Forum:UN:Worst of
Today on VFH I came across the nomination for Duel Masters. All I can truly say is..... "wow." Here's an article that is so awesomely awful that it's an absolute laugh-riot. And yet I am VERY hesitant about Featuring such an overflowing dung-bucket, as I think doing so would invite the proliferation of more crap (yeah, even more than current levels!) Therefore, I would like to propose the creation of a new category for those articles that are so attrocious, so gut-bustingly inept that we can't bring ourselves to delete them because they're too damn funny. I wanted to get everyone's feedback before I attempted (incompetently) to do this, as I also think such golden turds would need to be preserved (i.e. locked from editing) as examples of "what not to write." Thoughts, comments, fears? --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- It must include pictures as well... because... there are a few...
t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, agreed. I can think of many right off the bat. But Kakun already has his own place. :) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.)
- I was speaking of no Kakun's, indeed, his art has provoked many an eye-sporking. However, there are a few, lurking in the shadows, that make kakun's work look like picasso. They shall be brought forth in due time. t o m p k i n s blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 16:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was speaking of no Kakun's, indeed, his art has provoked many an eye-sporking. However, there are a few, lurking in the shadows, that make kakun's work look like picasso. They shall be brought forth in due time.
- Oh, agreed. I can think of many right off the bat. But Kakun already has his own place. :) --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.)
- Yeah, we already have a means for nominating and voting on these things, it's called VFD. We've even got a whole mess of previous winners. And the best thing about it is that admins have a special button built into mediawiki for featuring these articles, the "delete" button. --Sir gwax (talk)
18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
- Normally, I'm right there with ya, Gwax. But every now and then, there comes an article like this one, that, through a horrible ESL schadenfreud bent, makes me literally laugh until I can't breathe. This "article" is full of moments that almost got me fired this morning for laughing too loudly for corporate guidelines. So I don't want it deleted, but I sure as hell don't want this on the front page. Rather, I'd like to keep it, and other turkeys of its amazingly bad caliber, in a special zoo where we can sadistically enjoy them and they can be kept under heavy guard for all eternity. Yeah, I know, I'm a sick, cold bastard... Besides, this thing's gotten WAY too much support for its VFH entry. That alone tells me that a lot of people besides me are finding comedy, albeit unintentional, in this abortion. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 19:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just be a link to Nerd42's contribs page? -- 
22:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
How about a MSTing type of thing to bad articles. In case you have no idea what I'm talking about, a MSTing is giving it a Mystery Science Theater 3000 treatment, like this sorta thing. --
jsonitsac talk to me crimes against humanity03:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I am in support of this, as long as Cunt cunt cunt cunt crap crap shit is on the list too. --Hobelhouse 14:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
No. Bad articles get rewritten or deleted. We dont recognize them for their badness. There is already a wiki out there that features crap, and its called ED. ~Sir Rangeley 
GUN WotM UotM EGA +S (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. I see the trend this is following. Oh well, consider the suggestion withdrawn. --The King In Yellow (Talk to the Dalek.) 21:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
- Don't delete it. I'll rewrite it
tommorrowsoon. --Uncyclon - Do we still link to BENSON? 08:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)