Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 2

Mention of Humor

Since Uncyclopedia is a wikipedia-approved parody of itself, shouldn't it be mentioned how this detracts from the humor? Or at least add a criticism section. 205.222.248.25 15:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Approved? when did that happen, and where is the certificate?--ElvisThePrince 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I fully realise that most of the people here are uncyclopedia editors so of course you will be quite nationalistic about your site however still here on wikipedia we do things differently:

• It is not good practice to flatly revert things. You are supposed to work to improve what is said, not flatly remove it.
• We value fair and balanced articles- that is they show both POV. It is quite clear just from this discussion page not everyone agrees uncyclopedia is the best thing since sliced bread.

What I say about uncyclopedia vfd most new articles is 100% true, one of the reverters was quite stupidly epitomising the rule himself on articles I created(/resurrected) there to prove the point. I have tried to compromise and toned down what was said however you are behaving like this is uncyclopedia and just flatly reverting.--Josquius 15:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

What is there to improve when the claims made, that its not editable by everyone, and that regardless of quality most articles are deleted? Both of these claims are entirely false. Rather than keep adding them and complaining when they get removed, perhaps you should improve what you are saying and use facts/sources. ~Rangeley (talk) 15:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

If you'd check I didn't mention regardless of quality last time (however that is still true). The thing about sources is by the very nature of the 'crime' the evidence is removed. At uncyclopedia it is standard practice to remove anything that is not a 100% complete article, its really not a 'open to anyone' thing like wikipedia.

And sources- ah always with the sources, how predictable. There's nothing more annoying then people ranting about sources. As you are well aware uncyclopedia is a minor site and so all 'sources' would be solely in the site itself- and since this is about deleted articles you will not find many of them. For sources though...Oh well go look at the most recent articles at uncyclopedia, you will find 99% of them do have deletion notices, also pops up in a few people's discussion--Josquius 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

99% is way too high. You're just sore because stubs get tagged at uncyclopedia. There is a reason for this, and if you read the pages on the site about the project and how to contribute, you would understand why this is. Unlike wikipedia, where someone might come along and add factual content to a one-line stub at some point in the future, at uncyclopedia, since there is no fact in humor, just ends up with a lot of junk if the stubs are not removed should they not be completed. It's the nature of the beast and well-documented. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no such policy at Uncyclopedia, no matter what crack you're smoking. Whether it actually happens is up to a reliable source from a third party, not Wikipedians. Until there are sources that can reasonably prove that Uncyclopedia does these things, they are mere speculation and don't belong in the article.

Additionally, Wikipedia does do this; ever heard of {{prod}}? --Keitei (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Also note that it is original research and cannot be proven in any way. There's no way to calculate 99%, no way to prove 100% go to VFD (they don't, this is just outrageous), nor any other claim in the section in dispute. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

About 3 from every 4 Many new entries get deleted. That's true. The quality standards are high and most newcomers don't reach them on the first attemps, also true. Some of them get pissed, also true. And yes, lenght is usually part of the quality requirements for a pseudo-enciclopedic article. However uncyclopedia is indeed open to anyone. It's open to any person which is not the same than being open to any entry. Wikipedia isn't open to any entry either, otherwise uncyclopedia wouldn't exist. So if you want to write that uncyclopedia's high quality standards pisses people off, well, go ahead, but don't say the site isn't open, couse that's a straight lie. You may also want to point that others consider the quality standards to be the key of uncyc's succes, and some users insist there are not enough deletions. However, being that this is an article on such a "minor site", the whole issue doesn't deserve more than a single sentence or no sentence at all.--Rataube 17:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed open to practically any entry. Its deletion policy is a lot fairer and short articles are perfectly acceptable- for a short article is better then nothing. The only time articles get deleted outright is if they are a blatant troll/other idiocy. Considering that half of the discussion about uncyclopedia you find on internet forums on here is people saying they don't like it I'd say criticism deserves quite a big place in the article. It seems far more then 3 out of every 4 deleted to me, I once had a go at uncyclopedia and only one of my articles survived and it wasn't really my best written one at all- it was however my longest containing a lot of unfunny blabbering. Whatever ends up happening stop removing NPOV tags. The NPOV violation isn't in removing my attempt at a criticism section- its the original reason that I did attempt to create such a section. --Josquius 19:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Find a reliable source. --Keitei (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV tag because I couldn't find anything in the article or on the talk page to warrant it. Until I'm actually provided with a reason for assuming that this article as it stands is of disputable neutrality, I really don't see why I or anyone else should not remove NPOV tags. EldKatt (Talk) 20:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The new section had a distinct POV. Forum postings are POVs of various persons; they are not facts by any stretch of the imagination. Stick to the facts, don't make up percentages. Ericj 00:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Josquius, this is all quite silly. Firstly, you seem to be basing this entirely on your own experiences, and you have explictly stated that you have written articles that were deleted — Bias, perhaps? As Keitei says, criticism needs to come from specific, third-party, reliable sources, none of which you have offered.

Also, you are getting your facts wrong on several points. "3 out of 4" is a metric that you just, uh, made up, so it's meaningless in as much as Wikipedia is concerned. Additionally, speaking as a Wikipedia administrator who has deleted quite a few articles, I can say that your statements about Wikipedia's deletion policy are, to be frank, utter nonsense.

Now, please, feel free to continue discussion here, but note that unless you provide citations for the material you wish to add to the article, it will be removed.--SB | T 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sean: I think you are getting mixed up here. It was someone else who came up with 3 out of 4. And my view on wikipedia's deletion policy is perfectly true. Go look around the site, you will find many very short incomplete articles just saying the likes of 'Marshborough is a town in western Shropshire' And no, it is not based entirely on my own experiences, look above you and you will see quite a few people don't like uncyclopedia, so many the discussion topic has a disclaimer. Bias: Probally. However since some of the people here are mods and the like at uncyclopedia its fair to say that is also bias. The way to make a NPOV aritlce is to merge the bias. It's really being quite childish to flatly revert attempts to improve the article by attempting to add a minor section with the other POV. If criticism needs to come from a specific source: as I said that is really dishonourable play however as your kind sticks to such things a quick look around brings:

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zombiebaron/archive1#Eh.3F - he says it himself. He puts the deletion tags on all not 100% complete articles

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#NRV - some seem to make a game of it

http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ghelae#Author_of_Rosyth_school-student -as you can see the talk pages of these people are full of it.

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/142615 - On a different note of criticism 'Not all the humor works. Some of it is vulgar, sophomoric and mean, and much of it is senseless. It is the Internet, after all.'

