Forum:Keep because it sucks?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Keep because it sucks?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6591 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

"Featured!"

~ Rcmurphy on Keep because it sucks

In my de facto role as master of deletions, I've been noticing a recent trend that I find disturbing: people voting to keep articles because they suck. Whilst I am perfectly willing to concede that crap can be funny as a result of how terribly bad it is, it is also my view that Uncyclopedia content should primarily be encyclopedic in nature and that being funny should not be the only criteria for the existence/preservation of something. This being what separates us from the likes of, say, Encyclopædia Dramatica.

It has long been my goal to root out and destroy crap but I've never been one to do so unilaterally, so I can't just go and delete something for being crap when a bunch of people are voting that they want it kept because it's so crappy they laughed. I guess what I'm looking for is a mandate to tell people that they shouldn't vote for things that are funny because they suck or for people to tell me that we want that sort of crap on Uncyclopedia. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

This might just be a guess, but you're referring to Duel Masters, right? I voiced a related concern on Forum:UN:Worst of, and the reaction was pretty unilateral (at least among those with clout, ala the Administrati) -- they wanted these pages gone. I suppose we can squirrel away some of the monumentally bad ones (as was my suggestion) on user space, but I think there should be a more clearly defined set of criteria for voting deletion/preservation of said articles. Personally, I'm very relieved that the Duel Masters VFH tanked, but I still chuckle at the "crappers is very sucking members" line. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Crap should only be kept if its crappiness parodies some real crap, like Encyclopædia Dramatica or My Space. - Sikon 18:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But Duel Masters is sadly real, and it's real crap. I made the mistake of trying to watch an episode once. I blacked out from the strain of grinding my jaw. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 18:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Duel Masters is but one of many examples and the Illuminati Administrators do not tend to be very consistent about this matter. --Sir gwax (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Saying something sucks should not be a legitimate reason to keep something. Infact, if someone says 'Its so bad we should...' we can just cut them off there and consider it a vote to delete. Unless an article is legitimately good, there is no reason to keep it. We are Uncyclopedia, not ED. ~Sir Rangeley GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this illustrates one of the problems with humor being subjective. Most often, really bad pages do not make me laugh, but occassionally one will strike me somehow and it will be hillarious. I think the compromise is that in most cases the article should live on in the User: namespace. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think, that if an article is funny because it's so horribly bad, then... it must be pretty freakin bad, and should be deleted. But, if there is a funny article, that just happens to be crap, than the fact that it's indeed funny, is a good enough reason to keep it around. Take That time I was nearly raped by a yak during my sojourn in Canada for example, I read that thing and coudln't stop laughing (However, it was about 2:30 on a Saturday night - which might have come into play) But, when it was nommed for VFH I voted Against as sson as I saw it. Articles like that deserve to be kept around, at least for awhile, but if something like that was featured... well, you can only imagine the response we would get (See: Talk:Euroipods.) On the other hand, that's just my opinion...   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No policy, individual judging of each case.--Rataube 00:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like I burning your dog, Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit, Insanity, and The holy teutonic crusaders of yumyum is too classic to remove. Scythe33 21:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've expanded Duel Masters a bit and made the formatting a bit better. I will continue to expand Duel Masters later on. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 07:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Im totally against voteing to keep articles that suck. The more sucky Euroipod-esque articles, the less I am willing to be a part of this website. --Nytrospawn 00:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could have a separate namespace. Or that template from Vandalism saying that they're examples of what NOT to do. Or both. But I really think that Euroipods needs to be kept away from the main wiki namespace. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nin: Won't you ever get tired of this?--Rataube 20:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. ^_^ --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Since humor is subjective, I suggest you still leave it to VFD? :) --Chronarion 22:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of which

I noticed Duel Masters is gone. Can an admin move the last version to my userspace? --Hobelhouse 23:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Awww, I was working on that. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 01:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

It is done. --Sir gwax (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)