Forum:Wikipedia April Fools

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Wikipedia April Fools
Note: This topic has been unedited for 4129 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Yea, I was looking through wikipedia, and while finding out how the new page design finally won the election (We called that one right!) I saw that they are planning an April Fools page for April Fools, which will feature hilariousness of unheard of proportions. But as they seem to be venturing into our territory, what better way to one up them then to replace them as a completely factual and serious information source! We can find actual news articles, feature a boring yet all true article, use a real non funny picture, basically be your any day main page of wikipedia. This would ofcourse happen for the duration of their infringement into attempts at humor.

Thoughts? ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 02:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The idea is... so utterly uncyclopedian. I love it. --Xoid 03:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For, if they are going to copy us, we should at least copy them. It's only fair. --OsirisX 05:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
For that matter, we could just completely rip off their main page. Maybe I'll go suggest that they rip off our main page too. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 08:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
On the other hand, if you look at what they're actually proposing, you might be better off doing a main page that promotes a load of totally untrue but not very funny pages. They appear to be the only people on Earth who think April Fools is a day for reporting mildly amusing truths. Klumaster 11:41, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Lets go for it.--Nytrospawn 14:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am updating it to show unfunny lies. As they want the joke to be on everyone and make them think that they are pulling their leg, we can have the joke be on everyone and have them think that we are telling the truth. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Genius. Sorta... good job... Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
There is... an april fools plan... in planning.. -- 18:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea.--Rataube 23:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good Idea, but maybe you could put in a satire of starchy old wikipedians in there. If you could be arsed. --The Rt. Hon. BarryC Icons-flag-gb MUN (Symposium!) Sigh. Double Sigh. 19:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the unfunny front page. Why didn't you wait until April Fools Day though? -anon

Due to a recent upsurge in average reader IQ, we can no longer feature articles about poop and sexual innuendo everyday. We apologize for any inconvenience. ~ T. (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah say that Uncyclopedia is coming clean, and decided to rewrite all articles with factual information. Then the front page has factual versions of what the March 31st page had on it, along with an apology from the aministrators for deceiving people since 2005, and now Uncyclopedia has become the most trusted name in web encyclopedias. That all sockpuppet accounts are banned, and people have to use their real names now. That the facts are now checked for every article using editors who follow the scientific method and journalism standards. Like instead of bashing George W. Bush, now Uncyc respects him and writes a neutral point of view article on him, devoid of any political bias, with apologies to him for former transgressions. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Uncyclopædia has been sold to Encyclopædia Britannica. --Carlb 16:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I like the above idea of putting truth on the page. But I still think we ought to be funny in a discreet way. I think we need to find a wav file of a cricket chirping load in the background on every page and have it churp every minute or two. It'll drive the users nuts. --User:Keithhackworth/sig2
How discreet? You want something that looks serious, but is still funny, right? How about having fake news like George W. Bush resigns as President of the USA and his last act was to pull all troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan, or that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were found hidden in Iran all this time, or that Michael Moore went on a crash-diet and now weighs 150 pounds and throws his support for George W. Bush, or that Jimmy Hoffa had been hiding in the Cayman Islands all this time on pension money that he ripped off from the union. Then link to Unnews articles that say "April Fools". Or you could have real issues that happened but that link to articles that say just the opposite? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I kind of like Orion's idea of having the front page being the totally factual information behind our satirical stuff, but linking to the jokes.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 22:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Possibly, but I think the idea of having it be information that seems factual but isnt is the best choice. Its a direct parody of Wikipedias page which will feature factual information that seems like lies. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should disguise our front page completely as Wikipedia. NO JOKES, no funnyness, just the WP logo, name, navigation bar, serious articles and EVERYTHING EXACTLY like Wikipedia's front page from the last day of March. --Nerd42Talk 15:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"We have just been informed of the existence of an alternate wiki-based encyclopedia-format reference site by the name of Wikipedia. As this page appears to have far greater accuracy than our own, as well as a much greater user-base and volume of articles, we regretfully inform you that there is no further reason to maintain the Uncyclopedia. Thank you all for the wonderful efforts you've made, and we hope the warm and welcoming community at Wikipedia will welcome those of you who wish to continue your work. It's been fun while it lasted!" --Spin 19:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, let's to do the "exactly like WP" style. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