So quite a bit out there, mostly on uncyclopedia itself. And I have no idea where to look--Josquius 11:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Making any conclusion based on the primary sources you cite is original research at its most obvious. You need to find some reliable secondary sources for the particular criticism you want to write about; not merely primary evidence to base your own criticism on. That's just the way it is. EldKatt (Talk) 14:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Josquius: Neither of the user talk pages linked to is that of an administrator. NRV isn't VFD, it's the uncyclopedia equivalent of a prod for content that is amazingly incomplete and it exists to aid in both transforming cruft articles into full articles with the ancillary purpose of removing failed cruft articles from the site. Interestingly, a good percentage of NRV'd articles survive because the writer completes the article. Some very good stuff that isn't complete is given a 30-day prod to make sure nobody deletes it too hastily (sadly, even these scare some users). Really poor articles with no hope whatsoever are placed on QVFD and are promptly deleted, while VFD gets the stuff that isn't funny but somehow fell between the cracks. All this could have been gleaned from reading elsewhere, too, so I've wasted a lot of time trying to distill it down for you. Honestly, I don't think anyone at wikipedia cares how the process works at uncyclopedia. Ericj 19:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, since we're taking sources from uncyclopedia itself now, I'd like to not that only 11 of the 50 new articles currently listed as New pages have any sort of deletion notice on them. 11/50 is roughly 1/5, I think we can agree on that. 1/5 is not 99%, 1/5 is not "most", 1/5 is not 3/4 (as someone else suggested), 1/5 is 1/5. This number may fluctuate depending on the time of day and the quality of the articles, but even then I doubt it'd come close to 51% (the percent needed to state that "most of the articles have deletion tags"). I'd also like to point out that at Uncyclopedia we use humor, and I believe that most of what was said on those two users' talk pages was just that. Besides, Ghelae is insane and we don't delete half of the stuff he tags :) tmopkisn ^tlka 01:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Tmopkisn, the new articles list doesn't include those alredy huffed. But I take the 3/4 guess back. The point is that even if uncyc do delete plenty of articles, it's still open to any person.--Rataube 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I was leaving that part out :) tmopkisn ^tlka 23:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mention articles that are deleted on sight or through QVFD, you'd see similar deletions to wikipedia, and these really shouldn't be counted as marks against uncyclopedia. Only things that totally fail some rule or are a worthless one-liners are deleted on sight. The two that are still on uncyclopedia and have become inside jokes were saved from deletion by admins that wanted to show what not to do. See Euroipods and Fisher Price for examples (Euroipods was modified later (people poking fun at it), but you can see the original in the history. Fisher Price is the original with a link to the "retrospective" - the admins and users poking fun at this particular "article"). So, the deletions really don't apply as it's similar to here in most cases. Ericj 20:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Josquius: that last link you provided is exactly the reason WHY we delete stuff. We don't want to appear mean, vulgar, sophmoric and/or nonsensical unless its in a funny way. The stuff we delete is what GIVE uncyc a bad name to some people. And for the record, a stub on Wikipedia that may contain some fact and could be useful is a lot different than a stub on a humor website because generally something without much content isnt very funny, and humor, not knowledge is the goal. Like most analogies, yours was bad. --insertwackynamehere 23:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Typically short stuff is more often funny then long stuff. Hence one liners et all.--Josquius 18:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Please stop editing the infobox to say "Commercial: No". This is inaccurate; Wikia is a for-profit corporation with paid staff, outside investors to whom to answer and the wiki itself is covered with commercial advertising on every page. Whether it's made a profit yet is irrelevant; the fact that the domain owners operate it with the intention of making a profit is sufficient to place it in the "commercial" realm. As such, "Commercial: No" is false - please stop adding it here. Thanks. --carlb 06:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• But Uncyc itself operates under a CC-NC license! - Sikon 07:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is hosted by Wikia but is, itself, independant and not for profit. --gwax UN (say hi) 04:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Independent *how* exactly? Whois indicates that it's owned (not just hosted) by Jimbo, Wikia Inc. Big difference. --66.102.66.118 04:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Bias

I added an important unbiased label because this article looks down on uncyclopedia. --Ehburrus 23:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

After reading the article through again, I can fairly safely say that I have no idea what you are talking about. In short, I'm disputing your NPOV dispute tag. I think it's quite well written. —Hinoa 00:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Unquotable really a parody of Wikiquote?

To my knowledge it was created more as a shrine to fake Oscar Wilde quotes after they were maliciously placed into articles (remember, it was originally called "Making up Quotes"). Sir Crazyswordsman 06:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason why it can't be a shrine to Oscar AND a parody of wikiquote at the same time (duh, duh, derr!!)--ElvisThePrince 10:27, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying that it wasn't designed with Wikiquote in mind. Sir Crazyswordsman 16:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure it was. "Hey, we all hate these retarded quotes... you know, Wikipedia does, too... they sent theirs off to Wikiquote... that's not a half bad idea!" --Keitei, who can't ensure the complete veracity of that statement, but believes it to be very similar to what happened 20:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Still, Making up Oscar Wilde Quotes was the X-factor, if you will. Sir Crazyswordsman 03:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Kitten Huffing

Why does the kitten huffing article redirect here, but then there is no mention of it in the article, The only notable example mentioned is about Oscar Wilde, no kitten huffing, no Chuck Norrisms.I like Radiohead 17:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It used to be.--Rataube 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why would we even have Chuck Norrisisms on Uncyclopedia? Inserting them is a bannable offense. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant how Uncyclopedia heavily influenced the Chuck Norrism culture, well at least I thought it did. I like Radiohead 06:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Chuck Norris has been around for years. Sir Crazyswordsman 00:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Autistic/Asperger's humor?

My younger brother being low-functioning autistic, I used to do a lot of work with autistic children (both low- and high- functioning) in the community. After perusing the Uncyclopedia site for a while, its peculiar type of "humor" reminded me of what I used to see from children suffering from Asperger's. I was wondering, mostly out of curiosity, are Uncyclopedia's editors primarily Autistic or Aspies? Anonymous 57 01:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am. Sir Crazyswordsman 05:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am. --Nintendorulez talk 19:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am. Invisible Queen 17:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I probably am. ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 07:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have several learning disabilities and severe emotional problems, but extensive psychological testing has not shown signs of autism or Asperger's ... so far. --Naughtius Maximus F@H Woof! MeowMUN 00:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm Spartacus. Although honestly, I'd say you could find pretty much every brand of humor around on Uncyc. It's a wiki, so there's all sorts of contributors. Pretty much every genre of humor is covered, though we try to weed out the infamous "OMG TIHS GUY I KNO IZ GAY LOLOLO" style. --Nintendorulez talk 18:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I am.--Ryoske 09:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I have Aspergers, autism, OCD and schizophrenia. This may be just because they're so vaguely defined in Wikipedia, though. - Sikon 09:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Me. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fixed Main Page Holidays Heading

Someone had used three ='s instead of two for the heading, I'm just boasting about how I fixed it - ZEROpumpkins 06:59, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Getting to Uncyclopedia

Ucyclopedia is blocked in several libraries - understandably - but can be got via Désencyclopédie - entirely appropriate.

Could Uncyclopedia be used to leak "mildly controversial" information with appropriate links from elsewhere (a hypothetical question of course)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.83.240.26 (talk • contribs)

Well, I can't see that being much different from lots of sites out there. --Nintendorulez talk 21:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense parody

Uncyclopedia has a parody of this, titled True Facts and Other Deleted Prose. I'd put in the article, but I'm too tired. --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there a page on this, but the ******* admins can delete the one about Encyclopedia Dramatica?

Someone explain. --MasterA113 20:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Uncyclopedia has been referenced online in the New York Times,[24] The Boston Herald,[25] The Guardian,[26] The Register,[27] the Taipei Times,[28],the Apple Daily[29] and the Arizona Daily Star.[30]"

ED has not. --Keitei (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, Uncyclopedia is actually funny (on occasion, at least), rather than merely tasteless and juvenile (as ED tends to be). But the real answer seems to be that ED managed to piss off some influential Wikipedians through personal attacks, revealing personal info, etc., while Uncyclopedia doesn't do that sort of thing. *Dan T.* 20:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Reaffirming the fact that the old media doesn't know anything about internet humour. --Postbagboy 11:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Or that ED isn't funny take your pick.--ElvisThePrince 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ED got AFD'd. I'll see if I can dig up the page. --Nintendorulez talk 18:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here it is. It pretty much just violated WP:NOR, as all the sources were just ED pages, no outside sources. Uncyc's been in the papers all the time. --Nintendorulez talk 18:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Two versions of Uncyclopedia

I discovered this when I wrote some funny i one of them. I did not find it next day. Then I discovered that it is two different versions of Uncyclopedia. One of them is at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. The other one is at http://en.uncyclomedia.org/wiki/Main_Page. Most other languages (except swedish) have two versions of Uncyclopedia based on uncyclopedia.org and uncyclomedia.org. Within the different languages unclycopedia links cross these two versions for foreign languages. Uncyclopedia may need a "cleanup" for linking within different langages. Wikipedia should point that is it two different versions of Uncyclopedia, and tell the reason for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.203.134.118 (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Whoah, I never knew about this... Anyway, use uncyclopedia.org for the english Uncyc. Not sure what to use for the others. en.uncyclomedia.org appears to have some kind of time-warped old database revision, and the sites are running seperate databases. Spooky... *plays with uncyclomedia version in an effort to try and rip a hole in the space-time continuum* --Nintendorulez talk 20:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

en.uncyclomedia.org a mirror site. And don't try to rip a hole in the space-time continuum. If you do, I'll tell your mother. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 21:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, it's just a mirror site, I think it was created by an admin a while back. Most people over there know about it already, and it's sometimes useful for finding deleted articles since everything that gets created in the main site is automatically copied to there. --212.85.1.183 16:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Carlb has several different domains and mirrors set up. It doesn't really merit mention in the article. --Keitei (talk) 17:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Swedish has two versions, http://psyklopedin.hehu.se/ and http://sv.uncyclomedia.org/ where the last one is more functional and better. – SmiddleTC@ 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to Uncyclopedia

Probably this isn't the place to discuss this, but... I think it's really odd and misleading that apparently one can link to Uncyclopedia as if it's just another namespace on WP. There's no "external link" symbol next to it, and it doesn't open in a new window. It's very disorienting to me since I expect to still be on Wikipedia. I realize that one can link to Wiktionary, etc. that way, but they're sister projects. Uncyclopedia (bless its heart) isn't. (Incidentally, if anyone could direct me to where I might ask about this (I'm not a policy person, heh), or tell me if this has been discussed before, that would be awesome.) --Galaxiaad 03:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Erm it's called InterWiki linking and it works for a lot more sites than just Uncyclopedia--ElvisThePrince 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

You can tell wikilinks and interwikilinks apart by their color. Interwiki links are a slightly lighter shade. And yeah, WP supports a lot more than just its sister projects for interwiki links. --Nintendorulez talk 20:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyone know what happened?

To the main page of Uncyclopeda? [1] martianlostinspace 15:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• It is a one day only thing, parodying Web 2.0. --Abeg92contribsBoomer Sooners! 16:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank God... 71.116.112.140 21:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Who got rid of the Talk page archives?

Those were hilarious! Sir Crazyswordsman 17:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I salvaged what could be salvaged of them. It would helpful if the regular editors of this article would archive the talk page properly rather than letting it be blanked and archived brokenly by bots that should not be used on article talk pages. It really only takes 10 seconds every few months. —Centrx→talk • 21:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the editors of this article spend about 90% of their time at Uncyclopedia. Sir Crazyswordsman 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I spend more time here, though. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Not Wikipedia Saavy

Does anyone know how to get rid of that large blank spot below the Contents section? I looked at the section and i couldn't figure out any way to fix it so, i hope a admin can fix this Diggity-diggity-doom 05:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just noticed that its because my comp is on a large resolution...anyway, if you know a way to fix it, feel free to Diggity-diggity-doom 05:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you might need to re-arrange the pictures, but that may cause problems for computer users who use a different resolution than yours. -- Altiris Exeunt 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Creation date

So, the Uncyclopedia was created in 2000 or 2005? There are both years mentioned, but at most one of them is correct :)-Sedimin 11:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I could find no mention of 2000, but it was made in 2005, definitely. - GnomeNinja5 8:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

We came into existance in January 2005 (our "rivals" over at ED say we copied them since we're all of a month younger, but that's not the case, as Uncyc was created without the knowledge of ED, and the humor is different). Sir Crazyswordsman 01:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Vandels/Uncyclopedia Users connection

It seems an awful lot of vandels on Wikipedia went to Uncyclopedia because they hate Wikipedia so much [Good old 'Pelican Shit', for example], or started vandalizing Wikipedia BECAUSE of Uncyclopedia. I think this should be mentioned FinalWish 06:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You got proof? Sir Crazyswordsman 02:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I really believe that. Wikipedia would not tolerate onsense so they trolled off to a site that would. American Brit 04:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, usually a troll gets blocked here at Wikipedia and one of the administrators foolishly tells them to 'try Uncyclopedia.' Then they get blocked over there too. Uncyclopedia is a humor wiki, not a trolling wiki, just like Wikipedia isn't a trolling wiki. tmopkisn ^tlka 00:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing just because you hate Uncyclopedia

I found someone added the sentence "It is also the worst website." and also deleted the whole external link column. It seems that this fellow hates Uncyclopedia very much. But let me tell you - DO NOT VANDALISE THIS PAGE JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU HATE UNCYCLOPEDIA. Just try to do such thing in Uncyclopedia. Or maybe you can scold in this talk page. I don't know. Anyway, just some words here - DO NOT SHOW YOUR HATE TOWARDS UNCYCLOPEDIA IN WIKIPEDIA. Please keep Wikipedia neutral, as Wikipedia cannot be made a "military base". --Edmundkh 16:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats true. I dislike Uncyclopedia very much, I think it is silly and stupid but there is no need for vandalism. American Brit 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we can request semiprotection for this page? Sir Crazyswordsman 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Depending. I think the admins will only semi-protect a page if it is vandalised at least ten times a day. Not too long ago, I filed an RFP for Pokémon Emerald, but failed because there just wasn't enough vandalism (more than once per day, but no less than five everyday, I think) to warrant a semi-protect. If this article has been vandalised for around ten times a day, then I would think an RFP is quite applicable. -- Altiris Exeunt 04:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be "sista projects", not "sister projects", shouldn't it?

Everytime I look at this article, I cannot help but notice that it states that Uncyclopedia has several "sister projects". However, on Uncyclopedia's main page, it states that it has several "sista projects". Shouldn't we change accordingly? -- Altiris Exeunt 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

number of pages

Wikipedia says Uncyclopedia has over 20,000 articles. Uncyclopedia Stats says it has over 100,000 articles. Uncyclopedia's past main page said it has over 10,000,000 articles. Which one is right? If Uncyclopedia has less articles that Wikipedia, it did not "overgrow" Wikipedia. I'm thinking that "10000000 articles" thing is a gag. That probably happened when Uncyclopedia had 100,000 articles or 10,000 articles. Nowhere close to Wikipedia. AstroHurricane001 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The stats page states that "there are 20,304 pages that are probably legitimate content pages.". The 10,000,000 articles is a joke, partially in reference to the large amount of pages that are deleted.--SirNuke 00:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was a spoof of Wikipedia's 1,500,000 articles (notice the 150,000,000th article is the same as Wikipedia's 1,500,000th). Sir Crazyswordsman 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Should the number of pages be updated? It's now January, and Uncyclopedia has over 200,800 pages. Should the article be edited to reflect this? AstroHurricane001^{(Talk+Contribs+Ubx)} 15:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

parody?

Uncyclopedia doesn't nessecarily claim that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia. It also claims Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia[2]. Also, it says nothing about Wikipedia being Satirical. AstroHurricane001 22:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncyc does claims that Wikipedia is a parady of Uncyclopedia, though that is a running joke and not meant to be taken seriously.--SirNuke 00:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

And should we quote those jokes on a neutral site like wikipedia???

Mugunth 06:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

People think wikipedia is a parody... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.192.12.173 (talk) 00:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

vandalism

An anon keeps adding POV to the article, which has been reverted once. However, the anon reverted it back, saying it's true. This does not follow the WP:NPOV rule and the WP:V rule. I suggest the anon take his/her objections to this talk page. You can't just say it's true, you have to provide a source. Thank you. AstroHurricane001 19:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The contributor in question is, I strongly suspect, an individual from the University of Massachusettes who on Uncyclopedia was going by the aliases "Ape Slayer" and "Shit Zuu". I blocked him from Uncyclopedia for making racist edits to the site, and it appears his response is to vandalise the en.wp article with incorrect allegations about the site's editorial policies and libellous ones regarding my sexual predilections (can you say WP:NPA, kids?). Apologies to Wikipedia for our trolls spilling over here. Codeine 00:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Codeine. How do you feel that your mom's in this article? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Indifferent. -- Codeine 00:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought so... --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

About the template up top...

Could we maybe change it to:

I don't see the need to tell people to go and complain over at Uncyclopedia's Village Dump. I think we have had more than enough of those semi-coherent troll topics, just look at Uncyclopedia is the worst. The majority of that page is taken directly from this talk page and the Village Dump. --Nintendorulez talk 21:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I emphatically second that. Jonas Liljeström 16:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I put it up. ~Rangeley (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell who means to be funny and who is serious here. However, given the general bent of Wikipedia and Wikipedians, and the content of this "talk" page in general, it seems likely that very few Wikipedians could be Uncylopedians. Therefore, to the extent anyone seeks to be humorous on this site, good luck to you, and don't stay awake waiting for your accolades here!!!!

Elcajonfarms 06:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia but not Ecyclopedia Dramatica?

I don't understand why this gets to have a page but the Dramatica page is prevented from ever being made again. I love wikipedia but it by no means should be able to censor something just because some higher ups don't like it. Maybe there is a legitimate reason for its condition, but it seems stupid for there to be a page for this parody and not another, if they are both notable. What's going on here? Reignbow 07:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

You may want to see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encyclopædia Dramatica (3rd nomination). --AAA! ^(AAAA) 11:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is what, the fifth time someone's claimed on here that Wikipedia is trying to censor ED? Look, it was deleted due to OR. --Nintendorulez talk 01:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia = Article of the Day??

I just asked Raul654 on his talk page, and he said he had no problem, tentitivley, making this the featured article on April Fool's Day. I don't edit this much, but if many of the frequent editors here can help this get cleaned up for FAC by March 1, I would appreciate it. The Placebo Effect 00:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You can start by removing the ugly Chuck Norris sentence. Inserting Chuck Norris reference is a serious bannable offense. Sir Crazyswordsman 08:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe try nominating it for WP:AID. - SpLoT _(*C*+u+g) 12:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm in to getting this to featured article status by april fools day. I'm more than happy to go nd research the web to get it there! I say we create a subpage to create it and move it over to mainspace once its complete. How about Uncyclopedia/featured article? Might be better as we can improve as we go along and only put it on the page when we're happy. No doubt we'll have to take a lot of things from the main article RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added headings to the page I suggested for the creation of the featured article page - I've made it mirror the wikipedia wiki as much as I could. It will be funny!!! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I almost deleted it as empty article. Can you do that in your userspace? Or at least inside Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article? The problem with Uncyclopedia/featured article is that it is considered another article, and it is possible for someone to reach it through Special:Random. Please tag the article with {{db-owner}} and create it under your user space or inside the talk namespace. Thanks! -- ReyBrujo 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Moved into talkspace, can now be found at Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hehehe, sorry, but Talk Uncyclopedia/featured article is still inside the article namespace. I moved it to Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article (note that you can't have a talk page in that page, because it is already in the talk page namespace). If you need a talk page (in example, to coordinate efforts with others) move it to User:Ryanpostlethwaite/Uncyclopedia, in example. -- ReyBrujo 05:05, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

UnTunes

Uncyclopedia has recently established the UnTunes namespace for parody musical contributions. 206.45.135.233 12:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding sources

I actually brought this up in the recent AfD for this article, but it was closed before any discussion could start regarding the question I am going to bring up. Basically, does this article have severe sourcing problems? It seems to violate WP:V and WP:NOR all over the place, with the material 'sourced' from Uncyclopedia itself. I hope someone could clear this up for me, because I'm curious-DESU 09:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have reason to believe the website would be incorrect about itself? If Uncyclopedia states its policies as x, y, z, I don't see why that'd be unreliable. Indeed, if you read what the "reliable sources" say about Wikipedia's policies, you'll find they have a vast error margin. If there's anything you want to be a stickler about, maybe you could post it here and Jonathan can mention it to the next journalist asking for material? Can't promise they'll get it right though. Speaking as an Uncyclopedia administrator and bureaucrat, this article was completely correct when I rewrote it. There might be some kinks now in the content section or something, but... eh. A good combing through wouldn't be uncalled for, but I don't think Uncyclopedia is unreliable when stating what is written there. Seeing as you can check that it's written there yourself, with a click. Sort of "original research", but.. not really... just sort of "click and read"... don't think that's against policy... --Keitei (talk) 09:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that Uncyclopedia is unreliable about itself - but the same can be said of any website. What's getting me is that nearly all of the material is referenced from the site itself, and not an independent, outside source... I believe a number of articles about certain websites have been wiped due to the fact that the article was entirely (or almost entirely) 'sourced' from the site the article was about - despite the fact they were in the "click and read" format you describe. I'm not going to name any names, however. What I'm getting at is like, if one could use the site in question for sourcing the majority of the material in a wikipedia article... eh, I'm probably being picky, but whatever-DESU 10:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, ED was killed for that specific reason. Given all our forum topics on times the media has mentioned us, why aren't those articles used as sources? --Nintendorulez talk 18:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They don't say much of anything. "Hey, look at this place, it's pretty cool. Funny sometimes." That's not much information to put in an article. What would you like us to do? If it's the stability of a wiki page or the "seriousness" that's a problem, we can probably publish a press release to cover the issues needing citations. I think that once notability is established though, there doesn't need to be outside sources... I mean, I hope not. "Independent, outside sources" are wrong a lot of the time. I don't think it's a problem, but if it is, let us know. --Keitei (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also full of Wikimedia/MediaWiki self-reference. Less so now, thanks entirely to me. What exactly has been said in reputable third-party news sources about Uncyclopedia? Milto LOL pia 23:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is built on references to Wikimedia and MediaWiki; why would you remove that? --Keitei (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's built on the MediaWiki software. — MichaelLinnear 00:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The humor content originated in parodying conventions of MediaWiki and Wikimedia. It continues to do this. We frequently mess with the software to imitate Wikipedia, poke fun at the default messages, etc. It is built on these practices. --Keitei (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can I have a source for that? ;)-DESU 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would remove it because no one outside of Wikimedia cares, and because it's completely unsourced. Milto LOL pia 01:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trim time

I'm about to go through this article and waste everything that is unsourced or a self-reference. For the site's notability and media coverage, it's way too long, leading to sourcing problems. I figured I should probably start a heading first. So, go nuts on ideas/suggestions/whatever. Milto LOL pia 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go overboard. For example, citing Uncyclopedia would be entirely in order if the sentence being supported is about the content of the site. I agree with your suggestion that any major changes can profitably be discussed here on the talkpage before being implemented unilaterally. Newyorkbrad 01:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Referring to the content of the site is not a self-reference. It is explaining the content of the site. Check the inline citations, if they say what they say they say, then it is sourced. And they probably all do, considering I sourced it extensively when I rewrote it. --Keitei (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. The Encyclopedia Dramatica AfD may have been a fiasco, but some good points were raised, one being that taking what a website says about its own content is not a good idea. Besides, what about all the MediaWiki/Wikimedia comparisons? No one who is not active in Wikimedia is going to care about that. Milto LOL pia 01:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Looks like it'll be a while, a sysop who has been reverting me just protected it and reverted to her preferred version. Milto LOL pia 01:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted vandalism. Now, go get consensus if you want to rewrite this. pschemp | talk 01:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd kill to be on IRC right now. Boldness isn't vandalism, ya know. I don't need your go-ahead to improve an article. Milto LOL pia 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Look at it this way: now you won't have to suffer a 3RR block. pschemp | talk 01:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

? You're the one edit warring without so much as an edit summary, while I'm actively engaging in improvements on the article and discussion on the talk page. Milto LOL pia 01:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

April Fools Article

I created this link: Talk:Uncyclopedia/featured article, to create a possible featured article for april fools day. I've created the headings so far - maybe it would be a good idea to start from scratch with the page from here and then move it into mainspace? RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was actually meant to stop a revert war occuring! How about creating a completely new article and then moving it into mainspace, we can discuss here and then implement on a subsection of this page - in my opinion it would be a good idea if we're thinking of a complete rewrite RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

On this subject... What if someone were to make uncyclopedia a featured article as an April fool's joke Snoop0x7b 16:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't we just feature Toilet humour? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 23:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Protected

This page has been protected due to vandalism by Miltopia falsly inserting an unrefed tag into an article with 34 refs and changes against consesnsus. Any major changes should be worked out somewhere else and the new version should get consensus before changes are made. pschemp | talk 01:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am actively in the process of fixing up the article by removing self-references and faulty cites, as I've said on your talk page and here. The protecting sysop protected it after a content dispute in order to keep me from fixing it up. That doesn't seem helpful. Milto LOL pia 01:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Well, there's no point in the tag while sources are still on the page. I can understand if you want to find better sources, but don't call it unsourced while it is. --Nintendorulez talk 18:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Um... what the heck? If an editor is "vandalising", you block them, you don't protect from everyone. -Amark moo! 01:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • She can't do that because she knows that any uninvolved admin would know I wasn't vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 02:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • That isn't necessary, you know... Titoxd^(?!?) 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah wel, I'm not one to throw aside accusations against my integrity lightly. Still, you're probably right. Milto LOL pia 03:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• Can we like, um, have it unprotected??-DESU
  • That would be nice. — MichaelLinnear 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you like, get consensus for your changes first? pschemp | talk 02:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you perhaps not fprotect a page because of one editor having a dispute?-DESU 02:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
      • SHe had to protect because she knew a block would get overturned. Milto LOL pia 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Probably. Heh, this is frustrating-DESU 03:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Indeed. Next time I'll just let Miltopia break 3RR and then he'll get a block that won't be overturned. pschemp | talk 03:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
            • What, and that isn't preferable to preventing EVERYONE from editing the article? Plz to be reasonable-DESU 03:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
              • Bah, I at least tried to facilitate discussion on the disagreements. I didn't get so much as an edit summary from you. Milto LOL pia 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                • Gah, all of you, knock it off. The protection is down, show's over. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
                  • Okay sir, I agree that this talk page needs more love and less bickering <3 <3 <3-DESU 03:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
• This is a content dispute. None of the other editors had a problem with Miltopia's revisions or seemed to think it was "vandalism". As I said on WP:ANI, I think the edits are well-justified within policy and the page should be unprotected. It seems silly to ask for "consensus" when you and Sean Black were the only ones who found fault with what he was doing. Grandmasterka 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's purely a content dispute that has turned into pschemp trying to get me to agree to her terms and acknowledge my "vandalism" so she can save face. Let's just unprotect the page and move on. Milto LOL pia 02:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Tagging

