Forum:One line crap

Forums: Index > Village Dump > One line crap

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5884 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Warning

This forum topic may contain a stupid flamewar. Read at your own risk.

---

Ok guys, Zombiebaron and I tried to do this nicely with VFD, but nobody took the hint:

LOL LOOK AT ME I CAN MAKE ONE LINERS. I CAN'TBE BOTHERED TO PUT FORTH THE FUCKING COGNITIVE EFFORT REQUIRED TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING REMOTELY WITTY, SATIRICAL OR ORIGINAL LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.

Seriously, guys. These are not "In jokes," nor are they "funny and self-referential." They are Shit. Utter and complete shit that has no business on Uncyclopedia what-so-ever. I am not sure why you all seem to lack the spark for independent thought to recognize that these are unoriginal, lazy, and half-assed attempts at being "clever" by people that are incapable of pushing a joke or piece of satire past a small and pathetic punch line. Get the fuck over these things and get them the fuck off the wiki; These are embarrassments to the people who have actually put the time and effort into writing a REAL article and I for one will not be writing another one until at least some progress is made to this effect; I do not see why I should spend a good deal of time to write something that will be held on the same level as a page that contains a full stop.

Just because these are pathetic excuses for articles that got old after the first twenty-trillion, these are not automatically in jokes.

-- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 02:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

On a side note, self referential humor is when you do it with an article, like Redundancy or Redundancy. Doing it with one line is not self referential humor, because it is not humor. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 02:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason they're still here: people laughed at them. Therefore, humor. Jokes don't need categories to be funny. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 02:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying you don't like them ? Is the value of a species defined by the length of it's genome ? Why not just accept them as part of the rich biodiversity of the Uncyclopedia ecosystem ? I bet you use those anti-bacterial wipes in your kitchen don't you. That's how Pol Pot started you know. Sean.hoyland - tak() 03:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't need more than one. Not only did the first one of these ever written take little brain power to come up with, every one after it that basically copied an idea like THIS is just plain STUPID: They lacked the originality not only to write a complete article, but to come up with a novel method of circumventing it... that is just Failure.

Yes. I am saying the value of an article is defined by it's length to the extent that something that is one character in length is an insult to people who actually take the time to write something. Comparing that to genome length is a horribly flawed analogy for a number of reasons, as no genome is particularly "short," only relatively so. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 03:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

So it's impossible for anything short to be funny? One-liners can never, no matter how well done, make somebody laugh? Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Villahj_Ideeut is talking about Uncyclopedia. We can all go off and be Mitch Hedberg on Saturday nights in the basement of a grocery store on Main Street, but this site is, sometimes, in an "encyclopedic format" (one of the ICU choices), and encyclopedias are, to my knowlege, long. -- The Zombiebaron 03:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but we don't need 5000 of them when they are all the same exact thing. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 03:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

LOOK AT ME I HAVE ABSOLUTE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IS FUNNY AND WHAT ISN'T AND ANYTHING THAT IS SHORT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S SHORT AND EVERYTHING FUNNY IS LONG AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE CAN LIKE THEM WHEN I DON'T BECAUSE MY SENSE OF HUMOUR IS THE RIGHT ONE AND IT MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. LOL. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:24, 08 Feb 2008

As a side note, there is an unlimited number of titles on a wiki - nothing is being "used up" as it were, unless someone has take then title you want to use. You're perfectly free to try and write an essay-length article with the title "An article that contains nothing but a full stop", but chances are that people think the current version is the best it can be, and doesn't need to be any more than it is. Obviously that's most most extreme example available. And while length of article is still the most important factor to you over "does it make people laugh/think/whatever?" then maybe you should wait a while to consider your approach again. You could apply HowTo:Make your Uncyclopedia article appear longer than it really is to every article (and some people do), but it wouldn't make them any better. If a single-joke article makes someone laugh more than 10 pages of filler, isn't that what we should be aiming for? I do agree that the phrase "in-joke" is used far too often in place of "short article" though. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:24, 08 Feb 2008

