Uncyclopedia:Red links are not bad

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(thanks for the input but i like it fine the way it is)
m
 
Line 7: Line 7:
 
*[[User:The_Woodburninator/RedLinks|A similar template]]
 
*[[User:The_Woodburninator/RedLinks|A similar template]]
 
*[[James Earl Ray|A red link]]
 
*[[James Earl Ray|A red link]]
 
 
{{stub}}
 

Latest revision as of 08:06, June 29, 2011

This is an essay. It is not an ignorable policy on Uncyclopedia, so you should ignore it even more and disregard the mad ramblings of its writer. Or you could submit it as an Uncycloversity assignment in lieu of actually doing any work.


Seriously, they're not. We need red links because we need more articles, important ones like Robert Kennedy or Glasnost. Even the stupidest, most outlandish red links can inspire an author, just read Codeine is a fat cunt for an example of this. Even though it is terrible (and it is), it was inspired by a red link, like hundreds of other (poor) quality articles around these parts.

Red links aren't ugly, they're useful. Disregarding their use, they still aren't ugly! They're pretty like the red rose, or a swath of blood, or the star Betelgeuse. Aaaaahhhhh. Red links. Beauty.

edit See Also

Personal tools
projects