For added hilarity why not switch all the links around so that clicking on wikified text actually links to something completely different. - Nonymous 21:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

We are doing that as well as having slight errors in the page so as to make it false. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I say we turn EVERYTHING into AAAAAA! --PiOfFive 23:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No more AAAAAAAA! reskins. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 07:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Allright, how bout this...we simply let wikipedia put up their 'jokes', and then five minutes after they go up, we post a featured article and newsblurb announcing in big bold letters that 'WIKIPEDIA IS COPYING US'. It will complain how they have shamelessly ripped off our ideas of passing off lies and misinformation as factual, and declare uncyclopedia as the most reliable wiki out there. Do I have something? User Picklefork, 2:24, 27 March 2006

I hate to be the one to post this, but...there's already an April Fools page in the works. A lot of effort has been put into it. I don't know how far along the Factual Uncyc is, but it's not going to be pretty if we have two people/groups expecting to have their front page up on April 1. Rangeley, and/or whoever else is involved, pop into IRC sometime and talk with whoever's in there about it (most of the IRCers-in-perpetuity probably know about the other page). --—rc (t) 07:13, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to realy confuse people, can't we use <option><choose> and have both?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Nope. There is a CSS hack involved. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't be a problem, just need to change the

var re = RegExp("(.*) - Uncyclopedia");
var matches = re.exec(document.title);
var skinName;
if (matches) {
   if (skin[matches[1]] != undefined) {
       skinName = (skin[matches[1]].length > 0) ? skin[matches[1]] : matches[1] + '.css';
       document.write('<style type="text/css">/*<![CDATA[*/ @import "/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Skin/' + skinName + '&action=raw&ctype=text/css"; /*]]>*/</style>' );

bit to look at something other than document.title, that can be changed by <option><choose> --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I went into the Channel as suggested, noone had any idea. If the 'cabal' has decided to go with the other page, so be it. This one is done, and can be found at Main Page/AprilFools. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 20:40, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I did sort of spend a dozen or more hours on this upon direct request by Chron, who chose the theme, so I have to say I am partial to going with mine. ---QuillRev. Isra (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Re the code: The CSS hack has to be in the <head></head> to load properly, so the Javascript has to execute instantly, and not on a 'page load' event. At the point of execution of MediaWiki:Uncyclopedia.js, the only unique feature to a page is the <title> parameter, so that is the only thing we can use. --Splaka 03:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Can anyone think of way to do the rendom choice bit in the JS then, alternatively overwrite function onloadhook () from somehow?--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 11:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A dirty trick would be to only have it randomly load one of two CSS's for the main page. Then, you'd put the entire contents of one 'joke page' in a <div id="joke1" style="display:inline;"></div> and the contents of the second joke page in <div id="joke2" style="display:none;"></div>. Then, the CSS for the first page (which already changes the page completely) would remain the same, and the other would have at the end: #joke2 {display: inline;) and #joke1 {display: none;). Thereby, nothing would actually change but the CSS. Still dirty. --Splaka 11:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Thats close to what I'm thinking I just wish I had the time to sit down and work it out, maybe friday night I'll have a crack. I was thinking if it was possible to identify the changes from each css then combine them into one with the changed styles as different sub classses ( and then wrap both version in apprtpriate div's but my css is a bit too rusty to work the syntax out, that way we would at least change the look of the page (how to change the logo still escapes me however)--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 15:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dont bother switching them, just use Isra's. ~Sir Rangeley Icons-flag-us GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 19:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Lets put it to a vote

who wants Hard Core Wikipedia Style?

  • [raises hand] --Nerd42Talk 15:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • For--Rataube 15:33, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Or Both

Or just the one isra's poured over 50 hours into

  • For.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

perhaps we could do the page swap on another day then, or use isra's page some other time --Nerd42Talk 18:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, Nerd, when you see the one we're going with, you'll be like, "Ok, so that was better." It's really, really good, trust me. Rang's idea has merit, though. Maybe we can do it on wikipedia's anniversary or something.--<<Bradmonogram.png>> 20:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • OK sorry I didn't realize that a whole bunch of work had already been put into an idea. Some other time. :) I will have to find some way to get online tomorrow just to see it. --Nerd42Talk 14:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Isra's reskin is hardcore. No offense to Rangeley, but I like it better, too. :] /me has an iHeart. --KATIE!! 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools