
"Warning" denotes danger, as in, yuck! I would bet that Spike and Puppy could change the title to "Content Notice" with their expertise.--Funnybony Icons-flag-th Agnideva-small.jpg AGT-logo-small.jpg 11:13, Mar 16
Yeah - already worked it out.                               Puppy's talk page11:25 16 Mar 2013

I am perturbed at creating a new option just when the decision seemed to be settling on two options. Funnybony above seems to take my deadpan warning and, as a compromise, inject humor that defeats the purpose, especially in the second paragraph: There is no risk that a user will be offended by having written corny bunk.

I'd summarize our disagreements as follows:

  • Approach. We disagree on whether maximal wittiness is an inducement or a barrier to enter the site, likewise on the benefits of a complex versus a simple warning.
  • Specific wording. (1) We disagree on whether an excessive focus on sex/sexiness will repel some viewers. (2) We disagree on whether the warning should highlight the risk of our unfiltered format, rather than imply that we intend to offend. Spıke Ѧ 22:48 15-Mar-13
I think wit is good, but any joke runs the risk of being taken wrong by anyone, the wider the audience, the greater the risk. Not everybody likes the same kind of humor, and mothers and grandmothers in general may be turned off by overtly sexual humor, due to the instinct to protect the kids. I don't have kids, and I view the site alone, so I don't worry about my kids getting hold of something they shouldn't. Some religious conservatives may also be turned off by sexual humor, viewing overtly sexual things as ungodly (I was brought up that way but shook it off once I had a boyfriend). But sexual humor is a big part of this site, and any potential reader should be warned that they may be exposed to it at any time, since anyone can add cursing and the like to any article at any time, plus we no longer have the NSFW template. Violence is also a factor in this site, and it is uncensored here (though we admins have drawn the line at depictions in photographs of dead bodies in certain cases). There is also the fact that several of our articles do give bad advice, if taken literally. The content warning at least keeps people from taking the advice literally at this point, but this keeps away readers who want real advice. I don't think that is the issue, but it illustrates a point - maybe the people who are staying away from the site with warning of sexual content really don't want any sexual content. If they enter our site, they will find some sexual content if they visit more than the main page (and sometimes even the main page). I like the content warning as it is now, but I also know that the flashing lightning will cause problems for people with certain browsers or certain internet connections. However, it could be clearer to new people. I won't suggest a new content warning because I already tried that before, it was picked, and it had its day in the sun until everybody decided it was getting old or wasn't funny enough or clear enough. Anything that insinuates adult audiences will drive some people away, that is inevitable. Perhaps Funnybony's mom didn't want anything designed for adult audiences, or any sexual innuendo, I don't know her, but this is my guess. Just my two cents. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 00:49, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
The content warning is a cover-Wikia's-ass device, nothing more. Its point is to be clicked through and be as unannoying as possible. We shouldn't be trying to scare away the easily offended or trying to "engage the reader." 4chan's warning consists of a popup box with no images of wise-cracks. In other words, it as to-the-point of not-flashy as is humanly possible. --Mn-z 08:19, March 16, 2013 (UTC)
4chan is now our example of best practice? Besides - you can click through a humourless warning as quickly as a humorous one. Removing the lightning effect will alleviate the slow load issue - which was always a concern I had, but nobody objected to the speed of loading when I put it forward until after it was in place. For me - I like reading warnings.                               Puppy's talk page08:32 16 Mar 2013
4chan's warning was used as an example. Few, if any, sites, use a loud-flashy crack-wise content notice. --Mn-z 12:48, March 21, 2013 (UTC)


The longer the discussion becomes, the more options are going to arise, making the selection of the final warning template take longer. Maybe we should restore the default Wikia warning template until we can agree on one. --Mn-z 08:29, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should leave the version previously voted upon.                               Puppy's talk page08:34 16 Mar 2013
That would work also. --Mn-z 08:55, March 16, 2013 (UTC)

Essential elements

  • Brevity. An overly long warning could potentially drop the agree button off the base of the screen. As we want to allow people to enter quickly, this is not ideal.
  • Speed. It needs to be able to load quickly enough that people won't lose patience during the load.
  • No links (except to Wikia's ToU). Simply because links in the CW won't go anywhere. Any internal pages will just display the CW until the person agrees to enter. Given most of our visitors come from links from offsite, redirecting them to a page other than intended is counter-productive.
  • An actual warning. While the purpose of the wording is to encourage people to continue on to the site, it also needs to advise that it can contain questionable content.
  • Encouragement to continue. As we're trying to get people into the site, discouraging them at this stage is counter-productive.

Beyond that the humorous/humourless aspect is debatable. (I know we've covered this all already, but I'm trying to summarise the previous discussion.) We also want this to be out in place sooner rather than later - we've had significant time to discuss, throw around options. So I'll establish this as a vote starting midnight UTC - this gives the chance for all potential applicants to be brought forward. Vote to run for ten days - more than enough time for people to become aware of it. Also allows us to mention it in a USP - which we need to start getting out again this week, to avoid people missing stuff like this. Treat it like VFS - 2 votes allowed, although given people are passionately against options as well as for other options allowing against votes makes sense. But leave comments out of the voting area - we can add those below. And I'll set up the vote at the top of this page - then people don't need to go through all the chatter to get to the relevant point.                               Puppy's talk page09:16 16 Mar 2013

Long ago you humored me by taking an insult to an actual group off your proposed warning, and now I see you've removed the entire "rigid ideology" digression (which declared on our first meeting with a visitor that any displeasure he felt would be the fault of his own beliefs), as well as the meandering footnote. The only problems I have left with it are that (1) the sexual specifics in the second paragraph (in fact, the entire paragraph) misrepresent us and might be needlessly offputting to some people or their Moms, and (2) "In general" in the Wikia paragraph is surplus. Spıke Ѧ 16:40 16-Mar-13
I kind of agree with SPIKE on the sexual specifics, the sex with robots and produce and octapods is fun, of course, but sex with those things can be tiresome after you do it over and over and over again. Funnybony's mom may be right about that. The in general stuff was always stupid and not funny. So is the concept of a content warning in the first place. Aleister 11:57 17-3-'13

Notice instead of warning

Also, I endorse the move to change the heading from "Warning" to "Notice". Spıke Ѧ 15:31 17-Mar-13
Why don't we work this out down here, while everyone is distracted up above by the pretty voting. Let's light up some candy cigars and talk this over like men. Aleister 21:12 St. Pat's Day '13

Indeed...calling it a notice makes sense. --ShabiDOO 21:25, March 17, 2013 (UTC)

I see no objection on that as a change. I'm also happy to go with it. I still like banana, but notice does make more sense.                               Puppy's talk page07:04 18 Mar 2013

Nominee 3 post-edits

Puppy helpfully made a point of identifying a specific version of Nominee 3 for vote. If it holds onto its large lead in the vote, I will implement exactly what we voted on; but will also open discussion (in fact, am doing so now, "to avoid the last-minute rush") on changes proposed since that version:

  • The heading change noted in the previous section. The site CSS should prevent display of the built-in heading, leaving it to us to put "Content Notice" in the warning file.
  • Aleister edited the second paragraph ("We review all changes, but not by prior restraint") to be more specific about what we review; then I post-edited him, to not be specific at all: "We work without prior restraint"
  • I added an actual link to the Wikia Terms of Use.
  • The final paragraph ("Wikia, Inc....does not review nor endorse the content") needs editing as shown; they damn well do review the content.

I don't expect any of the above to be controversial, but we ought not change the question in the middle of a vote. Spıke Ѧ 13:06 21-Mar-13