From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > UnMeta (talk)
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4059 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
“Okay, you all might remember a site called UnMeta. It was created a while ago, and all of us with a finger to the pulse of Uncyclopedia jumped on bored.”
~ User:Zombiebaron on freudian slips
“Please shoot me if I ever make UnMedia Commons and UnMeta.”

Okay, you all might remember a site called UnMeta. It was created a while ago, and all of us with a finger to the pulse of Uncyclopedia jumped on bored. No one has made an edit on Unmeta since April 12th, when I sporked a Wikimeta article for the purpose of rewriting it for the Poo Lit Suprise, and then Hinoa edited it twice. Carlb has claimed "it's dead... you may eat its BRAINS now..." on the subject of UnMeta. I think that this is horrible. It had so much hope, so much promise. We need to include UnMeta on the Main Page (by putting it into the Sista Projects Template, you know the one with UnDictionary and the Wilde Project). We need to get people to come, edit, and create pages. We need to include and nurture it. UnMeta provides diffrent humor topics, much in the same way that UnNews does, and I'd hate to see it go to waste. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 00:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I don't think UnMeta should be like that... it's like WikiMeta; only the smart arses go there - that and people interested in MediaWiki; I mean, if you ever visit the MediaWiki site, you can almost guarantee that you'll end up there instead, which is booglingly annoying if it's not WikiMeta you're interested in if you go back to the Main_Page... --Olipro Icons-flag-gb Co-Anc (Harass) 01:44, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiMeta is in a different position (as a defacto support site for MediaWiki) as the MediaWiki software itself was originally created AFAIK for use on Wikipedia. I doubt we want to reinvent the wheel on quite the same scale? --Carlb 01:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Erm... god no, that'd be horrendous, and horrendously unfunny, and other, even more horrendous things that probably shouldn't be contemplated. However, we probably should do something with UnMeta... it's kind of gathering dust; *whispers to enclave* "Post on UnMeta!" --Olipro Icons-flag-gb Co-Anc (Harass) 02:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Reinvent the wheel? No. Probably it would be best just to poke fun at the wheel, or at least reinterpret the wheel, making the wheel funny and paletable to the Uncyclopedia audience. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 09:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
As in, use it mainly as a grounds for Mediawiki/bureaucracy jokes (and the occasional whine for Sysop)? heh, sounds good to me --Olipro Icons-flag-gb Co-Anc (Harass) 14:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
How then would avoid overlapping the existing Project: and Forum: pages here? --Carlb 16:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Come again? --Olipro Icons-flag-gb Co-Anc (Harass) 16:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point Carl. Maybe we could use UnMeta to replace that stuff? Or find anouther use for unmeta, with out letting it rot. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That would be a better option, moving the Uncyclopedia:and Uncyclopedia talk: namespaces to UnMeta. And the proposed namespaces Namespace: and Namespace talk: could be moved there also. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Or moving the best articles of Uncyclopedia (AAAAAAAAA!, Euroipods, LOWTDEBS, etc) there. Most vandals probably won't find it easily. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Hey, why not just use it as a dumping ground for inside uncyclopedia jokes. I mean, the main 'pedia is full of them. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 18:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
That is what's happening now. See for an example. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 19:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Good idea.--Rataube 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

We could discuss the reskins in unmeta. Discussing them in the forum it's not a good idea couse then they wouldn't be a surprise for a large amount of users. On the other hand, not all of us can follow what's going on at IRC. Only the few users really interested in it would mind to check them in unmeta, so unmeta it's a good middle ground. What you say?--Rataube 20:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, Chron created UnMeta for the sole purpose of messing around. It's meant to be one huge playground for all of us uncyclopedians, just some place to go to let off some steam... or whatever. Any actual real content/purpose you try to impose upon UnMeta is just going against the reason it was formed. I don't believe it was ever meant to be taken this seriously. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 21:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
And Uncyclopedia is serious? ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the above statement can be accurately summed up as : PWNT. --User:Nintendorulez 15:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[Removed excessive Ghelæ-vs-Ghelæ arguement]

Ok, now back to seriousness usual stupidity, In the future, the #1 article of each year should be moved to UnMeta, as AAAAAAAAA! is already there. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not in its Uncyc form, though, I thought users could start anew. - User:Guest/sig 14:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Or, like Euroipods on UnMeta, just its main form. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Long overdue poll on what to use UnMeta for

Vote and/or DIE!

Boring WikiMeta-type place

Score: +0.5
  • Strong Against. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For. - User:Guest/sig 08:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak for Shouldn't be the only purpose, but I think that that sort of thing needs to be put somewhere. - Surreal Hamster 21:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

#1 article of each year safe storage

Score: +2
  • For. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For. Do you mean articles that were featured in the exact condition when they appeared on the main page? No edits afterwards?--Witt E, 03:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Partially. Or just their basic form.[1][2] ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Pointless. The featured-article template on already links to the as-featured version in the history. --Carlb 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

- Struck out because this project is used by babel:. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Project: and Forum: namespace seperate website

Score: -1.5
  • Weak For. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Forum only --Nerd42Talk 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong against. I'm happy with the project and the forum pages being where they are. This would be even more pointless than taking unnews away.--Rataube 20:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Against, somethings should stay as they are. - Surreal Hamster 21:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

~ Struck out as result=NO WAY. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Total and Utter Mess

Score: -2

~ Struck out as result=NO WAY. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 17:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Testing range and playground

Score: +9

Move it to wikia, share the user database with Uncyc

Score: +1.5
  • And maybe I'll use it. --Splaka 22:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • For, totally, I use it anyways (a little), but I think it should be moved, preferably using the domain "". - Surreal Hamster 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • For --ZB 22:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Against. ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 07:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Unrejuvinated Yes --Nerd42Talk 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Against. That just overlaps Project: and Forum:... a waste of time. --Carlb 19:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


Do you think that Wikia is willing to create another wiki which is a subdomain of or which uses the Uncyclopædia user list?

I'd be surprised if this were offered to us as an option, given the current situation with moving Babel projects to separate-language wikis:

  • If hosted by Wikia, the domain names have been * or *, not *
  • If hosted by Wikia, the user list is Wikia's, not Uncyclopædia's. If hosted externally, userlist is not that of the main en.uncyclopedia project but is independent.
  • There has been no provision to point and the like to anything other than the English-language Uncyclopædia. This holds true regardless of whether they're Wikia or external sites.
  • The non-commercial licence terms which apply to Uncyclopædia appear not to be respected during creation of new Wikia-hosted wikis, even if they're part of the Uncyclopædia project. Désencyclopédie (fr), when first proposed, was turned down by Wikia for this reason and ultimately ended up with an awkward dual-licensing scheme; the rest are GFDL and technically should not be translating or re-using English-language Uncyclopædia content. No attempt has been made to obtain the original authors' permission to re-license content under a commercial-use-permitted GFDL nor to respect the original CC-SA-NC-BY terms of the original Creative Commies deed.
  • There is no provision to allow a new domain name to be registered and pointed to a Wikia-hosted Uncyclopædia sista project unless Wikia owns the domain name. Even then, these are getting difficult to obtain for Wikia-hosted projects.
  • The decision on whether the new wiki will be added at all is made by Wikia, without reference to anything happening (or not happening) in Uncyclopedia. An arabic uncyclopedia with zero bytes content gets approval while other projects with existing Babel: content have sometimes met with endless red tape before finally either being accepted or going to external hosting.
  • There have been incidents where staff (not our elected admins) have removed links to external Uncyclopædia-related sites from other uncyclopædia-related wikia [3] or even this wiki [4] solely because they were to external sites.
  • The one link (other than the {{languages}} which so far has survived on our front page) between the various Uncyclopædias is the "in other languages" box, which allows an article in one Uncyclopædia to link to one on the same topic in another language. The interwiki table which provides these interlanguage links is nearly three months out-of-date and we can't even get it updated, nor obtain access to a MediaWiki extension which would allow us to fix the problems ourselves.

