| Revision as of 08:21, 12 April 2006 editNathanrdotcom (talk | contribs)6,409 editsm Response.← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:14, 18 September 2024 edit undoAuroraANovaUma (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users803 edits →Can I upload a somewhat bigger screenshot?: new sectionTag: New topic |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{oldafd}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{Controversial-issues}} |
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
{{notaforum}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=AFD |
|
|
|action1date=22:58, 24 January 2006 |
|
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia |
|
|
|action1result=kept |
|
|
|action1oldid=36522112 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=AFD |
|
==Less funny version of== |
|
|
|
|action2date=19:03, 23 July 2006 |
|
Uncyclopedia is just a profound less funny version of ] (which it copied). 99% of the articles on encyclopedia dramatica are funnier than 99% of those on uncyclopedia. ] 21:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (second nomination) |
|
:Yes, but on uncyclopedia the articles are funny on purpose. --] 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action2result=kept |
|
::That's even worse, and means they try really hard and suck at it. Even the format and tools try to be funny, but fail miserably at it. --{{unsigned|Pindle}} |
|
|
|
|action2oldid=65343591 |
|
:::You know, you could stop trying to make people believe ED is funnier than Uncyc and spend your time improving ED so there would be no question amongst rational men/wo<s>man</s>men that ED is funnier. No wait, arguments based solely on opinions are more fun, so carry on.--] 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, because every Mediawiki/humor site is a copy of ED. --] 16:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Even if it isn't a copy of anything, it isn't funny. {{unsigned|Pindle}} |
|
|
:::Thank you for your comments/criticism, Commenter/Criticiser #256532. (Hereafter referred to as Pindle.) Uncyclopedia, voted Best Website for Comedy by Big Important Awards Magazine six years in a row, welcomes and loves all comments/criticism that we recive. Your comments/criticism are/is taken very seriously which is why all of our comments/criticism are handled with care by our personal cadre of Tibetan Monks. They will sorted into piles depending on various factors including, but not limited to, length, the ratio of typos to stickers of cats, the amount of characters in your social security number, and the number of roads you had to walk down to submit the comment/criticism. We hope that you will return to our site in the near future. |
|
|
:::On behalf of all the members of the Uncyclopedia Volunteer Bakery we thank you for your comments/criticism. --] 05:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Why, thank you, ]. I, too, think that Uncyclopedia is profound. It's good to know that our efforts to convey the truth in an unbiased manner have not gone unnoticed. Of ''course'' ED is funnier, it's a "humor" wiki! We are just making strides in spreading wisdom and truth to the internet world. |
|
|
:I am thoroughly heartened by your comments. --] 18:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your unfunniness is exemplified by your lame e-attack/save face on me. {{unsigned|Pindle|23:28 16 March 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
:::Your unfunniness is exemplified by . --] 06:05, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Attack? Save face? Why must I? I am confident in what we stand for, and glad that you have grasped it so well. --] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 10:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Uncyclopedia is awesome and I'm not just saying that because I have sysops there --] 02:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=PR |
|
Uncyclopedia pwns noobs and is the funniest crap ever... See: is't funny, bt it's crap... It's cheap jokes and bad jokes that are so over used that they become funny. And dennis moore hates everyone who dislikes uncyclopedia!!! G|VE H|M YOUR LUP|INS!!!! ] |
|
|
|
|action3date=16:44, 19 January 2007 |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Uncyclopedia/archive1 |
|
|
|action3result=reviewed |
|
|
|action3oldid=101702680 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action4=AFD |
|
==The logo, it's not a Potato== |
|
|
|
|action4date=08:43, 21 January 2007 |
|
My first thought was that the logo was of an egg. Potatoes are not hollow. Furthermore its funnier as an egg because it might suggest that something further has hatched out of the uncyclopedia and developed a life of its own, just as these user editted sites can. I don't know it isn't a potato but I'm happier to believe it's an egg. |
|
|
|
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (third nomination) |
|
u10ajf--] 19:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4result=kept |
|
:]. --] 00:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action4oldid=102180302 |
|
::It's a puzzle potato, in fact. ] 18:11, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's a potato. I know because I made it. is the original logo, and the current puzzle potato is a continuation on the tuber theme. Its name is Sophia. --] 19:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)d |
|
|
::It doesn't matter, it's all lopsided and squashed, that is what is important!! --] 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action5=AFD |
|
==This website is terrible== |
|
|
|
|action5date=00:56, 22 January 2007 |
|
Personally, I don't know why this site was ever created--it destroys everything! And they say it's HUMOR!! Watching Barney is more funny than this website. I also hope no one makes the big mistake of making Wikilinks to Uncyclopedipoop or whatever that weird place is called. What do you think, anybody? ] |
|
|
|
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (fourth nomination) |
|
:"Uncyclopedipoop." That's clever. --] 03:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5result=kept |
|
