Template talk:Recentnews

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit RSS feed?

I wish there was an rss/xml feed for the Recentnews and the DYK sections. Family Guy Guy 02:00, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to thank whoever wrote the news item about the Aboriginals: it is a very timely reminder and I was just thinking the same thing myself. If you are a non-Australia, please don't just delete the item, as it's very important. Thanks --Joachim22 01:24, 16 Dec 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me or is the fact that our parodies of real world events are updated faster and more frequently that wikipedia mildly amusing, if I was looking for up to date news I would probably find it here first.--Elvis 08:45, 18 May 2005 (EDT)

You have it wrong, Elvis. The fact is that it is the real world events that are trying to keep up with our parodies. This is a fact of nature: reality conforms to our experience of it (read the Holographic Universe and you'll see). Belief is everything. The more people that come to Uncyclopedia the stronger we will become. Soon we will make a parody of somehing that hasn't even happend then it will. We will have the power to make anything happen: stop world hunger; bring peace to all corners of the world; do great things for mankind. Or not, because mankind sucks.

edit Chuck Norris

Yea... there needs to be a 1 - 2 week ban on Recent News involving Chuck Norris. It seems to me that people are relying on it a little bit too much. Plus, it's getting kinda of annoying seeing a blue Chuck Norris everytime i open the main page. Anyway... Just a thought I guess. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 01:54, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • This is my fault. I wanted to know who would win in a fight between Norris and MacGyver. Then I wanted to know who would win between Norris and Mr. T. Or Ditka. Or Dog the Bounty Hunter. Or Homestar Runner. Or Jimmy Kimmel. I'm sad. Jlove1982 05:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • And it should be a 3 year ban if anyone dares post an old, old, old Vin Diesel fact with the name changed. Which is about 75% of all the Norris facts I see. Jackasses. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

edit Blurbs

There seems to be some confusion about what constitutes a blurb and what doesn't, so I made this image for comparison:


The left column is the Wikipedia news blurbs section as of September 7th, 2005; the right is a portion of Uncyclopedia's news blurbs section as of the same day. Let's have a look at what makes the stuff in the former blurbs. The first blurb reads "Egypt votes in its first ever multi-party presidential elections, with President Hosni Mubarak expected to win a fifth six-year term." There is no "fluff" or "filler" in this sentence, every single word serves a purpose to the reader. It doesn't tell us what substance was found in Mubarak's eyes or what was erroneously reported about this event or what happened in 1976 that has nothing to do with the election, because none of that shit matters.

Now, the first blurb from the right column. "Upon touring the Houston Astrodome earlier today, a glycerine-eyed Oprah told the audience to check under their seats for her traditional surprise package which included a season's pass to the Superdome and a CD good for 365 hours of free AOL. Earlier reports erroneously stated she then ate everyone when in fact she only picked off those that did not fall to their knees in worship of her unholy vileness." This has more fluff than a cotton candy machine.

What should definitely be removed from this report? First on the chopping block is "Upon touring". This isn't a novel, and stretching "in" to something longer isn't clever. Next up is "earlier today". This is a serious website, not a fake TV report; the phrase will still be here tomorrow (unless I delete it for sucking too much). "A glycerine-eyed" is gone, why does it matter what's in her eyes? Since I'm such a fucking dumbass that I don't understand that glycerin tears means fake tears, my stupid ass declares it Worthless. "Oprah told the audience to check under their seats for (stuff)" is poor wording. The event that matters is Oprah doing what she did, not saying what she did. "Oprah put (stuff) under the audience's seats" replaces what's there. No wait, let's disect the several transitions which lead to someone saying "Her traditional" and say it fails, in much the same way as most Uncyclopedia entries do after 5 edits, as she's only done this sort of thing once, there's no tradition about it. "Earlier reports erroneously stated yadda yadda when in fact" is smited with a vengeance. This isn't UnNews, and there isn't enough right column space in the simple sidebar for things that didn't happen because the left column is crammed with advertersorial bullshit so we have no choice but to replace the sentence with an inane "She than ate everyone who didn't worship her"; there's no need to point out how the worship worked because it doesn't matter; and Oprah being evil is implied by the fact that she eats hurricane victims, it's too obvious to need print.

What we have left is "In Houston Astrodome, Oprah surprise CD 365 hours free AOL. Ate everyone didn't worship." This is a genuine blurb that isn't fluffed up with worthless crap and certainly isn't funny but for God's sake, since when has the Uncyclopedia news column ever been funny?