I concur. Also genomes are very good analogy if you think it through. It works on many, many levels. The size range in genomes in terms of information content is much larger than the size range of information content in Uncyc articles. Furthermore, short articles can be funny. See [1] for example. I rest my case. Sean.hoyland - tak() 03:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

"LOOK AT ME I HAVE ABSOLUTE DEFINITIONS OF WHAT IS FUNNY AND WHAT ISN'T AND ANYTHING THAT IS SHORT CAN'T POSSIBLY BE FUNNY BECAUSE IT'S SHORT AND EVERYTHING FUNNY IS LONG AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY ANYONE CAN LIKE THEM WHEN I DON'T BECAUSE MY SENSE OF HUMOUR IS THE RIGHT ONE AND IT MAKES ME WANT TO CRY. LOL."

LOL LOOK AT ME I ENDORSE ALL SHORT ARTICLES AND THEREFORE MOCK ANYONE WHO THINKS THAT THEY AREN'T FUNNY BECAUSE IN MY OPINION AS LONG AS I GET A CHEAP LAUGH OUT OF IT IT IS GOOD: I DON'T CARE IF THERE WAS ACTUALLY ANY EFFORT PUT INTO THE ARTICLE OR NOT. Seriously, Spang: FU. If you want a cheap laugh, go take a look at Illogicopedia or ED. I am sure that to you the mental acumen required to click the edit button and hit the "." button on your keyboard makes it a rather witty article, and such an article is more than welcome there. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, the genome argument really doesn't work; a longer genome yes tends towards a more complex organism, and you are saying essentially by your own analogy that the smaller an organism's DNA molecules, the better it is? I don't think so... I think that just means that evolution didn't put in a whole lot of effort into an organism that has only one AT/CG pairing; such an organism would not last very long, and neither should these articles. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I feel I am wasting my time here. My suggestion is that if you don't like the articles nominate them for deletion and abide by the vote. Sean.hoyland - tak() 03:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with a cheap laugh? The only intelligent argument that I've seen here against the articles is Zombiebaron's point that we're trying to be encycopediac. But this is Uncyclopedia. We don't follow the rules, not even our own. We're not set in our ways, because if we ever became bounded by rules what would happen? We stay here because it's fun. If a few articles are bugging you, don't read them. Work to keep any new ones from being made, but stop bitching about the ones that you're never going to get rid of. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, effort doesn't always equal funny. Have you seen some of the longer pages put on VFD? Perhaps even some of the early pages written by myself or other users here? I know my first pages were pretty awful. Are you saying that perhaps I didn't put enough effort into those? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:53, Feb 8

Obligatory header containing my annoying preaching on the subject

Humo(u)r is determined by whether or not something makes people laugh. If something makes enough people around the site laugh, it is probably funny, for one reason or another. The short articles here, as I believe Ljlego once eloquently put it, are the obligatory kicks in the crotch in comedy movies that, while overdone and unendingly assaulted by critics, still make us laugh. Why? Who knows? Who cares? They provide a welcome distraction from what is typical on the site, and for that I appreciate them. Some others will agree with me, some others will always be strongly opposed to their existence. But to the last group, I plead of you, don't ruin it for those of us who enjoy those gimmicks, those one-liners. Because they make me laugh. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:48, Feb 8

Indeed. And to paraphrase VI, yes, I absolutely don't care how much effort was put in, as long as it makes me laugh. That's not to say I don't appreciate other types of humour on different levels or can't appreciate when effort has been put in. And I'm not saying it's the best type of humour there is - I don't think anyone is. I just don't like it when I laugh at some small thing and then someone tells me that a deleted article in its place would somehow be better. If I know one thing, deleted articles aren't funny at all. Except for this page does not exist. But wait, that's self-reference, so it can't be funny, because there's lots of other self-reference. Oh well.

In closing, I'll quote Shakespeare's wise words on the matter: "brevity is the soul of wit". • Spang • ☃ • talk • 04:18, 08 Feb 2008

I am sorry, but I will not accept that one-character long articles are remotely satire. Satire criticizes a reality by making fun of it. A full stop cannot accomplish this. You may keep your one character articles if you wish, but I, for one, am done editing. Over the past three years this website has really fallen to pathetic, lazy, half-assed attempts at articles. This has nothing to do with VFH: if you notice, I had Zombiebaron remove it in the first place; this is something I felt strongly long before VFH, as can be seen here. The idea is to be funny and not just stupid. I am sorry, but an article containing a fullstop is stupid at best., and the person that wrote it would have been banned for a week under "HTBFANJS" and the article deleted. The fact that IT is now kept and Tourette's Syndrome put on VFD speaks volumes about the overall laziness and distorted sense of goals (to my mind) that has come over Uncyc. Cheers, I'm done. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 12:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Door's to your left, Villahj. And, in my (in this case) very humble opinion, isn't flamewarring over this stupid and not funny? I, for one, failed to laugh at a single thing in this forum topic. Plus, let's not forget Rule Two. —Hinoa talk.kun 01:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's funny and not just stupid. I prefer, personally, to strive to be both funny and stupid. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:35, Feb 9

And, in case anyone cares...HTBFANJS has something of a gray area in defining "funny" and "stupid." This is because the definitions as they are exist to be subjective. Thus, "." isn't stupid by HTBFANJS, it's stupid by your standards. HTBFANJS is a guideline, not a bible, and it doesn't cover every base. The final say comes from consensus and personal feelings on a subject, both of which are the essence of comedy, wiki, and life in general.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jew Mignon

I can't help feeling that the reason for this forum might be the failed VFH. You sounded a bit upset and frustrated in your comment which I can understand.

Sorry guys, but I'm not changing the article; to my mind, telling me that "you were offended by the article" is neither valid criticism what-so-ever nor in the spirit of what Uncyclopedia was originally intended to be.

It actually made me feel bad for voting against it and I decided to only vote for things in future and leave against votes to others if they want to do that. Yeah, I would have been the guy who cleaned the windows in the death camps. This is Uncyclopedia, it's just for messing about and making eachother laugh isn't it ? It's not serious. Also, it's a wiki...important point.....and it has kittens. Sean.hoyland - tak() 04:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at my little face

Hmmm but, no offense to the writer, it offended me therefore I can vote against. Mhaille's Holocaust Tycoon was great because it made a good point about how society lessens horrible things that have happened in the past - that article was just cheap jibes and in bad taste. Granted it was well written.Sir DJ ~ Irreverent

Uh uh, my attempt to bring calm and win the Uncyc Peace Prize has backfired.
Let's close this bit of the forum. Sean.hoyland - tak() 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's a really nice day here

It's sunny, 31C (that's 88F for some) and I've almost got over my cat going missing shortly after I saw a large python in the garden. Things are looking up. Sean.hoyland - tak() 06:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone else being constructive and positive

Hey Zombiebaron!

This is just getting silly. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 06:21, Feb. 8, 2008

FU Kip teh Dip! Just kidding. Yes, I agree. Without a proposal to replace/improve the existing VFD process that people can then vote on, this discussion isn't going to achieve anything useful. I'm new to Uncyc but I expect these things have been discussed at length before, resulting in the VFD process. Sean.hoyland - tak() 08:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This was never an issue in the past. Admins used to rack up their ban count with the people that wrote this kind of crap in the past. Now what are we left with? Pfeh. -- Village Idiot♠KUN Free Speech 12:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not much of an issue now. Sucky pages worth ranting about? Been there, done that. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 15:12, Feb. 8, 2008

Let's all calm down and blame Stephen Hawking

For running over MO's cat. Seriously, someone needs to stop that guy. Brigadier Sir Mordillo GUN UotY WotM FP UotM AotM MI³ AnotM VFH +S 08:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Steven Hawking? I heard he runs over peoples' cats, you know. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 11:29, Feb 8

Indeed. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 15:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

How Come...

Every time I take a break from the site for a few days, I come back to a load of drama and flamewars? (Bonner) (Talk) Feb 9, 10:26

So, if what I'm hearing you say is what you said, what you're saying is that it's your fault? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 14:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Haha no, it's just annoying (Bonner) (Talk) Feb 9, 16:11

I shall now review all of the so-called 'one-line' articles

International Page Blanking Day - Should be renamed to just "page blanking". C-

An article that contains nothing but a full stop - Meh. B-

I got rhythm - it's on VFD already? Well, that solves that problem.

Double Redirect - it's exactly what people expect, and nothing more. B

Endless loop - also VFD'd.

Broken Redirect - it would be even slightly amusing if it actually linked to a nonexistant page about broken redirects. D+

☃ - Yes! Unicode has got crazy symbols in it! We get the idea already! C+

Small - unfortunately, not really that funny or clever. C

Gullible - it's an old joke, only told in the unique wiki format. Meh. B-

Stub - We could do funnier by copying the entire text of Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Stub and letting anonymous IPs edit it for one week. C-

Quality - Genius! A+

Recursion - allow me to quote Andrew Plotkin: 'Recursion (noun): If you already know what the definition of recursion is, simply remember it now. Otherwise, find a person who is nearer in proximity to Douglas Hofstadter than you are, and ask them to look up the definition." If only the actual article were that clever. D+

Bald - basically a dumb rip of the aforementioned Gullible article. D-

Euronintendo - Hmm. Delete.

Unexpected Article Deletion - Not really all that bad, considering. B-

UnTeletext - What? Did you even look at this article? With your browser set to "images on"? I have lost all respect for you as a human being. B+

Holocaust_denial_denial_denial_denial_denial - I agree completely. D+

Absolute Power - 2005cruft. Delete, delete, delete. ----L 17:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot my beloved Sentence! How dare you! --EMC ^[TALK] 23:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. You do NOT touch the ☃! :P - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

So, are you claiming to be the authority on humor now? Also, I hate snowman because I can't see it. Extremely frustrating. I sometimes dream about what it looks like. Does it have a button nose? Perhaps a stovepipe hat? Two eyes made out of coal, even? I may never know. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:19, Feb 9

He forgot Michael Clarke Duncan. Ha ha ha. Also, see Talk:☃ for various pictures of what it looks like. You might be awestruck at its awesomeness, or your dreams might be shattered, or a combination of both. It's up to you! • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:27, 09 Feb 2008

Bless you, kind sir! My heart can rest easy yet again! Also, lol @ the mac snowman. It's way lame, especially compared to the right and left bottom guys. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:38, Feb 9

Heheh yeah. Perhaps the mac one shares Zork Implementor's view. Though the top left one just makes you wanna hug it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 02:03, 09 Feb 2008

The Mac Snowman blows chunks, it's not smiling, has no snow, and doesn't have the 'hug me' look. Hail Snowman! :) - Admiral Enzo Aquarius-Dial the Gate 05:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Meh, i will get round to redoing UnTeletext so it doesn't look so dirty sometime when i can be bothered :P --Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 22:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

You forgot about Copy paste-Awesome Sauce 00:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I can name some more metahumur pages, one of which being the epitome of self-reference, but I'm not because people will just clog VFD with them. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 04:18, Feb. 13, 2008

WTF guys?

If anything, we should FEATURE Euronintendo!!! -- » Sir Savethemooses Grand Commanding Officer ... holla atcha boy» 05:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What's that smell? Oh yeah, it's the smell of nothing new

I am not going to pretend to be all-knowing. I am not going to pretend that I'm a really level-headed guy. And I'm not going to express my view on one-line articles in Uncyclopedia (though I'm sure most of you know my stance on the matter). What I'm going to say is probably going to sound preachy, but it has to be said. I believe Hinoa already said it, but, like the denizens of VFD, I don't think anyone got the hint. This is a pointless argument. It's been had before, it will be had again. In my memory here, I think I have seen five quality control forums, probably more lost in the sands of time. All of them degenerated into pontifications and bitterness and just plain old hatred. Viewpoints were traded, debated, spat upon, defecated on, and put through the wringer. People like Savethemooses or Modusoperandi (or myself once or twice) inserted an off-topic comment in an attempt to lighten the mood and the tension.

And nothing changed.

Unfortunately for those who dislike one-line articles and all of their various incarnations (of which there are very many), it seems as if there is a a group that just as fervently enjoys these very articles. It's no crime to enjoy something, and it's no crime to want something eradicated. But just as the citizens of America can see, arguing about your ideals doesn't get a thing done. I realize the hypocrisy of this statement (what with my own horn-blowing right now), but hey, isn't that what philosophy is for? In any case, I think the only useful thing that has ever come out of these arguments is that one more person has emerged jaded and cynical and has just resigned themselves to not look at the pages.

Chances are, the pages as they exist now are not doing much harm, as they are in relatively innocuous places that are not frequently searched for. If the article for Chuck Norris said "ROUNDHOUSE KICK!! OUCH!", the one for Oscar Wilde said "gay", and the one for Russian reversal was "In Soviet Russia, article reads you!!", then, yes, there would be a substantial quality issue. But as it is, there are few if any adventurous spelunkers of Uncyclopedia who will search for "Holocaust denial denial denial denial denial denial denial", and if they do, chances are they're a fan of that type of thing. If you wish to alter these articles to make them better by your standards, more power to you. The most important thing to take away from your time here is pride in your work, and if you can be proud of your own work, than others' work shouldn't be an issue for you.

I will close with a short (incomplete) list of forums that I found discussing this very same issue:

• Forum:Let's talk about stubs. - 694 days old
• Forum:Has Uncyc "jumped the shark"? - 577
• Forum:Inclusionism and a new idea - 470
• Forum:BURN IT ALL! - 210
• Forum:Asperger's Syndrome is no laughing matter Volume I
• Forum:Asperger's Syndrome is no laughing matter Volume II
• Forum:Asperger's Syndrome is no laughing matter Volume III
• Forum:It appears that Euroipods is STILL causing problems...
• Forum:An Open Letter to Uncyclopedia
• Forum:Remove IPs Newpages Privilege
• Forum:200XCruft
• Forum:General Quality of Articles - only 27 days old...hmmm

I realize that the above list's forums aren't all directly related, but the same points are covered over and over again. Also, in early policy discussions, I notice that several of our legacy admins stated that it would be nice if everyone would stop being so repetitive and, dare I say, redundant in their posts.

Thanks for listening.-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 01:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the reason why things have never changed with these forums is that it seems that some people like bitching in forums, but they're too lazy to actually do any work. The only real problem I see with the forums is that nobody's doing anything about the issue besides participating in flamewars that do more harm than good. If some people would actually start doing what they say should be done, we might actually get somewhere. Otherwise, we're just lazy, lying, hypocritical bastards. --Sir Starnestommy (Talk • Contribs • CUN) 02:34, Feb. 15, 2008

Thank you, Starnes, you've just earned yourself a cookie. —Hinoa talk.kun 02:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

*sniff* No accolades for me?-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 02:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't VFS enough for you, little upstart? >:| -- 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 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Upstart? Well, I never!-Sir Ljlego, GUN VFH FIYC WotM SG WHotM PWotM AotM EGAEDM ANotM + (Talk) 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, now that that's over, let's all have a good, long, laugh about this, shall we? And after that, we can link to Nobody cares and post youtube vids like it's 1985 (or BHOP, they're about the same). - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:05, Feb 15

Too many lines

This forum has too many lines. Can we restrict forums to 1 line in future ? Sean.hoyland - tak() 03:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, why would we do that? It would totally ruin the ambiance that we work so hard to build up. Captain Can you read that? Feel the love. 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 03:54, Feb 15