Forum:Content namespaces

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Content namespaces

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4675 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Uncyclopedia has 36,100 articles, but acts like we only have 25,700. This is wrong, and needs to be unwronged.

That last forum went so well I decided to make another one. Fortunately this one should be even more of a no-brainer. In fact, I'm mostly taking this to the forums so that way when I or someone else asks for this change and Wikia goes "where's the consensus?" we can be all "here's your consensus!"

Right now faux-namespaces like HowTo:, Why?: and the like show up both in our article count and in Special:Random, but real namespaces like UnNews:, UnTunes:, and Undictionary: don't. As a result our article count is short about 10,300 articles and a lot of pages get shafted by Special:Random for no real reason.

But there is hope! We can make all namespaces, real and fake alike, be treated equally. We need to ask Wikia to add these namespaces to a special list called "content namespaces" that tells MediaWiki "they, there's important stuff over in these namespaces too, don't ignore them." Right now the only content namespace is mainspace, which is why those other three namespaces get totally ignored.

Therefore I propose that the list of content namespaces be:

• (Main)
• UnNews:
• Undictionary:
• UnTunes:

Reasons for exclusions of other namespaces:

• Game: - the subpages would only inflate the article count artificially, and nobody wants to end up at a random game subpage after hitting "Random Page". If people do want games included in the article count and random pool, however, there are like a billion workarounds for this, including just putting the first page of a game in mainspace.
• Forum: - obvious friggin' reasons.
• Babel: - more "internal use" than "content" I'd say.

Other namespaces, such as Portal:, UnReviews:, Why?:, HowTo:, etc. aren't real namespaces, just a mainspace article with a colon in it. For a list of real namespaces, check out the dropdown menu in Recent Changes.

I can't really see this one bein' a problem, so let's get to voting! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:00 May 25, 2011

Vote: Update content namespace list as described above?

Score: +12 and also a pacman snowman and a pie.

•  For. Gives us (and others) a more accurate idea of how big we are, and makes sure things like UnTunes don't get shafted by Special:Random's namespace prejudice. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:34 May 25, 2011
• For -- The Zombiebaron 19:08, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. I think I understand your plan, kind of like I understand how nuclear reactors make the lights go on when you push that little switch on the wall up towards the ceiling. Aleister 19:25 25-5-'11
•  Against. I wouldn't want unNews to show up with the random button, since that namespace is "unmaintained" compared to the rest of the wiki. --Mn-z 21:05, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's not a problem with this plan, it's a problem with UnNews that needs addressing. UnNews is still site content, and therefore ought to be considered a "content namespace," regardless of its status. A separate namespace is a poor excuse to leave part of the site neglected. To oppose this plan on those grounds is only to encourage more neglect. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:18 May 25, 2011
    • reply In a perfect world, I would agree. However, I don't think the site has the manpower to shift through tens of thousands of unNews articles on VFD or otherwise implement quality control on the existent unNews. The vast majority of that namespace is outdated by its nature anyway. --Mn-z 23:03, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
      • reply But, what you say here is true for the rest of the site also. UnNews is smaller than the current mainspace, and the same issues you describe plague it as well. The only thing that separates UnNews from the rest of the site is a technical hiccup, not a quality control barrier. UnNews articles are different, sure, but many of our 25,700 articles are shite also and we have no viable plans to clean that up either. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:11 May 25, 2011
        • reply About how big is UnNews? --Mn-z 23:22, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
          • estimate According to the MediaWiki XML dump, somewheres between 4,000 and 10,000 articles. For what are apparently technical reasons I can't get it pinned down much further than that. It's a lot, but we have a lot of shite in mainspace too, making this less an issue of "UnNews isn't that great, so we shouldn't display it" and more of "Uncyclopedia has a lot of crap articles, and VFD isn't enough". – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 23:27 May 25, 2011
            • DPL-estimate 10124 pages in namespace "UnNews" (PagesinNS102) --Nachteule 00:05, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
              • holy fuck that was smart. I guess that means when it comes to conflicting numbers in XML dumps, I can err on the side of the bigger'un. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:43 May 26, 2011
  • reply While I support this in general (because they are legitimate site content and should be counted in our article count), I don't think they should be returned on a Random page request, unless they are specifically reading UnNews. I don't know of any way to implement this, though, without MW modification. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2011.05.26.04:37
    • y halo thar – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:59 May 26, 2011
      • I like it Since the probability of Uncyclopedia ever looking like Wikipedia again under Wikia, this would be pretty cool to add to our sidebar. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2011.05.26.17:38
  •  conditional for if that means we can apply the same QA standards to old unNews that we do to mainspace articles. --Mn-z 00:01, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
    •  Yes, please! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:02 May 26, 2011
• Against MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:07, May 25, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. Makes sense to me, not so much though. But yeah, it does. -- -> That's Poop Man Poop 22:08, May 25, 2011 (UTC)}
• Aye... we do have separate namespaces for a reason, something about parodying wikimedia projects in general, or something, and the other projects are no less content than the encyclopedia. 1234 ~ 22:11, 25 May 2011
• Yesh (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2011
•  Zombiebaron. -- 01:44, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
• For more stringent standards in every namespace~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 03:35, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
• I shall see. ☃ I shall see. User:Mrthejazz/sig 03:39, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. We should also consider the alternative of removing the namespaces entirely. » Brig Sir Dawg | t | v | c » 2011.05.26.04:37
•  For.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:07, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
• Pie. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:18, 26 May 2011
•  Against. Wikipedia doesn't do this, no foreign Uncyc does it, and we don't need to. --EMC ^[TALK] 11:29 May 26 2011
• For. Some of our best content is in UnNews and UnTunes, so yeah. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:55, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
• For, given UnNews stays off Random. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:49, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. What TKF said. --Scofield & Friends 19:02, May 27, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. It's about time. DJ Mixerr 22:08, June 2, 2011 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig

Why do something Wikipedia doesn't do?

We're a parody of them. There's no need to do this. No other Uncyc does it either. It simply doesn't need to be done. And really, finding the number of UnNews articles is simple. Quit pretending shit's hard to do. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:31, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe to make ourselves look larger than we really are? --EMC ^[TALK] 11:33 May 26 2011

I was referring to the whole "somewheres between 4,000 and 10,000 articles" in regards to UnNews. Finding out the number of UnNews articles is unbelievably easy to do. Right now there are 7,886 UnNews articles, including a few dozen WIP UnNews in userspaces. That giant variation in the numbers is simply Skully putting on a show for some reason. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 11:52, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

How, exactly, did you figure that out? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:05 May 26, 2011

I'd explain it, but you would first have to state your real reason for wanting UnNews articles to appear when someone presses Random page. And you'd also have to explain why you seem to think articles that are meant to become dated should be mixed in with articles that aren't for the most part. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:14, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Why do what, exactly? Have you checked every other Uncyclopedia for whatever this is, and have you some sort of evidence to show for whatever it is? You seem to be talking about some on-going action, but this forum isn't about anything that would take continual doing, so I have to wonder... are you sure you're in the right building? 1234 ~ 12:30, 26 May 2011

Unless I'm completely wrong, all this is to get that little "25,737 articles in English" thing to say "31,??? articles in English" which is pointless and, like emc said, is just some bullshit to make ourselves look larger than we are. It's stupid to do so. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:58, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, Wikipedia has separate projects, not separate namespaces. All of Wikipedia's content is indeed included in the Special:Random pool and counted towards their article count. There is no "news" space at Wikipedia, there's Wikinews; nor is there a "dictionary" namespace, there's Wiktionary. So to begin with, your comparison is totally invalid.

In each of these completely separate websites, said content is counted. Wikinews has a total number of articles on its front page. Wiktionary has a total number of definitions. No content goes uncounted. So even in your loose comparison of a single website to a collection of websites, you are wrong.

This isn't some ploy to make us "bigger than we are," it's to make us look, if anything, as big as we are. It's unfair and stupid that our other not-really-a-namespace-but-we-treat-them-like-that-anyway namespaces are counted in our article count and included in Special:Random. People work hard on UnNews articles and UnTunes; why shouldn't they get the same odds as a regular article to show up after clicking Special:Random? Why do HowTo and Why get that right when, and I must stress this, Wikipedia doesn't even have anything remotely similar to those types of pages? If anything, including UnNews and the like (which are legitimate parodies of other Wikimedia sites) is closer to the, I suppose, "correct" things to parody than anything else.

And finally, your "quit pretending like shit's hard to do" only emphasizes the fact that you, sir, are trolling me intentionally despite my only attempting to bring a technical hiccup to the attention of this site. I am not "pretending" anything. I have no "ploy". Your insults are a waste of everyone's time and only further go to represent why you are a destructive rather than constructive member of the community and quite frankly offensive. If you have found an easier way to count a namespace rather than the XML dump (which, when I attempted to count the number of pages in the namespace, gave me a slightly different result every time), or the DPL trick someone come up with a bit earlier in the forum, please, enlighten us instead of attacking us. Otherwise I can only assume your purpose here is only to derail this forum with a completely irrelevant comparison and to personally attack me. Honestly I have no idea why you guys don't have UN:OFFICE rules by now, and I'd like to remind any of the more neutral admins out there that the office is open for business. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:18 May 26, 2011

I'm on your side here, and I think all this drama is just stupid, but I just want to correct you in saying that HowTo: parody's WikiHow, and Why? parody's WikiAnswers. Just saying. -- 21:36, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The way I see it, it's not to make ourselves look bigger, it's to give ourselves (and everyone else) an accurate depiction of how big we are. Also, it'll make it so you can get UnNews, UnTunes and UnDictionary pages when you hit random page. Because, and I'm sure you'd agree, UnNews, UnTunes and UnDictionary are as much a part of Uncyclopedia as mainspace is. -- 16:24, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

When someone is unable to come up with real responses, they resort to claiming the other person is trolling. The UnNews count, as anyone who has ever been active in the UnNews section of the site can easily tell you, is visible here, excluding the handful of WIPs in people's userspaces. This count is accurate since, as you like to state on other forums about UnNews, UnNews has been the best kept portion of the site. Perhaps you should become acquainted with sections of the site prior to attempting to make changes in the way they function? And the idea that somebody would want to stumble upon countless UnNews articles about the 2008 election or something like that when browsing the site is asinine to say the least. UnNews becomes outdated. It's secluded for that very reason. The ones that don't become outdated get linked through other articles or they get featured. Adding all of them to the mix is just an attempt to make the site seem bigger than it actually is. If you want to add an extra thing to the UnNews Main Page to browse outdated articles, you could do that, but we do already have about 3 different things that do just that, so you'll just be even more redundant than this sentence is. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:31, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

UnTunes, UnScripts, and Why? are also namespaces. I don't know that you're trolling, but you're not really trying to understand. We can segregate UnNews out (as I think we should), but that doesn't mean those other namespaces are not static, important parts of our content. Featured content comes from them, so they are part of our site and should be treated as such when a person plays the Special:Random game (as I do on Wikipedia, expecting all content pages to be fair game, so as a parody of Wikipedia, we should make sure the same rule applies).~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 16:37, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Also, the category pages tend to be slow to update the numbers, so the number is probably somewhat higher than that (and considering the volume of UnNewses created as compared to how slow MediaWiki is, the differential could be substantial.../me shakes fist at MediaWiki).~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 16:38, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it difficult to believe that my response was not a real response. No, it was a real response, and the claim that you are trolling. I back up this claim by pointing to you and Electrified mocha chinchilla's use of insulting language and hiding your methodology as a way to incite me, rather than presenting your case without making broader claims about myself and the supposed purpose of this forum I'm keeping from everybody. That is trolling. That is unnecessary, and that is why I think the UN:OFFICE rules (at least for the two of you) need to get back into action, because you are still cyberbullying the hell out of people instead of keeping personal attacks out of legitimate arguments.

The count you've given us is of a category, not a namespace. Not everything in that category, as that DPL trick will tell you, is in that namespace. (Perhaps, if we had an accurate namespace count, comparing that to the category would be useful to purge any excess pages that might be lurking around, but that's an entirely different matter not in the scope of this forum here).

I have never claimed that UnNews was the "best kept portion" of the site, merely that it has benefited from someone heading the project. The claims are not identical or even similar. And I do know how the site works, thank you, and a namespace is different than a category.

The argument that UnNews becomes "stale" is finally the first valid, non-attacking point that you've brought up, and worthy of discussion. Personally, I think that a decent UnNews piece will be able to stand the test of time, especially if it has a link to the real news article in the "sources" section. Now, this is one argument I think is worthy of more discussion between just yourself and I, and if others have opinions I'd like them to chime in on the matter.

But that doesn't change the fact that UnNews is content. That's all I'm trying to get done here, get these three other namespaces to be recognized as content. You really can't argue that it isn't any less than content than, say, UnPoetia:, which is already counted and in the random pool. Why should UnPoetia: get that privilege and not UnTunes: or UnNews:? It doesn't make any sense, and it's not consistent. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 16:41 May 26, 2011

Exclude UnNews from your proposal and you'll have yourself a reasonable compromise. We can discuss UnNews later if you aren't just trying to get all the UnNews articles thrown out into the mix where the deletion-happy users will nominate them en masse on VFD. Also, quit always claiming someone is "trolling" just because they disagree with you and quit threatening to pull rank and ban those who disagree with you. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:57, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

At no point have I threatened to pull rank. If I were to pull rank, I would throw you into UN:OFFICE myself; but I am not, and I have not. And I will consider that proposal if this one fails, thank you. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:05 May 26, 2011

So, to be clear, you're currently rejecting the compromise I proposed? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:07, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, on account of how I disagree with it. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:08 May 26, 2011

Did I mention that I can wiggle my ears? Honest! I really can. I can even do just the left one on its own, although I'm still working on learning to do just the right one by itself... MrN 18:11, May 26

Going by Category:UnNews to find all pages in UnNews-space would underestimate the number, since there could be, and probably are, pages in UnNews that aren't in the category for some reason. --Mn-z 22:50, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with outdated Unnews. I give credit tot he reader to understand the historical and archival nature of News in general. People still buy newspapers of historical events. Most of our UnNews are fake, so perhaps the joke is lost with time, but the source link that has been real for a while now can handle that. If past quality is the concern, start putting the new good UnNews to a new names space, or just move the UnNews within a given date category to the new namespace. I think a funny UnNews about Frog McNuggets (or whatever) is just as worthy as an article on Portal 2. When a visitor hits Random, they should be ready for anything, be it a 2009 "hot news parody" or AAAAAAA. Thats what I think anyway, now back to you Gene. --K evillips эвилипс MUN,CM,NS,3of7 14:47, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that the site is only 6 years old, so the old news isn't that dated. It is not like our old UnNews is satirizing William Jennings Bryan's support for the free coinage of silver or something. --Mn-z 23:58, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

Which would be fucking awesome, seriously. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 00:00 Jun 09, 2011

Alternate vote: Everything in the previous suggestion, except UnNews

Score: -2

• For Per the points I made above. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 17:25, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  Also, there is also the issue with not pissing off our sister wiki. The Portuguese one. In case don't know, they are larger in size than we are. Including some pointless article inclusion like this and then usurping the title of the largest Uncyclopedia unfairly is kinda something we should avoid doing. Their UnNews project began nearly two years afters ours did. This is yet another reason why we should exempt the UnNews from being included in this. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:13, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  According to you, however, they don't have their news separate in the first place; none of them do. So they would be the ones looking larger in size than they are, according to you. Did I mention this was according to you? It's like you're some sort of accordion. Are you? 1234 ~ 19:07, 27 May 2011

•  Against. An unnecessary exclusion. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:29 May 26, 2011
•  For a minor compromise. --EMC ^[TALK] 17:38 May 26 2011
  • Yes, 10,000 pages of content is certainly "minor". And don't tell me it's just under 8,000 again; check the DPL. Stop misrepresenting what you're doing as actually useful when you're just trying to undermine a forum. Again. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 17:41 May 26, 2011
    • OMG U KAWT ME LOL. U R SO SMERT, NOTHIN GETS PAST U! SKULLTHUMPER 4 PREZ! --EMC ^[TALK] 21:42 May 31 2011
• UM... Well, this is my first comment in the forums for a while, so forgive me if I'm talking more nonsense than normal, but to me it would appear a little odd if UnNews articles appeared when random page was clicked. I agree that our article total should include UnNews, but I do think that UnNews and our "normal" articles are different as UnNews articles which are old are... Old news? We should apply the same quality standards to UnNews as we do to the rest of the site, old pants UnNews articles should be deleted. I can't help feeling that perhaps what we need is some better way of letting people find and access older UnNews articles. MrN 18:07, May 26
  • That's what the first vote is in favor of; this proposal is done by another user. Add your voice! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:11 May 26, 2011
    • Dude, I'm trying hard to hide the fact that I kinda agree with Dexter... It had to happen eventually. So long as UnNews does not appear from special:random I'm cool with your proposal. Actually, I'm cool either way really. Seriously, I'm standing in a bucket of ice cream. MrN 18:19, May 26
      • I have made alternate random buttons to prove it can be done. But I thought you were in favor of stricter standards and making old UnNews articles easier to come across? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:21 May 26, 2011
        • Please note that these buttons are to demonstrate that you can pick out separate namespaces even if UnNews was considered a content namespace; it's not a duplicate of Special:Random/UnNews. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:09 May 26, 2011

  Yes, I'm in favour of stricter standards (being UnNews should not be a reason to save an article from VFD for example) and also making UnNews articles easier to find, I'm just of the view that UnNews articles should not appear when people click the "random" button which we have in our Navigation box. If it's possible to include UnNews in our article count, but not to include it in when people click the random button then that would be great. MrN 20:09, May 26

  MrN, is that a for? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:27, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

  You know this forum is getting rather silly. I'm not sure why people appear to be getting stressed out over it. Come join me in the ice cream? MrN 20:09, May 26

• Not A Vote But I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that this is now two separate questions: article count and Special:Random. They don't have to be a package deal.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 20:32, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. On the basis of contra-contrarianism. --Mn-z 22:53, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. UnNews is part of Uncyclopedia, goddamn-it! -- 22:55, May 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. Not the same issue. 1234 ~ 19:07, 27 May 2011
• Yeano. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 19:17, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

For the love of christ, people

The fact that this forum has been restored only means the trolls are winning. Do you really believe these people are serious in their proposal? Without UnNews this would only effect a handful of articles and not even be worth going to Wikia about. The fact that they call this a "serious" vote only makes a mockery of everything I was trying to accomplish here.

So delete it, or close the forum; it's done. Everything I was trying to do has been wrecked by two people who are well-known for trashing forums and being responsible for cyberbullying both on and off the site. Why they are permitted to continue here is beyond me, and why this forum has been restored is beyond me also - its original point has been lost to the will of two of our most destructive users that are still allowed to edit.

If you want to propose your "alternate proposal," take it to another forum. I'm sure that by saying this it won't step on anyone's toes. Not that you actually care about the proposal in the first place: the only reason it exists was to undermine the entire purpose of this forum. You act in a serious manner but your "seriousness" is only to disprove the legitimacy of my own.

The fact that this extremely simple and clear-cut proposal has failed only goes to show that Uncyclopedia belongs to the modern-day Socrateses who argue simply for the sake of arguing and impede all our progress forward. Did you know the site is failing? We're decreasing in readers, users, and edits? Would you all like to sit around and argue until we finally sink into the depths of unnotability? Because that's what you're bloody doing, and this forum's resurrection only proves it.

I'll come back when y'all want to get shit done. Until then, enjoy your trollbait. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:07 May 26, 2011

Some of the stuff that's been deleted on VFD in the last few months has been rediculous. In my opinion that's trolling. mAttlobster. (hello) 19:26, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea what that means, but I would like to go on record and say that the forum is still open for discussion and debate. Although hopefully less disruption. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:28 May 31, 2011

For those of you concerned about stuff showing up with special:random

That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what is content, really.

It does raise a good point, though - Special:Random can be limited to namespaces, so why not? Someone in UnDictionary stays in UnDictionary, or someone in UnNews, in UnNews, for instance, though better cross-namespace links in the sidebar might be a good idea. Could even have a special:random for everything and a namespace, or 'project'-specific, one directly below, when in specific 'projects' (but not if you're in the forum space or file space or whatnot, since those are relevant to all content)...

A really simple solution is just special:random/{{NAMESPACE}}, but you can also use parser functions in the sidebar to limit which ones are are narrowed down, and from the looks of things, DPL will work as well, though I haven't had a chance to test that.

If anything, we need more namespaces specified as actual namespaces and as content, if we want to be more organised and/or accurate about what we have and/or parody the Wikimedia projects better. 1234 ~ 21:17, 26 May 2011

Why don't you...

