Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive17

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Village Dump(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Mass move request)
m (Mass move request)
Line 23: Line 23:
:I'd hesitate to consider a front-page theme a "namespace" as it's only one page; [[fr:]], [[de:]] and [[pl:]] are not quite deprecated in the main Uncyclopedia by the creation of separate projects for these languages; Undictionary: still needs to drop to its final size (26 pages); most new pseudo-namespace entries are likely to be in Wilde:, UnNews: or HowTo: (at least if one were to ignore Zork/the game) --[[User:Carlb|Carlb]] 22:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
:I'd hesitate to consider a front-page theme a "namespace" as it's only one page; [[fr:]], [[de:]] and [[pl:]] are not quite deprecated in the main Uncyclopedia by the creation of separate projects for these languages; Undictionary: still needs to drop to its final size (26 pages); most new pseudo-namespace entries are likely to be in Wilde:, UnNews: or HowTo: (at least if one were to ignore Zork/the game) --[[User:Carlb|Carlb]] 22:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
::They are all fake "namespaces" (if they are used for one page, 26, or 500) in that their talk pages are not "Namespace_talk:" but "Talk:Namespace:". If the original point of the moves GS wants is to eliminate such formats ("<code>The reason behind this insanity is that the talk pages for UnNews: namespace are completely botched due to UnNews not being a real namespace.</code>") then removing Unnews: prefixes will not help any of the others. Hence, it shouldn't be done. --{{User:Splaka/sig}} 22:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
==More words needed for [[Mad Libs]]==
==More words needed for [[Mad Libs]]==

Revision as of 22:49, October 30, 2005


Mass move request

Can someone with the power to do so move every UnNews: article to just the article name? So if the title is "UnNews:Something happens," it would get move to "Something happens". The reason behind this insanity is that the talk pages for UnNews: namespace are completely botched due to UnNews not being a real namespace. Much appreciated. General Specific 13:23, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The talk pages may have a messed up location (Ie, being talk:unnews:article rather then unnews talk:article) but they still work, do they not? Is there anything besides this cosmetic problem? If there isnt, it makes sense to keep them with the unnews in front of them, as they are not to be confused with a normal article, the writing style is different and the goal is different. Rangeley 17:05, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure I see the point of moving the pages. It's probably for the best just to leave them as "UnNews:News" instead of "News" or "News (UnNews)" (as you asked on my talk page). Less trouble all around. --—rc (t) 17:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'd be fine with it but it screws up and ends up doing "Talk:UnNews:News" for discussion pages and the page ends up not in the Talk: namespace. Aside from that, it's getting really annoying creating a million different workarounds for linking to "UnNews:" articles by actual name. General Specific 17:40, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
[[UnNews:Hurricane Beta released|]] (with a pipe character before the ]]) should link Hurricane Beta released. Talk:UnNews:... seems to only contain nine unique pages at the moment. --Carlb 18:12, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure you can't do this? I don't see a problem with doing the move except a little excess work that I'd be glad to clean up. Proper namespacing would help out tremendously with DynamicPageLists once Wikicities upgrades to 1.5. General Specific 18:17, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if it would help. Proper namespacing would be to use the custom namespace support described in m:Help:Namespace#Custom_namespaces and m:Help:Custom_namespaces. This would need to be done for us by Wikicities; it's not something to which our admins have access. Otherwise, I don't see how renaming UnNews:Title to just plain Title gets us any closer to being able to use these with DynamicPageList - the article would still be in the main namespace either way? --Carlb 18:30, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
DynamicPageList displays the full title of each article. So it would always list "UnNews:Article name" where it should be just "Article name" (even though the actual page is Article name. If you put it in the main namespace it gets rid of a lot of unneccessary complexity. General Specific 18:46, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
m:DynamicPageList and m:DynamicPageList2 support a parameter shownamespace=false which would do this (at least for a real namespace); problem is DynamicPageList itself requires MediaWiki 1.5 so is of no use to us yet. The main Wikipedia's on version 1.6, we're not. Issue was raised on Uncyclopedia:Report_a_problem#Dynamic_Page_List's_and_Inputbox_extensions in August with no response. --Carlb 19:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Just an observation, we have a lot of fake "namespaces". Wilde:, HowTo:, Undictionary: (reduced but still around), all the front page themed replacements, as well as all the language codes. The talkpages for all are in the same boat, but we survive. Fixing Unnews: would not even put a dent in the (insignificant) talk page problem. Making them real namespaces would be possible but probably not worth it. I vote Don't move --Splaka 22:11, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'd hesitate to consider a front-page theme a "namespace" as it's only one page;, and are not quite deprecated in the main Uncyclopedia by the creation of separate projects for these languages; Undictionary: still needs to drop to its final size (26 pages); most new pseudo-namespace entries are likely to be in Wilde:, UnNews: or HowTo: (at least if one were to ignore Zork/the game) --Carlb 22:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
They are all fake "namespaces" (if they are used for one page, 26, or 500) in that their talk pages are not "Namespace_talk:" but "Talk:Namespace:". If the original point of the moves GS wants is to eliminate such formats ("The reason behind this insanity is that the talk pages for UnNews: namespace are completely botched due to UnNews not being a real namespace.") then removing Unnews: prefixes will not help any of the others. Hence, it shouldn't be done. --Splaka 22:49, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

More words needed for Mad Libs

That is all. --Algorithm 02:33, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Morse code

Check it out, I morse coded the WHOLE thing :) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 23:11, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

DynamicPageList extension

Can someone please install the DynamicPageList2 extension? We need it for UnNews. General Specific 20:55, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You would probably have to talk to Angela or JasonR about this because none of the Uncyclopedians have access to that server stuff. Try IRC or the centeral WikiCities wiki. --Paulgb Talk 00:14, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This would also require upgrade to MediaWiki 1.5 or later; wikicities:Talk:Technical_support#When's_1.5_coming? was saying "at least a couple of weeks" back in mid-July but nothing's been done. You could try raising this issue again there or on Wikicities:Talk:Community_portal? --Carlb 19:45, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Videogame wars

Does anyone else think this is getting just a little out of hand? I suggest that we only do videogame war pages for really obscure wars, as that might actually be funny. General Specific 15:10, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As long as they're funny and don't get old, they're fine. --Savethemooses 15:17, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Most of them seem pretty funny and somewhat historically relevant. It's nice to hear all that stuff from history class in a way that's actually entertaining. --Spintherism 20:50, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
D00dz, ph33r th3 733t h@c]<0r$ @nd th3r m@d w@rz! I mean I think all wars should be fought over IRC channels using elite speak. Less people die that way. :) --Loke 22:43, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Those wacky Québécois! We need to spork more articles and steal more ideas from Désencyclopedie. I haven't gone near French since learning it in school twenty years ago, but I know enough to steal their good jokes. I suggest others do the same - David Gerard 13:09, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just so long as they aren't plays on words - those usually don't translate well... --Carlb 18:15, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia Imperial Colonisation

Wikipedia has a collaboration system where groups come together and work on articles together for a certain amount of days, to get it into shape. I and a few others have thought of implementing it here, where we can have a certain article each week for different catagories, such as Geography, History, etc. This would also be helpful to get people started, and in the end would create better quality articles. What does everyone think? Rangeley 05:05, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this proposal. --KP CUN 06:53, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

This already happens on an ad-hoc basis although it seems to be a collection of articles rather than one, noted examples are KP's MLB series and User:Marcos Malos Disney articles. That being said it wouldn't hurt putting this on a formal basis if thats what you want to do.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 08:17, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

To get things started, I made the Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization page, along with two projects. Rangeley 15:14, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

We should have the various colonizations rotated at random on the main page, much like the feature image. Rangeley, you may want to change the dates when the collaborations begin. Give a week for nominations and votes, start the collaborations next week. --KP CUN 16:54, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, I was looking to get things started so that there would be things to work on for this week, but if it makes morse sense to wait I guess we can. Rangeley 18:45, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Isn't this what Uncyclopedia:Pee Review is for?--Jordanus 20:55, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The colonization is a little bit more directed. While Uncyclopedia:Pee Review provides support for individual efforts, the colonization is a larger collaborative effort to fill out large areas of Uncyclopedia with content. --KP CUN 22:57, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I have added another week for the biography nominations. As for the others, they can be used as a 'test run' to see how colonizations will work out. So Afghanistan, Air Conditioning, Great Chicago Fire, and Lithium are this weeks chosen articles for colonization. Let the edits commence. Rangeley 07:00, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I demand Ballmer be brought back.

