Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Contents

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)

I was blocked, it said "If the word f*** offends you, perhaps you shouldn't come here". Noahwoo 19:43, 12 November 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 talkcontribs 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)?—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/c/Talk%7EUncyclopedia_Archive_2_8649.html"