Forum:UnBooks
YOU CAN STOP VOTING NOW, A CONCLUSION HAS BEEN REACHED!
then again, you don't have to stop, don't mind me. ~ 11:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
On UnMeta a while ago, a proposal was made to make a new project called "UnBooks". It was violently opposed and caused the submitter to be crushed under the harsh law of Oscar.
But still, the light of UnBooks continued. Another contributer, under the guise of an IP, grew and nurtured it. Ownership passed on to Uncyclopedian, then one who came from a town known only as "Hindley" took the work of UnBooks.
My point is, UnBooks is large enough now to warrant its own namespace. It has more pages than Undictionary, it is already in the sistaprojects template, yet is still classed under the main namespace. So basically this is a request to Get UnBooks its own namespace.
Ok? ~ 13:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Its logo sucks, I say this as one who was crushed under Oscar's law, I wasn't crushed to have such a crappy logo associated with Unbooks, note to self, make better logo. Oh, yeah, I'm down with it getting its own namespace. - Sir Real Hamster {talk} {contribs} 14:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against. That would mean that articles such The Oldest Trick in the Book, (now renamed UnBooks:The Oldest Trick in the Book), won't be in the main namespace anymore, won't appear in article's count, Random Page, etc. That doesnt' seem fai to me. I would agree to move to a new namespace only the newly created unbooks, created as unbooks fom the beginning and not as articles, which in fact would leave the project with almost no unbooks at all. Other than that my congratulations to all the people involved in it, the portal is great, excellent parody at wikibooks. BTW, why isn't QuoteUnquote in the sister projects template? ---Asteroid B612
(aka Rataube) - Ñ 19:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC) - Against, because A) Rataube is right about the main space losing some quality articles, and B) some of the articles you're stealing aren't even worthy to be Unbooks, if you ask me. Like this one... Oh, and this one too. Let's not forget this one. (but you can blame the author for applying an inappropriatly closing)... And then finally this one. --~ sin($) tan(€) 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against' until the majority of the content is original, and not stolen from other namespaces. --Splaka 23:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against, and disband UnBooks altogether. —Sir Major Hinoa [TALK] [KUN] 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, Ghelae, but I'm gonna go against this too. Don't get too carried away. It seems some people don't appreciate the moving of existing articles to the 'namespace'. Aside from that, though, it isn't really big enough with enough contributors yet. I think it's way too early to be giving UnBooks its own namespace.
Just a side point, I am doing my best to try and find articles which would fit in to Uncyclopedia better as an 'UnBook'. If I move something which you (admins) disapprove of, please feel free to put it back. As far as I know, Electric slide and the GTA Game guide were already UnBooks when I started to help building the project. When the main aim is to expand the project, it's not really a good idea to be declassifying stuff as non-UnBooks. Get me? --Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Converse 10:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - Against and I'm pretty sure we agreed upon the name "UnSource". Yah, UnBooks is useless at the momment. --The Zombiebaron 16:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Wow... everyone really seems to hate this idea... Anyway, I agree with the people who say that too many pages are being moved to UnBooks. ~ 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
- For Book Burning--SN W | T 06:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
i'm writing an UnBook. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
- Against, but. "Unbook" is a cool word, but what's the difference from the regular book? Contents free book? Most of the books out there are contents free anyway. Unbooks by Arthur Hailey or Bill Gates or JK Rowling. To provide so much needed references for Uncyc articles? They need to be external anyway. Or to provide a justifying trademark for someone who is too lazy to write a proper contents free book and wants to partially fill it with AAAAetc. clones? Write it properly, post it "independently" and we can start citing it. Kokot.kokotisko 10:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why bother when it's already here? :) -- Hindleyite | PL | GUN | WOTM | Image Review - Use it | Converse 10:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- * petrified * I thought that Unbooks:rigism whose destruction I initiated was a lone exception... Kokot.kokotisko 12:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
The results are conclusive:
NO [insert adjectexpletive of your choice here] WAY!