Uncyclopedia:Village Dump/archive9
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
GS
Regarding GS. I have unblocked him at the promise of no more vandalism, i.e. behaving. If he vandalizes, I will nuke the entire 71.* FIOS block and start writing proxy autoblock scripts, and request rejection at the squids. That means don't block him unless it's vandalism, and if it is, well... 71.241.0.0/16 looks good. --Chronarion 19:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
 This user has found Jesus, and is therefore no longer a threat to society. |
Wikipedia's Millionth topic pool
The article names are good enough, but just imagine what us Uncyclopedians could do with this inspiration! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:37, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Parts of BGBU on account creation page
I think it'd be nice to have the main points of BGBU right on the account creation/login page. I've made an example of what it could look like at MediaWiki talk:Loginend. The page that controls the message is, shockingly, MediaWiki:Loginend. Look at Wikipedia's create account page for an example of how it would look. This being suggested by me, everyone will oppose and tell me to fuck off. So I'll go ahead and get us started and oppose my own goddamn idea. General Specific 21:50, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- For gratuitous use of {{Lang|en|P}}. As for the rest, I don't know the first thing about MediaWiki, sorry. Oh, and fuck off. (Just trying to beat the crowd) --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!]
22:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, General_Specific is now infinitely banned from this wiki. He was warned over and over that harrassment of uncyclopedia users either here or on IRC would result in a ban here. Some brief quotes:
<_KP_> I think that you could put that energy into some positive contributions on Uncyclopedia. <General_Specific> never <_KP_> So, is Uncyclopedia unimportant to you? <General_Specific> the day i make a legitimate contribution is the day you stop being annoying
* General_Specific (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia <General_Specific> omfg <General_Specific> bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob you suck * General_Specific is now known as Bob_Loblaw <Bob_Loblaw> better name that your bs <Bob_Loblaw> such a good show Bob_Loblaw> except assholes like you who prolly watch war at home or such trash got it cancelled * BobBobBob_ sucks <Bob_Loblaw> HAHAHAHAHAHA <Bob_Loblaw> someone took your name * Bob_Loblaw is now known as General_Specific * Splarka (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia <Splarka> HAHAHAHAHA SPLARKA LIKES CHILD PORN Splarka> I MUST REVEAL IT * Splarka has quit IRC (Client Quit)
--Splaka 22:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, that was me agreeing with GS. Sure, I suck. But I'm an admin who sucks, so deal with it. --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!] 16:56, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Wow, best way to get banned is harrass admins --Nytrospawn 01:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- He's creating socks and posting goatse now. Block list. --—rc (t) 01:53, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe a range block is in order?--Nytrospawn 02:02, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there.
Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc (t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if this post will get deleted. It's not exactly vandalism, but I am ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop me. Oh well. -- You know who ~~- The previous post has been deleted. It wasn't exactly vandalism, but it was ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop its poster. --Spintherism 04:13, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc (t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there.
- I think it's high time you just range ban the motherfucker and be done with it. I don't want to see Goatse any more than I have to. --Sir Flammable KUN 18:24, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- 71-241-250.0/24 is blocked for now. I may expand the block to all of FIOS DC. --Chronarion 18:38, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Dilbert
I was going to huff it, but I just couldn't... it's too close to the truth. Article text follows:
- Dilbert
- I cannot believe there is no article on Dilbert.
- Congrats. You guys suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sad now. Anyone got a spare kitten? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] BobBobBob 20:51, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- That's VFH material. --Savethemooses 21:40, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Blogged today
We've been blogged today! --Splaka 12:24, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Man, if I had a nickel for every blog that posted about us, Id be dead due to nickels penetrateing my skull --Nytrospawn 20:28, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Merge template
Currently, the Merge template reads:
- "This article or section should be merged with [[{{{1}}}]], because one head is better than two. Wait, that can't be right..."
Sometimes the situation that arises is this: User 1 who thinks they're being helpful puts Merge templates on two articles that they feel should be merged. Before consensus is reached on whether to merge or not and as to what contents should end up in the merged article, helpful User 2 comes by and does the merger themselves. The merger may be done incorrectly, as some good content in one of the articles might be lost while the other article's content might remain unchanged.
If an article is to be merged, in my view it should be done after consensus (which is the prescribed procedure already). Sometimes there are valid reasons for both articles continuing to exist (i.e., different focus and direction). And if the merger is to be done, any good content from both articles should be present in the merged article.
I would suggest revisions to the Merge template to clarify that mergers are not to be done until after consensus is reached. Consideration should also be given to having the template indicate that only an administrator or other delegated person for the purpose is to do the actual move, in order to ensure that the move is not done prematurely and that there results no loss in good content. There should also be mention on the template that the merger of contents must be flagged in the edit summary as a "merger" so that it can be verified for its accuracy. I would also suggest that, iIf there is to be merger without any of the contents of one of the articles being incorporated in the merged article, this should also be noted in the edit summary.
Views? --Ogopogo 02:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. There should be a central Uncyclopedia:Suggested merges page or some such that is linked to by the template, similar to VFH/VFD. --Splaka 02:11, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Depends why the article had been tagged for merge. In some cases, it's a pair of valid articles on the same topic, but in others it's a heap of tiny fragments (such as individual campers at Camp Fuck You Die) which should've never been separate articles and all belong to one main entry. I can't see voting on merging heaps of two-line fragments back into a main article if they're only linked from that article, but perhaps the template should at least point to a 'help' page so that anyone doing the merge knows to redirect (and not blank) the originals and to document the change as having been a merge. --Carlb 02:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- How about this. Put in the main merge template "Note, this page should only be merged by the main author(s) of the page(s) in question, or an admin. Not by someone just showing up here and noticing this notice. This notice is for the page(s)'s authors" (but phrased better). And then, we would transwiki Wikipedia:Template:Mergefrom and Wikipedia:Template:Mergeto to use for things like vanity satellite cruft, with messages like "These pages are too lonely on their own and really need to be put back in their proper place before they get huffed!". Mostly when I see things like that, I delete them and un-wikify the page they came from and leave a Template:Vanity on the page. --Splaka 04:23, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Sounds a bit too restrictive. "The authors of this page are encouraged to merge its content to (articlename) and redirect this page there."? --Carlb 09:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- A good compromise. Ogo? --Splaka 12:24, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. Yes, that could reduce the incidence of improvidential/inaccurate merges by persons who aren't editors of the articles. That would require revision of the Merge template for the 'disappearing' article. Would we also be creating a Merge template for the 'destination' article? --Ogopogo 04:30, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Template:Q & Template:Q2 Usage
Woohoo! Two VD Topics in a Row!! Anyways, I have used Template:Q on some of the quotes I have seen with the "raw" quote format written out. I think that Template:Q should get a lot more use. I've also just created Template:Q2. Template:Q2 is supposed to match Template:Oscar the way Template:Q matches Template:Wilde.
I plan on going on my own little fight now to make as many of the quotes that are just written out fit in either the Q or Q2 templats. This obviously isn't a problem. The other thing I'd like to do, that I think I should get permission from admins from, is to replace quotes in other templats such as Template:Churchill or Template:Einstein, etc. Obviously the holy Template:Wilde will still be left intact, I only have it out for the other templates.
Anyone else who wants to get in on the action, by all means, do so. --neoEva88 00:59, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds ok for now as long as you are replacing (replacing VFD templates, and raw code, with Q that is) and not adding. Be very frugal when adding quotes during this timeperiod ^_^. --Splaka 01:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be worth changing the other templates (Template:Churchill or whomever) so that the template itself uses the {{Q}} and {{Q2}}, much like many of the various stub templates use Template:Allstubs and its variants? That way, the rest of the conversion may be possible by using {{subst:...}} with the old template name. --Carlb 01:20, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good. However, Famine and Codeine and I are on a quest to remove most canned templates (28 of them when I nominated them) in general (and some infrequently used variable ones). See Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/templates. The survivors (if any) can be converted to Template:Q (or Template:Quote but that is a bit messy to try to use), but it should wait until after the issue is decided, imho.--Splaka 01:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum, any templates that appear likely to be deleted on the above VFD page, could be searched and replaced with Q (or just removed from their pages if unneded). See this page for a quick link to a list on each one of where they are. -Sp
The approach I was considering was:
- Edit the individual template (I've just tried it with Template:Churchill as an example) to use {{Q}} or {{Q2}}
- Edit each of the article(s) using the template to replace {{churchill|whatever...} with {{subst:churchill|whatever}}
- At this point, the article(s) contain {{Q}} or {{Q2}} and the old Template:Churchill may be safely huffed. Byebye!
Only problem so far is that the {{templatevfd}} stuff is finding its way in to the main text and needs removal. Otherwise, looks do-able. --Carlb 01:30, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ahh I see! That is doable. You could remove the VFD notice on each quote one at a time, subst them in, and then put the notice back. Feel free to do that if you think it will work. BTW, Churchill and Byron are the only two that will probably survive the VFD. Ow my brain hurts. --Splaka 01:54, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
GS
Regarding GS. I have unblocked him at the promise of no more vandalism, i.e. behaving. If he vandalizes, I will nuke the entire 71.* FIOS block and start writing proxy autoblock scripts, and request rejection at the squids. That means don't block him unless it's vandalism, and if it is, well... 71.241.0.0/16 looks good. --Chronarion 19:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
| This user has found Jesus, and is therefore no longer a threat to society. |
Wikipedia's Millionth topic pool
The article names are good enough, but just imagine what us Uncyclopedians could do with this inspiration! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 23:37, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Parts of BGBU on account creation page
I think it'd be nice to have the main points of BGBU right on the account creation/login page. I've made an example of what it could look like at MediaWiki talk:Loginend. The page that controls the message is, shockingly, MediaWiki:Loginend. Look at Wikipedia's create account page for an example of how it would look. This being suggested by me, everyone will oppose and tell me to fuck off. So I'll go ahead and get us started and oppose my own goddamn idea. General Specific 21:50, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- For gratuitous use of {{Lang|en|P}}. As for the rest, I don't know the first thing about MediaWiki, sorry. Oh, and fuck off. (Just trying to beat the crowd) --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!] 22:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Just an FYI, General_Specific is now infinitely banned from this wiki. He was warned over and over that harrassment of uncyclopedia users either here or on IRC would result in a ban here. Some brief quotes:
<_KP_> I think that you could put that energy into some positive contributions on Uncyclopedia. <General_Specific> never <_KP_> So, is Uncyclopedia unimportant to you? <General_Specific> the day i make a legitimate contribution is the day you stop being annoying
* General_Specific (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia <General_Specific> omfg <General_Specific> bobbobbobbobbobbobbobbob you suck * General_Specific is now known as Bob_Loblaw <Bob_Loblaw> better name that your bs <Bob_Loblaw> such a good show Bob_Loblaw> except assholes like you who prolly watch war at home or such trash got it cancelled * BobBobBob_ sucks <Bob_Loblaw> HAHAHAHAHAHA <Bob_Loblaw> someone took your name * Bob_Loblaw is now known as General_Specific * Splarka (i=General_@pool-71-241-250-251.washdc.fios.verizon.net) has joined #uncyclopedia <Splarka> HAHAHAHAHA SPLARKA LIKES CHILD PORN Splarka> I MUST REVEAL IT * Splarka has quit IRC (Client Quit)
--Splaka 22:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, that was me agreeing with GS. Sure, I suck. But I'm an admin who sucks, so deal with it. --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!] 16:56, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Wow, best way to get banned is harrass admins --Nytrospawn 01:50, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- He's creating socks and posting goatse now. Block list. --—rc (t) 01:53, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe a range block is in order?--Nytrospawn 02:02, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 01:59, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc (t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if this post will get deleted. It's not exactly vandalism, but I am ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop me. Oh well. -- You know who ~~- The previous post has been deleted. It wasn't exactly vandalism, but it was ban evading, and effectively mocking your attempts to stop its poster. --Spintherism 04:13, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Easy for you to say. You weren't the one who had to access the images to delete them... --—rc (t) 02:07, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- While I in no way support this, kudos on using an old standard like goatse. That sort of vandalizm has taste and class, and is a throwback of a bygone era when there were real trolls and fearsome beasties only a click away. If you've gotta do it, do it right! You'll still get banned, but that's a job done right there.
- I think it's high time you just range ban the motherfucker and be done with it. I don't want to see Goatse any more than I have to. --Sir Flammable KUN 18:24, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- 71-241-250.0/24 is blocked for now. I may expand the block to all of FIOS DC. --Chronarion 18:38, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Dilbert
I was going to huff it, but I just couldn't... it's too close to the truth. Article text follows:
- Dilbert
- I cannot believe there is no article on Dilbert.
- Congrats. You guys suck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'm sad now. Anyone got a spare kitten? -- Sir BobBobBob ! S ? [rox!|sux!] BobBobBob 20:51, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- That's VFH material. --Savethemooses 21:40, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Blogged today
We've been blogged today! --Splaka 12:24, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Man, if I had a nickel for every blog that posted about us, Id be dead due to nickels penetrateing my skull --Nytrospawn 20:28, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Merge template
Currently, the Merge template reads:
- "This article or section should be merged with [[{{{1}}}]], because one head is better than two. Wait, that can't be right..."
Sometimes the situation that arises is this: User 1 who thinks they're being helpful puts Merge templates on two articles that they feel should be merged. Before consensus is reached on whether to merge or not and as to what contents should end up in the merged article, helpful User 2 comes by and does the merger themselves. The merger may be done incorrectly, as some good content in one of the articles might be lost while the other article's content might remain unchanged.
If an article is to be merged, in my view it should be done after consensus (which is the prescribed procedure already). Sometimes there are valid reasons for both articles continuing to exist (i.e., different focus and direction). And if the merger is to be done, any good content from both articles should be present in the merged article.
I would suggest revisions to the Merge template to clarify that mergers are not to be done until after consensus is reached. Consideration should also be given to having the template indicate that only an administrator or other delegated person for the purpose is to do the actual move, in order to ensure that the move is not done prematurely and that there results no loss in good content. There should also be mention on the template that the merger of contents must be flagged in the edit summary as a "merger" so that it can be verified for its accuracy. I would also suggest that, iIf there is to be merger without any of the contents of one of the articles being incorporated in the merged article, this should also be noted in the edit summary.
Views? --Ogopogo 02:01, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Agree. There should be a central Uncyclopedia:Suggested merges page or some such that is linked to by the template, similar to VFH/VFD. --Splaka 02:11, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Depends why the article had been tagged for merge. In some cases, it's a pair of valid articles on the same topic, but in others it's a heap of tiny fragments (such as individual campers at Camp Fuck You Die) which should've never been separate articles and all belong to one main entry. I can't see voting on merging heaps of two-line fragments back into a main article if they're only linked from that article, but perhaps the template should at least point to a 'help' page so that anyone doing the merge knows to redirect (and not blank) the originals and to document the change as having been a merge. --Carlb 02:49, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- How about this. Put in the main merge template "Note, this page should only be merged by the main author(s) of the page(s) in question, or an admin. Not by someone just showing up here and noticing this notice. This notice is for the page(s)'s authors" (but phrased better). And then, we would transwiki Wikipedia:Template:Mergefrom and Wikipedia:Template:Mergeto to use for things like vanity satellite cruft, with messages like "These pages are too lonely on their own and really need to be put back in their proper place before they get huffed!". Mostly when I see things like that, I delete them and un-wikify the page they came from and leave a Template:Vanity on the page. --Splaka 04:23, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Sounds a bit too restrictive. "The authors of this page are encouraged to merge its content to (articlename) and redirect this page there."? --Carlb 09:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- A good compromise. Ogo? --Splaka 12:24, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks guys. Yes, that could reduce the incidence of improvidential/inaccurate merges by persons who aren't editors of the articles. That would require revision of the Merge template for the 'disappearing' article. Would we also be creating a Merge template for the 'destination' article? --Ogopogo 04:30, 15 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Template:Q & Template:Q2 Usage
Woohoo! Two VD Topics in a Row!! Anyways, I have used Template:Q on some of the quotes I have seen with the "raw" quote format written out. I think that Template:Q should get a lot more use. I've also just created Template:Q2. Template:Q2 is supposed to match Template:Oscar the way Template:Q matches Template:Wilde.
I plan on going on my own little fight now to make as many of the quotes that are just written out fit in either the Q or Q2 templats. This obviously isn't a problem. The other thing I'd like to do, that I think I should get permission from admins from, is to replace quotes in other templats such as Template:Churchill or Template:Einstein, etc. Obviously the holy Template:Wilde will still be left intact, I only have it out for the other templates.
Anyone else who wants to get in on the action, by all means, do so. --neoEva88 00:59, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds ok for now as long as you are replacing (replacing VFD templates, and raw code, with Q that is) and not adding. Be very frugal when adding quotes during this timeperiod ^_^. --Splaka 01:03, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Would it be worth changing the other templates (Template:Churchill or whomever) so that the template itself uses the {{Q}} and {{Q2}}, much like many of the various stub templates use Template:Allstubs and its variants? That way, the rest of the conversion may be possible by using {{subst:...}} with the old template name. --Carlb 01:20, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good. However, Famine and Codeine and I are on a quest to remove most canned templates (28 of them when I nominated them) in general (and some infrequently used variable ones). See Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/templates. The survivors (if any) can be converted to Template:Q (or Template:Quote but that is a bit messy to try to use), but it should wait until after the issue is decided, imho.--Splaka 01:26, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Addendum, any templates that appear likely to be deleted on the above VFD page, could be searched and replaced with Q (or just removed from their pages if unneded). See this page for a quick link to a list on each one of where they are. -Sp
The approach I was considering was:
- Edit the individual template (I've just tried it with Template:Churchill as an example) to use {{Q}} or {{Q2}}
- Edit each of the article(s) using the template to replace {{churchill|whatever...} with {{subst:churchill|whatever}}
- At this point, the article(s) contain {{Q}} or {{Q2}} and the old Template:Churchill may be safely huffed. Byebye!
Only problem so far is that the {{templatevfd}} stuff is finding its way in to the main text and needs removal. Otherwise, looks do-able. --Carlb 01:30, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Ahh I see! That is doable. You could remove the VFD notice on each quote one at a time, subst them in, and then put the notice back. Feel free to do that if you think it will work. BTW, Churchill and Byron are the only two that will probably survive the VFD. Ow my brain hurts. --Splaka 01:54, 14 Nov 2005 (UTC)
George Lucas
Help! The George Lucas article has become a Wikipedia article! Apart from the amusing quotes at the top of the page the rest of the page is an accurate biography of George Lucas. The problem was so enormous that I was too lazy to do anything about it. -- User:Cantbebotheredtomakeaccount
IRC Wars (video game)
The Video Game Wars template is awkward... if anybody could take a crack at fixing that...--Savethemooses 21:23, 10 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Tory
Moved from QVFD:
Tory
Mainly plagiarised from the Official Monster Raving Looney Party manicfesto. I think only the 'Conservatory Party' joke is original.--Sweet Indigo 14:08, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, it looks like some of the plagarism is a recent addition. I'll find an appropriate plagarism template and post something at the DUMP to see if some of our British-oriented folks can addresse the probleme. --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!] 20:04, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Update: I can't find an appropriate template, probably because there are so damned many of them. -Bob^3
- If people want I can have a go at a heavy rewrite, although it will be of the completly missing the point vareity which may be too subtle.........--MysteryShopper 00:21, 9 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Featured article now going to mailing list
Go join Uncyclopedia-L. At my brilliant suggestion, Rcmurphy is now posting the featured article blurb to the list every second day when he changes the feature. This will (1) remind you to look at Uncyclopedia (2) be an actual use for the mailing list - David Gerard 08:03, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Mailing lists are old school (in a good way). How about an RSS feed? (If no one else is up for it, I might actually give it a try) --Paulgb 02:18, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I have an idea. I have maintained plenty of RSS feeds before. I'll give this a shot.(Please know I suck at PHP, so this will be manual update.)--Foo21 03:10, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Vtamn
I have a suggestion. I noticed that the Vtamn is very close to the Vitamin in terms of words and contents, many differences being accounted for by lost vowels. Perhaps Vtamn could be deleted and any funny content in Vtamn that's not already in Vitamin be moved into Vitamin. --Ogopogo 04:07, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Welcome to nine months ago. --Savethemooses 17:31, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- It's all fun and games until someone loses an 'i'. --Carlb 23:43, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Or two, in this case. --Spintherism 16:13, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
It's an inside joke! Keep it, for god's sake! You'll never understand! --Clorox
Okay, maybe I have a split personality (see VFD). You got a problem with that? --Clorox 
MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 02:36, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC) MUN ONS (diskussion) ☃ 21:45, 12 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Vote for next Weeks Colonization!!
After an amazingly successful first run, several high quality articles have come together. Right now, the voting process for selecting the next 5 articles to colonize is winding down, so be sure to vote for one you feel is worthy of a collaborative effort! ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 16:17, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Polls have closed, and the selected articles for this week are: Fatty Arbuckle, Venezuela, Treaty of Versailles, Microwave oven, and Virus. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 05:30, 6 Nov 2005 (UTC)
The Numbers are In
You wouldn't belive what some people are looking for before they suddenly arrive at uncyclopedia. Here are the top search terms, right out of the webalizer stats:
Rank Number %total search term 1 76 65 2.72% fairies 2 54 1.93% uncyclopedia 3 47 0 1.68% black people jokes 4 41 140 1.47% boobs 5 38 105 1.36% pussy 6 31 32 1.11% anal bleeding 7 26 110 0.93% nicole ritchie 8 26 0 0.93% rap names 9 21 47 0.75% clitoris 10 19 7 0.68% deep throating 11 19 17 0.68% schlong 12 18 152 0.64% bukkake 13 17 145 0.61% vagina 14 16 156 0.57% black people 15 16 0 0.57% leroy jenkins world of warcraft 16 15 65 0.54% incest 17 15 26 0.54% oda nobunaga 18 14 399 0.50% huffing 19 14 129 0.50% mc hammer 20 14 0.50% unclyclopedia
The third column is the number of pages that the term is found on, according to google.
(Thanks to Splaka for pointing me to the Webalizer stats) --Paulgb 03:28, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Drats, beaten by the fairies --Nytrospawn 03:50, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Fantasy, racism, Uncyclopedia, porn, porn, *shudder*, celebrity, rap, porn, porn, porn, porn, porn, racism, geekdom, porn, ninja, kittens, hasbeen, typo. Yeah. That sounds about right. --Jordanus 04:14, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps they intend to consult Uncyclopedia for medical information? --Carlb 00:43, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- "Beaten by the Fairies?" Sounds like an article to me.... Sir Mhaille
(talk to me)
- "Beaten by the Fairies?" Sounds like an article to me.... Sir Mhaille
- I'm tempted to look up anal bleeding to see what all the fuss is about. --Spintherism 02:58, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Now all we need to do is add these all together.
Mc Hammer was a Fairy with boobs and a problem with anal bleeding. The height of his career hit when he recorded the song "Can't Huff This".
- Yeah, something like that. I don't have enough juice left to tie the remainder in.
06:38, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, something like that. I don't have enough juice left to tie the remainder in.
- Thankyou you inspired me to write more horrible drivel. Incestuous Fairies Huffing Oda Nobunaga --RaRanax 07:08, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Edit message
I'm a Mediawiki: space addict, I have to admit. I've changed the edit message. Seemed to go down OK on #uncyclopedia just now when we were discussing the amount of crap we get, and how our shoot-on-sight rate is actually higher than Wikipedia's (200 out of 300/day compared to 2000 out of 4000/day). Old version, current version. The main addition is Be funny and not just stupid. in big letters. Of course, I'm assuming idiots read - David Gerard 23:35, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
New User - Nouveau Utilisateur
| fr-P | This f****r speaks Français heavily laced with profanity that would make a f*****g a*****e sailor blush from all the g*******d blasphemy. |
I have been a lurker on Uncyclopedia for quite some time and I really enjoyed many of the articles posted here. I've been wanting to join and contribute for a while now but was reluctant to do so because English is not my native language. I can easily express basic thoughts and ideas but can't be on par with the quality found in most featured pages. But, well, as you can see, I created an account anyway and gave it a try. I submitted a first article about Goldorak. It's kind of an inside joke but I think it could still be enjoyed by some. Of course, if you want to edit it, by all means, go ahead. Feedback would be appreciated.
Oh, by the way, I'm already working on pictures for this article. Coming soon.
--Guinea Fowl 05:55, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- So what is your native language? We have some articles in other languages, and if any of them are yours, feel free to help out. Unfortunately, most of the admins here only speak 31337, bl0G, or American. Some speak moderate amounts of Bân also, but only a few pages here are written in it. Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 21:55, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I'm from Quebec and my native language is French. I saw some articles that were half-written in French but they never lasted long and one in particular said that no one speaks French anyway. This confused me, seeing how I had the certainty I spoke French. Perhaps my native language is Esperanto after all. --Guinea Fowl 23:13, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The french language has sporked off to Désencyclopédie, a full fledged language-sista. The language code here is kinda empty since then. --Splaka 23:23, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Je crois que User:Philo et User:Sunsneezer sont des francophones, so I'd hesitate to say "no one" speaks French. --Carlb 00:25, 5 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Personne ne sait que je parle francais, mais je ne sais pas comment faire les marques diacritiques! --
SirBobBobBob !S? [rox!|sux!] 18:17, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Moi, j'utilise le réglage de clavier "US - International" sur un PC. En linux, c'est "us-acentos", en windows, Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Regional -> Input locales -> Keyboard: US International, allows you to use the standard US keyboard outside the US in order to type in other languages such as Canadian and Mexican. In effect, 'e becomes é with this keyboard layout with no hardware changes. --Carlb 16:23, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Success!
Ok. I figured out a way to sort-of timestamp templates. Categories names (as opposed to the category parameter)! Categories are not updated on templates if the template changes, unless the page the template is on is edited. For most MTU entries the last edit is the MTU tag. And for WIP/Construction pages, we are looking for the unedited old ones to deleteify. So here is how it works. As a test I made a template with the contents: [[Category:Tagged {{CURRENTTIME}}]]. I tagged two pages with it 5 minutes apart, and they appeared in separate categories. Editing one moved it to a new category (the time of the last edit). Now, currenttime is much too variable for categories, as is individual days (365), and months are a bit too few (only 12). So I propose we remake MTU using [[Category:MTU {{CURRENTWEEK}}]]. This will give us at most 54 categories and they do not need to be blue linked (created), you can view the contents of a red category easily by going to the edit page and clicking the first action button. Any existing red (on the list of categories) MTU # categories that are more than two weeks old can be cleaned out of MTU contents. This can also extend to Template:Construction and Template:WIP, as any items categorized as more than two weeks old can get huffed for inactivity. I think this will work, should we try it? With MTU first?
A poll though, should all three templates be grouped into one prefix (eg [[Category:Timestamp {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] or [[Category:Week {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] or [[Category:LastEdit {{CURRENTWEEK}}]]) or should construction/WIP be separate? --Splaka 23:20, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- MTU ## & WIP ##. I think it's a great plan, saves a lot of work on our parts. 23:35, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Clever. Will the various (interchangeable) {{rewrite}} tags get some sort of date stamp? In most cases, these aren't stubs, they're flubs. --Carlb 04:19, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Hmm, those could benifit from year/month tags probably. How about two category conventions: [[Category:Timestamp Week {{CURRENTWEEK}}]] form MTU/WIP/Construction, and [[Category:Timestamp Month {{CURRENTMONTH}}]] (with year optional) for rewrite/stubs. Optional also is to put in the type of tag in the category, but really, construction/MTU can be deleted side by side. Any edits done to this bump them to the current date, but that lets us kill the ignored ones all the easier. --Splaka 04:25, 4 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Featured Image
Is it just me or is the featured image repeated on a weekly cycle? The same images are used again and again and again and again. Is there a desperate shortage of images on uncyclopedia? We need new featured images damnit! -- User:fjuenvujwncuw
- Images are voted for and every week or so the one with the most votes gets added to the pool of images. A random image rotation script is used where each image is weighted based on the number of votes and the current weeks featured image gets a temporary weight of 1/2 of the sum of all the weights combined (so there is a 50% chance this weeks featured image will be shown on page load and then the other 50% is divided up among the other images in the pool.) --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere
CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 20:34, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
BJAODN
How about we bring some stuff across from Wikipedia's BJAODN? [1] I thought it could be like a wiki project and made a thing about it here: Uncycloproject: Wikipedia BJODN Here's one article which I brought straight across as an example: Typophiles ---- Astrokey44 12:43, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see much point in bringing things "straight across" if it doesn't really add anything that isn't already in the original. Also, please don't copy from outside source without attribution - even if they are GFDL. --Carlb 18:04, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Mm. Anything at all is suitable for inspiration, though. (c.f. seeing what humour on Desencyclopedie makes it through one's bad high school French) - David Gerard 08:10, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)
The Month Project
Okay, so, this got started when I was combining a bunch of stub articles into one article in the Wildean Calendar article. I planned only on deleting the stubby made-up months articles, but I took a look at the real months too. I was pretty discouraging, the articles for the real months qualify for deletion about as much as the made-up months articles. So I decided to start this project as a means of improving the quality of month-related articles.
A List of the Month Articles (that I am aware of):
- January!
- Janutober
- Febrewery
- Febtober D
- Febutober
- February
- March
- Smarch
- Thursday
- Long March
- April
- May!
- June
- July
- Julanuary
- August!
- September!
- Spocktober
- October!
- Octember
- November!
- Nowvember
-
Dodecember - December
Please contribute any other month articles that I haven't included.
Articles that are crossed out have bee appropriately dealt with. (I like how morbid that last sentence sounds.) Those followed by an exclamation mark really need help because they are real months and thus get more attention. Those in italics are made up months who are either stubs or short one-liners that are planned to only be mentioned in the Wildean Calendar article. Months with a bolded D next two them I think are unfunny and unworthy should simply be deleted. If the article is simply listed, it could use help, but is not in desperate need of it.
I certainly is a big undertaking, help would be appreciated. --neoEva88 00:19, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Febtober has been nominated for deletion. Put in your opinion here. --neoEva88 01:36, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
I would suggest setting up a time and standards colonization project. First clean up the months. You may want to create a couple of fake calendar systems if you want to preserve some of the months. So instead of deleting Nowvember, put it as a month within the Bovinian calendar. After the clean up, set of a colonization page for months, days of the weeks, years, units of measurements, etc. --KP CUN 02:38, 3 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Featured!
As you can see at this link, [2], Uncyclopedia has been featured after everyone and their grandmother voted for us. So, congratulations to everyone, and lets hope this will bring Uncyclopedia even more good writers! ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:29, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Awesome, but could the feature mention something about how many newspapers we've been featured in? Then we could maybe have a link to one of my articles since I've been mentioned four times in the papers... just sayin'... --Savethemooses 21:45, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The text is at wikicities:Featured Wikicity/Uncyclopedia/Blurb if you want to change it, I would but I've probably already pushed my luck enough :-) --The Right Honourable Maj Sir Elvis UmP KUN FIC MDA VFH Bur. CM and bars UGM F@H (Petition) 17:15, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Now Hiring Sysops
Discussion and voting moved to Uncyclopedia:VFS --Paulgb 19:20, 13 Nov 2005 (UTC)
Puzzle Potato?
Is the Uncyclopedia logo really a puzzle potato? I always thought it was supposed to be a rotten egg! Which is it? --Nerd42 13:28, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I thought it was just a d Wikipedia globe. neoEva88 14:08, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Potato. --Spintherism 14:48, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Potato globe.--Sir Flammable KUN 16:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I propose we change it to a flashing sign that says "Nerd42 is a n00b!" --Savethemooses 16:21, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Its actually a puzzle monkey brain --Nytrospawn 16:48, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- I propose we change it to a flashing sign that says "Nerd42 is a n00b!" --Savethemooses 16:21, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Potato globe.--Sir Flammable KUN 16:10, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Potato. --Spintherism 14:48, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I made it from the hollowed-out skull of my enemy. Er, I mean it's a potato. This was the old logo. --—rc (t) 17:47, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- No seriously, until a few minutes b4 I posted this, I seriously thought it was a rotten egg, and the Wikipedia logo was a regular egg or something --Nerd42 18:04, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you're not the first to think it was an egg. The Uncyc logo, I mean. Dunno about the Wikipedia one. --—rc (t) 18:09, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- well, I sorta knew the wikipedia logo was a sphere ... but kind of compared it to an egg, and the uncyclopedia logo made me think it's designer(s) must have made he same comparison. The idea of a puzzle potato hadn't even enered into my brain until this point. What the heck is a puzzle potato anyway? Somebody write an article about it! --Nerd42 19:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia logo is a sphere made of puzzle pieces. It is simply a logo, it doesnt MEAN anything per se, although I always interpreted it as a World being built one piece at a time, which is metaphorical in a way to its purpose. Uncyclopedia being a parody of Wikipedia, that chose Potatos as one of its defining characteristics resulted in the creation of a potato being pieced together by puzzle pieces. It is a very nice photoshop and a great parody but thats why it was created, just to explain it :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere CUN VFH VFP Bur. CMInsertwackynamehere | Talk 21:05, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- interesting. *tries to think of something funny for a puzzle potato to be for potential article* uhh ... a WMD? nah, overused --Nerd42 22:40, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia logo is a sphere made of puzzle pieces. It is simply a logo, it doesnt MEAN anything per se, although I always interpreted it as a World being built one piece at a time, which is metaphorical in a way to its purpose. Uncyclopedia being a parody of Wikipedia, that chose Potatos as one of its defining characteristics resulted in the creation of a potato being pieced together by puzzle pieces. It is a very nice photoshop and a great parody but thats why it was created, just to explain it :P --Maj Sir Insertwackynamehere
- well, I sorta knew the wikipedia logo was a sphere ... but kind of compared it to an egg, and the uncyclopedia logo made me think it's designer(s) must have made he same comparison. The idea of a puzzle potato hadn't even enered into my brain until this point. What the heck is a puzzle potato anyway? Somebody write an article about it! --Nerd42 19:07, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Well, you're not the first to think it was an egg. The Uncyc logo, I mean. Dunno about the Wikipedia one. --—rc (t) 18:09, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- OMG a wmd article about potatoes, that is TOO FUNNY! --Savethemooses 23:03, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Haha, you're so right! Nobody else would have ever thought of something funny like that. Ok, how about something about how george bush (his name is like pubic hair, lol!!!1) loses his potatoes he was going to give to the secretaries, and then he thinks saddam did it, and he starts a war, but he still can't find the
donutspotatoes! That sort of article is just what uncyclopedia doesn't have enought of. --Spintherism 23:26, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Haha, you're so right! Nobody else would have ever thought of something funny like that. Ok, how about something about how george bush (his name is like pubic hair, lol!!!1) loses his potatoes he was going to give to the secretaries, and then he thinks saddam did it, and he starts a war, but he still can't find the
- OMG a wmd article about potatoes, that is TOO FUNNY! --Savethemooses 23:03, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- yeah like I said, that one's overused. there's gotta be something funnier out there ... --Nerd42 23:31, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)
umm ... where was that hi-res version of the logo again? --Nerd42 14:42, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- The biggest version I think I've made is here: Image:Puzzle Potato Dry Brush.png. It's the original logo blown up and then run through Photoshop's Dry Brush filter (because the image was so blurry after being expanded). What do you need it for? --—rc (t) 17:32, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I just remember seeing this really awesome image somewhere of a giant, and I do mean huge, uncyclopdia logo, accompanied by an Oscar Wilde quote. It was like, for use as a desktop background or something. I was just thinking of adding a link to it on the Uncyclopedia article only now I can't remember where it was on here ... --Nerd42 20:00, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, you must be thinking of Image:TemplateMug3.png. It was meant as a template for a coffee mug for our theoretical Uncyc shop. I actually have another version (not uploaded) of the same image that's 50% bigger, if you want me to email it to you. --—rc (t) 00:36, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- I just remember seeing this really awesome image somewhere of a giant, and I do mean huge, uncyclopdia logo, accompanied by an Oscar Wilde quote. It was like, for use as a desktop background or something. I was just thinking of adding a link to it on the Uncyclopedia article only now I can't remember where it was on here ... --Nerd42 20:00, 1 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, sir! That is indeed it . Thank you, and why email it? Why not just upload it? Is there a limit on image sizes? --Nerd42 01:30, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- Er, because I wasn't thinking and assumed you were using it for a different purpose, like wallpapering your house. Here's the biggest puzzle potato ever, in case you need it: Image:TemplateMug3 - 2.png It's waaaay over Mediawiki's 100kb "recommended" size, though, so the wiki might explode if you use it. --—rc (t) 01:59, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
- This is a great parody of the extra huge wikipedia logo intended for print publications to use, in case people wanted to print out an entire physical set of the Encyclopedia Wikipedia and put it on their shelves: [3] --Nerd42 02:48, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
![[3]](http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wikipedia-logo.png){kind=link}
Deprecated templates
Are the following toast? They don't seem to be used anywhere:
--Carlb 10:03, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- The first two are used directly on the main page, but the second two don't seem to be used much. Next time, click the link in the toolbox that says "what links here" --Nintendorulez 23:01, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Tried that, looks like Template:NewsContinents is live but UnNews Continents is just an unused redirect to NewsContinents, the others look pretty dead too (linked here, on the list of templates, from themselves or from some archived discussion page only. That's why I ask whether these are useless now... most often, this is the pattern seen when an item is discarded and replaced with something else. --Carlb 23:28, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Title assistance requested
I've created the Leningrad Cowboys article. I wanted to keep the article in its English name only (i.e., Leningrad Cowboys) but to have a bilingual (English / Russian) title Leningrad Cowboys / Ленинградские ковбои as the phantom title of the article at the top, instead of doing a redirect. I've sort of done it with wikimedia coding, as you can see by viewing of the article. However, there is some ghosting of the original title Leningrad Cowboys, because the alignment and height is a bit off. Any assistance to repair would be muchly appreciated by me. My hunch is that there is a standard system setting which trial and error with the various variables might not arrive at. Thanks. --Ogopogo 06:27, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Easier not to try to match the original text, I think, but just to append. I fiddled a bit. However, this sort of thing doesn't work in every browser, can fudge up in some. --Splaka 06:34, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- There's no guarantee that all browsers will have the full Unicode character set - some will display annoying ???? marks. I ran into that problem with the Canada (Nation) article, the snowman character is Unicode but some browsers weren't displaying it properly. --Carlb 09:14, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for trying, Splaka (and thanks too, Carl). The effect seems to vary from computer to computer in this case. I checked on two different computers (it's good on one; overlaps on another because the computer/browsers's natural font size is bigger). I'll keep to unilingual article title (or eventually redirect it to bilingual title). Thanks again. --Ogopogo 22:53, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Custom namespaces poll
Angela has said that as many custom namespaces as we need could be implemented just for Uncyclopedia. We could have Wilde:, UnNews:, Undictionary:, and the assortment of various languages as actual namespaces, the benefits of which are listed in the previous heading. I see nothing wrong with this, so I'm in favor. Thoughts? General Specific 00:14, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Definitely in favor. --Algorithm 00:27, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- 444 VV3 |V33d 1 4 |31065 2!!!! (err...or is that 1337 that we need?) Sir Famine, Gun ♣ Petition » 00:48, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- In favour starting with any with 25+ entries (UnNews:, Wilde: or Quote:, Game: and maybe HowTo: and Undic), it'll get a big pile of l'il quotations off Special:Shortpages by getting them out of the main article space. Will what's there now need to be renamed before the prefixes are created? --Carlb 00:56, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- From what I hear it will happen automagically when the articles are edited. General Specific 00:57, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Dunno. I know we've had problems with interwiki links - name an article Namespace:Title, then later create Namespace: as an interwiki link and suddenly the old Namespace:Title as a formerly-plain article in the main namespace with a funny-looking name isn't accessible at all. We were using m: as a fake namespace for multilingual before it was interwikied to be meta: --Carlb 01:01, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- EXTREME GAY DUDE SUPPORT!!!!!!!11oneone11 --Phroziac 01:02, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. I see no reason, it will cause more problems than it will solve (may affect links to talkpages, existing implementations of {{NAMESPACE}} in templates, cause upset stomach and rashes, induce vomiting if symptoms occur). Another thing, *If* it is implemented for foreign languages, it should be done to all of them at once, but most are empty, so we'd have quite a few unused namespaces. The only faux namespace that might work out better as a real one, would be IMHO Wilde: and none others. --Splaka 01:36, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Um, the whole idea of using {{NAMESPACE}} in templates (such as the various stubs and VFD boxes) is that the "You can help Uncyclopedia by editing this..." link still be valid even if the article is not part of the main namespace. I wouldn't expect these to break. --Carlb 03:03, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- It may break the way any templates are currently implementing them assuming non-real namespaces (I am just going by what Angela told me). However, other problems with templates will include things like Template:OWQ (Yes, that is easy to fix, but how many more problems might there be?). At the very least, any changes should be held off until we upgrade to 1.5 (sometime in November, it looks like). --Splaka 03:18, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Affected templates are {{OWQ}} and {{OWQL}} (nothing else references Wilde: directly) and the change there is to replace {{:Wilde:Title}} with {{Wilde:Title}}. Looks manageable. I'd be tempted not to create namespaces for every known language since, once they have enough articles, they are now being created as separate projects (désencyclopédie, uncyclopedia.de, nonsensepedia...) --Carlb 09:28, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Um, the whole idea of using {{NAMESPACE}} in templates (such as the various stubs and VFD boxes) is that the "You can help Uncyclopedia by editing this..." link still be valid even if the article is not part of the main namespace. I wouldn't expect these to break. --Carlb 03:03, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
I suggest a Quote namespace for all making up quotes pages. So Making up Oscar Wilde quotes would be renamed "Quote:Oscar Wilde" ... oh wait never mind that's a dumb idea. That was a really lame sounding title ... OK never mind --Nerd42 03:22, 31 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, the Wilde: pseudonamespace doesn't contain the Making up Oscar Wilde quotes article itself (it remains in the main space). It's used to store all the individual one-line entries which each contain just one quote for inclusion elsewhere. For instance, if Wilde:NotNoticed were to contain "The only thing worse than being noticed is not being noticed...", inserting {{OWQ|NotNoticed}} would drop the quote into an article "The only thing worse than being noticed is not being noticed. - Oscar Wilde". There are hundreds of these one-line entries on Special:Shor