Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 3

message: Would Wikia be a decent source for Uncyclopedia's history?  I don't mean policy stuff, I mean like, who founded it.  That sentence remains uncited.  I see no reason not to trust them on that.  And I know "posts to wikis, forums etc. are not reliabel sources" but let's use common sense: it's not some dope with a keyboard writing up a page on some unmonitored wiki, it's a press release by Wikia Inc. staff.  I'm going to go ahead and add it for now, but I'll watch this page.  Milto LOL pia 17:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, it already is sourced.  And with that link.  Still, leaving the thread up for discussion couldn't hurt.  Milto LOL pia 17:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncyclopedia's history 

message: Uncyclopedia#MediaWiki currently reads like this:
::The site uses MediaWiki software to mimic Wikipedia conventions, which itself is parodied with these following analogies: Uncyclomedia Foundation (Wikimedia Foundation), UnNews (Wikinews), Unquotable (Wikiquote), Undictionary (Wiktionary), UnBooks (WikiBooks), UnMeta (Meta-Wiki), UnSource (Wikisource), UnSpecies (Wikispecies), Uncycloversity (Wikiversity), and UnCommons / Uncyclomedia Commons (Wikimedia Commons). Image description pages are also branded under Uncyclomedia Commons, including a logo mirroring the Wikimedia Commons.
::Uncyclopedia uses MediaWiki to imitate Wikipedia templates, such as its Wikipedia template (parodying Wikipedia sister project templates), and its Endspoiler template.
Egad!  It's full of self-reference no one outside of Wikimedia cares about and is totally uncited.  Oh, I know that there are links - but all they link to is the projects.  There's no sources making comparisons, so that's original research.  I'll leave it tagged for a couple days unless anyone replies here and then I'll blankify it.  Milto LOL pia 18:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gone now.  Milto LOL pia 20:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MediaWiki section 

message: I don't see why this is considerd a joke it is kind of important since uncyclopedia doesn't really say it's a paradoy of wikipedia and there was some confusion on this talk page.--71.170.41.7 02:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because no one there honestly thinks that Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia.  Milto LOL pia 03:03, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um... what? I can't tell if that is a mistyping or not, but they do. -Amarkov moo! 03:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops... I meant the other way around :-P  No one there honestly thinks that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia.  Milto LOL pia 03:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well untill we can verify that they don't honestly believe that i dont think we can speak for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robograndma (talk • contribs) 04:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What a fucking moron. --80.6.146.72 10:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The alternative is to pretend that I'm an idiot.  An amusing and easy to pull off charade it is, but not one I want to perform in this case.  Milto LOL pia 01:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this considerd to be a joke? 

message: I just put some more tags on the international version section, just thought I'd leave a note.  Milto LOL pia 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moar tags 

message: Who cares about Uncycopedia's policy?  The answer is "Wikimedians and Uncyclopedians", such as yourself.  These are the only groups that care about policy that much for the most part, why is there info about managerial decisions and policy and rules, do you really think the general public cares about that?  Or do they care about founding history and types of content and other encyclopedic information?  Milto LOL pia 07:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info on policy 

message: Look at this:
::Self-reference is another common theme in Uncyclopedia articles. For example, the rot13 page is written in rot13,, the iPod article has the second letter of every word with "i" in it capitalized, the Mortal Kombat page replaces all 'c's with 'k's , and the Caps Lock page written in all caps.
Self-reference?  What does that mean?  This isn't "self-reference", this is making a joke about something.  Yet another paragraph that need to be blankifiticatified in my opinion.  No sources calling the articles "self-references" (the sources link to the actual articles, not anything calling them self-referenced) and "self-referenced" is a very poor word indeed to describe this humor.  I'm not even sure how to tag it, so I didn't.  Milto LOL pia 21:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another problem paragraph? 

message: Hmm, is Uncyclopedia a project of the Uncyclomedia Foundation, or is the Uncyclomedia Foundation a play on the Wikimedia Foundation?  Let's assume it's the first; in that case, the cited source says that the Organization was founded in 1860.  I'm not entirely sure that's correct, nor that citing it is in the interest of factual accuracy.  Milto LOL pia 21:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm calling BOLD on this one, I took it out.  Any objections/reverts, I'll be happy to discuss before re-removing.  Really though, having cited info about an organization that's a century and a half old owning Uncyclopedia is pretty ridiculous.  Milto LOL pia 22:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude, it's primary source information, and it says it was founded in 1860.  I don't think they would lie.  71.0.240.220 04:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're saying that in 1860, there was an organization called the Uncyclomedia Foundation?  Milto LOL pia 16:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Certainly there are references to the Uncyclomedia Foundation as far back as November 2005, but the 1860 date appears to be based on the claim that Oscar Wilde is the founder (or one of the founders) of Uncyclopedia. Oscar Fingal O'Flahertie Wills "Wilde" (October 16, 1854 – November 30, 1900) would have been a rather young lad at the time? --66.102.80.239 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Uncyclomedia Foundation 

message: Isn't there a way to make a bot update the "10 largest uncyclopedias" paragraph to update the numbers of articles automatically? All the numbers can be taken from this one page, so I guess it's a piece of cake for bot programmers - Raquel Sama ★Talk★ 22:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a better question is, is it really that important?  Let's just leave it on the order of 10,000 and 5000 and not worry about updating, it's not like it's an advertisement or anything.  Milto LOL pia 07:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that's the way it is now.  I saw a diff from my last edits here where someone had changed it back, but I guess they got reverted.  Milto LOL pia 07:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Half of the section has been deleted. Maybe it just needed to be shorter, but the selection seems totally arbitrary.--Rataube 16:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Number of articles

message: Why does a search for "AAAAA" on Wikipedia redirect to this article on Uncyclopedia? LeviathanMist 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection to Uncyclopedia article 

message: I'm questioning whether or not this is best, but it's such a clear fact: I sourced the statement that Uncyclopedia exists in Hebrew, Swedish and Portuguese with this link, it's a first-party source... not really sure about this.  It seems ok though.  Input plz.  Milto LOL pia 16:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source note 

message: Does Uncyclopedia have it's own fictional universe? I personally think so because of fictional conflicts such as the "500-foot jesus vs mecha-hitler" battles, along with fictional events of the future. Flashn00b 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A wiki with it's own universe? 

message: I've nommed this for "good article" status here ^_^  Milto LOL pia 16:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is hilarious that Uncyclopedia is up for GA, but hey, it seems close to passing, although the lead section could provide more explanation and convey the structure better.  tonsofpcs (Talk) 05:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article candidate 

message: There should be a section on the famous AAAAAAAAA! page. A•N•N•Afoxlover 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: if you are going to propose adding a section, you should probably wait for others to chime in before just doing it. I've reverted your addition since there's no need to highlight what you claim to be their "most famous page". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said that. A•N•N•Afoxlover 01:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your contribution (which you've now re-inserted ) makes the uncited claim that this particular article is "one of the most popular". --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I say don't add it, as it could be POV (Some might say AAAAAAAAA! is the most famous page, but others might disagree). --AAA! (AAAA) 02:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the sources in the article, some of the other content on Uncyclopedia is far more "famous" than AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! —  MichaelLinnear 02:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like Oscar Wilde? --AAA! (AAAA) 02:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oscar Wilde is mentioned in this source, but last I checked he was already mentioned in the article. —  MichaelLinnear 02:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article should at least mention the following content: AAAAAAAAA!, Oscar Wilde, Kitten huffing, Grues, the blank Nihilism page , and the anti-Wikipedia content. A•N•N•Afoxlover 13:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find a source saying any of those articles are famous?  Btw, the article does mention that Uncyclopedia is a "satirical parody" of Wikipedia, i.e. it's critical (though I doubt its truth).  Milto LOL pia 19:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can tmopkisn tlka 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh good, that will help this article progress a lot. —  MichaelLinnear 04:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then someone add it into the article. AAAAAAAAA! is famous enough that it needs to be at least mentioned in Wikipedia. Also, the redirect page needs to be added back. A•N•N•Afoxlover hello! 19:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from re-creating a previously deleted redirect. Deletion review is over here. Thanks. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  AAAAAAAAA! 

message: Here's a Uncyclopedia:Uncyclopedia:Top 10 Articles of 2005 I think #1 of it's top ten articles of 2005 would enough to say that it's on of their most famous articles.--71.170.215.85 16:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: Who created the first article on Uncyclopedia? Was it the founder? What is the most recent article (not stub) on this site?Coffsneeze 03:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my guess is that the first page created by a user on that site seems to be spade, which was made by Chronarion, the site's founder. --AAA! (AAAA) 04:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Uh, this isn't a page for discussion of the subject of the article, it is for discussion of the article. Plz to keep on topic-K@ngiemeep! 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't assume bad faith. Maybe Coffsneeze thought it might be relevant to the article. -- trlkly 23:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't Spade, I checked the history. Chronarion wasn't there.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.77.234.78 (talk) 21:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the first article on Uncyclopedia? 

message: The wisdom of adding joke claims into the article as though they are in any way serious is questionable, but there should absolutely not be any sort of indication that the jokes on Uncyclopedia represent the truth.  There is zero possibility that Wikipedia is a parody of Uncyclopedia, if for no other reason than the fact that WP existed years before, so please don't introduce material into the article treating that silliness as "possibility".  Milto LOL pia 15:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your point, but apparently there is a significant minority whose opinion is (a) different and (b) published. Smylei 16:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said in my edit - stating that Uncyclopedia is a JOKING website and JOKINGLY call Wikipedia the copycat. --Edmundkh 16:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thing at a time: The current version states that it actually might be true.  Nonsense.  Smylei, adding nonsense to articles is really bad form.  Milto LOL pia 16:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about you. Apart from uncyclopedia, there are plenty of people out there saying that wikipedia is a parody of uncyclopedia. I do not count myself in, but I just find it interesting to provide all the published viewpoints. Smylei 16:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there?  I was unaware of any others making that claim.  Who else says this?  Milto LOL pia 16:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, well, why would we include a statement supported only by dishonest sources exactly?  I'm not following why you re-inserted the information.  Milto LOL pia 08:47, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's an interesting fact that Uncyclopedia has that statement you know. I don't mean that Uncuyclopedia is telling the truth - it's b*** s***ing. But I find interesting that they accuse Wikipedia for copying them, so it would be nice to tell this here. --Edmundkh 11:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uncyclopedia makes thousands of interesting statements, what makes this particularly worthy of inclusion?  Milto LOL pia 21:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main motivation for this push for inclusion is, quite obviously, the "...claims the reverse" joke between the two articles. It isn't a particularly informative little tidbit, and it isn't particularly noteworthy, however. Wikipedia isn't a humour dump-K@ngiemeep! 22:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, but Wikipedia is an Uncyclopedia parody. Why else would they register http://www.unicyclopedia.org as a domain? --66.102.80.239 12:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serious statements only plz 

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:a (fair representation):  b (all significant views): 
#It is stable.
#:
#It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
#:a (tagged and captioned):  b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales): 
#Overall: 
#:a Pass/Fail:  
===Task list===
* Change external links to references in History
* Include one or two examples to illustrate the "Oscar Wilde" quotes in Content
* Expand the content section as it is particularly weak.  There should be a couple examples of popular articles (with citations for their popularity)
* Citations should come after punctuation, with no space between.
* The sentence "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." is poorly written - in particular, its meaning is unclear, it uses "just" twice and uses "and/or".  Also, the word "perhaps" implies that it is unverifiable, so should possibly be removed.
* Merge or expand one-sentence paragraph in Press coverage.  If these articles really are notable, can you briefly summarize what they are about in the paragraph?
* Expand and translate the unexplained acronym "SGAE" in in other languages  
* Extenal links -> references in in other languages
* Citation needed for paragraph about the schoolgirl in Controversy
* Controversy implies there is disagreement over the topic.  Only one side of the argument is given.  Perhaps the section could be changed to Criticism.  Alternatively, I think it would be better to refer to a counter-argument concerning Uncyclopedia's policy on not naming individuals.
* A section about the editing rules and guidelines within Uncyclopedia would be useful to better illustrate how it differs from traditional encyclopedias and wiki sites.  It may be useful to contrast it with Wikipedia's rules.
* Because of the guideline about not linking to external sites containing factually inaccurate information, a brief warning would be useful next to the links to uncyclopedia.  I agree that it is important for the links to remain, but there's a chance someone could skip the article text and go straight to the link, thinking it was a real encyclopedia.
* The article's stability is not satisfactory - there are many changes each day.
* The lead section should be expanded a little to summarize the topics in the main text.  See WP:LEAD
* Uncyclopedia is under the Creative Commons share alike license.  The images in this article don't have tags to reflect this.  At the moment they are tagged as being from copyright sources, without fair use rationale.
- Alex valavanis 09:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, let's make this featured.--Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? · help! ) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Review 

message: * Change external links to references in History
* Include one or two examples to illustrate the "Oscar Wilde" quotes in Content
* Expand the content section as it is particularly weak.  There should be a couple examples of popular articles (with citations for their popularity)
* Citations should come after punctuation, with no space between.
* The sentence "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." is poorly written - in particular, its meaning is unclear, it uses "just" twice and uses "and/or".  Also, the word "perhaps" implies that it is unverifiable, so should possibly be removed.
* Merge or expand one-sentence paragraph in Press coverage.  If these articles really are notable, can you briefly summarize what they are about in the paragraph?
* Expand and translate the unexplained acronym "SGAE" in in other languages  
* Extenal links -> references in in other languages
* Citation needed for paragraph about the schoolgirl in Controversy
* Controversy implies there is disagreement over the topic.  Only one side of the argument is given.  Perhaps the section could be changed to Criticism.  Alternatively, I think it would be better to refer to a counter-argument concerning Uncyclopedia's policy on not naming individuals.
* A section about the editing rules and guidelines within Uncyclopedia would be useful to better illustrate how it differs from traditional encyclopedias and wiki sites.  It may be useful to contrast it with Wikipedia's rules.
* Because of the guideline about not linking to external sites containing factually inaccurate information, a brief warning would be useful next to the links to uncyclopedia.  I agree that it is important for the links to remain, but there's a chance someone could skip the article text and go straight to the link, thinking it was a real encyclopedia.
* The article's stability is not satisfactory - there are many changes each day.
* The lead section should be expanded a little to summarize the topics in the main text.  See WP:LEAD
* Uncyclopedia is under the Creative Commons share alike license.  The images in this article don't have tags to reflect this.  At the moment they are tagged as being from copyright sources, without fair use rationale.
- Alex valavanis 09:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, let's make this featured.--Emperor Walter Humala  · ( talk? · help! ) 03:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Task list

message: I'm not sure if Uncyclopedia's jokes have anything to do with this, but there was a sketch on Monty Python's Flying Circus involving many Oscar Wilde misquotes.  I don't know if this should be in the article or not.
:If you can find a reference supporting this, then sure.  Otherwise, it's probably Original research and should be left out. - Alex valavanis 16:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is the sketch, but I'm not sure how much it relates to Uncyc's association with Wilde. – Riana talk 05:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You could state that the Flying Circus sketch inspired Uncyclopedia's tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde, as it's highly unlikely to be a coincidence.  That is, unless the Monty Python sketch itself was inspired by society's tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde. Aaaantoine 19:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a very likely coincidence as, as you said, society has a tendency to misquote Oscar Wilde. But even more so than that, it seems obvious that a massive satirical website may consciously and independently make the decision to intentionally misquote a person who is incredibly famous for their quotes. Either way, it's original research. Calgary 01:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar Wilde 

message: Restored history section, deleted by anon IPs. Is there any reason to remove the history? --h2g2bob 20:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it was just page blanking vandalism. However one of those edits by an anon IP was a good one updating website information. I restored the information he added. —  MichaelLinnear 23:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Why is the Wikipedia Monster deleted whenever I put it on here? Darth Skynyrd 23:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimonster 

message: Uncyclopedia is a whacked up website! Filled with stupid and inappriotitate stuff. I can't stand it! Runewiki777 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Isn't this redundant to Category:Wiki communities?  I'm not sure what the practice is for parent categorization.  Milto LOL pia 03:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be, but since categories seem to be used for aid in searching and organization, it seems fine to leave both. They certainly could qualify for a merge though, as they cover the exact same subjects, by definition, pretty much all Wikis are community based. —  MichaelLinnear 04:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've kinda thought "Wiki communities" was a dubious category in general.  I wonder who gets to say which are communities and which aren't?  Maybe it should be deleted entirely.  Milto LOL pia 23:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Wiki communities" might be one of those self referential and wikicentric things, much like people trying to make  articles avout Willy on Wheels. In the greater scheme of things, the world does not revolve around WP, and what may seem famous here is actually utterly unimportant. As such a deletion could be warranted. —  MichaelLinnear 00:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Wikis 

message: Why can't I edit this page, I've been on wikipedia for almost a year, it just doesn't make sense --Uncle J 23:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure you were logged in? It's only semi-protected and I can edit it just fine. —  MichaelLinnear 23:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Locked?

message: THe criticism section should at least include uncyclopedia's policy of no bullying. Robograndma 22:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: post at the bottom of the page next time XD 71.34.103.198 04:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV