Talk:Moon landing

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

There's no reason to start a new article. I took the existing version of the article and improved it. The same theme is there (the National Geographic Special) and many of the other jokes were incorporated into my text, sometimes with different wording but neverthelss still there. I didn't just erase the previous version and write a new one. If there are already several articles on the subject that's a perfectly good reason not to create another one.

Ogopogo perhaps you could give some reasons why you think the article should left as it was instead of incorporating my changes. DMac 07:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Your version is "different" but isn't any "better". Just because you decide to do a different take on the National Geographic theme, I don't see why you should be able to cavalierly overwrite (as opposed to tweaking) a perfectly fine version that I wrote - it's a matter of etiquette. As I wrote in the edit summary, there are quite a number of articles on the moon landing under various article names. Start another article with your version if you wish to see it online.

Given the number of different articles with different takes on the moon landing, i'm planning to make a template this weekend to include them all for easy navigation. When you've added your version on a new namespace, I can add yours to the template. --

You wrote: "If there are already several articles on the subject that's a perfectly good reason not to create another one." Well, the answer is that quite a few articles already exist about the events of that historic date and more people (including you) along the way will want to write their own take. Do we eliminate all those other versions, replace it with yours (I'm joking of course), and then the next person will overwrite yours whenever he feels like it? I think not.

--Ogopogo 16:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, in my opinion, my version is better. It goes into greater detail, flows much more like an encyclopedia article, and has better jokes. I'm not trying to be rude, but the fact is that there isn't much there in your article. It's difficult for any article to improve if all that you allow is minor "tweaks" instead of large scale additions. Thus you are wrong when you say that your article is "perfectly fine" since there is always room for improvement and your article is definitely far from perfect. But have it your way, since you'll obviously just keep reverting any edits I make (as you have done to everyone else who edited your article), I'll make a new one even though the theme and structure of the two articles are the same. - DMac 21:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)