If you're writing news for Uncyclopedia, please either remove all filler before submitting it here, or submit it to UnNews instead of here. UnNews is dedicated to news, so there's plenty of room to go nuts with details without stretching the main page several times as long as it should be. --EvilZak 02:23, 8 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Note: User: made some uncredited additions to the above paragraphs. --Algorithm (talk) 04:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

edit Tim McGraw

I don't get it. Someone explain the joke.

Nevermind, it was explained to me. I suppose that if it wasn't for my drug induced stupor I might have gotten it sooner.

edit Keep the Harry Potter Spoiler

It's funny. A real encyclopedia wouldn't do it. Uncyclopedia would.

I don't think it is. When I first saw it, my instinct was "teenage vandalism". But hey, that's just my opinion. Up to the Admins, I guess. - Codeine 10:27, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Read the boilerplate: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies." Truths, no matter how shocking, have no place here--unless, of course, they're funny, which this certainly is not. As it stands, I view this as no better than trolling or vandalism. --Algorithm 09:32, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Who says it's true? Would an obviously untrue "spoiler" be accepted?

If it's obvious, yes. --Algorithm 09:38, 16 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but if it could be true it wouldn't be accepted, because Uncyclopedia must cater for the needs of 13-year-old Harry Potter fans. Understood.
It's acceptable if it's funny. See the Did You Know section for a good example. --Algorithm 18:50, 17 Jul 2005 (UTC)

edit Headlines in CAPS

It seems like there's a recent trend to have all the headlines in CAPITALS, which I personally think is unecessary. Aside from the fact that capitals seem very SHOUTY and attention seeking, distracting focus from the rest of the main page, the fact is that it does not mirror the style of Wikipedia, which has all its current events in lower case like a good little encyclopedia.

Any thoughts? Nicegravy 14:53, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Well, Uncyclopedia is all about useing underhanded methods to get peoples attention. --Nytrospawn 14:59, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Copy Wikipedia, You know it makes sense --Elvis 21:03, 31 Jul 2005 (UTC) (now obsessed with turning everything into a vote)

edit Length of news articles

Despite the "Short blurbs ONLY" informing people who edit this page not to write entire fucking paragraphs, I still frequently find (and delete) entire fucking paragraphs. This template is based on Wikipedia's news template, and Wikipedia's news blurbs are one or two sentences long, with very few exceptions. I propose that any news story posted to this template with three or more sentences be either shortened, moved to Current events, or outright deleted. Any objections? --EvilZak 04:22, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Not from me. We should also probably permanently ban people who can't follow the instructions, which are completely clear and not at all hard to understand. --Rcmurphy CUN 04:43, 4 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Oh, yes! It's so important for everyone on uncyclopedia to follow the rules to the letter, even at the expense of comedy! If we don't all follow the rules, we make certain refugees of wikipedia unhappy because their sphincters constrict, cutting off all air to their brains. We can't have that. Also, it's much more important to be snarky and delete offending material, when the simple insertion of a semi-colon would suffice to bring the offending material into compliance with the all important rules. --Marcos_Malo S7fc BOotS | Talk 13:17, 17 Aug 2005 (UTC)

  • Let's use sarcasm at the expense of comedy too! SpitValve 23:54, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think the limitations make the challenge greater and more rewarding. Take the challenge presented. Do the best you can, think outside the box, give it your best shot, insert cliche here. By working outside your safe zone you are open to create something new.

edit Eschew Obfuscation

I don't think repeating "purge the old stuff" a thousand times will change anyone's mind. It's also not very specific. What, exactly, is old stuff? How do we know when it's old? I'm assuming whoever keeps adding that means you should delete the entry at the end when you add a new one, but of course everyone knows that when you assume you make an asshole out of Ewan McGregor. Also, judging from some of the submissions, I bet some of the people who write stuff here don't know exactly what "purge" means. I think it would be a lot more productive if the message were repeated, say, thrice, followed by a clarification of what is meant. θθ Mandaliet 13:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the ascii brings the point home now, as it's now repeated enough times that you MUST scroll down, and it's impossible to not read the message. Before, people would just skip right down to where the news was and not read the rules. Now you get bombared with the message so many times you can't miss it. And an ascii really gets people's attention. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 18:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, someone replied. Thanks for the reply, but the point I'm trying to make is that no matter how obviously it says "purge the old stuff" it doesn't really explain what that means. δδ Mandaliet 12:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Perhaps a dictionary definition of the word purge? (Repeated ad nauseum) Although I'm pretty sure most people have that word in their vocabulary. And I clarified things to show that the table needs to be even at the bottom, with DYK/C and Anniversaries. Perhaps a screenshot might be useful too, since it's really annoying on days when there's a decent amount of anniversaries. We wind up purging too much! THE IRONY! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
But please, don't shorten the notes. Sadly, they're needed at that length. Some editors are just that thick skulled that we need to be this redundant.
Please don't think I'm disagreeing just because it's you, but I do find the repetition quite a bit over the top. Not all of it, mind you. Just the bits like "* Don't shorten the note about deleting the old stuff, since people really aren't getting the point. Hell, lengthen it if nobody listens still.", "* One minor note - If the bottom of the two tables on the main page shows the left side as being bigger than the right side, don't purge just yet. The bottom of the two need to be about even. However, the rotating DYK template can make it awfully tough to tell, since some entries are larger than others." and "*There's no need to purge on days when the anniversaries list is really, really long. Such as Valentine's Day and other holidays, they usually have long anniversaries." which are repeated way too many times. Then there's the sadistical "*DO NOT SHORTEN THE NOTES ABOUT PURGING." which just makes it 10 times worse. I know a lot of people don't seem to get it, but the excessive number of warning won't change that. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CM|+S 19:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea: Let's all agree on a set number (or range of numbers, like "4 to 7") of blurbs, plus a rule like "When you edit, (1) delete the blurb at the end of the list and (2) add a new one at the top. It's the number thing which is throwing things off for people — what's too many blurbs? What's too few? --Lenoxus 20:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's just the thing... It depends on how many anniversaries there are on that day... But I do agree there should be a set number of blurbs... If only those damn sysops weren't so obsessed with perfection and cared more about user-friendliness.... --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CM|+S 20:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmmmm... He probably never noticed there's a discussion going on about it. --⇔ Sir Mon€¥$ignSTFU F@H|CM|+S 06:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

edit Should we make News Archives!???????????!

--Mrasdfghjkl 05:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

http://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Template:Recentnews&action=history --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
In other words, no. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why do we make archives at all then smrtass?--Mrasdfghjkl 05:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Honestly, so many people edit without purging. I'm afraid the lengthened explanation truly is needed, and a lot of the notes about it are funny, too. Whoever shortens it, please stop. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

36 KB is a lot to load, especially since the whole thing is loaded whenever someone visits the main page. Some people have dialup. I have dialup. Also, you're not going to convince me that if someone ignores (or doesn't understand) when "PURGE THE OLD STUFF" is spelled out in gigantic letters once, they're going to suddenly get it if you repeat it over and over and also over.—Sir Mandaliet CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 03:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Mandy, it's unnecessary and inconvenient. I'm cutting it back. --—rc (t) 03:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, he already got it. --—rc (t) 03:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
It isn't included, the noinclude prevents that. However it should not be over 32k. --Splaka 04:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh. Someone told me it was. I guess they were just leading me astray.—Sir Mandaliet CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just had to do some purging again given how short the anniversaries are, proving that the people who add more to the template don't get the point without the ad nauseum. Also, I think we ought to add a rule or some sort of note suggesting that people edit the anniversaries instead, since longer anniversaries = less need to purge. Or perhaps we showed a paragraph or two more of the Featured Article or something. The left-side of the table truly is abandoned, and the main page looks so lopsided. And then there's the rotating DYK, which usually shows a mere one entry, but occasionally fucks up the table with Spartacus (and by the way, whoever removed the indents kinda makes some of the "conversation" not make sense). Obviously the extremely short note about purging doesn't work as well as the 500-pound Obvious StickTM. And the 32kb thing only has problems on REALLY, REALLY, REALLY old browsers. Even on my old Windows 95 with an outdated IE I had no trouble editing You Have Two Cows. So if we can't have the Obvious StickTM, what should we do instead? --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

edit Man, remember when we had to purge stuff?

LM fucking AO. The current visible content consists of {{RecentUnNews}}, as it well should, which makes the old repeated notes about PURGING THE GODDAMNED OLD STUFF absolute comedy gold beyond the way they originally were. — Lenoxus 01:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

edit Confusing Template

This needs an overhaul. It's very confusing and doesn't show you how to add to the front page UnNews list.--LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:22, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools