Worst 100 Quick Detections that an Uncyclopedia page sucks of All Time

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.

See Uncyclopedia:How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid, Uncyclopedia:QuickVFD

God. In the middle of reading a page. immortal. You start to feel that it sucks. king. At worst you'll have to read. Empire. The entire article through before you are. Galaxy. Sure of it's suckiness, wasting. YOU. Valuable internet minutes. Chuck Norris. Jimbo Wales.

This is all unnecessary work. There are lots of easy signs and tricks that will tell you nearly at once that a page sucks.

Here are the 100 worst ones:

100. The gigantic keywords

If an article contains at least 2 of the following words in the first paragraph, the rest of it will suck.

• God
• immortal
• king
• Empire
• Galaxy
• YOU
• Your Mum
• Chuck Norris
• Jimbo Wales

99. Unrelated testicles.

Every article that contains a reference to or joke about testicles without this being motivated by the subjects title - suck!

98. Norwegian male syndrome.

An article that featueres an unknown Norwegian guy will with all probability suck. If the name in the title contain the letter ø it will suck big-time.

97. Greenland isn't hot.

Imaginary countries at impossible locations suck. The same goes for ordinary countries positioned at Greenland's west coast. Countries invaded by Andorra or being a small part of San Marino also suck suck suck. A bucket of shit doesn't become funny by turning it upside down. The same goes for Earth's geography.

96. Mars attacks give heart attacks.

Articles (mostly stubs) whose main plot is an invasion from Mars suck. The same goes for every other invasion from the solar system or outer space. This should be reserved for classic literary titles where this action is originally intended.

95. Wilde anachronisms.

If the obligatory Wilde quote sounds like something coming from a New Jersey gangsta' rap sucker and not from a spirited 19th century Irish upperclass writer/poofter, it is highly probable that the rest of the article will go down through the same drain. An exception is Snoop Dogg, or any other article whose subject is a gangsta' rap sucker, because a page that is intentionally bad doesn't suck, it stinks.

94. Historical figures in a band.

No, "Oswald and the Assassins" isn't a funny band name, and the rest of the article is probably a sack of pigshit.

93. "Worst 100" lists

If the article contains the phrase "The Worst 100..." in its title, there will be numerous references to stupid, unfunny things that no one cares about.

92. Copied Wikipedia articles.

If we wanted to read something that wasn't meant to be the truth, we'd go there.

91. Words 'I' and 'you'

We're selfish and personal.

90. An easy formula to remember

Q. Is the page an Uncyclopedia article? If the answer is "Yes" then maybe it sucks. If the answer is "No", then it definitely sucks.

89. Articles that claim "fake" history real

If an article claims America was independent in 1000 Bc, King Kong was president, or the lightbulb was invented in the middle ages as true facts, then it sucks.

88. Photoshopped images

Photoshop sucks. Anyone who wants to edit a picture and doesn't use MS Paint sucks too. What can be expected of their articles?

87. Is somehow or somewhat related to anime or something that can be mistaken for anime or claims to be anime

Apparently, losers who have nothing better to do come here and think they're hilarious because they're writing twenty pages of random clutter which is actually a veiled attempt at promoting their lame hobby. Those who spend their time making similarly random clutter about how anime sucks also are losers, but to a lesser degreee.

86. Was written by a moron.

This pretty much speaks for itself.

85. Articles on Uncyclopedian erotica.

I mean, who hangs out at an Encyclopedia?

84. Overuse of catch phrases

Often, these pages will contain conveniently but mysteriously placed characters solely for the sake of a reusable sound byte that everyone can relate to. The only problem is, everyone can also not find it funny. In math, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, but this works inversely for humor => funny reference + funny reference + funny reference = confusing and unfunny.

Example:

    The 2025 Trial of Urkel
    Judge Ito: May the accused party for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson rise.
    Urkel: Did I do that?
    Judge Ito: Settle down, Mr. Urkel. Do you have anything to say in your defense?
    Mysterious voice: All Your Base Are Belong to Us.
    Ito and Urkel: CATS???? It's you!!!!
    CATS: I'm here on defendant's part make your time.
    Urkel: Don't you see? This whole court is a farce! I'm not out of order, you're out of order!      The whole damn system is out of order!
              Because when you reach over at the pile of goo, that used to be your friend's face, you'll know what the score is! Forget it,
              Marge, I mean, Judge Ito, it's Chinatown!
     Judge Ito: Mr. Urkel, one more outburst like that and I'll hold you in contempt!
     Lois: Oh no!
     Chris: Oh no!
     Meg: Oh no!
     Brian: Oh no!
     [Kool-Aid man bursts through the wall.]
     Kool-Aid Man: Oh yeah!
     [Goku breaks through a window]
     Goku: (in subtitles) That's enough! This scene is getting way too absurd! Ha ha. I am chewing bubble gum.
     [All lock hands and skip out into the sunset]

83. Is it something you would let your mother see?

The answer should be "no".

82. Let's take a lesson from the last season of South Park.

Simply exaggeration isn't funny. Additionally, the opposite (giving attributes that are contrary to someone's nature) is just as unfunny. Example: An article on George Bush that refers to him as a Nobel Prize-winning Physicist who can cradle terminally diseased Third World children back to health. Or an article on Michael Moore that portrays him as an oppressive, right-wing dictator.

81. Many people think this keyword means what it actually means...

... but in fact I think it is fun to write that it means something completely else not even remotely linked to the article at all.

Sure it means something else. It means that the article SUCKS!

80. Any mention of Mr. T, Jesus or squirrels

Should any of these characters appear on any page, they are probably just grues in disguise. If not, the page sure sucks.

79. Any mention of grues

Reference to grues are just a suck up cop out used by the submitter when he runs out of imagination. There are no such thing like grues.

I think.

At least I hope.

At least you cannot be eaten by them. (What's that in the corner over there?)

78. Contrary to popular belief

... this isn't such a brilliant way to start an entry. It is in fact a sucky way to do it.

77. An article that is just one big link to a completely unrelated article

76. It is not written by Savethemooses.

(Since the above sentence is written by Savethemooses, fortunately enough, this page doesn't suck)

75. The Page is a List which starts out hilariously.

Richard Feynman proved that where is the hilarity of the Uncyclopedia list in question, which was proven as a variant of the , or the quality of total contributors. This means that any Uncyclopedia list that starts out hilariously enough will be subject to much piggybacking from others desperately attempting to be funny and failing, while people talented enough will strive to make a great article out of one that starts shaky. The formula is infallible.

74. Lots of numbers in a row

Quantity sometimes is 1111111111111111111 times more important in bad articles than in good ones.

73. AAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

AAAAAAAAA, AAAAAAAAAAA! AAAAA AAAA AAAA, AAAAA, AAAAAAA, AAAA! AAAA, AAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA: AAAAAAAA!

72. Lots of cool or famous people thrown in for no reason

Writing an article about a solar-powered monkey is bad enough, don't throw Jesus, Gambit or Chuck Norris in for no reason.

71. Rcmurphy has made it a featured article

Rest of article likely to consist of Nintendorulez bitching loudly

70. Calling things homosexual, use of the word "fag", random references to homosexuality in a derogatory sense.

It's juvenile, homophobic, and more importantly, it's just not very funny. It's actually pretty gay.

69. References to fecal material or genitalia.

Referring to bodily excretions and the male/female sex organs is guaranteed comedic gold... and then you turn 7. Quick rule of thumb: if you can't be funny without using the word "poop" or "penis", odds are you can't be funny while using them, either.

68. Pages that shattered other pages' continuity

As hard as it is to believe Uncyclopedia has something that looks vaguely similar to continuity, well it does if you squint really hard, and people have worked hard to keep that continuity. So try you’re best to retain that continuity, the poor little fella’s already been through Hell on this site as it is.

67. References to Chuck Norris

Especially when the article says he's better, bigger, stronger, or tougher than the actual subject of the article. If people wanted to read about Chuck, they'd go to his page.

66. It contradicts itself

Sucky articles often contradict themselves even in the same few lines. Most of the time that works quite well.

65. It's way too long.

Length does not make humor or intelligence. 95% of the time that a page is so long you nearly lose interest, it's just a huge, childish rant.

Like that one article, on that band. It's just stupid. The band is really, really bad, but they say it's good. They're wrong and they suck. I can't believe they're dumb enough to think that. How could anyone be that stupid. I guess the President could be. Because the President is dumb. Because he...

64. You're enjoying it

You're either a socially-retarded midget or a physically-stunted mental case. If you think something's funny, it definitely isn't. So go make an Oscar Wilde quote-filled Chuck Norris roundhouse kicked vanity page... and don't forget to template the hell out of it.

63. It was created by an anonymous user

If it shows an IP address as the creator of the page you know that the page must suck. Other clues would be that the page is about how much some student at a school somewhere rox and how much ass this d00d kix.

62. Refers to the "cabal", then denies the existence of said cabal

There's no such thing as the cabal. Thus, any page that references it is written by a loon.

61 Complete randomness

Hi there. My name's Bob. I like cars. Cows go moo. George Bush sucks. Aaaaaaaaaaahhh! (You get the picture.)

60. Any usage of Russian Reversal.

In Soviet Russia, bad Uncyclopedia articles edit YOU! Wait, I did that wrong.

59. Good usage of Russian Reversal.

Because it's not 1987 anymore. Even Yakov Smirnoff has moved on. You should too.

58. Excessive templates

This means that the page was a little weak, so templates were added to fill it out. It would have been better to put the time in to improve the page instead. Lazy pricks...

57. Vanity

If you don't care enough about your own life to get one, why would anyone else care about it?

56. Lists

If it is something that's only good enough to fill one measly line, it's not good enough for a list, much less Uncyclopedia. Save it for Wikipedia, they dig that shit.

55. Lists with too many things

One hundred things is at least sixty too many. Try making a bunch of "List of 20 Things" pages instead. Or better yet lift your feet, put your hands on the front edge of the desk and push.

54. Lists of lists

Are even worse than lists. Lists of lists, are "List Squared". Remember math class? Lists of lists are worse than math class. They're (math class²).

Worst of all, or most worstest, is the list of all lists that doesn't contain itself in it's own list, because that forces you to try to figure out whether that list really should contain itself or not.

Lists of lists of lists, a variant on Lists of lists, are worse than bad. If Lists of lists are like math class (which they are), lists of lists of lists are like calculus.

53. Pages that list complaints

Like this page. Are you still here?

52. Filth

A page filled with words that would make your grandmother blush. Uncyclopedia is practically overrun with God damned fucking articles that some cunt littered with swears.

50. Redundancies and unnecessary repetitions of something already mentioned

Have you noticed how many times this page mentions Chuck Norris and how many times Chuck Norris is mentioned on the page?

51. Lists that aren't in order

Like this one.

49. Lists of X things that aren't full

Again, lists like this list. Only this time it's bad because the millions and millions of Uncyclopedia users couldn't even fill out a list of, in this case, one hundred measly things.

48. wus kreatd bi a iliterat

if a paj es ritin bi sumun whu oviusly dusnt evin hav basik speleng and gramer skilz then its definetli garbej w00t

47.

PIECE OF CRAP WARNING! This page is a piece of crap. The author(s) acknowledge this.

46. Any page with a misleading link that takes you to an un-related topic.

45. The admins think it is cute...

...while the rest just smell vanity.

44. It has pictures like this -->

2. Because it exists.

1. Because it's the page "Worst 100 Quick Detections that an Uncyclopedia page sucks of All Time"

[edit] Honorable Mentions

• Documentary hypothesis
• Unexpected Article Deletion
• Writing articles while drunk