Forum:Wikipedia's article on us

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Wikipedia's article on us

Note: This topic has been unedited for 2011 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Behold! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia

This image would replace the one currently shown nicely.--<<>> 19:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. We have an article. We are notable. However, note the Good Article loss on the talk page. We need to get this featured on the main page of Wikipedia. Suggestions:

1. Get rid of that eye beams image. We didn't even make it - it's from Fark. How about replacing it with this old logo used from Jan-May 2005? Followed Brad's suggestion.
2. Remove the controversy section, merging it into the coverage section.
3. Focus on "the major aspects of the topic", i.e. vandalism, in-jokes, policies, major decisions.
4. More detalied history section.
5. Archived talk page.
6.  ???
7. Profit, by getting on the main page and having a huge flow of editors come to us.

Raul654, who is in charge of features, approved this article to be featured on April Fools' 07, but that didn't happen. Let's try to get this featured in time for 4/1/08. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

We need to appoint someone with the job of fixing it up so that it's featureable. Someone with knowledge of Wikipedia's yadda-yadda. Then once it gets featured, give them a big freakin' award. -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Job? Fix? Knowledge? Wikipedia? Your words are filling my head with crazy! /me calms down. That being said, I'm sure we have people here who know what they're doing. /me freaks out again. Woo! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell did "claims the reverse" go?! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • formspring) 14:13 Nov 02, 2007

The Customs office took it. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 14:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that that's gone is the worst part of the entirety of wikipedia. And that's saying something! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 17:43, 02 Nov 2007

I believe that AAA! watches the Unyclopedia page to prevent vandalism and seems to be rather active on Wikipedia. You want to approach him maybe? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• For some reason I have a Wikipedia account...and for some reason I feel like editing the page... -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 01:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing the controvery section actually makes us seem less notable, believe it or not. I disagree with this move.--<<>> 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry. Everything there will go elsewhere in the article. Their iPhone article has a similar thing, off the top of my head. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick reminder looking over the article again: as you guys add stuff over there, be sure to cite documented sources. They get off on that sort of thing over there.--<<>> 01:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

They're writing, I'm citing. Hey, that rhymed.--Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Huh, for some reason I'm helping out, too. Mostly with the "in-jokes" section. Just did BENSON, gonna get Kitten Huffing next. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:21, Nov 4

You Guys Rock

I'm giving you all cookies if you manage to get it featured. I'd help, but I'm incompetent at citations.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)  

Now what?

Well, if we're not doing an "in-jokes" section, what else can we do? I really can't think of anything else to add. It looks pretty well-cited to me, although granted I know nothing about that. Maybe we should get this assessed, or something? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:37, Nov 7

How about a brief timeline of important events? It should all be up in the Worst 100 Reflections. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 01:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that notable enough? I'm not really sure how much about the site we can mention without sounding like vanity/advertising. I mean, somebody(can't be bothered to check who) decided in-jokes were too... well, too in-jokey, and took those out. Do you think that the stuff in worst reflections is better? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:46, Nov 7

Major new features and decisions are notable. Look at the Facebook page for good examples. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh-huh...would that be, like, the new VFH? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:03, Nov 7

We could mention that our VFH operates on a for/against system, unlike Wikipedia's, but the new VFH is fundamentally the same as the old one. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also haven't mentioned Pee Review or our relatively close relationship (I think) with Wikia. I'll work on getting Pee Review in there myself, but I'm not sure how close we are to Wikia and therefore whether or not it should be put in. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wait, wikia, or wikipedia? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:03, Nov 7

Wikia. We have sansse and Jack Phoenix visit us regularly and we're one of the biggest wikis and the most active (both of which are already in there). On second thought, though, we really don't seem to be too close to Wikia itself. Whatever, disregard. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they like primary sources that much, so in-jokes will be hard to reference. Though in-jokes should probably stay on the inside, trawl google news for uncyclopedia stories or something, there should be plenty of kitten huffing references. Also, I like this sentence the best: As of November 2007, there were seven such projects; UnNews, UnBooks, UnScripts, UnTunes, Unquotable, Undictionary, Uncycloversity, and UnMeta. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:04, 07 Nov 2007

A quick search actually revealed tons of stuff on uncyclopedia. This, this, this, and this were just a few that I saw. Our entry in conservapedia was on page 9 of a google search for uncyclopedia. I don't think we'll need to source them, though. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 04:18, Nov 7