:You obviously have only read some of the lamer articles on the site. Try reading some of the best stuff: ], ], ], ]. Some uncyc articles are lame, but there's a handful that are truly genius. --] [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 18:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action5oldid=102328218 |
|
::yeah there are alot of really sucky articles ... the basic idea of the project was a good one though I think. --] 20:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::The big problem is some users on uncyc take themselves seriously, and actually behave as bad as most wiki editors, deleting arts etc etc. there is no sense of proper insanity, and too much is obviously us-centric, although there are some poms in there somewhere!] 00:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Insanity isn't really the point. We generally value ordered funny more than random funny. And what's a "pom"? --] 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::I was very saddened by the Charlie Brown article there . . . can't the Schulz family sue? And if they don't, I would. Also, ], "AAAAAAAAA" was a stupid link . . . don't EVER do that to me again. Anyone want to comment about how wrong that Charlie Brown article is? I have a mind to zap that entire article and paste a Misplaced Pages article. ] |
|
|
:::Er, then you'll be banned, just as you'd be banned for blanking a WP article. Try ] for some good articles (and some bad ones that snuck in). Even I agree that a lot of the stuff on Uncyc is garbage. Such is the fate of a wiki - ''particularly'' one that aims at humor, which is subjective, rather than objective facts like Misplaced Pages. --] 03:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::: YOU TELL EM, BOSS-MAN! ] |
|
|
::::To each, his own. In fact, I enjoy UP, in fact, I even created the Hurricane Katrina (User:You Want Million Dollar) article, after being inspired by the ] one. ]''|''<SUP>]</SUP> 22:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action6=GAN |
|
:Yeah, but unfortunately, Uncyc isn't joking when they say they're not a democracy. Voting there is a joke, the admins decide everything. I think it would be cool to start over with a new parody project with similar principles in it's operation to wikipedia, but similar content to Uncyclopedia except for some kind of "Make fun, not debate" kind of policy to counter the Lame Blogness of alot of Uncyc articles. Oh, and get rid of the profanity. |
|
|
|
|action6date=09:34, 22 March 2007 |
|
::I've pretty much gotten banned there for getting on some admins nerves. They say I have to write a full article that they like in order to get back on, which I might do and then again might not. Good thing on WP you can write OR just edit, but to be a good Uncyclopedian you have to do both. --] 00:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6result=failed |
|
:Hmmm, crazy admins, sounds like a place I know... ; ) ]''|''<SUP>]</SUP> 22:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action6oldid=116973712 |
|
::Yeah, like the entire internet itself --] 17:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Acctually Nerd, the way I see it, is that you bascly pissed off lotsa people, aswell as never wrote a full article. The two are not linked.] <small> ([[User talk:Zombiebaron|talk]])]] 18:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action7=AFD |
|
i wholeheartedly agree, uncyclopedia is stupid. plain and simple. |
|
|
|
|action7date=12:00, 26 March 2007 |
|
It has a lot of great stuff on there, but yeah, some people protect their articles to the point where it starts to kill the whole point of a wiki. Just recently I saw some additions I made to an article a while back has been reverted by the author. A check of the history shows that the article writer has reverted practically everything added, as well as on other articles he has written. Apparantly he feels he is the only one allowed to be funny. I realize not all the changes people throw up may be funny, but it's damn annoying how un-cooperative some users are. - Picklefork 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (fifth nomination) |
|
:One thing to remember is that Uncyc isn't like Misplaced Pages. Anybody can add facts to an objective, encyclopedic article, but many jokes on Uncyclopedia are self-contained from the beginning, and often adding to them results in an uneven and contradictory mess of an article (just look at the ] page). Many authors have definite ideas about what joke they want to make, and adding humor not related to the original joke can weaken the page. That said, some writers ''are'' overprotective and I know it's frustrating. For some articles we have more than one version, so that people can create separate jokes about a subject without mixing humor within the same article. --] 18:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action7result=kept |
|
|
|action7oldid=117883801 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action8=AFD |
|
Yeah man uncyclopedia REALLY sucks. i'm glad there is more people that thinks this way. there is a line and that website crosses it OVER AND OVER AGAIN. it was a funny idea but then it was just...ruined. ruined by a bunch of mediocre people trying to be funny, is not humor, it's just people writing agressions about those things they don't like. BURN UNCYLOPEDIA DOWN! BURNBURNBURN! you see, it's not funny but annoying to the point it maked me want to write with caps. |
|
|
|
|action8date=04:13, 7 April 2007 |
|
|
|action8link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (sixth nomination) |
|
|
|action8result=kept |
|
|
|action8oldid=120889411 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action9=PR |
|
==Neutrality== |
|
|
|
|action9date=00:56, 27 November 2007 |
|
The phrase ''"Some argue that the Un stands for unfunny."'' is completely unsourced and just looks like a weasley way to get a negative opinion in. I'm putting the NPOV template on here before I remove the phrase.--] 02:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Uncyclopedia/archive3 |
|
:I don't see how anyone can construe it as a''nything but'' a weak slam on Uncyc. Besides, "unfunnycyclopedia"? That doesn't flow at all. --] 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action9result=reviewed |
|
:It must be ''so hard'' for Wikipedians to keep the NPOV when editing this article. :)] |
|
|
|
|action9oldid=174027758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action10=AFD |
|
Is this article still POV? because I would like to translate some of if to the Danish wikipedia --] 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10date=23:27, 27 November 2007 |
|
: OK I guess it's cleaned up now, I'll go ahead and translate it now. --] 21:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action10link=Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Uncyclopedia (ninth Nomination) |
|
|
|action10result=Speedy Keep |
|
|
|action10oldid=174245909 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action11=GAN |
|
=="Content"== |
|
|
|
|action11date=20:36, 29 November 2007 |
|
I'm disputing the content section of this article. Given that Uncyclopedia is saposed to be the "'''content FREE'''" encyclopedia I don't think its very fitting to have a section about its content. Sure, Wiki may not be about wit or style in its writing, but please exercise a bit of creativity here. UP is for fun, its article shouldn't be dry like the rest of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|action11result=passed |
|
*This article is on Misplaced Pages, and it's confined by Misplaced Pages policies. If you want fun, edit their article about Misplaced Pages. - ] 17:35, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action11oldid=174549190 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action12=FAC |
|
==HEH== |
|
|
|
|action12date=03:07, 30 March 2008 |
|
I updated the picasso page with "Picasso's Disturbance" --] 17:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action12link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia/archive1 |
|
---- |
|
|
|
|action12result=not promoted |
|
Has anyone noticed that the entry on UP for "Misplaced Pages" is a spoof of this page? Clever. ] |
|
|
|
|action12oldid=201912967 |
|
:Wrong, this page is a spoof of uncyclopedia. Me and my homocidal screaming carrot friends will be contacting our lawyers about this popyright violation! |
|
|
:I THINK U ALL NEED NEED TO GET LIFE AND A JOB, BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE U HAVE TOO MUCH TIME ON YOUR HANDS TO BE CRITISISING A PERFECTLY GOOD WEB PAGE. UNENCYCLOPEDIA ACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBLITY OVER WHO IS INSULTED OR KILLED TO DEATH BY THE OVER LOADED HUMOUR ON EACH PAGE!!!!!!! |
|
|
FROM THE PROUD CREATOR OF THE PAGE |
|
|
B.I.G CHEESE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action13=GAR |
|
* The letter "u" is not a word, and if you don't like something, just DON'T GO TO THAT SITE. - ] ] ] <b><font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy">]</font></b> <b><font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy"><sup>(] • ])</sup></font></b> 18:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action13date=01:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|action13link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Uncyclopedia/1 |
|
|
|action13result=delisted |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=DGA |
|
If you can't laugh at something just click off the pages. |
|
|
|
|topic=engtech |
|
I'm going to tell you now, when this comes up on VFD (and it will) I will vote against. I think it should get special exeption on the grounds of "not taking ourselves too seriously". Seriously, go and read their version of ''you have two cows'' and ''Adolf Hitler''. ] 15:56, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
}} |
|
:I'll also vote keep in that case, I find it funny;) —{{User:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason/Sig}} 04:47, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B| |
|
Also, keep in mind that ''Adolf Hitler'' is part of the ''Oprah Winfrey'' conspiracy. Check it out. --] 19:20, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Low|computing-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Comedy|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Misplaced Pages|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{tmbox|text= |
|
|
Note: This talk page has been blanked and its archives broken several times since it was created in 2005. Old talk page comments can be found in . |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 250K |
|
|
|counter = 6 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Keep or remove mirror.uncyc.org? == |
|
Uncyclopedia rules! It's a joke and should be taken as such. It was never an attempt to rip on Misplaced Pages. People who complain about it really need to get a life. ] 22:13, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "mirror site" has no reliable sources pointing towards it, and I think it fails ]. ] (]) 13:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
Hi guys! We're satire, but no way as useful. Misplaced Pages is awesome. :) --] 04:08, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The mirror site was created by Carlb in I think 2006 when there were discussions on Uncyclopedia about setting up elsewhere outside Wikia/Fandom. I would say it is of historical reference. --] (]) 08:09, 26 May 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Language sections == |
|
We only roast the ones we love. Misplaced Pages is as useful as Uncyclopedia is hilarious. And Misplaced Pages is very useful. When I need a resource, I use Misplaced Pages, but when I want satire, parody, or whatever type of humor the article is, I use Uncyclopedia. --] 17:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do we have all those language sections when we can just link to ? ] (]) 17:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC) |
|
Just discovered Uncyclopedia - great site, some excellent spoofs. Kinda cool that WP has been around enough to get the honour of a spoof, and even cooler to see it done well. The Misplaced Pages page in particular finds that great spot between truth and absurdity. ] ] 10:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Uncyclopedia.info is the site hosted by CarlB. It contains the English "mirror site" which serves as an archive only. Much of the humor contained in those pages is completely outdated and has been removed on the other two updated sites, which are uncyclopedia.com and en.uncyclopedia.co. Uncyclopedia.org was updated to serve as a page to give the reader more information about both sites and visit either one without having to type a new URL. ] (]) 17:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== how many sites does this article cover == |
|
Do we know the name(s) of the founder(s)? They should be credited. ] 00:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not clear which one, or which ones, the article text talks about. |
|
:I would say the founders are Chronarion, myself and a few others. --]/] 01:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've been around since the beginning as well --] 22:53, 27 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::I haven't been around since the ''very'' beginning, but I did join in March and, quite frankly, I'm freakin' hilarious. :P --] 17:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Hmmm. If it were anyone else, you'd be in for an ass whupping. |
|
|
::I hadn't been back to UP for a while after the masses starting loading in, though I'm surprised where MichaelPlease and I's one night of fun with making Oprah articles has lead to... --] 04:04, July 27, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For instance, the lead claim "The English version has approximately 37,000 pages of content, second only to the Portuguese," is that about <nowiki>en.uncyclopedia.co</nowiki> or <nowiki>uncyclopedia.com</nowiki>? |
|
There appears to be a glitch with the website: is this temporary? |
|
|
: No it's always that shit. --] 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Wait, are you saying UP is down? --] 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC) |
|
One of the best sentences on uncyclopedia: "Creationism - The idea that God was so bored out of his mind he spent 6 days creating everything on our planet, and for good measure put in several jokes to fool us into believing it must have taken him much longer." |
|
|
|
:Both 'co' and 'com' uncyclopedias are over 37,000 articles. So the line could be changed to say both versions are in a similar position on article count. --] (]) 23:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
It's at this article: ] 21:47, 17 July 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Can I upload a somewhat bigger screenshot? == |
|
I, for one, would be bitterly disappointed if any Wikipedian gets even slightly upset over Uncyclopedia (UP). If UP upsets you, then, frankly, you really need to lighten up. I think the UP is pricelessly funny, very clever and is in all ways a tribute to the success of Misplaced Pages. I also will be '''extremely''' annoyed if anyone tries to list this page for VFD. I know that some of UP's founders frequent this discussion page, and I wanted (as someone who was around in the founding days of Misplaced Pages) to express my huge respect for what you've put together. ] 00:54, August 6, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to overwrite the current screenshot with one in 640x360px. I find 320x159 to be a little bit destructive and hard to look at. Is it ok if I do that? ] (]) 21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Dear lord, the seriousness of this page and the lengthy research is by far as funny as uncyc :-P --] 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I've moved this bit out of the main article as it is POV and possibly off-topic: |
|
|
:On August 13th, 2005, ] filed a DMCA request to Uncyclopedia to remove possibly infringing images and the ED logo, used on outbound links to ED. Legal matters are still being pursued. |
|
|
There are no images alleged to be copied other than the <font size=+1>æ</font> ligature (which only appears in a template promoting ED by linking there from related articles in Uncyclo's main article space - now disabled, evidently) and the one bit of identifying info linking Sherrod DeGrippo (girlvinyl) to ED. See . Verifiability is an issue here given that neither site constitutes a credibly neutral source, even were this nonsense in any way encyclopædaic. --] 08:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly connected to this - Uncyclopedia seems to be down (21.12 British Summer Time) |
|
|
|
|
|
Wikia was undergoing server problems at the time. The information is from a first person source, the uncyclopedia founder, myself. --] 21:00, 13 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Trimming the article == |
|
|
""Restore... it's not "wholesale blanking of text" it's removing of trivial details that amount to spam and vanity for a nonnotable site"" |
|
|
|
|
|
So, in other words, your fixing this article to your POV? |
|
|
|
|
|
Does this and then this hmmmmmmm.--] 12:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:In his defense, the fourth revert '''did''' occur on a separate day. But I agree, reverting after stopping watching the page sounds strange. ] | ] 12:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that it's off my watchlist doesn't mean I can't come back... Facts are, thie article is wayyyyyy too detailed for the topic being discussed. It is highly POV for fans of the site to come here and fiull it up with nonnotable details and links to itself. Heck, that's promotional and spam, which is against policies here. This site is trying to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Your attitude is highly uncivil (for one thing, section heads are not supposed to be aimed at people, so I am switching it) and expresses your POV over the normal functioning of this site. This site is getting spammed up the wazooo by highly partisan fans of certain sites who don't know (or don;t try to follow) the concepts of POV and notability. This needs to stop, and your obnoxious behavior is a good place to start. ] 12:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: hmmmmmm, is obnoxiouse behaviour is it? You seem to be reading an awful lot into it, methinks the lady doth protest too much. I do think that given the shennanigans going on with this and the related article charging in like a bull in a china shop mass blanking does seem a little provocative and edgeing towards trolling, especial given that (at the last count) 4 seperate editors have reverted your blanking.--] 13:10, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Two million hits per month is hardly non notable. Source: --] 22:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I question as to why "DreamGuy" (LOL! Cool handle!) is advising that a "detalied" article be trimmed down. It was to my understanding that the purpose of this wiki is to inform people. I think details are kind of a must. |
|
|
|
|
|
== External or Not? == |
|
|
Dreamguy likes the argument that Uncyclopedia is an external site, however it is hosted on ], so I wouldnt call it an external site in the way that......] is an external site. |
|
|
: To be fair I'm not sure how relevant that is, yes there is a big overlap between wikia and wikimedia but I don't think it's that formal, I get the impression that Wikicites is a second cousin project rather than a sister project. --] 14:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
Hmmmm... if ] is the parent of ] and ], ] is the parent of ]/] and ] is the parent of ]/]/], doesn't that make them first cousins? Oh, and I'm my own grandpa... or something like that. --] 17:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Just to complicate things further ] is the ] parent of ]/] (or is it god parent?)--] 22:10, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Interwiki Links == |
|
|
I am wonder if part of the problem is that using pipeing and interwiki links it's not obviouse that a lot of the links are interwiki ones, now I've had a quick shufty but can't find any agreed way to flag them as such (in the ame way external links have the arrow) so I would suggest that the links be changed from the <nowiki>] to simply ]</nowiki> (where it's obviouse that it refers to an interwiki). --] 16:30, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
* Of course it would probably affect the readability somewhat therefore perhpa the solution is to make all interwiki links obviouse ''in context'' --] 16:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
Interwiki links are slightly different in colour (lightblue instead of blue - the colour matches the external links) so no, they're not identical. If you wanted the "external link" arrow on any link, using the full URL should give with the arrow (even if, like the "This article is a whatever stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by ." template, the link target's not truly external). Just an idea... --] 23:02, 17 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
: I never noticed the colour diffrence (and in fact still can't see any maybe my browser is doing odd things or it's too subtle) are interwiki vs. using full URL, I'm just lazy I guess and prefer interwiki links (and they seem more wikiappropriate somehow) although in this situation I guess it would make sense. --] 02:15, 18 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== DreamGuy, again == |
|
|
Okay, now your just being stubborn about this. |
|
|
For the last time: It is not a promotional fan article. |
|
|
And furthermore, you will not win, we will have a real, complete article on the Uncyclopedia, no matter what you think about it. No matter how many times you blank the page, we will turn it back into a usefull entry.No matter how you dress it up, what your doing is flat out, plain and clear Vandalisim. Why dont you go pick a fight with somone else? Your not going to find one here. |
|
|
] 15:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I do not understand why the traditional meaning of the word "encyclopedia" is still in use here. Misplaced Pages is not paper, and is written collaboratively. Those two radical concepts ought to have changed the scopes of the meaning of an "encyclopedia" dramatically. I don't even have to mention the fact that most encyclopedias have not changed themselves to embrace the advent of the Internet as a new primary source of knowledge, communication, and cultural exchange, which a sizable minority rely on while the majority remain oblivious to its existence. You may as well blank ] and its countless related articles. Or ], a very non-notable OS used by fans only. --]/]/ 04:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*I'd like to remind the above user that the majority of the worlds population does not have internet access and they still maintain and pratice their cultures. plus, its an undisputed fact that internet culture is the most degenerate culture of all. It seems to me that your coming from a position of very little prespective. From where you're sitting the internet may be the main means of communication, but in the rest of the world, including developed nations, face to face incounters are still the perfered and most widly pratice means of communication. hahaha. Is this from uncyclopedia? Its an undisputed fact that anyone claiming a fact to be undisputed is poo poo head. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Referrals == |
|
|
While we love getting new users, please don't send Wikirejects to us. We're having a time with a dynamic IP trying to make "Carlow Crab," as well as two new users who say that they've been "banned" from here (and possibly sent over via referral). Please refer carefully. We ''really'' don't like having to put up with stupid people that you guys may have referred to us as a joke. We know you don't mean it, but still...consideration.--] 04:09, 26 August 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Why isn't this appearing on the page - and why is Uncyclopedia unobtainable today (19/9)? -SomeUser |
|
|
|
|
|
Pretty much all that needs to be said... -] 19:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== For example, occasionally people blank entire pages, insert advertising statements, or add messages that promote certain agendas, such as spreading ] remarks. == |
|
|
] should be the least of their worries. Don't get me wrong (Some of my best friends are ]) but this site in pretty much anti-everything else too, and Jews represent such a small part of the internets population.--] 05:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There's a difference between jew related humor and anti-semitic hate content; uncyclopedia tends to be pretty good at leaving the former and killing the latter. This goes equally well for all other minorities. --] 09:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
::*cough cough* - not true --] 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm half-Jewish and I'm a sysop on uncyc :P --] 02:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I don't think this is really a notable fact. It's no more of an issue than it is on wikipedia. Any website that users can edit, post messageds to, or have any sort of interaction with is bound to see spam and trolling like this. --] [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Uncyclopedia is better than Misplaced Pages == |
|
|
I just don't get it-- Misplaced Pages has no point! It isn't funny at all! --Clorox 22:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
--YEAH! ] |
|
|
::Yeah!--] 06:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
ur RIGHT!!!! Misplaced Pages ist teh g3yz0rz! I wanna maek Wikipeda funneee. Hooo ist wit meee????////--] 0535436 Octember 2007 |
|
|
OMG, duh!! Jncyc10p3[)i4 pwnz 73h VVu|21D |
|
|
|
|
|
==Banned== |
|
|
I got banned from uncyclopedia.] 01:34, 26 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Y? whaddya do? I'll look into it .... try the IRC chan, there's a link to an instructional video on the main page ^_^ --] 19:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Dude, you don't have an account there lol, try registering B4 u complain about being banned. You couldn't have had an account there that was deleted because that would show up in the deletion log and I don't see it there. --] 19:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Way out of date== |
|
|
Much of this article is grossly out of date. Many of the interwiki links are to low quality uncyclopedia articles or fads that have been aggressively fought into submission by admins (Kanye and Ballmer quotes). Many of the "common themes" are not common themes, but rather themes that appear in one or two articles, at most. Incidentally, the admins tend to put a great deal of effort into curbing the spread of the crap this article seems to be suggesting is the standard fare for Uncyclopedia; you people might do well to read Uncyclopedia's policy on ]. --] 21:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
*Yes, the Misplaced Pages main page picture needs to be updated... --] ''(])'' 23:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Advertisment |
|
|
well you guys allow advertisment to popular sites but not to unpopular sites |
|
|
|
|
|
==Source== |
|
|
My source, ]? Only the great ]! |
|
|
“Let's get retarded!” |
|
|
--Oscar Wilde on Misplaced Pages |
|
|
] 05:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Parody== |
|
|
''Uncyclopedia is a parody of Misplaced Pages, though Uncyclopedia claims the reverse'' <- does it mean that Uncyclopedia claims that Misplaced Pages is a parody of Uncyclopedia? ;) --] 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Exactly. And Uncyclopedia claims that "Misplaced Pages claims the reverse", i.e. that Misplaced Pages "claims" that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Misplaced Pages. - ] 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Misplaced Pages "claims" that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Misplaced Pages, and that it claims that Misplaced Pages is a parody of Uncyclopedia, when Misplaced Pages claims that - *head explodes* --] [[User talk:Nintendorulez|talk]] 03:15, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Notability? == |
|
|
Is this spoof notable enough for an encycopedia entry?--] 17:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I can assure you, there are many sites less notable than this which have valid Misplaced Pages entries. - ] 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Notability has been added, per reference in 2 print newspapers. --] 03:11, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
LOL are we talking about the same Uncyclopedia? One of the most popular wikis on WikiCities that has been slashdotted multiple times? --] 22:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Connection== |
|
|
Does Uncyclopedia have any affilation at all to the Wikimedia foundation? Things are very simalar between the 2 sites. ] 01:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Very remote affiliation, as it's a sister project of Wikicities, hosted by Wikia. However, it's not a Wikimedia sister project. - ] 05:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
**It's a second cousin project. --] 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==The "Peanuts" article== |
|
|
I hate the Charlie Brown article on this site. Wouldn't the Schulz family be angry if they found out this site glorifies Charlie Brown as a murderer? He isn't that at all. He's nice, sweet, and gentle (although he does occasionally get depressed) . . . any comments? |
|
|
] |
|
|
:Charlie Brown is a fictional character, it's not like he is related to the Schulz family. I think they'd might be angry if the site "glorified" Schulz himself as a murderer. --] ''(])'' 00:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I know this is an old discussion, but as the writer of ], I think I should point out that what you've said is exactly the point of the article. It portrays him as the complete opposite of what he really is, and that's where the (attempted) humor comes from.--] 03:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you made a famous cartoon character, wouldn't your family be pissed if someone screwed with your work in such a way? Especially after you're dead? How about phrasing it that way? Yeah, sure, we get it, it's supposed to be funny. But they're saying this stuff just for the hell of it...and this kind of humor really can be insulting to particular groups...it's just not meant directed at certain people, that's all. |
|
|
:Such is the nature of parody and free speech.] 16:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you should just ignore that page(some articles are just off the line...)who would be that ignorant to believe in that article anyways? |
|
|
--] 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Is Uncyclopedia banned form Google? == |
|
|
I found this out a couple of weeks ago and thought it was something temporary, but it does seem like they're . Did they get too high ] for a site that provides only false information? <font color="#FF0000">]</font>] (]) 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yahoo's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=uncyclopedia |
|
|
:Google's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://www.google.ca/search?q=uncyclopedia |
|
|
:MSN's search result for "Uncyclopedia" http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=uncyclopedia |
|
|
:] 17:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Their file returns a 403 (access forbidden). Perhaps google doesn't like this assumes worst case? --] 06:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not seeing a 403 error on robots.txt so that's probably not the problem. --] <small>]</small> (]) 21:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::They (almighty admins) had fixed the problem a few days after I posted about it on Uncyclopedia. I assure you, it was a 403 on March 5th (and probably had been for quite some time).--] 02:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
I found something that was EQUALLY suprising: If you have mozzila, and your home page is mozzilla-google, you can image search for something and GET IMAGES FROM UNCYCLOPEDIA! I don't know why 00:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ] |
|
|
|
|
|
== Keeping Neutrality for ED and UN == |
|
|
Adding Ed's Article on Uncyclopedia to be equal for vice-versa. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Main Page Holidays == |
|
|
I reverted the removal of this section by an anon. Does anyone think that it should be removed? ] 05:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Yes it should be. Why have holidays up to advertise for Uncyclopedia? In that case I think ED's Hoildays/More Material should be put up. ~ 05:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC) 05:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
* UN User above have stated " '''Try reading some of the best stuff: AAAAAAAAA!''' Which is included in the list of holidays. |
|
|
*Keep the list - what harm does it do? - ] 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Small NPOV == |
|
|
"(considered one of the most gruesome and inconsiderate gestures possible there)" seems unnecessarily inflamitory -] 20:38, 15 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You have GOT to be kidding? This is an article about a (supposedly) satirical page! An article about this, no matter how sober, does well to give a taste of what they are talking about. The uncyclopedia is a bit of fun. Extrapolating part of it's style here, even if it's only 4 or 5 words, cannot be a bad thing. ] 17:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*It can be and it is. Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia. - ] 04:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== I don't see how they even keep content == |
|
|
Seems like everytime I check the recent changes for their website, that idiot Splaka or one of the other administrators there has deleted almost every new entry that has been created. It's like they have an exclusive club or something. I wonder what they think about Asians? --] 04:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*They delete pages that totally suck, which happen to be about 50% of new pages. Pages that suck, but have a chance for redemption get NRV'd. I guess the same thing applies to Misplaced Pages, except the deletion process is more tedious here, administrators can't just huff articles on sight. - ] 05:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Uncyclopedia is pretty pathetic, if you ask me. The admins often have no comedic talent or sense of literary humor. It's true that most of the huffed articles are bad and deserve to be shitcanned, but the administrators are as blind as those they are charged to "lead", and often create content that is just as poor in quality. |
|
|
:I think Uncyc. is doomed to fail. For Misplaced Pages, at least, there's some sense of what is true and NPOV and therefore base for consensus. Humor is a million times more subjective, and as one who has worked in comedy, I can vouch for the fact that the same joke can get roaring laughter among one audience and nothing among another. ] 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Define 'fail'. Uncyclopedia, or at least my understanding, has absolutely no goals, and therefore cannot fail. I won't deny that a majority of Uncyclopedia articles are worthless, but anyone who enjoys satire will find many good articles, particularly within the Best Of category. Misplaced Pages attempts to be an encyclopedia for anyone. Uncyclopedia only tries to be funny for those who find it funny. |
|
|
::Oh, and --] 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The "best of" entries are often as poorly done as the more obscure articles. It's shoddy writing all around, and the administrators of the site zealously guard their garbage content while reverting the contribs of better (and, to be thorough, also some worse) writers. ] 21:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Admins do indeed guard their garbage content as a dragon hoards his stashes. However, admins only revert vandalism. The major writer of an article is responsible for reverting additions or changes they don't like. And the best of sucks because too many cooks spoil the soup. I'd suggest checking out our UnNews, especially the audio portion. That's where it's going down. --] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 23:00, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Honestly, a better way to find good content than rifling through Best Of is to stalk a few of the particular writers you like. That's what I do. --] 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:Well, our goal is to delete more pages than are created. And have you read most of the content that is created? :] It's mostly about penises, and being gay, and sucking your mother's cock, and generally isn't in good taste. |
|
|
:Unfortunately, our article count keeps creeping up... as much as we try to stop it, :] <span style="font-size:75%">(])</span> 23:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::Hell, Uncyclopedia is funnier than you guys... I mean really. I came to wikipedia looking for humor, but man oh man.. it's been really hard to find. And don't even get me started on your April Fools Day plans... do really think that's clever, do you really think anyone outside of the wikipedian inner circle will find it funny? At Uncyclopedi it's about quality, we don't have 50,000 one-line stubs. --] |
|
|
:Damn, he's discovered our secret: we're the ''other'' white nationalist wiki. As is obvious from the name of our founder, Jonathan Huang - ] 23:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==I dont see how the keep period.== |
|
|
Thats true, but we have articles other than 'the truth of gayness' and 'pee preview'. We have articles like ] and ] that are truthful. But I dont have anything against uncyclopedia, I'm just a litter mad at their irrelevant way of running things. Though I think most of the content their sucks. Though I had some fun there at one time, and yes, I agree, their Dynasty Warriors article is pretty funny;). I think I'll stay here For a bit. I want to tell what I know to the world, instead of making up excuses to be funny. We have a funny few here too, and I think that that we are all 'wikicities' in a way, we should stop this "hating each other stuff". Just like ] and ] dont like each other, but they dont make fun, or write bad things about one another, they learn to deal with it. But if we dont, then so be it, Just dont forget about the thing that really matters, a 💕, and a noncyclopedia. If we keep them that way, that will be good enough. ] 17:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Wait - how come Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are intolerant? And why should they be? All the three major Wikicities - Wookieepedia, Memory Alpha and Uncyclopedia - seemed to be on rather good terms last time I checked. - ] 17:41, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== This site is F**ked Up!! == |
|
|
|
|
|
wow,, this site is racist and talks about stuff in really horrible ways! they even make fun of their selves?! |
|
|
|
|
|
I think whoever made it is <small>(])</small> |
|
|
|
|
|
its cool to make a little stupid joke but this! |
|
|
|
|
|
damn,,, --] 08:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] ], ] ] ] ] ]? Personally I think some of their pages are hilarious, despite many of them being kind of dumb and pointless. –]<sup>]</sup><sub>08:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)</sub> |
|
|
::I find the site rather disturbing.--] 17:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
''"they even make fun of their selves?!"'' |
|
|
|
|
|
Heh heh, I love how somehow making fun of "their selves" is just so shocking, even more so than how it's supposedly "racist". May I direct you to ], or perhaps ], wherein you can enlighten yourself and not be so... well, oversensitve --] 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Saddened == |
|
|
|
|
|
I read an Uncyclopedia article and it almost made me cry, because I realised that whoever wrote it must have a lot of hate in their heart to think of things like that. I don't think it's funny, and if you do, I guess you're entitled to your own opinion, but so am I, and I think it's twisted. I'm sure there are better tings to do with the Internet. And copying a site that does such a service like Misplaced Pages, or 'parody', if you are offended by 'copy', just makes it sicker. I don't know what the point of writing this is, I just feel saddened... the world will be a better place when twisted people like Jonathos Huang and Jack Thompson decide to end their miserable existances. |
|
|
|
|
|
:''"whoever wrote it must have a lot of hate in their heart"'' |
|
|
:... |
|
|
:''"the world will be a better place when twisted people like Jonathos Huang and Jack Thompson decide to end their miserable existances."''(sic). |
|
|
|
|
|
:Whichever Uncyclopedia article it was you read, seems like a far more appropriate one would have been ]. -- ] 14:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Well played, Mr. Bond. --] 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Sounds like someone's got a case of ]! --] 14:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the person who wrote the article originally - I'm lost in HTML - well, thanks you guys who replied to this and showed me that everything deserves a second look. I guess any site with millions of authors is bound to have different sites. And thankyou to whoever directed me to the 'reasons to become an athiest' - I liked it. I guess this whole thing is proof that you shouldn't be allowed near any discussion sections when you are upset.. :) |
|
|
|
|
|
==First sentence== |
|
|
|
|
|
The first sentence of this article does not read very well. I know its the article on uncyclopedia but still.... |
|
|
|
|
|
==why== |
|
|
is this page so dull? {{unsigned|68.40.192.43|06:34 12 April 2006 (UTC)}} |
|
|
:This isn't Uncyclopedia. Edits such as aren't constructive and while they may illustrate the nature of Uncyclopedia, they're not factual. Also, please sign your posts on talk pages :) — ] ] ] <font face="Comic Sans MS" colour="navy" size="-1"><b>]<font color="green">]</font>] <sup>(] • ] • )</sup></b></font> 08:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|
It is not clear which one, or which ones, the article text talks about.
For instance, the lead claim "The English version has approximately 37,000 pages of content, second only to the Portuguese," is that about en.uncyclopedia.co or uncyclopedia.com?
I would like to overwrite the current screenshot with one in 640x360px. I find 320x159 to be a little bit destructive and hard to look at. Is it ok if I do that? AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
