Forum:GOLD... ALWAYS BELIEVE IN YOUR SOUL
Hey, I've been a bit too uninactive lately and well I feel I have a lot to give to this place, obviously I need to get stupid certificates in order to get a job to eat food but anyway.
I used to come to Uncyclopedia when I felt bored, sad, when I felt no one around was ever that interesting, this place was so amazing, but eventually It started to bore me, it showed itself as a place entirely consisting of people whoring for their article, or telling some dumb noob that writing "lawl suxors I am leet" is not funny.
Of course this place has incredibly good material, amazing articles and whatnot, audios, news and everything, but
there is still too much crap, and I feel that if we spent more time making masterpieces, than having to spend hours repeating to someone how talking about your Mate is Vanity.
Maybe this place would look better.
here's my proposal:
User:NeoZidane/Controlling Useless Noobs Thing
Maybe it would help Admins along a bit, would make entertainment better but you know
Comments under here / talk on IRC to develop the idea
For one, I would rename it to "Noobless Use of Control Thinging". No apparent reason, just wanted to be a part of the discussion. --Nytrospawn 21:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- What? But N.U.C.T. isn't a word. --L 13:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I read at least parts of that, and they seemed wise and progressive, but a little over the top for my liberal tastes. I suggest we make this all official policy and then refuse to inforce it
the site is growing, there is a lot of shit appearing very consistantly. i'm for more admins but banning people for being unfunny is mad, a lot of people who've had great featured articles here will have written some dire ones before that success. we could ban the ones who look like they'll never improve, the oprah norris pokemon ones. your passion is admirable but we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater/ban pottential shakespears/scare off the contributors we do have.
dunno if i missed most of the point, not in my right head, and i would like to rename it noobthing useless control - jack mort | cunt | talk
- 23:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- For jet propelled monkeys. -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 20:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- For Provided we register uncyclopediagold.org and have admins slowly move good articles there to be a mirror of only good articles of Uncyclopedia, so that the crap articles can stay on uncyclopedia.org until improved or rewritten. Maybe members can vote on if an article should be included in the gold version? Lock the gold version so that only registered members can edit it or something, or only allow admins to edit it in order to move new and better material over to it? Go for the gold! Maybe make a golden potato to represent Uncyclopedia Gold or something? --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- I like the sound of that, but would it be fool's gold what with Uncyclopedia:Best of? -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 12:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Like I said voted articles aren't always there because they were liked, only since they were whored.
The best of the best of the best
Sorry to bring the old topic up again, but I kept thinking of this idea since it was first posted and I like it more and more every time. Imagine an uncyclopedia version where every time you hit random page you get a featured article kept as it was the very same day it was featured. Wouldn't it be great?---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 06:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have links on the "Best Of" list that took you straight to the featured version. Often I can't be bothered to go and look at these just precisely because I know someone will have just vandalised it today and I'll have to go revert it. As for the other, I kind of have (misguided?) faith in the voting process, and to be honest your proposal of creating a secret panel of judges sounds an awful lot like some sort of Cabal or something. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you click that star in the corner, which took me ages to sort out because of this forum topic. It should send you to the featured version. —Braydie 11:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I meant like a Best Of page that sends you direct to the old versions. The star things are indeed excellent though. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Someone can add external links to the featured versions of the article in Best Of, it'd just take some time.
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 16:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Someone can add external links to the featured versions of the article in Best Of, it'd just take some time.
- I meant like a Best Of page that sends you direct to the old versions. The star things are indeed excellent though. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 13:22, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe I didn't explain myself correctly. I was saying it would be nice to have a wiki that collected the featured (and maybe also the quasi featured articles) and locked them from editing. An "uncyclopedia gold edition". No need to modify the current uncyclopedia in any way, no need to implement any kind of extra rating systems just for this. Anyway, may be it's not worth the effort, but the idea itself is nice, just saying so.---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 04:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't know how everyone else feels (mushy, probably), but most of my features are better now than when they were featured. They're all grown up. One's a doctah. Here, I'll give you his numbah. Give 'im a cawl. --Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 05:13, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
- You did - I just had my own idea instead. And I probably can't even be arsed to implement that, to be honest... -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 11:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)