In general, the pattern seems to be that a limited degree of independance is tolerated for the English-language (best to leave it alone as the name and domain legally belong to Chronarion and the wiki already had several thousand pages of content long before it was hosted on Wikia) but that any new wikis added to the project belong not to Uncyclopedia, but to Wikia. They don't have * domains, they don't share Uncyclopedia's user list, they don't have any commons: like structure to share images, they don't have Uncyclopædia's non-commercial license and the domain and userlist for any new wiki belong to Wikia. This effectively splits and fragments Uncyclopædia into not one project, but merely a scattered collection of unrelated wikis in various languages with similar topics.

If the same situation applies to meta: (if created as a new wiki, not a namespace), then moving it to Wikia does not make it any more a part of than if it were to remain right where it is. It won't have an * domain name nor the Uncyclopedia user list. If a request were made for meta: to be a separate wiki on Wikia, it would either be rejected outright (due to overlap with existing projects) or become the property not of Uncyclopedia but of Wikia - their domain name, their user list, and their staff possibly exercising admin powers. The content itself would remain under some sort of free license, but unless meta: were merely a namespace instead of a separate Wikia, it's not part of in any meaningful sense of the concept. This therefore provides no advantage over leaving meta: right where it is. --Carlb 13:57, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikia's willingness is definitely a factor in play on whether it can be moved to a Uncyclopedia subdomain and if Wikia will host it, if they are willing to host it (and I think they might be if we asked nicely), it is a minor quibble and I feel in no part that pressing of the issue, I'd like to see it done, but it isn't necessary. Also, I don't care if it has the same user list at all, an independent user list works fine for me. - Surreal Hamster 20:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By an "Uncyclopedia subdomain", do you mean a new wiki as something in * If so, good luck... they've never done that for us before. --Carlb 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I know they haven't, but have we ever asked for that specifically, I'm not saying that would, I just don't see any reason to assume they wouldn't, but in the end it isn't that big a deal to me (though I would like to see it done). - Surreal Hamster 21:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the inability to put even so much as a redirect at (or some arbitrary Babel language at was the original reason for creating the redirect at instead. As the .info site is completely outside Wikia, each of its subdomains can be redirected or used to house external content - the same is not true of .org, which belongs to Chronarion but points directly to Wikia's domain servers. If we could have done it, I think we would have done so already, dunno. --Carlb 21:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You could be absolutely correct, which is disappointing. Memory Alpha has a few different languages, none of them are, they are all at, for instance is the English andĈefpaĝo is the Esperanto. Maybe something like this could be worked out. - Surreal Hamster 22:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Memory-Alpha's situation is a little different from ours in that they already had three languages under the domain before they moved to Wikia. They therefore had to be allowed to keep them. While they own their own domain name, they don't have their own independent userlist (Wikia owns the userlist). --Carlb 00:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: The stopping block in all this is not Wikia, but Chronarion. If he sells the ownership of the domain to Wikia then Wikia will allow more subdomains. However, this might not be the best move for Chronarion. But we can discuss it. --Splaka 02:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If he does that, he's effectively lost ownership of the project. Much worse than the current situation of having it taken away from him, one language at a time, as individual Babels split to separate wikia and cease to be part of *

Memory-Alpha knows better than to reliquish their domain and I'd expect Chron'd know better as well. --Carlb 04:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Let's say I'd like to translate some English content into one of the uncys in other languages. which steps should I take? Contact the main authors of the specific article and request their permission maybe? Buy some chocolate for wikia's staff?--Rataube 10:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's under a non-commercial Creative Commies deed? You may copy it in full, non-commercially, with attribution and under the same licence terms. Désencyclopédie uses a template {{Uncyclopédia|original article name}} which inserts a potato, a link to the page on en: and a disclaimer that the text is translated from Uncyclopedia and available only under the non-commercial Creative Commons license. Posting Uncyc->Wikipedia would be a little more difficult; they won't accept anything licenced for non-commercial use only and would most likely list the items for deletion.

Beyond that, the ownership of the text belongs to its authors, not to Wikia staff, Bill Gates or anyone else. If you have their permission, you can do as you please. Well, except for using a certain copyrighted letter... but no, won't go there... --Carlb 13:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Carlb, Memory Alpha may have had three languages when they came to Wikia, but now they have like ten, so they've been adding a few. - Surreal Hamster 14:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools