Forum:Featured Article candidate on Wikipedia?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Featured Article candidate on Wikipedia?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3993 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

This old man is Wikipedia. Do you care what he thinks about you young whippersnappers and your new fangled comedy? The answer, of course, is "no".

According to various news sources (specifically, Wikipedia), Wikipedia's article on Uncyclopedia is a candidate for being Wikipedia's featured article of the day, on Wikipedia. featured article candidates/Uncyclopedia Let's talk about how that makes you feel. --Syndrome 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

A little warm inside, and a bit confused, and more than a little horny. But then so do most things. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Oh FSM...

I can't believe this is still going on. I nominated it, like, months ago. Teh Rote 18:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone re-nominated it. Surprise! --Pleb SYNDROME _{CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!)} 01:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

And it looks like a lot of Wikipedians don't like it. Which, considering other material they have featured is VERY amusing. - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 04:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Jeez...even my take on Colbert's White House Press Corps speech is funnier than theirs. Wikipedia sucks the humour out of everything. They're the worst! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Can we stop caring about our page on Wikipedia?

It's not like it's a funny page. Face it, as much as "they" talk about having high standards, ours are far higher. Most of "their" pages wouldn't survive VFD here. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 04:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

:D Parsat, or, A Whole Bunch of Mischief 21:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well...ummm...why don't we, like, make it better or something. Or, you know, all nominate it for Wikipedia-style-VFD (They have one, right?) and all vote for deleting it. That would be awesome. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Naw. Remember when the Gamespot trolls swarmed the Vote for Feature UnBook page? I, for one, wept. It didn't help that Old Yeller was on TV. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No. I don't remeber. The paint took care of that. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Linking to Uncyclopedia is bad"

Oh, while we're on the subject of Wikipedia, I found this a couple of days ago. It seems that nobody should be allowed to link to us. It also seems that not linking to us is spam, and in some way related to "fancruft". Oh golly. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

So wait, what you're saying is, a wiki that describes itself on the Main Page as "content-free" may be an unreliable source? Perhaps someone should link them to our C-pedia page, so that they can be warned of our blasphemous, sodomizing, incest-inciting nature. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:10, Mar 23

Is that Wikipedia page the result of real problems in the past, or are they simply being anal? Verp 03:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Check the Fisher Price history over there for an answer to that question...--<<>> 23:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Those people don't make any sense over there, hell, they're abolishing trivia sections! The article on trivia doesn't even have a trivia section!--Witt, of UNion Entertain me* 21:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And their article on nihilism has stuff in it! Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I like how Zombiebaron and the other WP editor were told to "get back to editing Un' and keep your ideas there, where they belong." He also went on to say: "We don't take kindly to your kind, 'round these parts! Damn Unggers! The come here illegally n' take jobs from the real wikipedians! GO HOME, UNGGERS!" - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 22:14, Mar 29

We're quoted on BBC Radio every day? -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 23:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I actaully think the best part was then he said "but honestly a squirrel?", because it showed how he doesn't have, like, a sense of humour about it. The fact that "a squirrel" seems like less of a bad idea than "(hopefully) several "informal FA" voting pages. That way, we can set up guidelines for when and where Wikipedians can have "a bit of fun", and then discuss it", is pretty scary. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really make sense that we can't link to Uncyc. Surely there is no better source about what Uncyc is then Uncyc itself. (also Poo!) -- wet Ape (incinerate) (Riot Porn) 22:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I quit Wikipedia when I found out they were shitting all over all the pages I wrote because they were "not notable" even though I backed up a lot of what I wrote with so-called reliable sources (which according to their definition includes sources that have proven to be not reliable). And there was one guy who was on such a vendetta that he even merged pages he personally felt were not notable even though so-called reliable sources existed. He didn't care. Wikipedia didn't care. They have an agenda. An agenda to censor the world and they'll only admit it if you question them (if you don't they'll talk about "sum of human knowledge" BS). I say everyone should go edit other more specialized Wikis. I'm glad I did. I'd much rather have idiots bash us than a Wikipedia front page thingy. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

That's why I only trust Conservapedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Savethemooses (talk • contribs)

They don't have an agenda; it's just that they're all assholes. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:40, Mar 30

Wikipedia sucks: they don't even have the Codeine's Mum rule. -- wet Ape (incinerate) (Riot Porn) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And when someone tries to add the 21st century masterpiece Fisher Price to Wikipedia, it gets reverted on sight. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 00:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

If they don’t let people know about us, the sort of nutcase that so loves to contribute to Uncyclopedia will get bored and do less than sterling things to Wikipedia. Being able to childishly laugh at yourself is a sign of maturity, so they should find us refreshing. I would think they would want to encourage and nurture Uncyclopedia; that way they know where their prodigal children are and can keep an eye on us. Without our own strange little world to masturbate have own way in, we would diffuse into the world like cancer cells from a metastasizing tumor to cause all sorts of bizarre cancerous growths all through cyberspace. Verp 02:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Quoth the page Zombie linked to: "Two of the top five editors of the Uncyclopedia article are banned." Is this true? -- Hindleyite Converse 18:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Probably. Think of how many people have added repeatedly tried to add a Wilde quote at the beginning. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to go and say thanks to that Otter guy; he inspired a page! - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 21:40, Apr 1

I suggest you try to improve the Uncyclopedia article so it is featured rather than trying to change the rules so it can be featured without anybody doing a second of work. - But thats our philosophy :S --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 05:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)