Does this need a {{reliablesources}} tag or not? Consensus seems to say yes, but now I've been reverted impersonally as a vandal AGAIN. Does anyone feel strongly enough to re-insert it, seeing as how I'm getting gamed into breaking 3RR? I thought it was established that I wasn't vandalizing. Milto LOL pia 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the tag is not needed. It would certainly be in order for more sources to be introduced, but there are enough sources given that the overall tag seems to be a bit of overkill. Importantly, to my knowledge nobody has suggested that any of the information in the article is actually wrong. My suggestion is that you follow up on the idea you had earlier tonight and discuss on the talkpage the problems that you think exist. Newyorkbrad 03:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps (as mentioned on WP:ANI), would {{Self-published}} or {{Onesource}} be more appropriate?-DESU 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, my opinion is no, because there are several sources given. To the extent there aren't enough sources, the real solution is to find and cite more. Tagging is to draw attention to source problems that aren't being addressed. If you read up on this page, there is a group of editors who are looking to turn this into a featured article, so I am sure additional sources are going to be looked for. If the goal you two have is to improve the article, the best thing you can do is help. Newyorkbrad 03:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

But there are problems with the sourcing. The article draws too heavily on the subject web-site, and nearly all the material in the article is derived from it. There aren't enough reliable 3rd party sources. That is what Miltopia and I are getting at, and there have been many cases of articles about websites being euthanized due to this very problem-DESU 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have the feleing that's going to get me blocked. If this is going to be featured, it needs to be llong enough, but unfortunately, that just might not be an option if it's not possible to find third-party sources. Milto LOL pia 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tag. The article cites newspapers and several other outside sources. If there are problems with specific sections or statements, use {{fact}} or {{verify}}, but the overall article does cite non-primary sources. Seraphimblade 04:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll keep that up then. Milto LOL pia 04:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Their are a variety of sources using news archive search on Google news for Uncyclopedia. Some look like they ould help but they need a paid description to see. What is the policy on that? The Placebo Effect 14:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Trimming revisited

The last thread was ruined, so I'm starting over. Just a sort of uncounted poll, who thinks it should be trimmed and why or why not? I think it should be significantly trimmed because there are very, very few statements not backed up by third party sources. Many aren't sourced at all - I'm leaving the first-person sources be for now, but trying to identify unsourced altogether ones. I'll be honest, it doesn't look like many of them will ever get cites. The website is notable, but not fantastically so - a smaller article would serve Wikipedia better in my opinion. Milto LOL pia 04:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

And why would less information serve us better? ~Rangeley (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the information present would be reliable, informative, and well-sourced. Wikipedia would be more sure of its accuracy and would be an eensy bit more dependable as a reference. It's basic article-trimming with regard to sources, it happens all the time. You guys act like I'm proposing a violent overthrow of Wikimedia or something... (kidding)Milto LOL pia 04:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The question wasnt whether the information presented would be better of if it were accurate, which is something that you have yet to prove is a problem here. I asked you how a smaller article, in and of itself, would serve Wikipedia better. This is a pretty interesting claim you are making. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to make it any clearer than what I said. Less reliable information is more helpful than ore questionable information. There's several policies and/or guidelines that explain it. Milto LOL pia 04:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, that has nothing to do with the question. The choice isnt between less reliable and more questionable, its between less reliable and more reliable. You have come in here, exceeded 3RR, made edits justifying them by saying it happened at "ED," and to top it all off accused an admin of making a bad faith edit in a "face saving: act. You need to discuss these changes before rattling them off, the page was protected because after 2 failed AFD's which resulted in a speedy keep, the page has instantly been barraged by you in a very controversial manner. You claimed you were acting within a consensus, but there most certainly cannot be a consensus when there wasnt an agreement, let alone discussion on this topic. ~Rangeley (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This thread is about trimming the article, not me. If you have concerns about me personally, take them to my talk page or another appropriate venue. Milto LOL pia 04:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources are acceptable for facially-obvious types of stuff, and that's mostly what I see them used for here. The only time we need a secondary source is when someone's trying to say what the primary source does or probably does mean-if that's our own synthesis, it's original research, so that has to be sourced secondarily. However, for obvious stuff which requires no synthesis whatsoever (for example, what the slogan is), we can certainly cite a primary source. Seraphimblade 04:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What about it's style of humor and motives behind administrative actions? That seems a little far. Milto LOL pia 04:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Press Coverage

I've removed this "press coverage" stuff - it needs to be integrated into the article, not just thrown in. I'll do it off and on tonight.

• That is a good idea, but the section should be deleted only after the integration is completed. I've reinstated the section for now, without prejudice to removal when the sources are moved to their places within the article. Otherwise, it temporarily appears that there aren't any sources, and we wouldn't want that. :) Newyorkbrad 04:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that's probably a better idea actually. Milto LOL pia 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

"While most articles mentioning Uncyclopedia are specific to the site, there are perhaps just as many articles about Wikia and/or Wikipedia that just mention its name briefly." Huh? doesn't add up . Scatterkeir 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was late. You can fix it you know, if you want. tmopkisn ^tlka

Press coverage

Uncyclopedia has been referenced online in the New York Times, The Boston Herald, The Guardian, The Register, the Taipei Times, the Apple Daily, and the Arizona Daily Star.

Some revert specifics

Ok, the only reason this particular edit was revert was due to me going over the 3RR. Soon that will pass, so let's get some real reasons on the floor.

• The first difference: the Uncyclopedia logo being a parody of Wikipedia's logo is not supported by the thread linked to, yet it keeps getting reverted that way... also, linking to Wikipedia's logo page is a self-reference, which should be avoided.
• "In addition, though all types of humor are welcomed, Uncyclopedia does not sanction articles or comments merely meant to be stupid or vengeful." - unsourced - does it need a citation?
• "Uncyclopedia's content is licensed under the Creative Commons" - citation removed by Rangeley and Tbeatty. Does it need to be in there?
• "Additional people who are often 'quoted' are Captain Obvious, Russian Reversal, Some guy, God, and CATS," - "Some guy" - who is that? Does it need quote marks? And CATS. Does his identity need qualified by expanding out the pipe.
• Next paragraph shows an undo of a grammar correction, followed by...
• "The William Shatner page is also written as if each word is its own sentence. This is a parody on the fact that Shatner's most recognized character, James T. Kirk also seemed to speak that way." (emphasis guess whose?) - bold part is the part that seemed subjective. Wouldn't it be better to let the reader make judgments about Shatner on their own?
• "These appear in many articles which would normally have no references to drug use, and have become a recurring joke among the Unycyclopedia community." - O RLY? The cite needed tag was removed - is this a satisfactory sentence on its own?
• "Any pages created for the purposes of personal attack or bullying are removed as soon as they are noticed, as always; however, it is very difficult for administrators to monitor each page. As of July 2006, vanity pages that are questionable are either deleted or put under the care of one or more administrators." - same. Cite needed or not?
• As of the end of September, 2006, revised policy allows for the speedy deletion of vanity pages of non-notable entities. Keeping to the tongue-in-cheek style of the website, this policy was dubbed the "Codeine's Mum" policy, stating that if the mother of one of the administrators hadn't heard of the group or individual in question, they were considered non-notable and fit for speedy deletion." - bold parts, do they seem self-referencing to wiki terminology or not?

So, what's the opinion on this? Milto LOL pia 05:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

How are talk pages of other wiki sites different from message boards? They do not seem all that reliable to me. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I actually agree with that, but the growing trend seems to be including stuff right now. So, I'm going over the most basic hurdles first, in hopes that we cut down more poorly sourced material in the future. Milto LOL pia 07:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am really eager to get discussion going on these particular points, including the logo reference. Can involved editors add their input here? Otherwise it'll just be another blind revert war. Milto LOL pia 16:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I created Sophia, Uncyclopedia's puzzle potato logo. (My userpage on Uncyc.) Sophia is indeed a parody of Wikipedia's globe logo. Rcmurphy 06:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, that settles that.. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 06:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Does it? If the logo's creator said it was blue or a space ship, would we include that? I've never removed the statement that it was a parody myself, but I do think it needs a third-party source. Milto LOL pia 13:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you need a third party to confirm what I'm saying, even though as sole creator of the logo only I am certain of my true intentions for it. Doesn't make sense to me, but what about this as a source.

Now boasting over 18,000 articles of remarkable satirical quality, Uncyclopedia, with a logo featuring a potato named Sophia (a spoof of the Wikipedia logo) looks like it will become a movement on its own.

Rcmurphy 16:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks perfect, maybe that same article can be used for some of the other bulleted statements above. Milto LOL pia 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could say I created the logo and that it is a hollowed-out baseball. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 22:05, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I could

1. prove that I am the same user (Rcmurphy) on Uncyclopedia, and
2. show that the user Rcmurphy on Uncyc uploaded Sophia originally.

It wouldn't matter, because from what Miltopia said, it's apparently not a matter of authorship or a first-party claim, but one of third-party confirmation. Which, I still assert, seems absurd in this instance. But I'm happy to leave the WP policy to others, so I will bow out. Rcmurphy 00:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The point we're making is that third-party sourcing is necessary, else you could simply say something crazya bout it - such as that it was based on [insert politician]'s face and we'd have to put that in. It's moot now, because you found a third-party source and I added it in. Milto LOL pia 01:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't think this guy is the same Rcmurphy from unyclopedia, he doesn't smell the same. Second, a third party source could say something crazya bout it just the same as a first party source. But if wikipedia policies made perfect sense uncyclopedia would probably not exist and this argument wouldn't have started in the first place.--Rataube 01:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Implementation

The only thing anyone's brought up against these removals is a source for the logo being a parody which I've added to the article. Although Rangeley has reverted to the unsourced version, for whatever reason, I think we need to be insistent on keeping it based on reliable sources, so I've left the info in and re-inserted the source. Other than that, I haven't heard any objections to these changes, so I've been implementing them. In other words, anyone who's going to revert me should leave a note here on why these changes are bad. Milto LOL pia 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Please continue. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 04:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I find it extremely hypocritical that Encyclopædia Dramatica's article be deleted by people, yet this article persists. Both contain similar subject matter and unverified information. Either both should stay or both should be deleted. This shouldn't be a political argument on the content on the websites or notability -- both are extremely notable and mentioned on popular websites -- but rather their verifiability and response to Wikipedia's guidelines. Thank you. Stexe 08:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom. Secondly, notablilty cannot be dodged here. ED wad nixed because of that and loads uplon loads of original research, which is not allowed here. Pacific Coast Highway ^{{talk • contribs}} 22:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're the hundredth person to complain about this on Talk:Uncyclopedia! Just read ED's afd log. We've been cited in the papers multiple times, you guys were nothing but OR. --Nintendorulez talk 18:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, now, Nintendorulez, play nicely. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to ask nicely that you stop removing the Article For Deletion notices, there are valid reasons for the article to be considered for deletion. The third nomination was "Speedy Keep" after less than 1 day of discussion and the fourth nomination was commented that it should be "Speedy Keep" after referencing the third nomination. There are EXTREMELY valid reasons for this article to be deleted, almost every source is self referenced and the entire article needs to be rewritten if it is to be kept. I'm going to give you guys a few days to rewrite the article and remove self references before I post it for AfD again. Thank you. Stexe 10:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

ED got deleted because it was an attack page and contained original reasearch, whilst this article doesn't. You may also want to look at ED's 3^rd afd and Uncyclopedia's 2^nd afd. And please note that there is not really any point to continue nominating it for afd, as the results will come back the same; and you may be blocked for disruption. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 13:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there's a strong consensus of notability, so you would not get the results you seek via AfD. Also, anyone who voted to delete the ED article because it was an attack site is an unencyclopedic ninny. Milto LOL pia 15:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

According to the admin's delete statement, it was strictly about the OR. Not the trolling. Nobody tries to delete GNAA just because of what they do. I'd appreciate if these ED trolls quit claiming that had anything to do with removal of the article. All I hear is "Waaah waaah waah ED got delete so u guyz gots to deltle unsiklopeedia too." --Nintendorulez talk 18:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The only person who is saying that it Stexe and he at least had the propriety to use proper English, even if he is extremely misguided. In the long run keeping Uncyclopedia will become a precendent for having an ED article when it becomes notable enough. — MichaelLinnear 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good point. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think that is a bad precedent to set? WP:NOT#CENSORED, even against articles on organizations which like to troll us. -Amark moo! 02:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, if I was unclear. I thought that it was a good precedent. Stexe was trying to get Uncyclopedia deleted. I was saying that the precedent of keeping a website article would help allow another article on a similar type website to be written. — MichaelLinnear 02:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple other people were saying it. Look through this page's history, and botraped archives.--Nintendorulez talk 22:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Every time I see "ED troll" mentioned I laugh a little. :)-DESU 02:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops. Misinterpreted, sorry. I shouldn't try to multitask while editing. -Amark moo! 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the reason was, this AFD for Uncyc was a bad faith nomination anyway. I really don't want to go back to ED's third nomination because of all the controversey surrounding it, and all the trolling by everyone involved there (Wikipedia admins AND ED users alike). But nominating Uncyc for that reason alone is hardly good faith at all. It's spite, if anything. --Sir Crazyswordsman 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should stop talking about it then :-) Milto LOL pia 22:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review by CyclePat

This is non extensive quick peer review by CyclePat:

1. We should add more external and notable source. Currently the first 23 appear to be primary information.
2. The referencing of notability in othe news papers is ackward. I would suggest developping this section by writting a small paragraph on each one discussing what they press has to say.
3. If notability is going to be referenced using primary infomation there should be a chart with the most popular encyclopedia (or websites) at that time. (Let the people make the synthesised conclusion and hence avoid WP:OR by having a stronger referenced article) (ie.: Indeed, the number of articles on uncyclopedia should be compared)