Just because it was overused doesn't mean it deserves deletion. I honestly thought it was funny. It may not have been very good on some articles, but there were a ton of really hilarious ones. --Nintendorulez 16:01, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Ballmer is still here it's just that he has transcended template form. If there are one or two articles that would be especially Ballmerable, the quote can be always entered manually. --Spintherism 21:56, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
And while we're at it, let's put more COWBELL in the articles so that our COW-ORKERS can get a laugh because GEORGE BUSH DOESN'T CARE ABOUT STEVE BALLMER. And I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR NEW BALLMER OVERLORDS since THEY BURNING YOUR DOG. Get the pattern here? Let's kill all humor by overusing it. --—rc (t) 22:36, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yeah. Dude, nothing's stopping you from just manually adding the code. The template was removed so that total retards are unable to put the Ballmer quote on every page everywhere. Smart people who know how to actually copy the code can still put it anywhere. Of course, it won't stay long with Flammable on the loose ... --Nerd42 01:05, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Ya know, that paragraph reads like the seed of an article - David Gerard 09:58, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's not funny canned. I hope there's some thought put into it before adding a quote.--Sophia 20:53, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Insert Header Here, dude, Nope

I would suggest that the page on Time Cube be copied straight from Wikipedia [1] because it is a lot funnier than what is up now.--AsslessChaps McButtviolation

Plagiarism isn't funny. Sporking, however, is.--Sir Flammable KUN 14:22, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sporking is not funny. Original writing, however, is. --Paulgb Talk 01:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's like trying to make parodies of Xenu or Space opera in Scientology. it's REALLY HARD to outdo the original ... - David Gerard 20:32, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Or Mormonism. --Spintherism 21:53, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Mormonism? Just drop the second 'm'. And then there's the Agnostic branch of the Jehovah's Witnesses... they knock on doors but aren't quite sure why. As for a Time Cube? Does anyone have a square alarm clock handy? --Carlb 16:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Uncyclopedia drinking game

  • I started this article, but considering what it is I thought the community in general should contribute to it. I think it would be a funny way of listing a lot of in-jokes on Uncyclopedia. --neoEva88 19:38, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Uh-oh. Looks like we're about to see a rise in EWI (editing while intoxicated). --Savethemooses 23:10, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wilde: namespace

From the Uncyclopedia drinking game: "Start chugging when the page has Oscar and/or Wilde in the title."

Egads! If the Wilde: quotes are still using a variant of the old (and now deprecated, or maybe desecrated) Undictionary: structure, this would be a one-way ticket to the local detox. Unlike the old template:Wilde (which left the quote in the original main article's body text), template:OWQ makes every quotation a separate substub of an article with Wilde: in the title. The Uncyclopedia runneth over with those li'l one-line quotes. Mind you, a robot to pull the template:Wilde text out of articles and generate Wilde:A-Z would have to download every bloody article with that template in place, but a drink for every Wilde: quote in main article space? Time to buy stock in the local brewery! --Carlb 18:13, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think the Wilde: namespace (or rather, separate pages for each quote) is required to make the embedding using the OWL template work right. There should be standardization done, way too many wilde templates and thingles. Maybe putting the quotes in "Article_Name/Wilde" or such, with a template to show it on the page, and a template to show it in Wilde:A-Z. --Splaka 03:23, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Community Portal overhaul

IMHO, Uncyclopedia:Community_Portal should be featured more prominently (IE, on the front page). It can be a really useful resource when trying to find a general page (such as QVFD). General Specific 02:00, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It is in the navigation box, below the logo, on every page (In the monobook skin anyways). --Splaka 02:08, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Wow. Never noticed that, I'd always typed it in. General Specific 02:58, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
+1 awesome. --Chronarion 06:42, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
THE WINNER IS YOU! --Savethemooses 23:29, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
User:Insertwackynamehere/Admin/Useful_links is cooler :P heh if you're an admin at least :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Vandalpedia now open

Tear it up

Could we get an explanation? --Paulgb Talk 23:25, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
What the fuck, indeed.--Nytrospawn 23:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorely tempted to systematically disobey all the rules on the main page. --Spintherism 03:19, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So uh, this is unofficial, but it's apparently a weird userspace on sportslog. I can't imagine this is a brilliant idea, but it's not mine..--Chronarion 06:33, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Cursed Uncyclopedia Article

I'm not doing vandalism here, and I'm not much of a Halloween fan ... but this does seem like a pretty good Halloween joke to me ... Don't read the article, it's cursed, and you might be banned from Uncyclopedia for reading it. In fact, I might be banned from Uncyclopedia for writing it ... but anyway, read Uncyclopedia:Curse and help me make this as scary as possible! (short of actually reading it) And don't delete it please I think somebody's going to come up with something clever to make it really scary for sure! :) Please don't link directly to the page, but to Uncyclopedia:Curse instead please. --Nerd42 17:39, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't like it. It's nowhere near amusing, and it reminds me of chain letters, which I hate.--Sir Flammable KUN 18:30, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not very funny, but I stop short of disliking because I would like to promote the idea of an Uncyclopedia Halloween article. IMO, it would only be worth it if it's front-page worthy by Halloween though, which doesn't look very likely. --neoEva88 19:33, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Heres what I would do: Get rid of the article itself, to make it more mysterious. Make the article about the cursed article, but the cursed article doesn't exist. For example, move some of the stuff from the talk page over. You could take a screenshot of the article as it is now, and include it inline with the article. I think it would be more funny that way and it would fit better into uncyclopedia. Personally I like the idea, but the article itself doesn't look cursed to me. (Not that I have seen it. Stay away from my user page with that template) --Paulgb Talk 21:51, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You can be uncursed. Follow the clues. -- Anonymous
Flammable you don't get it at all - it's supposed to remind you of chain letters because it's making fun of chain letters. And of the idiots who read them and send them on! That's the point! Duh! omg you're stupider than ... then ... than me! And that's a good idea paulgb ... except don't delete the page ... that would stop anything more from being added to the legend ... --Nerd42 22:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
and another thing, you can't be uncursed. It's perminant! --Nerd42 22:46, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
yes, and make sure you don't get the Double Whammy ... its part of the original curse --Nerd42 23:02, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
i'm not cursed --Paulgb Talk 23:40, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I see myself as been blessed, for even in great misfortune good may come, as new growth follows a forest fire -- Mhaille 01:02, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I really think if the actual page was gone, then nobody would be getting cursed, thus the danger's gone, thus the mystery's gone, don't you think? --Nerd42 02:55, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uh... I hate to say it, but the humor is sort of lost without a cuebat and the cursed article being that... "Oh my god, you're cursed" is... rather boring over the internet. --Chronarion 06:06, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What the heck is a cuebat? Google has no definitions for it. Hey wait, I know I'll link it. Cuebat.--Nerd42 13:25, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Those stupid Cuebats. Lost us the World Series. Some background: the Houston Astros invented a really cool way to blow off steam after tough games, by combining Pool (I almost typed "poop", hehe) and Baseball into "BasePool". It's really pretty much the same as regular Pool, except with a baseball instead of a cueball, and a modified baseball bat instead of a cuestick. You see, the cork inside the bat was causing the cuebaseball to shoot off the table, so they used "regulation" (wink wink) bats for their BasePool games. Well, after Katrina and Rita hit, all their regular ballboys were in shelters, so the team hired some beachcombers who got evacuated from Galveston, and sure enough, the Bozos got the bats mixed up. The Astros took the field with uncorked bats, and the result was a Houston disaster the likes of which hadn't been seen since Hurricane Enron.
So that's the story of the Cuebat. Hope it helps clear things up. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 17:25, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like an Ayn Rand story --Nytrospawn 18:31, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Somehow I feel further away from understanding the point you were making than before I read the story of the cuebat... --Nerd42 18:19, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The FATE OF UNDICTIONARY will be decided NOW. (Black Wednesday)

Judging from this conversation, there are a good number of people who are unhappy with Undictionary. Therefore I propose this plan to cut down Undictionary to only the alphabet pages, which will both reduce the ridiculous number of (mostly lame, in my opinion) individual-paged Undic entries and make the Undictionary easier to handle in the future.

  1. Copy the contents of the existing Undic entry - we will call it Undictionary:Title - to its corresponding alphabet page (Undictionary:T in this case), replacing the {{def|Title}} template that the alphabet pages currently use.
  2. Delete pages that redirect to Undictionary:Title, except for (if it exists) the redirect from [[Title]], which would be changed to redirect to Undictionary:T#Title.
  3. Delete direct links to Undictionary:Title, OR simply change them to point to [[Title]].
  4. Delete Undictionary:Title itself.
  5. Optional: delete entries on the alphabet pages that aren't dictionary-ish. (But we can decide on this later.)

It will be hard and it will not be fun. But I, for one, am willing to start this process in order to reduce Undic to a reasonable, possibly even humorous section of the site.

Who's with me?

FOR! --—rc (t) 05:44, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Foooooooor in anime-style obliviousness.--Sir Flammable KUN 06:00, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For. Also, can we fix the Template:Undictionary to point to the correct place, and insert it into a few pre-existing Title pages that match? --Splaka 06:07, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

{{Undictionary}} is currently only used twice and I've changed both instances to the new version: {{Undictionary|A}} through {{Undictionary|Z}} depending which of the 26 pages is to be pointed to. --Carlb 19:25, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not an admin, so I can't really help out, apart from posting endless lists of annoying/unfunny undictionary articles to QVFD, but I agree. From what I've seen of undictionary, it just seems to be any short article, without taking the relative merits of said articles into consideration. At least there isn't any 1337 ones that don't have a reason for being that way... --Malleus 11:45, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Actualy the only thing you can't do that admins can is 2. and 4. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 12:07, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For. you do realise you can use subst: to make creating the indivudal pages a lot easier. --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 12:07, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Not convinced - my vote's up for grabs (for what it's worth) Problem: but then every time some n00b writes a clever (but not funny) shortie it'll have to be deleted, not moved. Mere mortals cannot do this ... that takes admin privilages. So this basically looks like it's gonna be more work for admins ... forever am I correct? --Nerd42 12:47, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
No, the opposite is true. Mere mortals have never done any significant MTU work and never will. Deleting is much easier. --Spintherism 14:24, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
well ... they've tagged articles to be moved ... but yeah I C your point ... no wait a second ... are you saying that "all new pages that are too short for uncyclopedia will be deleted instead of moved to unDictionary and existing ones will be merged into 26 pages?" --Nerd42 14:48, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The content of new short pages can still be moved to Undictionary and the parent page deleted (or left with a redirect, per #2). This will actually make it easier for people to create new entries for Undictionary (once they're aware of the change), as well as easier for admins to maintain the Undic entries. No messy movages and an overall less cluttered site. It's a Good Thing. --—rc (t) 15:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
OK I vote 4 it sounds good ;) --Nerd42 16:42, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For To many random hits go to undic, and too much crap is moved to undic instead of deleted. --Sarducci 17:16, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

