Talk:An article that contains nothing but a full stop

See also: The obligatory retrospective

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the An article that contains nothing but a full stop article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (`~~~~`). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

SUGGESTION PL0X!

I think this article should have the full stop bigger like put the < big > tags around it?

CAPTAIN NERD


		This article was nominated for deletion on February 7, 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep.

“Yay! My favourite punctuation has an article of its own!”
~ Oscar Wilde on An article that contains nothing but a full stop

“This article contains nothing but a full stop!”
~ Captain Obvious on An article that contains nothing but a full stop

“I wonder what this article contains?”
~ Captain Oblivious on An article that contains nothing but a full stop

“Finally, an article with impeccable grammar that I didn't write!”
~ Oscar Wilde on An article that contains nothing but a full stop

Comment

Well, it delivers what it promises...

Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 03:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm suprised it hasn't been deleted yet lol 80.3.0.8 07:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Can't be described as a one-liner, I suppose. A one-pointer? RabbiTechno 19:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It'll probably be deleted soon, I bet. There was one called the word parakeet written exactly two hundred and fourty three times; that one was CVP'd. If you're going to do avant-garde, make it funny. --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 19:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Well it's been here for almost 2 days now and hasn't been deleted. Perhaps I should put it on pee review lol Randomator 19:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay! An article that contains nothing but a full stop: A Retrospective

3 days now, maybe this is the new most pointless article on unyc! (Assuming that there is a point to AAAAAAAAA! and all that)Randomator 22:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, come on! I maed a yuky doody is funny! (If you like that sort of humor...) --Wehpudicontok--Welcome to Vaporstory! 22:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that's toilet humour. I mean, it could kind of be about something else and still be funny (which it is). Toilet humour is (or at least, is in my opinion) just something which has faeces etc. as the thing that's supposed to be funny in the joke. Childish humour's good too. --Sakrotac 16:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I rather think there is a point to this article. (You all had better get that pun)

If this gets deleted

You can always recreate it at Illogicopedia where it would be welcomed. -- Hindleyite Converse 12:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, that's not to say it will be deleted here... <_< >_> -- Hindleyite Converse 12:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add any catergories or templates to the article, as if you do, it will contain more than just a full stop!

Add them to this talk page instead!Randomator 14:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

Looks better this way. You can revert it if you like.--» >ZEROTROUSERS!!! EAT ME!!!! CRAZY PERSON! SMELLY!!! ILLOGIC, BEHOLD!!!!~» 05:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverted - it's the pure simplicity of it that makes it funny. -- (but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

(Tickling myself)Ha.................ha....................ha. Oh, children of this generation!!! O tempora o mores! -- herr doktor needsApistol [scream!] 09:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

From Pee Review

Well, it's just that I guess lol Randomator 21:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Humour:	1	I've seen funnier dots.
Concept:	10	Who can argue with a 1x1 article?
Prose and formatting:	10	Excellently punctuated.
Images:	1	Needs fewer pictures.
Miscellaneous:	5	Edit out the weaker sections.
Final Score:	27	,
Reviewer:	Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 22:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Otoh, if you place it in the Self-referenced page category, and then start a literary discussion on the talk page, perhaps you could equal or top Fisher_Price -- di Mario 20:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Title

What should we do about the title. Does it even count? --sp unit 262 03:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not too worried about the title, but if anyone knows if theres a way to get rid of it (like on Nihilism), please do get rid of the title. Randomator 17:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

This could get too far out of hand. The title is fine. Assuming "article" means "stuff you see in the box when you edit", it's all perfectly accurate. And we don't need another Nihilism. --

(but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Best. Pointless. Article. Ever.

I've seen my share of pointless semi-retarded articles on Uncyclopeda (Haven't we all?), but this is the funniest pointless page ever! Along with the talk page, I actually laughed out loud for several minutes!! -- Kip > Talk • Works • •

It's not pointless! Actually, the only thing the article has is a point! --Ye Olde Luke 10:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Beautifully terrible puns like this are what's so great about this article. --

(but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Can this article be protected?

It does get vandalised quite often, and theres no reason why it should be changed Randomator 19:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I already requested Olipro, but he had to be a chicken crap about it. Kip the Dip 06:27, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have gone to Olipro about protecting an article like this one. Try someone who likes this kind of thing instead. --

(but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, Olipro was the one that made the edit button "penis" Kip the Dip 07:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but I don't see any penises around here, do you? (/me realises I probably just insulted both Olipro and every guy who's posted on this talk page, and shuts up.) --

(but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 01:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A Retrospective

Yo! It's BOBOFTHEDEAD in all his radiant mightyness. I've just uploaded a retrospective about this. Please read it... It's the fruit of the labour of many weeks...Bobofthedead 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not bad, although nothing'll ever beat the retrospective for Fisher Price! --

(but) ~~Untrue~~ Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, cool, I'll chuck a link at the top of this talk page so people can see it.

Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Shit, someone beat me to it. Great minds think alike, eh SbU? Well, I ain't a great mind, so I guess that doesn't really apply here.

Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Very good, though nothing beats the Fisher Price Retrospective as SbU said--Sir Manforman

21:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

Please add [[es:Punto]]---Asteroid B612 (aka Rataube) - Ñ 23:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigger DOT

MAKE THE FULL STOP BIGGER

No. Screw you. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •

10:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that fit of rage. The thing is, there is nothing in the edit box but: . To make it bigger we would have to put: <big>.</big> and it would contain something other than a full stop. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •

10:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Forty-nine edits

Call me eccentric if you want, but I think one of the funniest and most telling things on this site is the fact that someone writes a full stop and it gets subjected to 49 edits. The article's history page deserves a VFH. SmackBot 07:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well you have to understand, a lot of effort was put in to get that full stop just right. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 07:49, 27 Oct 2007

But it's the same now as it was when it was first written, so what you mean is, a lot of effort went into getting it wrong, which is my point. SmackBot 07:54, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

It was a joke. -- Kip > Talk • Works • •

07:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, was it? Thanks for putting me in the picture. And please don't post disappearing edits on my watch pages; it's very confusing. SmackBot 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does seem that some people turned it into their personal "my friend is gay" space for a while. But I think the point here is, is probably has the lowest effort-to-content ratio on all of uncyclopedia. There must be some kind of award for that. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 08:00, 27 Oct 2007

I think you mean, it has the highest effort-to-content ratio, but yes, I agree, it deserves some attention for that. SmackBot 08:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles about articles?

Why is this in the articles about articles category? I see no reason for it to be there... Randomator 19:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Because all articles come to a full stop! *cricket, cricket* Okay, I have no clue. --YeOldeLuke 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoever added it probably meant to add it to the retrospective, or something. That or it's part of the vast lizard conspiracy. Somehow. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 05:49, 28 Nov 2007

Would it be a good idea?

As this article is a dead end, could we make the "." link to Pointless Paradox? Mr N Fork you! 20:47, Jan 13

No, because it would contain a link then, wouldn't it? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • formspring) 20:53 Jan 13, 2008

Oh wait. I get it now. Then it would contain a link, therefore being paradoxical in that it does not only contain a full stop, but on the screen there really is a full stop. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • formspring) 14:54 Oct 17, 2008

Erm...

Don't we add categories to the talk page? Why's that category stuck in there? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • formspring) 02:26 Jan 20, 2008

I dunno. The category is taking up characters in the article (shouldn't it only be one character?)--Æ 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, that's why all the categories are on the talk page. Regardless of if the category is hidden or not, the article itself still contains more than a full stop. One byte only, people! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • formspring) 02:29 Jan 20, 2008

*sigh* And here I was only trying to help... -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My Opinion on the Article

. -- The fatgoat Talk (to me, obviously) The Crap I've Done 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't even contain a full stop.

It does, however, contain a period. The only way for an article to contain a full stop is if the article has an intersection with cars making full stops in it. --Crazyswordsma n...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Shot your fuck up Pasta of Muppets 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, he's just crazy...oh, and that message was from 3 months ago. :P -

Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate

02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Bitches don't know about my different words for the same thing. 58.105.177.187 03:16, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

No sources or references

I strongly suggest adding a hint that the article doesn't cite any sources. I can't see how someone can claim ., but not back it up with anything. This is a nuisance and should be alleviated as soon as someone freaking makes it up before 2PM because otherwise it's going to be TOO LATE.

... —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 15:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

art

It's art!

An interwiki

ru:Точка_(знак_препинания). That did not took much time :-) Also, please add the interwiki. Praetorian 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question

I do not know what is so funny about this. --173.70.31.99 12:08, July 1, 2012 (UTC)

Talk:An article that contains nothing but a full stop

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Contents