Good luck in making this a featured article by April Fools Day! --CyclePat 15:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also remove citations that point to Uncyclopedia talk pages. These are as reliable as message board posts, meaning they are not reliable. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. — MichaelLinnear 01:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Weak opose, though in general the concept appears to make sense, there may be a section which it is important to discuss the talk pages. In that instance it may be necessary to make reference to the a talk page to illustrate how uncyclopedia operates. If what you mean by removing discussion pages because they contain opinions that are re-stated on wikipedia... well, I think, again, we shouldn't remove all of them. It is primary information that doesn't necessarilly violate WP:OR and is verifiable. The importance is not whether the those page can or should be used, but it is on how they are used. Given the nature of the article at uncyclopedia, they should obviously not be taken for face value when it pertains to discussion of information itself. However it should be considered true for the fact that it exists and that such conversations have or are acurring. Here is my inferance: What I believe the two afformentioned voters that agreed we shouldn't such sources must be thinking is that it would be a good idea to ensure that the this article is properly balanced in regards to how many citation we include from the talk pages. It is more important to utilise the statisctical information that is gathered from database functions, the amount of edits, etc. from uncyclopedia then to concentrate on the type of conversations that occur on the discussion pages. --CyclePat 02:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand everything you wrote, but if an instance arises that we we need to discuss, we will do so. But talk pages are not reliable in most instances.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 02:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree: That's a good summary of my psycho babel. :) --CyclePat 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Uncyclopedia?

This article fails to mention whether vandalism is reverted on Uncyclopedia, like it is on Wikipedia, or just left there. After all, it is a nonsense site anyway. --MosheA 03:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a nonsense site, it's a parody site. There's a difference. I'll tell you that it is reverted, however, you'll need to find a source for that. -Amark moo! 04:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What about this diff? And also their banning policy? --AAA! ^(AAAA) 05:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The diff, maybe. You can't cite actual text on Uncyclopedia as a source; it's almost certain to be untrue or misleading. -Amark moo! 05:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Outside of the wiki universe, no one is even going to care. And vandalism being reverted on Uncyclopedia is nothing more special than vandalism being reverted on any wiki, so what's the point in mentioning it? Milto LOL pia 05:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Uncyclopedia relys on vandalism for humour content anyway. I should know! <Oscar Wilde>

Non-informative paragraph

"Self-reference is another common theme in Uncyclopedia articles." - this makes no sense. The article talks about referencing the subject of an Uncyclopedia article, not referencing Uncyclopedia. It basically says that there are ipod jokes in the ipod article, and Shatner jokes in the Shatner page. Is this paragraph even needed at all? Milto LOL pia 10:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

While those aren't examples, self-references are used for some articles. Euroipods is a self-reference. Also Carlow Crab, Shot Your Fuck Up, WikiWars, umm there are others. Oh, the asperger's thing that went down recently. For instance, the content of the page Carlow Crab is a documentation of the campaign of the creator of the original Carlow Crab article to get his page undeleted. That's a self-reference, but I wouldn't say it's common. In fact, there's a whole subset who believes self-references are subpar and, actually, nobody cares about uncyc drama here. --Keitei (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wales founding Wikia

The reason it's important to note that Wales founded Wikia is because we have a responsibility to acknowledge the connection to Wikipedia if there is one. It's called full disclosure. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 07:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's also worth a mention regardless, since Uncyclopedia is a Wikipedia parody and Wales founded/co-founded Wikipedia. Milto LOL pia 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IAWTC-DESU 08:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Um... why must we acknowledge any connection to Wikipedia, even if 3 levels removed? Do you think Brittanica makes a note whenever something they write about is owned by some company connected to their president? I highly doubt it. -Amark moo! 15:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they should. Milto LOL pia 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe they do. Regardless, this is not Britannica. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not important to put in the lead. Uncyclopedia was founded independently and was later acquired by Wikia with no consent from the community. Wikia has never had any influence on the content of Uncyclopedia, the running of Uncyclopedia, the leadership of Uncyclopedia, or anything whatsoever. They have all left it alone, and the content itself is owned by the community (legally, see Creative Commons). Wikia merely owns the domain name and the trademarks. Asserting that the fact that Jimbo founded Wikia has anything to do with Uncyclopedia's founding (the acqusition was over a year later), content (Wikia has never stepped in, let alone Jimbo doing so), or leadership (which has always been up to Chronarion) is fallacious.

The one thing that could be inferred by this which might be somewhat true is that Wikipedia's founder believes in the existence of this site. And that would be original research if articles hadn't reported that Jimbo likes Uncyclopedia (not quite the same thing though). It still would not merit inclusion in the lead of the article and is merely cursory to explaining the subject. --Keitei (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't to say that it shouldn't be mentioned, but WMF is hardly bound to do anything in the interest of Wikia, or even inclined to. I'd say the full disclosure would be more in the fact that Uncyclopedia was founded by Wikipedians (User:Chronarion and User:Euniana) and is full of Wikipedian humor than that the company which acquired the trademarks to an independent community well after it was established was co-founded by the founder of Wikipedia.

Additionally, the fact that we should acknowledge it does not mean we need to put it first thing in the article. Furthermore, we are bound to NPOV far more than we are bound to full disclosure, and it is undue importance to put that Jimbo founded Wikia barely after we've stated what Uncyclopedia is. --Keitei (talk) 14:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

How can it not be relevant, though, that the same person who founded/co-founded Wikipedia also founded the company that hosts its parody? It's not liek it implies anything sinister, it's just an informative fact. Milto LOL pia 19:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with it not being in the lede. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 19:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why then did you revert my edit, which had an edit summary stating that it was covered later on? [3] ~Rangeley (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it, I Ctrl+f'd for "Wales" and only got the one in the opening paragraph. Is it worded differently? Milto LOL pia 22:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikia is mentioned as the owner in the infobox, and later on in the sentence "Huang transferred ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain to Wikia, Inc. on July 10, 2006.[6]" ~Rangeley (talk) 22:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing for policy

There are plenty of third-party sources for Wikipedia policy, but I haven't been able to find any for Uncyclopedia. Isn't there anywhere where some can be found? Milto LOL pia 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "third party sources", but links to all of our policies and guidelines can be found here. -- Codeine 11:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It means, is this worth talking about? Whether it is covered in Jokes 'n' Gags Weekly can help us understand that. _-Chris Griswold (☎☓) 20:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies if I'm just being dense, but are you talking about whether Uncyclopedia's policies have been covered in the media or whether the site has? If the latter, then the answer is a definite yes; the site has received both online and print coverage on at least three separate continents, links to (some of) which are provided in this article's footnotes. As for the former, I don't see why the site's policies would be deemed worthy of journalistic coverage. -- Codeine 20:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, so it's not too important to the Wikipedia article, then, either. I would have assumed that Uncyclopedia's clever parodies of Wikipedia poilicies might be mentioned in the article written about the site.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)