As a slight aside, I think undictionary should be for word definitions, not one/two sentence articles. Things that aren't definitions should be deleted as the Undictionary is collated.--Sarducci 18:28, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Other people have said the same thing. I'm neutral on the issue - as long as Undictionary is confined to just a few pages, I'm happy. It looks like Carlb has already copied the contents of the Undic pages to their respective alphabet pages, so if you want to start a vote about whether to keep non-dictionaryish entries, go ahead. I'll get started on the rest of the maintenance later today if I have time. --—rc (t) 18:37, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For x4 This issue is in the forefront. --Savethemooses 17:47, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comment For (2) and (4) above, looks like the redirect at [[Title]] will need to be clobbered/overwritten with [[Undictionary:Title]], which will then be edited to #REDIRECT [[Undictionary:T#Title]]. Effectively, undo the move that was made when these were originally MTU'ed and then redirect 'em to one of the 26 Undictionary:A-Z pages. That way, edit history is preserved for what little it's worth. I shall have to see if I have a way of automating this as there are likely six hundred or so of the bloody things, all useless... --Carlb 19:25, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Foreign No habla Englais General Specific 19:26, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For It's about time we took down the anti-quality-control barrier that surronds the Undic. --Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 19:28, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Killer robots have been dispatched to redirect Undictionary: entries with extreme prejudice. Achtung! --Carlb 20:17, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ack, I don't think we ever need Undictionary:Title redirects. They shouldn't need to exist. What I meant above was: For an undictionary entry Undictionary:Title, move the contents to Undictionary:T#Title and delete Undictionary:Title, and then one of the two cases happen:
1. If Title (the top namespace version of former Undictionary:Title) exists, put in an {{Undictionary|T}} template.
2. If Title doesn't exist or is a redirect to Undictionary:Title, change that redirect to Undictionary:T#Title.
This prevents double redirects, and allows people to linkify any word in the undictionary and not get a red link. Also, later, people can expand Title to a full article and also add the template. With this system, the Undictionary:Title redirects and entries need never exist again. I think? It seems simpler anyways! --Splaka 20:41, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I shall be moving the [[Undictionary:Title]] entries back to just plain [[Title]] once the redirects are done. That process needs to be complete before I can huff the double-redirects. --Carlb 21:29, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Ok, gotcha. Sorry to interrupt ^_^ --Splaka 21:38, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For. Rangeley 20:53, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I vote for whatever option involves the most deletion. --Spintherism 23:03, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Very well then, grab some marshmallows, sit back and watch 'em burn... --Carlb 05:31, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I say 8, because I'm 4 it twice over. After my abortive attempt to slog through the MTU pages (just 700? yeah, I'll do it over lunch. help! drowning! AAAAAAAAA!), I'm all for massive huffage. "All new pages that are too short for uncyclopedia will be deleted" sounds harsh, but that's the way I like my coffee*. * Disclaimer: I don't drink coffee. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 15:53, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think perhaps some people have a different purpose in mind than others. Some simply want Uncyclopedia to be a place to have fun reading/writing funny articles, and some people seem to think that Uncyclopedia is supposed to be funny as the primary objective, whether people are having fun or not. Though my two (count 'em two) undictionary contributions will no doubt be the first to go (and I don't care because they're stupid anyway) I really think this site is beginning to reach a crossroads ... and it's not as fun anymore ... you know? The whole point of being funny is, or ought to be so people have fun. --Nerd42 16:11, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is supposed to be funny. It is both possible and plausible to have fun and write articles at the same time. This does not necessarily mean you can pound out articles like crazy. See ipod nano 200gb for example. I write an article like what, once every three months? Gist of it is, if you can't be funny, I really am not forcing you to stay around and write stuff. The sad reality is that it's less fun to read if half the pages are complete shit. Honestly, it's supposed to be more fun to READ than to WRITE, unless you are rather good, or rather masochistic.--Chronarion 17:51, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, there's something to be said for having fun writing. Fortunately, for those for whom the joy of writing doesn't quite match the joy of reading, there are several support groups online. Meanwhile, I suspect there's a Wikipedia Village Pump archive out there somewhere, in which somebody says "it's not as fun anymore..." -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 19:02, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Fun doesnt mean writing short, badly written things. And reading these short, badly written things generally isnt fun either. Writing good articles, and reading good articles is what makes this place great, and unique. This is hardly a crossroads, to delete bad articles or entries is keeping up with the tradition, and something that happens every day. And something that should be continued.Rangeley 19:11, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The thing some writers here fail to realize is that most websites have something like 10,000 reads to every write. I'm not kidding. Even wiki pages are generally read more than they're updated. Therefore, fun in writing is not our target, fun in reading, which most people do, is our target. If it isn't funny to read, it should be burned with great prejudice. Nothing personal, but very few people find modifying stupid articles the height of entertainment. Nerd42, if you find editing crap articles entertaining, please, by all means, DON'T WRITE A NEW ARTICLE EVER AGAIN, just go through the two-point-five metric tons of crap we already have, and make it funny. Seriously, you'd be doing the site a favor. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:35, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

FORE! *whack* --Algorithm 09:06, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

United States of Armenia article

Astrokey44 took it upon himself to merge United States of America into United States of Armenia. If this merge is appropriate, then at the very least, this article needs some attention; it has physically overlapping templates, among other problems. Better yet, I'd suggest that the two articles be unmerged; but maybe the decision to merge has already had consensus. --Ogopogo 04:01, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any consensus. I noticed he was merging some articles but haven't had time to check up on him. Proper merges are badly needed on many articles here, see the Jesii discussion below. (Just a comment) --Splaka 04:06, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Some admins better check the quality of this guy's merges and undo one's he screwed up, like this one, or ones he didn't move contants, like mj below. Sarducci 12:24, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I agress, I hd just assumed that the merge had been accepted. I don't see any reasone why the merge is appropriate. The United States of America article should be its own article. I do think it would be appropriate to have a United States page that is a navigation page linking to The United States of America, The United States of Armenia, and United States of Germania. --neoEva88 19:40, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And of course The United States of Whatever article, how could I miss a chance for shameless self-promotion? --neoEva88 19:30, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So... I decided to take care of this, and made United States A disambiguation page. When trying to un-merge united states of America with US of Armenia, I found no evidence in the history of an article being in the United states of America that was every anything but a redirect. am i missing something? --Sarducci 20:56, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you are. When it was moved to United States of Armenia, so was its history. The redirect was a page created, when it moved, thus creating a new history. Rangeley 23:06, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I was gonna say, the United States of Armenia article seems to be a misplaced Uncyclopedia article on the United States of America. Since the location provides no added humor to the article, I propose we just move it back. --neoEva88 23:10, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

But misnaming it Armenia creates hours of fun! Yea, I completely agree about the move back to the correct place. Rangeley 23:15, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Someone please move it back. --Chronarion 06:01, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

That requires the current redirect located at United States of America to be deleted. I thought Id be clever and try to move the redirect to United States of Americas, only to find that it made another redirect in its place. Rangeley 19:05, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If you hadn't moved the redirect, just moving United States of Armenia to United States of America might have worked. MediaWiki will let you move an article over top of a redirect, provided the destination is just one simple redirect with no article history and that the move you're making just undoes the previous move. And besides, it shouldn't have been moved to Armenia in the first place but to Albania, the capital of New York State --Carlb 17:09, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Article moved back to America. I'm not even going to try to clean it up, though. --Algorithm 08:59, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Michael Jackson

As well, Astrokey44 merged the Rev. Michael Jackson article into the Michael Jackson article, without transfering the Rev. Michael Jackson contents into the surviving article. I took the liberty of doing it. If a merger is to be done, it should be right, eh? --Ogopogo 04:01, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Though Rev MJ wasn't particularly good, so well, it's alright. --Chronarion 17:54, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Now Hiring Sysops

Are you looking to join a team of extremely enthousiastic and sarcastic individuals? Do you like to feel like you are a valuble part of a team? Are you looking for an employer who doesn't care that you are a gay disabled monkey? Do you want to feel that you are doing the right thing? Do you want an employer who doesn't refer to you as his slave if you ask him nicely?

If you said "I prefer not to answer" to any or all of these questions, you may be qualified to be a sysop at Uncyclopedia.


  • Must be experienced with MediaWiki software (5-6 years)
  • Must have at least 10 fingers in total (its a bi-law, its beyond our control)
  • Must like to ban noobs
  • Patience with noobs
  • Must use IRC
  • Must be willing to never again add actual content to Uncyclopedia


(this space intentionally left blank)

Sounds like fun, sysop status for all! --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 02:15, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)


(I'm sorting through User:Paulgb/Slaves, a list created by User:Splaka and User:Dawg, for nominations. If you would like to nominate yourself or someone else, add a heading here.)

General_Specific (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

I don't have a snowball's chance in hell General Specific

For --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Phwaarr</tabloid> --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:13, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Some new information about General Specific came to light on IRC:

<General_Specific> i can't stay for long
<General_Specific> i defeated an irc addiction a couple years ago

Apparently he huffed IRC in the past and wishes to stay off it in the future... Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:45, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


<Codeine>so what's your manifesto	
<General_Specific> uh... get elected and milk the system like there's no tomorrow?

General Specific - can he be trusted? --—rc (t) 01:34, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

<General_Specific> i should really stop saying incriminating things on IRC, like that i'm a corrupt, lying scumbag who's going to turn his back on the voters when they need him most

DWIII (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Nomination (From /Slaves suggestion) --Paulgb Talk 01:59, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What can I say??? I'm honored to be even considered, and floored, and flabbergasted, and many other confusing emotions beginning with "F" over the past several days... if there is anything I can do to help out, I wouldst gladly accept  :-) --DWIII 22:31, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Floor --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:14, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

BobBobBob (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Nomination and vote (From /Slaves suggestion) --Paulgb Talk 02:02, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this is ironic. I whine a bit, start a project that I don't finish, make a shameless knockoff of someone else's concept, then drop completely out of the loop for a couple of weeks. If that's what it takes to get root admin, then all I can say is... why the hell not [2]? Oh, and thanks. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 16:03, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Important Cravate: I will follow all rules in the spirit of Uncyclopedia, which of course means that I'll break them if I wanna. In particular, I'm almost certain to break the "new rule" (Must be willing to never again add actual content to Uncyclopedia). I just get inspiration and create something like Blonde or Vienna sausage. If I don't, I'll be back to my old habits, and my parole officer keeps a running count of the neighborhood cats. Also, I'm afraid of IRC... I think it might be hazardous to my job. If I'm not qualified for adminishipishness, I can live with that. There's always QVFD. -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif

Four --Splaka 20:43, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Phfor --Spintherism 22:24, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Fleur --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:15, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

-phore Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:38, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ogopogo (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Nomination and vote --Splaka 02:42, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested. Sounds fun. --Ogopogo 01:55, 26 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rangeley (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Nomination and vote --Splaka 02:42, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • I not only accept the nomination, but I have size 10.5 shoes and my favorite German Chancellor would have to be Angela Merkel. Rangeley 16:08, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For Seems like a level-headed fellow. --—rc (t) 18:21, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For! Banter ftw!--Sir Flammable KUN 21:36, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Foo --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Fore! -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 01:23, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

-phore Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 14:38, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Spore --Savethemooses 20:37, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

May the best man win. For General Specific 03:15, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Mhaille (TalkContribs (del)EditcountBlock (rem-lst-all)LogsGroups)

Me, me......I want to be a PsyCop. Mentally boring into the minds of n00bs, revealing their innermost thoughts and fears. Look into my eye, and dis bear! -- Mhaille 09:54, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

For --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 01:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Fum --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 10:17, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I smell the blood of an Englishman er For --Splaka 10:20, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

4 -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 11:17, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

General Comments?

Geez, I guess they let just anybody be a sysop now... --Savethemooses 20:47, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
  • Stipulation My vote goes tot he first nominee person to come tothe IRC channel and make witty banter in my general vicinity.--Sir Flammable KUN 20:47, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)

  • Comment' Wow, I've been getting away with not using IRC and actually contributing for seven months... --Savethemooses 20:40, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Comprehensive Jesii

moved from the Template:Jesii talk page

--Sarducci 22:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You might bring this up in the Village Dump. But, I for one am annoyed by people adding nonexistant Jesii to the list! A bit anyway. --Splaka 22:16, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Having set up the Jesii template, I am of two minds on this:

Firstmost, I think that people seem to be confused as to what "Major" and "Minor" mean. I meant the "Major Jesii" to be ones with a sold two+ pages of information. Not 2 paragraphs.
Secondmost, a number of them are visually odiferous, and should be deleted post-haste.
Thirdleast, putting non-existant Jesii on that template should be a bannable offence. Splaka is banning anyone else who adds a red link to it, since I'm up to my eyeballs in work.
Forthwidth, we should delte/merge a bunch of the Jesii. While this is covered in Secondmost, above, I believe in this tenant strongly enough that it bears repeating. And none of that pussy resurrection shit this time, either.
Fifthmost, we should include all existing Jesii on this template. If only because it so offends the fundamentalists. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 01:33, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yea, for he hath spoken with the Lord, and decreed that we be less fruitful and not multiply so much! But anyhow, how about a sub-list of 'Things named "Jesus" that aren't divine' at the bottom? And then the mergers... --Splaka 01:39, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It was the red link to Zombie Jesus that inspired me to start writing crap. I mean, how could there have been no Zombie Jesus? It was too big an oversite. Some do seem redundant, like Lizard Jesus and Raptor Jesus, for ex. --Sarducci 02:09, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'm initating the Jesii Project to cleanup these durn Jesii. See my plans/discussion for phase 1 at Template talk:Jesii --Sarducci 20:45, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Puzzle Potato?

Is the Uncyclopedia logo really a puzzle potato? I always thought it was supposed to be a rotten egg! Which is it? --Nerd42 13:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was just a d Wikipedia globe. neoEva88 14:08, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Potato. --Spintherism 14:48, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Potato globe.--Sir Flammable KUN 16:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I propose we change it to a flashing sign that says "Nerd42 is a n00b!" --Savethemooses 16:21, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Its actually a puzzle monkey brain --Nytrospawn 16:48, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I made it from the hollowed-out skull of my enemy. Er, I mean it's a potato. This was the old logo. --—rc (t) 17:47, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

No seriously, until a few minutes b4 I posted this, I seriously thought it was a rotten egg, and the Wikipedia logo was a regular egg or something --Nerd42 18:04, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're not the first to think it was an egg. The Uncyc logo, I mean. Dunno about the Wikipedia one. --—rc (t) 18:09, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
well, I sorta knew the wikipedia logo was a sphere ... but kind of compared it to an egg, and the uncyclopedia logo made me think it's designer(s) must have made he same comparison. The idea of a puzzle potato hadn't even enered into my brain until this point. What the heck is a puzzle potato anyway? Somebody write an article about it! --Nerd42 19:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The Wikipedia logo is a sphere made of puzzle pieces. It is simply a logo, it doesnt MEAN anything per se, although I always interpreted it as a World being built one piece at a time, which is metaphorical in a way to its purpose. Uncyclopedia being a parody of Wikipedia, that chose Potatos as one of its defining characteristics resulted in the creation of a potato being pieced together by puzzle pieces. It is a very nice photoshop and a great parody but thats why it was created, just to explain it :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 21:05, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
interesting. *tries to think of something funny for a puzzle potato to be for potential article* uhh ... a WMD? nah, overused --Nerd42 22:40, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
OMG a wmd article about potatoes, that is TOO FUNNY! --Savethemooses 23:03, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Haha, you're so right! Nobody else would have ever thought of something funny like that. Ok, how about something about how george bush (his name is like pubic hair, lol!!!1) loses his potatoes he was going to give to the secretaries, and then he thinks saddam did it, and he starts a war, but he still can't find the donuts potatoes! That sort of article is just what uncyclopedia doesn't have enought of. --Spintherism 23:26, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
yeah like I said, that one's overused. there's gotta be something funnier out there ... --Nerd42 23:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Then Not then but not now Now Percentage increase (Previous)
Date 26 June, 2005 14 September, 2005 23 October, 2005
Front page views 300,000 400,000 500,000 25% (33.3%)
Total page views 3.35 million 7.60 million 10.86 million 42.9% (126.9%)
Articles 7600 12,849 15,834 23.2% (69.1%)
Registered users 1800 3651 5437 48.9% (102.8%)
Page edits 100,000 206,307 290,055 40.6% (106.3%)
Articles with >20k views ? ? 8 ?
Articles with >10k views 7 23 35 52.2% (228.6%)
Articles with >5k views 26 83 139 67.5% (219.2%)
Articles with >1k views 350 1076 1610 49.6% (207.4%)
Pants-related usernames 6 7 10 42.3% (16.7%)

It took us about half the time to get from 400k to 500k as it took to get from 300k to 400k, thanks in no small part to Slashdot. The Slashdottings were also probably one of the biggest reasons the other stats look rather anemic - even though we got something like 30k front-page hits the first time /. gave us a link, hardly any edits came from that (at least immediately) because the danged site was down during the deluge.

I am pleased to see a significant increase in "Pants" usernames this time around. Note also that the figure does not include the users "Pantera" and "Panther." --—rc (t) 03:19, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

And of course we've deleted a load of pages (close to 2000, I believe) in the past week as well. --—rc (t) 03:25, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Dunno if there were thousands of deletions, but certainly hundreds have been removed in the last half-week or so: largely pointless one-liners. Redirecting all of the (hundreds of) individual Undictionary entries to twenty-six main ick!tionary pages has put a dent in this mess too. We're down to 15140 articles today, from the 15834 listed for the 23rd. The Undictionary mess was huffed and burninated on the 26th, leaving just a few embers and ashes which still need to be swept away. We still have many small Uncyclopedia fragments because Wilde: is still on the old Undictionary: structure or a variant thereof, Zork/The game also generate a mass of short substubs by nature. I'd estimate easily 2000 "articles" of 300 bytes or less remain? --Carlb 16:28, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Between 08:26, 19 Oct 2005 (PDT) and 14:37, 27 Oct 2005 (PDT) (From Chron's first burn-week delete to me removing the template 8+ days later) there were 3179 deletes. About a thousand of those were bits of the undictionary. There have been about a thousand more since then. Burn on! --Splaka 05:22, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Giving up an article for adoption

My brain gave birth to the article Romance language the other night. I am offering this article for adoption, as I am unable to care for it. The prospective parent(s) should know Portuguese, French, Spanish, Italian, or Romanian and should be able to add surreal dialogue in one of these languages to the article. An ability to care for articles with linguistic technical needs is a plus. Please care for this article. --KP CUN 03:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Opinions on UnNews:Black_iPods_rob_owners?

What do you guys think of this article? IMHO it's my best article so far (which says a lot about the quality of my articles, or more accurately lack thereof). Anyone think that with some polishing and extra content it would deserve a nomination? General Specific 23:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Nice work! Definitely a candidate for an UnPulitzer... --Savethemooses 00:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I added a little bit to the end. --Spintherism 02:24, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I wrote a new article.

It is called iPod yocto. It's my first one in a while. Please view it, and leave some feedback here and/or on teh talk page. Thanks! --Savethemooses 22:51, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hundreds of articles are created each week on uncyclopedia. If you want to highlight yours, perhaps edit the Recent Articles page to add a link to your article? --Ogopogo 00:21, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I did do that as well already. There may be hundreds of new articles every week, but there are only a few great ones per month (more specifically, mine). By the way, you've only been here since what, August? Go fetch me the sports page and a cup 'o' joe, n00b. --Savethemooses 00:29, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It's ok Ogopogo, most people don't know his true identity. --Spintherism 02:11, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to the Uncyclopedia, Savethemooses. Please check out the Beginner's Guide before making your first edit. You can also check out Help:Contents if you have never edited a wiki before. -- hehehe, welcome back Savethemooses. You should join us in #uncyclopedia --Paulgb Talk 21:29, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)

anyone can screw up

Sorry to start two new topics in a row ... but I posted this on Talk:Main Page and nobody has responded yet ... Right now, the Main Page reads, "Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." In my opinion, that is not funny. It ought to read, "Uncyclopedia; the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can screw up." Much more elegant, and funnier too! Whaddya think? Nerd42 19:09, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

VETO - I do have this power, right? The current one is a direct parody of Wikipedia. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:26, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Double Veto! I think I should eat you. This would make life better. Whaddya think? --PantsMacKenzie 19:36, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I veto Pants' veto, lest it inadvertently veto Dawg's veto thereby vetoing the the entire veto process outright, and leaving us all cold and vetoless in the dark of the night, which simply wouldn't do at all. --Spintherism 19:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
OK fine whatever. I just thought that'd be funnier Nerd42 20:11, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Triple veto. Uh, totally not. It's a direct parody of wikipedia ATM. --Chronarion 18:39, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'm not keen about encouraging articles to be "screwed up". We already have enough juveniles and vandals screwing up existing articles with cruft or starting new cruft articles. "Edit" is a good term and should remain, as it suggests a certain amount of thought going into the edit.--Ogopogo 20:18, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Well, the more people screw up Uncyclopedia, the more we get to use our bansticks. So I'm split on my vote. While I like banning people, I don't like fixing the stuff they broke. I guess I vote for chocolate cookies. And tradition. And I vote to overturn an even number of vetos. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 20:25, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Against - If we are going to change the subtitle (what is it really called?), we should go for something altogether new. Even a contest or something. We rotate everything else on the Main Page regularly, why not the subtitle? The one thats there now works because it is a direct parody of Wikipedia. The screw-up headline works as a parody as well, but it loses some of its funny points (IMO) because its true. --Paulgb Talk 20:55, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
triple-against I do say! --Savethemooses 21:23, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, what if it just said something else different? Like ... hmm ... "... the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can revert"? --Nerd42 22:26, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Umm.. no There's a point here and you're missing it. Maybe it's embedded in your cerebral matter?--Sir Flammable KUN 22:28, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hey, OK, calm down. Sheesh. Just forget the whole thing. Why not go mad? --Nerd42 22:44, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Actually, we used to have "the content-free encyclopædia that monkeys can edit" up there. --Carlb 00:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Pocket Veto General Specific 01:11, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I like it! I like it! (jerry lewis style) --Nerd42 01:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I veto this, then veto my veto, then I veto that veto. Do I win or lose? --EvilZak 03:16, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Neither, its a draw. --Nytrospawn 03:53, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Just a suggestion: how about extending the model. For example, "Welcome to Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, someone will deface, and nobody can fix!" -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] Prince%21.gif 17:50, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like it! I like it! --Nerd42 18:18, 28 Oct 2005 (UTC)
How about we rotate through some ideas? Like when those IWETHEY people blanked the IWETHEY page and considered Uncyclopedia to be full of lies. "Uncyclopedia, the Encyclopedia full of lies according to IWETHEY, that anyone can blank." or "Uncyclopedia, the Encyclopedia full of bullshit according to Liberal Terrorists, that anyone can dispute." or "Uncyclopedia, the Encyclopedia full of corn according to The Children of the Corn, that anyone can shuck." or "Uncyclopedia, the Encyclopedia full of beer according to drunks, that anyone can drink." or "Uncyclopedia, the Encyclopedia full of cabbages according to Rambo, that anyone can shoot." --Loke 22:59, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Was I supposed to get approval/permission for doing this? Anyway, it seemed like a good idea at the time. Seems to me if Wikipedia is going through all this trouble to ignore us, the least we can do is ignore them back! Nerd42 18:59, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I love it! Now, we need more cowbell (obvious links to Wikipedia) and to strive to put this on EVERY SHIT PAGE ON THE SITE. Make them deal with the morons instead of us. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:26, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I thought the point of the site was to parody wikipedia ... so whats ur problem? maybe i'm not getting something here. Delete it if you like Nerd42 20:10, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Previous comment HIGHLIGHTED FOR GREAT JUSTICE. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:21, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
do you mean you actually like the idea? I thought you were just being sarcastic. Hmm ... I need to stay sharper ... alot of these jokes are starting to whiz past my head like the pages being deleted this week --Nerd42 02:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

ED's article about Uncyclopedia

Here's an excerpt:

Example of arena-silencing anti-ror

2005 - Steve Ballmer discovers a new element, Ballmerium, which can transmit through the Internets and kill people distantly. Good luck for Ballmer, bad luck for everyone at his hitlist. Death by a flying chair is painful.

Can someone explain me what "arena-silencing anti-ror" means? - Guest 16:23, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

it meanz teh LJ lulz are pwning teh Ballmer, omglol. --Savethemooses 16:54, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

w3 g0t pwnz0r3d --Nytrospawn 20:19, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The Opposite of Image Request

I've had some awesome images on my computer for quite some time but I can't seem to find a good page to put them in. What if we had a page that was like the opposite of image requests, it could be something like, "images that need a home". I think it's a good idea. If we already have such a page just provide a link and I'll apologize for being such a moron. ~ Jared ~ 14:43, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I think we already have an orphaned images section.--Sir Flammable KUN 16:06, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Mmk, I haven't been able to find the section. Could you provide a link? And of course, I apologize for being such a moron, as I said I would. ~ Jared ~ 16:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Is this it? --Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 16:57, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Correct, but I'd say this page does the job better. (There was a link to it on the page you linked to.) neoEva88 19:10, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This page is a continuation as the first one's already rather full. --Carlb 23:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How the hell do I add images?

I'm trying to add a image, but what the hell does the system mean with "image name on server"? What server? Can I add a image from a internet page? Does it have to come from my PC? Is it stored somewhere in uncyclopedia after that?

You have to create a username (click 'create user' at the top). When you do, you'll have a link in your tool box called "Upload file". This ability is usually restrited to users with profiles on all Wikis. --Splaka 11:38, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ban me

Come on! Ban me. Quickly. I know you can do it. Assholes.

  1.  ! User:Toytoy; 08:30 . . Dawg (Talk)
  2.  ! User talk:Flammable KUN; 08:28 . . Flammable (Talk) (¡÷What are you doing?)
  3.  ! User talk:Flammable KUN; 08:26 . . Toytoy (Talk)
  4. m ! User:Toytoy; 08:25 . . Flammable (Talk) (It's not unoffending enough. I can still taste the smell.)
  5.  ! Valerie Flame; 08:20 . . Toytoy (Talk)
  6. 08:20 . . Flammable (Talk) (deleted "Image:Flame and Wilson.jpg": If this image was any uglier, I'd have to kill it to save humanity. Find a better one.)
  7. 08:19 . . Toytoy (Talk) (uploaded "Image:Flame and Wilson.jpg")
  8. 08:17 . . Flammable (Talk) (deleted "Image:Flame and Wilson.jpg": If this image was any uglier, I'd have to kill it to save humanity.)
  9. 08:14 . . Toytoy (Talk) (uploaded "Image:Flame and Wilson.jpg")
  10. m ! User:Toytoy; 08:11 . . Flammable (Talk) (Your user page offends me.)
  11. 08:03 . . Flammable (Talk) (deleted "Woman of Mass Destruction": Weak, poor, inedible.)
  12. N ! Judas Miller; 07:59 . . Toytoy (Talk)
  13. 07:47 . . Splaka (Talk) (deleted "Valerie Plame": content was: '#REDIRECT Valerie Flame')
  14. 07:47 . . Splaka (Talk) (deleted "Judy Miller": content was: '#REDIRECT Judas Miller')
  15. 07:47 . . Splaka (Talk) (deleted "Judith Miller": content was: '#REDIRECT Judas Miller')
  16. N ! Valerie Flame; 07:43 . . Toytoy (Talk)

Go ahead and make my day. -- Toytoy 08:37, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I defaced User:Dawg and User:Flammable KUN ban me. It's fucking pure vandalism. -- Toytoy 08:46, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know vandalism was pure. I can't believe you violated her. Bad boy! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:53, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
08:49 Flammable (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 5 minutes: Yay!)
08:55 Dawg (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 300 seconds: RAPIST!)
08:56 Flammable (Talk) (blocked "User:Toytoy" with an expiry time of 5 minutes: Oop!)
Longer! For life. Please! Por favor! Danke! I know you can do it. I will not come back and I will not argue. Trust me this is for real. Ban me. Please. Do me a favor. Please. I am sincere. Yo soy un hombre sincero. -- Toytoy 09:01, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
My duck has teeth the size of an Orca.--Sir Flammable KUN 09:21, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
See the Block Log for more information on this incident. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:28, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? --Nytrospawn 04:18, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I disapprove of the handling of this incident. I do not see why you messed with toytoy's userpage?--Chronarion 18:45, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I was joking on the template adds (Fixed and "air freshener".) Seeing as he was a member for a while, I decided to add a template to his atrocity of a user page. (Let me spam my otherwise worthless radnomized template on my page to relieve the tnesion that I have about not being able to spam it elsewhere). I also got around to deleting several weak, sparsely connected, articles I found to be worthless. Apparently, he took grave offense to this, opting to blank my page (and dawg's page as well for his contribution to the "air freshener" template). Now, if he can't take a joke tempalte or two on his user page (or, more reasonably, remove it and politely ask for it not to happen again, at the very least), that's his problem. Blanking admin pages in response (note:poor, juvenile judgment on HIS part) makes it our problem. By virtue of the fact that he could not be remotely mature about it (Retributive blanking, not giving reasons to revert/restore his work and taking illegal actions, calling for a self ban and harassing us in the IRC channel) I don't think he needs to be a contributing member. Furthermore, as it stands, I have no remorse, seeing as his edits have been varible in quality. His photoshopping was interesting; but for the most part, his content adds, page originals, and other contributions could only be interpreted as assinine (by virtue of its reliance on bias/viewpoint) and cliche (by virtue of its reliance on nonsense, nonsequitur, and an overall lack of wit and finesse). Splaka has had to admonish him on page moves and redirects, and his wholesale movement of "Iraq" (an article about a nation) to "iRaq" was done without admin okay, AFAIK, or any real, logical rationale. At some point, _Dawg and I were being funny about bans, as we were rapidly reaching "stupid o'clock." He took it badly, and acted immaturely. We decided to run with it.--Sir Flammable KUN 19:58, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The contributions to his all-template user page were a group efforts, after he egged the admins on, probably not realizing that it was late and we were tired from chasing vandals all day. I helped because my sarcasm gland is overdeveloped and I was about 1% in reality at the time. From my perspective, the majority of his "contributions" fell into the following categories: stupid political statements, template abuse akin to Ballmer/Kayne Quote Spam, and totally random template abuse. I liked his photoshops (the one was *not* home page material, sadly, unlike many of his others that would have had a chance)...
What I can't figure out is why he thought we wanted to ban him - he pokes at everyone, fools with numerous pages, moves things willy-nilly, and creates tons of redirects - yet nobody wanted to ban him. The suprising thing was that he couldn't take the same jokes he used on other pages when they were directed at his user page (easily fixed, I might add). Nobody wanted to ban him, even when he asked us to do so (repeatedly), then he vandalized to give us a reason. We thought the request was funny, so we made a few joking bans. Then he vandalized some more and begged for permanent banishment, but we liked him enough to go on for almost an hour making silly bans... *shrug* Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 21:14, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

4004 BC

It is known as a fact that the world was created on TODAY, 4004 BC. Uncyclopedia seems to forget it. What a shame! -- Toytoy 03:36, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thats because its a fact. Rangeley 03:43, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Where are we now?

During the few hours uncyclopedia was down today (for me, atleast) I went searching around to see if any site said why. This is when I stumbled upon this site. Its basically an essay on Uncylopedia, written in March, that discusses where things might head. I must say that I think things are heading towards being more funny, and organised, rather then total chaos. It was also noted in the essay that Uncyclopedia had an 'American College Liberal slant.' I guess all of this is something to think about. So how would you guys say things have changed since March? Rangeley 02:40, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Well, we hired some kickass admins, and they started banning the hell out of people and exterminating whole species of articles. All in all, we're doing pretty well, I'd say. Oh, and I think we've added an article or two since then too. Btw, I think you'll want to bookmark this site. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 03:05, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It used to have an American college stoner liberal slant, then the British discovered it and started using humour and not just humor and since then everything's sucked but in a much more literary way. HTH! - David Gerard 14:28, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The American college liberal slant was suggested by me in a March blog entry due to the contrast between the pages on George W. Bush and Bill Clinton and also the Daily-Show-esque feel to much of the humour on this site. Nevertheless, Uncyclopedia has been taken over by the British and Romanians ever since. --stillwaters/Talk 17:23, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The slant may also be an effect of the administration. It appears that every administrator is either college-educated, a college student, or in a magnet high school (might as well be a junior college) and will almost certainly go to college. Probably an effect of immersion and force-fed propaganda (as I recall), which hopefully adds frustration-induced academic-style parody of current events, science, mathematics, history, and literature. For instance, when one of the admins saw Rasputin, they took pity on it, commenting that the real story was funnier than the one in the article...
We're not the only ones - Wikipedia's official "neutral" stance is also left-leaning, in my humble opinion. One of their recent Featured Articles was a clear example of their left slant. It was based on current events and the leftist belief that the choices and mentalities of average people are wrong and past systems that worked but are no longer PC or in vogue are worthless and worthy of ridicule.
Around here I'm certainly annoyed by the left/right arguments (childish), the racial/theological hatred (childish), scientific bigotry, and other senseless stupidity (who let these people on the internet?!). Thanks to the handy VFD, QVFD, and my newly-acquired [huff] button, the painfully childish ones usually go to the bit bucket.
The slant against Bush is merely a function of current events - currently elected officials, fresh in the eye of the media (which is very clearly leftist and affects the mentalities of normal people), will be of more interest than past elected officials. This means more anti-Bush rhetoric. Besides, he and his appointees are very easy to parody, often all you need to do is take their statements out of context (the media is also known for doing this, except in the interest of furthering their collective agenda, just look at Fox News, CNN, NY Times, or any other major news source for examples (BBC is the rare exception - they're as close to neutral as a major news organization can get, IMHO)).
Personally, my writing is a cross between a parody of American encyclopedia entries (of which I have read literally thousands), British humour/spelling, Commonwealth terminology (Canadian/Australian), serious ideas, and the English I took in college. It would be no surprise to me if they reflect these things.
I apologize for my extended commentary on the subject - my internet connection went down and I had plenty of time to write it while waiting for it to return. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 00:44, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like Uncyclopedia --Nytrospawn 02:25, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It tastes like pie. I know. I've tried it. --PantsMacKenzie 04:53, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Give it up for admins in magnet schools! heh my school is a public school in a northern city so most people are left or neutral, with a few people to the right. However people I know who have backed Bush for years are even started to question him. Seriously, everything and I mean everything is falling apart for Bush right now. One of my friends is extremely right and HE's saying Bush is a moron. I thought it would never happen O_O so calling Bush an idiot these days isnt a political statement its just an obvious one :P But yeah, by default Uncyclopedia is left. This isnt the kind of thing I could see a right politician laughing about :P actually I cant really picture any politician laughing in the first place but w/e (uncyclopedia.left++;) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 22:21, 23 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Id Agree about the liberal slant. Well, let me put it this way atleast, the articles you would expect to have a liberal slant do, the articles that youd expect to have a conservative slant dont. Most articles about liberal people are plain idiotic, rather then satirical, while most articles on conservatives are satirical. Ive been working bit by bit to change this, but Ive actually had quite a bit going on lately so my mind has been quite split up.

But yea, people are questioning Bush, and things are going bad for him lately. A combination of many factors really. Nothing is going on that would make me abandon my ideals and change to a liberal, though the Republican Party does seem to be having some management issues. But suprisingly (or not), people trust/like the democrats even less. So I dont really see this translating into anything, people seem to be fed up overall with politics and politicans, and I wouldnt blame them. Partisanship is at its highest out of any non election year that I can remember, and people are sick and tired of it. Rangeley 03:08, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Thats why Ive always voted for the Wigs --Nytrospawn 04:20, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I hear you, Rangeley. I don't want to admit what I did last cycle... I find both sides lacking (only slightly less on the right side, but that's just because they're closer to center than the left) and I always vote libertarian (my personal political stance is impossible to define - I'm a cross between a social libertarian and an anarcho-communist, but I strive to be neutral around here) . Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 06:42, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How do I create a new article?

You put your article in brackets like this: [[ArticleName]] and click on the link. Or you replace the words Uncyclopedia:Village_Dump in your address bar above with your page name, and go there. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 22:31, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

You can also just type it in the search bar. If it doesn't exist, then you'll be given a link to create a page with the same title as whatever you typed in (case sensitive). This'll also help to avoid making pages that already exist in a similar form.--Jordanus 02:32, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

All those lonely images, where do they come from?