Just go ahead and do it anyway, Skully? Because 1) You're an admin, and they're not. And 2) You had more than enough votes to do it, even with the against votes. You can never get full support with anything, even the smallest of things. If my toenails were twenty feet long, and it was impossible for me to walk with them that way, and then we had a vote as to to decide whether or not I should clip them, there would be at least one person saying that I shouldn't clip them because they thought they looked cool or something. But if it was just one or two people saying I shouldn't clip them, but the rest of the site said I should, I'd clip them. I wouldn't do that with something like, say... whether or not to change the layout of the site or anything important like that, but this is so inconsequential that I don't think anyone would've even noticed if you had just done it in the first place. -- 21:48, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Because admins can't actually change this - only staff, and they like to see community support, or so sannse says. Sometimes I suspect she just likes to use it as an excuse to not do anything with this place, since folks here are so incapable of agreeing and we all know it, but that's another matter. 1234 ~ 23:24, 26 May 2011

I know admins can't change it, I was saying why not give it to Sannse even if two people are apposed. But if Sannse won't do it, that's a whole different matter. Which is why I still think Fnoodle would do a better job of being the Wikia representative. -- 23:47, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry Magic Man, but you really should know better. It's a known precedent that all Uncyclopedia decisions require unanimous consent with all users, and since there are currently thousands upon thousands that are silently abstaining, we are still quite far from reaching consensus. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 23:59, May 26, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, silence = consent, so all of those thousands of users are silently consenting! --EMC ^[TALK] 21:45 May 31 2011

Updates

I'm considering taking this to Wikia, though I'm not sure if +12 represents enough of a consensus. Think we need more votes first? Should I bother? etc. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:25 May 31, 2011

It should suffice. And if they're not convinced then you can always tell them that those voting against are just trolls trying to undermine everything you do. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:46 May 31 2011

I am still against doing this per the reasons I previously stated. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:50, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

GO AWAY TROLL!!!!!11one1 --EMC ^[TALK] 21:50 May 31 2011

 For. UnNews doesn't have that much more utter crap than mainspace. --Mn-z 22:04, May 31, 2011 (UTC)

This vote would be pretty pointless :) I was just looking for a few more general opinions, get the feeling in here as to whether this is good enough to go to Wikia. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:28 May 31, 2011

Just do it! --Scofield & Friends 12:17, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

That was a suggestion {{for}}, not a vote {{for}}, to clarify. --Mn-z 20:45, June 1, 2011 (UTC)

Just do it already!

I wanna beat the Portuguese wiki, dammit! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 01:06, 2 June 2011

Update II: The Updating

Talked to sannse, she'll be adding UnTunes, Undictionary, and UnNews as content namespaces in a little while. Only UnTunes and Undictionary will be added to the Special:Random pool. UnNews, at least for now, will not. Hopefully with all the increased attention UnNews is getting lately, we'll be able to bring the namespace up to the quality standards of the rest of the site and eventually add it to the random pool as well. For now, though, I think we've made progress. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 14:53 Jun 02, 2011

Yay! Although I still think UnNews should be in the random pool... -- 22:11, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be, too - eventually. For now, there are an awful lot of strange pages in there that need purging first. Also I'm pretty pleased with the "Random UnNews" link that's currently in the sidebar. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 22:12 Jun 02, 2011

Update III: Update Harder

sannse has done it! We now have 37,601 articles listed in our pagecount, spanning real and fake namespaces alike. And per consensus on here, UnNews is not in the random pool, at least until that crazy namespace gets itself fixed up. In the meantime, you'll find a "Random UnNews" button on the sidebar for all of your random news article needs.

Thank you for participating in this Uncyclopedia Wikia-Aided Enrichment Activity. Goodbye! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 21:31 Jun 07, 2011

I feel larger already. MrN 21:36, Jun 7

Perhaps we should consider undoing this ill-advised endeavor?

Most people that add interwiki links do so as IPs. This is somehow relevant to the discussion probably. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:37, June 7, 2011 (UTC)

Score: 3

• For Agreed. MrN 21:40, Jun 7
• Strong For Because eat my dick.~~ Sir Ljlego, GUN  [talk] 21:40, June 8, 2011 (UTC)
•  I'M NOT A TROLL — not a troll (seriously) 23:49, June 8, 2011 (UTC)