Speaking of which, there used to be a nice little table of wikipedia projects vs. their uncyc counterparts. Someone might want to fit that in somewhere. And maybe some graphs and pie charts for good measure. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:06, 07 Nov 2007

Ok, I made that major change that no one else had the balls to do. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Cool, but I think HowTo is more like a parody of wikihow (non-wikimedia), intentional or not. Wikibooks is already covered (no pun intended) (ok, maybe a little) in UnBooks. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:52, 08 Nov 2007

Hey! They're parodying us! Howto:Get over not having a plasma TV. *pout* Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the history, that article predated our HowTo project. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:27, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

BAM!! Research in your face! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh, "Stop watching TV for a few hours a day. Maybe you could even do something productive with your spare time!" Ha! Yeah right! Just how am I supposed to do that?! Ahem. Oh, okay. Well... what if I don't want to? Ahem. Oh, well... shut up! Ahem. ;_; • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:39, 08 Nov 2007

Don't go filling this topic up with facts, now. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Something I noticed

By Jove, why isn't The Lake District mentioned in the Press Coverage section? -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 02:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Added. I also noted the newspaper article about that page said we have a spokesperson. She must have disappeared in a mysterious accident or something. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Another image

I'm thinking of putting on [1], but I'm gonna have to wait until Hindleyite gives Wikipedia permission to use the image. If you can find a legal loophole to exploit, please inform me here. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Upload and hope they don't notice? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:39, Nov 9

Permission granted. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 00:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Section Idea?

What about a section on UN:R? Is that valid, maybe mention HTBFANJS again, or move it down, and note that uncyclopedia tends to follow most of the same policies as wikipedia? Is that a good idea, or not? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:44, Nov 9

Added. I also rediscovered Insineratehymn's UnConstitution! --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Image for Chron

Chron is not very photogenic

I need a free picture of Chronarion to display next to the history section. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 01:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Is the one on Frappr usable? You could check and see if Jonathan Huang(I think that's his real name) has a facebook, and try and contact him that way. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:34, Nov 15

A quick google reveals this, which is probably Fair Use.

While that's not him, he is an Asian dude, so odds are good most people won't know the difference.--<<>> 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, you're all racists.--<<>> 01:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I have some erotic charcoal sketches that you can use. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Because of WP's arcane image rules, the picture-taker must sumbit the image, or at least release it into public domain. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 02:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What if you take a picture of the picture? Could you use that? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:21, Nov 15

Huh? --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 04:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The great history

1/5/2005 Chronarion and Stillwaters create Uncyclopedia out of nothing.

5/26/2005 Wikia begins hosting us.

7/10/2006 The domain ownership is transferred to Wikia.

Add what's missing. Once this history is complete, I will un-timeline this and put it in the article. --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 04:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold on a second

Why do we want to get this article featured for April Fool's Day? Shouldn't we be working on a way to redirect their main page to ours instead? -- Spillin DylanTALKEDITS18:16, Nov 16

Too bad this is serious, eh? --Sir OCdt Jedravent CUN UmP VFH PLS ACS WH 21:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

This is SERIOUS MOTHERFUCKING BUSINESS. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:18, Nov 16

It can't be done. Interwiki links don't work for redirects. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 22:21, Nov. 16, 2007

Yes. This means that our plan is so crazy that it just might work. To the NerdCave! <spinning Sophia symbol> Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through our article on WP...

...and these are my reckonings.

• Some bits are a bit crufty and only feel like they are there in an attempt to boost notability of the Uncyc. For example, I don't think references to all those news stories are needed - I say we just pick a few (eg. the Lake District one, the netmag interview) and elaborate on them, getting rid of the reference to small mentions unless they're reeeeally notable sources.
• Maybe a controversy section would be useful though not necessary. There are already a few controversial issues weaved into the general text.
• We need an expert Wikipedian who is also an Uncyclopedian to give us a hand with the article. I think that as it is, it's quite good but could do with a bit more focus and organisation that some of the featured articles have. After all, this is what we want, right?
• Finally, I think the article is a little bit short. This doesn't mean we should just pad things out for the sake of it but focus on relevant and notable topics for this kind of article. I suggest we use Wikipedia's Wikipedia article as a template: cultural significance, reliability and bias, criticism sections etc.

Any thoughts? -- Hindleyite Converse 11:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just take their article on themselves and swap Uncyclopedia in for Wikipedia? That's sure to please their cold and empty wiki souls. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 16:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please? Wikipedians can't feel emotions, silly. They're just shells. More machine than man, now; twisted and evil. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 17:50, Nov 17