There are 176 new homeless puppies to be destroyed or rehoused.

This time, unless someone can come up with an automated way of doing it, I shall not be alerting the original uploaders of their media's peril, since there is a metric tonne of puppy-flesh to wade through.

Yours in hairy-nipples --User:IMBJR/sig 18:57, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I'd bet some of them came from here. It seems like their entire village has recently been burned. Put them out of our misery with vigor. Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 19:20, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Can I burninate all of them? Because I'm going to burninate all of them. Look out. --Savethemooses 20:06, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ok, here's my criteria for burninating images: 1. User has been idle for about a month or more. 2. Image is (obviously) unused and is crappy 3. Any combination of the two. --Savethemooses 20:22, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It is kinda spooky that images can't be undeleted. Someone might wanna back up the uncyc image database (this thing? seems to be). Also: be sure to check for Template:Notorphan --Splaka 20:35, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
The database dump does not provide a backup of the images, only of the text. To save images, either right-click each one and save them manually or use pywikibot? --Carlb 14:26, 27 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yes, but we're not an image hosting site. Those who rely on us for an external link should probably consider going to putfile or photobucket or something. --Savethemooses 20:42, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
You cant even hotlink images from here so whats the point? --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 20:53, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Notorphan doesn't indicate external linkitude. There are circumstances in which images will appear orphaned even though they are not. 1) Image is only in a <choose> randomizer 2) Image is only linked via text link [[:Image:Whatever.jpg]] 3) Image is only "externally" linked inside uncyclopedia (though this isn't used much, is more of a hack to turn images into links to a page other than the image description page). Please don't delete any such (though they should be tagged with Notorphan) --Splaka 21:14, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A highly randomized template

  • Usage: {{BushLinks|var1=variable}}
  • Note: var1 is not always used and it appears almost everywhere.


I created a BushLinks template which currently is placed in the George W. Bush article. -- Toytoy 12:28, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The variable is not working. {{BushLinks}}-- Toytoy 12:53, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Idle Admins

Ok, I got bored and made a graph of all the admins, when they were +sysopped, and when they last edited (sorted by last edit). The # symbol indicates timeperiod between their +s and their last edit. Note that ERTW has made no edits since +s. Also note for those +s directly to the config are assumed to be from January (which they are not). --Splaka 11:27, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

                   Jan                                                       Oct
Euniana and stillwaters are used by the same person. Sophia and Root are Chron's sockpuppets. --stillwaters/Talk 17:09, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sockpuppets!!! Run away!!!! Run away!!!!!!! --User:IMBJR/sig 18:58, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

A question on deletion

I was wondering, is there a limit to the number of things that we should submit to the VFD page, or a limit we should stick to if we don't want everyone to hate us? Reason is, I've been coming across articles that I would've submitted all day, but I've been holding off putting them there in case an Admin or somesuch rants at me for being to quick to want to delete things... --Malleus 06:41, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I always appreciate help - six/eight eyes are better than my four. If we say no, it's generally consensus (seriously) because it was something I put to a vote with the other admins on duty at the time. The one was cleaned up and not deleted because another admin saw promise in it. The others went directly to the great bit bucket after a quick glance. Any completely mindless crap with no redeeming quality whatsoever should go in QuickVFD, and at least 9 out of 10 times it'll be immediately huffed without question. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:50, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for thr update. --Malleus 08:59, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

heh I sometimes just go through newpages looking for QVFD crap :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere Icons-world CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 21:14, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Ooh, sounds like fun! *Insert evil laughter* Wow, there is an awful lot of these newly submitted pages that I'm just dying to put on QVFD. --Malleus 11:09, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in deleting today. I've been busy working on top-secret projects, speculating on the end of the internet, and generally doing other stuff. I have huffed most of what you've placed on QVFD and VFD, but as I said on User_talk:Malleus, certain ones keep growing back. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 11:56, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Top secret projects and the end of the internet? Sounds ominous. A few more things, is there always this much stuff that deserves to be insto-huffed, and what exactly causes the articles to regrow? Do the authors just re-post 'em, or do they rig something up to put them back whenever they get deleted? --Malleus 14:18, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)
We're known for top-secret projects. The apocalypse almost happened Thursday night/Friday morning (mattering on your coast) when Level 3 dropped off the internet.
To my knowledge they repost them. The rate at which they are reposted is a function of how often someone manually attempts to post them. To my knowledge there is no automated process for blanking and creation of deleted wiki articles. There is usually a lot of stuff that needs to be insto-huffed, but our strong belief in pseudo-democracy requires that we vote on most things and often consult others on QVFD entries. At the moment, as we are under martial law, we're allowed to insto-huff pretty much anything we deem truly QVFD-worthy. VFD only takes 2-3 votes, mattering on our moods, and anything I feel needs more votes goes before a tribunal comprised of admins immediately before the execution. They seldom survive.
I hope this clears everything up for you. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 19:14, 22 Oct 2005 (UTC)

How to get Blocked for a Long Time

Blanking bits of active pages ... repeatedly ... will be met with a ban of 10secondsittakestofix X arbitrarilydefinedannoyance. --Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:21, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I see you're already making good use of the banenate button --Paulgb Talk 20:30, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
It was my first time... Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 08:15, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Template:MTU and Template:MTUsign

I intend to deal with all the articles with the MTU template on, then redirect MTU to MTUsign, are there any problems with this? --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 12:24, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Uuhh go for it--Chronarion 15:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly support this action. It takes too long to huff entries containing a plain old MTU. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:46, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, it might be better to put in a warning message like "This tag has been depreciated, use MTUsign instead? Or, maybe there is some clever way using subst and date variables to make it timestamp? I do support un-useage of MTU though. --Splaka 19:20, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Not that I could work out (the subst thing) I tried for a while but it stumped me, --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 13:06, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'm trying variouse tricks like this over here but having no luck.--The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 15:18, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Hmm, I just tried that too (and a bunch of other tricks last night, bah). No joy. It might not be possible. BTW: That is a clever trick, letting you insert raw code by making it your sig ^_^. --Splaka 19:46, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC) PS: note to self (or elvis) m:Help:Template#Noinclude_and_includeonly might work. But I asked on #wikipedia, and what we want is kind of impossible. You can't insert code into an article without subst: or ~~~~~ being part of the text.


Am wondering if the MFU template (move from undic) is also deprecated and useless? Presumably this was intended to be placed on individual Undictionary:Title entries, but under the current structure the only way to use this template is to plop it as a big, ugly box into the middle of one of the main Undictionary:A-Z pages... not necessarily desirable. Any way to salvage this template? or should those wanting to move stuff out of Undic just do so and forget the template entirely? --Carlb 18:38, 29 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Murder it. --Splaka 03:24, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Rating System

I am considering writing a rating system for MediaWiki in order to make Uncyc easier to browse. Is this a good idea? Such a system would be implemented like bash.org, where articles start at zero, and get scored by anonymous and logged in users with a single + or - point. --Chronarion 07:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure. It depends on how it's implemented. As in, if it's not prominently displayed on the article, I'd be ok with it. And if the voting system doesn't detract from the article as well. --PantsMacKenzie 07:14, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I concur with Pants. We could just try it out and get rid of it if it's too much of a distraction. --—rc (t) 07:17, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea on the surface, but I could also see some opportunity for foul play. If it required registration it might be more effective. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 07:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I actually would not mind if it was prominently displayed? I fail to see why it would be bad to be openly scored. As for registration, I think that it should be 1 vote per ip per article. Registration doesn't make sense because I want ALOT of votes as opposed to a few specific ones. --Chronarion 15:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
A lot of votes is one thing, but I have the feeling that some Romanian with a proxy or a dynamic IP would give 1000 upvotes to all the Romania related articles and 1000 downvotes to all the Estonia and Lithuania and Latvia related articles. If there's some way of dealing with that type of thing, then I fully approve of this idea. --EvilZak 17:02, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If the article itself can stay alive, I think the score should be just fine. --Chronarion 05:48, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

My bet is that with such a rating system, the most highly rated articles will be thinly disguised racist articles, random-humour articles, and GamesFAQ-related articles. Just a hunch, though. --Ogopogo 07:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Racist articles, random-humour articles, and GamesFAQ-related articles? That's good. At least it saves us time to uncover these hidden problems. -- Toytoy 09:11, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I really doubt that. Look at 'popularpages'. Is that true for the popular ones? Not really. --Chronarion 15:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Special:Popularpages. --Splaka 09:23, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Special:Validate is exactly what you want and it's already in MediaWiki. See Wikipedia:m:Article validation feature. I've been pushing and pushing and pushing for this to be switched on for Wikipedia for a while now. However, Brion Vibber (the lead on MediaWiki) fears it completely crippling the database. You could ask Wikia for an opinion ... I think it'd fit in perfectly with what Wikia does - David Gerard 11:40, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I read the page and have no idea what that does. --Chronarion 15:19, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Further, ratings would be one score per article, not per revision. An admin can reset points if they feel a latest revision was strong enough to merit a full change. If this still seems to be a workable idea, I can start writing code, at first a monobook.js extension, and later MediaWiki after I fill out the implementation. --Chronarion 15:22, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

It has a potential to work, there is no doubt in that. A rating system could motivate better writing and also let people know where to look for the best quality. It could ofcourse be abused, and if this is the case, and the system just doesnt work, I do hope it would be removed. But this is getting ahead of ourselves. I think its worth a try, but a non commital try where if it fails we can get rid of it. Rangeley 21:11, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. I've wanted some sort of rating system for years. Or, at lest since March. But I've been quiet about it, just mindin' my own... --Savethemooses 21:37, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Excellent idea. Seems to work well for Yahoo message boards and Linkfilter.net. Personally I don't read messages with low ratings on Yahoo or poorly rated articles on Linkfilter. -anon

Mainly the problem is that we have alot of crap. Sorting the gems out is really hard unless we have some kind of scoring system. --Chronarion 00:38, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I think a rating system would be preatty nice. Jack Cain 08:10, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Forest Fire Week

This week is national forest fire week! Admins can hit 'random page' and burn it if it REALLY sucks, bypassing VFD. The criterea for QVFD is hereby halved! There's so much crap, it's burn time! --Chronarion 05:27, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Burn baby... *puts up his MTU tag for a bit* --Splaka 05:31, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC) PS: Randompage seems weighted to newer pages, so a lot of the newer pages will fall first, I think.
Bow *clicking finger twitches* *chants* "Huff Huff Huff Huff!" We are not worthy! Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:36, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Many pages will fall beneath our swords this week... --—rc (t) 05:45, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If anyone would like to use my autowant javascript (autoselects the confirm button on delete pages, changes the text, and sets the focus on the text so you can just hit enter, or type a different reason and hit enter). Put this code in your User:You/monobook.js (or whatever theme you are using).
document.write('<script type="text/javascript" src="http://www.uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=User:Splaka/autowant.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript&dontcountme=s"></script>');
Or copy the code from User:Splaka/autowant.js if you want to put in your own custom message, or the more advanced code from User:Splaka/monobook.js. Enjoy. --Splaka 06:13, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Damn the Special:Log/delete is filling up fast. But so is Special:Newpages. I've put a faux template on the front page (as you might notice) with custom animated gifs... if there are any objections you can beat me with a feather duster. Cheers. --Splaka 11:40, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey, this is fun! Ten middle-clicks of "Random page", three deletions ... - David Gerard 12:53, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hot Damn, that looks like fun! Can I have a flamethrower? =P Seriously, though, good work, guys. This has needed to be done for some time! All hail Forest Fire Week! --RadicalX 13:55, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

The great burnination is upon us. May those who edit out the great burnination be stricken with erectile dysfunction. --Nytrospawn 16:34, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I Agree with this sentiment, as this means that i can act as I normally do, without regard for humanity.--Sir Flammable KUN 17:51, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


I hardily endorse this event or product. Have fun on your hunt. Be sure to bring back a feast.--Sir AlexMW KUN PS FIYC 19:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Hey, any Admin or aspiring burninators who want to swig mead and reminisce between battles, come to the green pavilion at the top of the fourth hill north from the battlefield. Click here and choose #uncyclopedia (or come on with an IRC client: irc.freenode.net in #uncyclopedia chan) --Splaka 22:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Oh God! *panicedly runs to save his shittier pages* Jack Cain 23:40, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

So... shoot at will? --Savethemooses 02:42, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

If William deserves it! --Splaka 02:48, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Old Bill was always a bit of an asshole. --Spintherism 05:01, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If you want to shoot at Wil, please do. Thanks. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 05:20, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Damn I have Thursday and Friday off. What amazing timing. Hell, I started randombly burning crap this earlier this week, without even knowing this was coming up. But then I got feeling a teensy bit guilty and let some pages off the hook. Horray for browser history!!! --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 14:06, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Muhahahaha!!!! The orphans are mine. I know it's a little outside the Randompage method, but hell, they would have come up anyway... --Bone_F_clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 15:16, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

More Complaining About Undictionary

I was just poking around in the MTU category (and by poking around, I mean deleting things), when God spoke to me from a burning template. He told me to free the bytes from bondage and lead them to some promise land where they might be forced no longer to present irredeemably uninspired one-liners in the heat of the sun and dark of the night, while their children starve and such. So I say to myself, I say "Cap'n, we're no God-lackey, but He's got a point." And then I say "That he does, for the majority of things in undictionary really aren't proper dictionary entries at all! In fact, most of them are just short uncyclopedia entries that should be judged by their merit in that context, and not given special treatment, by which they're left rotting and ignored in the horrible caverns of uncyclopedic bureaucracy." So I say to myself, "Ok, Cap'n you've got a point, I'll go make a post in the Village Dump." --Spintherism 03:55, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)

I've long been of the opinion that Undictionary is mostly full of tripe. I've even thought about suggesting we get rid of it altogether to clean house around here, though I haven't actually mentioned it until now. Mediocre pages have their haven in Undictionary, and I think it dilutes humor of the site to a significant extent because users/admins seem disinclined to remove lame humor if there's the possibility that a page could become an Undictionary entry. If an entry is stupid, it should be deleted. If it has slight potential, but after a reasonable amount of time its potential is not met, it should be deleted. There's no reason to let bad humor live just because it's in a short Undictionary entry! As you say, they should be judged by their own merit.
Regarding the un-dictionaryish entries - even if pages are formatted as "proper" definitions, I still don't think that justifies having hundreds of short (often one-line) entries littering the site, especially when many of them are (and will be) weak. Maybe confine Undictionary to a page for each letter (i.e. Undictionary:A. Undictionary:B, as it's set up now), so we can preserve the content without having to deal with the many, many small Undictionary pages that plague fill the site. Just my opinion, of course. --—rc (t) 04:09, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I've gotta go with Spintherism on this one. I've found the Undictionary to be 99.8% unfunny one-liners, and .2% unfunny multi-liners. =P Seriously, though...it's just an excuse to make crappy/lazy writers feel better about themselves. I've written some stinkbombs in my day, but at least I had the decency to come up with a paragraph or two! This just encourages shoddy workmanship. I say it's time to let it go.--RadicalX 04:13, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I'll let you all in on a secret. Very very few of the MTU articles I've tagged make it to the Undictionary (and I think I've tagged around a thousand?). MTU to me is a marker for finding articles that the author doesn't care about, so they can be deleted a week later without complaint ("The plans were on file at Alpha Centauri for the last 4 years, good heavens mankind.") or so they'll be tended to by the original author (if they care enough to visit their page within a week). The problem is, there are so many new ones since the slashdotting (around 200 a day, I think) that it is hard to find the crap ones after they've left Special:Newpages. Special:Shortpages is clogged with Wilde: entries so is pretty useless for finding them.... I have moved some of the best, but rarely. The tag makes the process very clear. I would be for another tag, like "fix this up or we delete in one week", because I like there to be gradients. QVFD = "My neighbour is gay". VFD = long articles that have had some work, but are crap. MTU/newtag = short articles that might maybe improve. etc. My 2cents. --Splaka 04:26, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Another problem is that the sheer number of shoddy Undictionary entries makes it very hard to browse the site using the "random page" link. I'll bet a lot of visitors are put off by constant encounters with crap like this. It's sorta like our version of Wikipedia's countless bot-written pages on towns, battleships, etc. Except way more stupid.--Jordanus 04:29, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Under further divine inspiration, I made the following image: --Spintherism 04:48, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


Point. If it doesn't seem like it would be funny to anyone, feel free to delete it. If you're ABSOLUTELY sure that it's in no way funny to anyone, admins can bypass QVFD. --Chronarion 05:18, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
If anyone wants to try to salvage UD, I made LISP an example of a proper UD entry (but I'm currently too hungry to convert it to UD) since it started off with a definition and one of the Huff Gods decided to spare it. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 15:18, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Update - I move it to the UD. I also found another excellent example UD entry: Undictionary:Bat-shit_insane. Dawg.gif » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 17:50, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)
UD, in its present form (ie: once it went from ten entries to several hundred rather quickly), is just a handy dumping ground for one-line fragments too insignificant to be encyclopædia articles while not quite weak enough to be QVFDable. What's there was generally moved there - it's very rare that anyone would have written entries intending them to land on this set of pages. The same could likely be said of {{rewrite}} and maybe some of the {{stub}}s are iffy too - they were marginal for QVFD so they were stubbed. The Special:Uncategorizedpages, Special:Shortpages and Special:Deadendpages also have more than their share of marginal text. I (like others) had gone through Uncategorisedpages a few months ago attempting to categorise what was passable, QVFD what was marginal and huff the worst of the one-line fragments, but like weeds the whole mess has long since grown back as thick as ever. Meanwhile, much of what survived previous QVFD attempts landed in UD, effectively creating a low-quality predecessor to the 1000 Uncyclopedians Typing Hamlet project.
The only reason these are separate entries instead of just {{subst: }}ing the lot onto the 26 alphabetical ick!tionary pages is that these were created in main article space as fragments and dumped in UD later as a QVFD alternative, keeping article history for articles which maybe should've been history. It's not that UD has become rubbish, it always was somewhere to dump rubbish. Unfortunately, the UD structure was reused for the Wilde quotes, creating more one-line fragments. Oh well... --Carlb 11:04, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Couldn't we just consolidate the undictionary into 26 pages and delete the rest? --Spintherism 14:23, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I am entirely for this. --—rc (t) 16:48, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Consolidation sounds like a good idea in general, though I'd prefer that only those articles which actually could represent dictionary entries be kept in Undictionary. The rest can be moved back to the main namespace and marked as stubs, or deleted. --Algorithm 23:25, 25 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools
In other languages