For: 6
|
- I think it's pretty good. I find it a bit strange though that Chiefjustice thought my approval was enough to justify replacing the article. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 9 Apr 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
 For. stellar article ShabiDOO 18:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)- For. I'll replace an article with anything on literally anybody's say so. ChiefjusticePS3 10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
For OK, OK, I'll vote For, just 'cause it's a great article. I still don't like that it already got featured Over There. Snarglefoop (talk) 04:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)- JFC convinced me that we should rename this, pull the old one back out of dead storage, and then feature this article, because it would be the Right Thing to Do. Snarglefoop (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- By we I mean someone else, of course, since I'm not in a position to go around digging up dead bodies. It takes special talents to do that. Snarglefoop (talk) 04:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- For. -- MagicBus Talk to me! 20:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 Limp boner.This article gives me a semi and I like that - B@NZai k!tten  (Meow?)B 16:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)- For. Oscar is in us all. FAKEHATER
 spam me 19:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
|
Against: 1
|
 Against. These are nothing like a collection of the best made up Oscar Wilde quotes on Uncyc. We have much better lying on the ground randomly around the wiki. Also, the whole thing generally lacks cohesion. We can do better than this for such an important tradition IMO. JFC 14:30. May 20
- Have you read the current version of the article? (It was totally rewritten a couple months ago.) It is no longer a collection of made up Oscar Wilde quotes. In fact, as far as I can see, this version contains no made up Oscar Wilde quotes at all. As to lacking cohesion -- I thought the story line of the page knitted it together reasonably well. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Which version of the article did you think I had read? :P As to what you said, I agree with everything. JFC 15:02. May 20
- The one prior to ChiefjusticeDS's rewrite. If you agree with everything Snarglefoop said, doesn't that mean you should change your vote? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 20 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- Actually I found Jesu's response reasonably enlightening, taken with his original comment. If I understand correctly, JFC feels it should contain a collection of made up quotes, rather than being the only receptacle of real quotes on the site, with a story line which has little or nothing to do with actually making up quotes. Yes? (I still think it's a fine page, BTW.) Snarglefoop (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- Yes (I still think it's a fine page, BTW). I like the parody of parody idea obviously not doing the obvious, but sometimes for me although it looks fine when you look it over it's somehow just not quite right somehow. Like Michael Jackson for example... JFC 15:57. May 20
|
| Comments
|
Great article. But they just finished featuring it on The Site whose Name Must Not Be Mentioned. Is it an admission of something or other if we feature it here, too, after they did it there? Snarglefoop (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's an admission of the fact that we're too bloody slow here. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:31, 26 Apr 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- To clarify... If you look at the edit history of this page you can see my reasons. How many thousand edits does this page have? Seriously? 3,000 or something is it? Going back to 2005. 29 March 2014 someone suddenly replaces years of edits. Where was the VFD for that page to be deleted? because... Effectively it's gone now. ...and been replaced by this, which may be a fantastic article, but that's not the point. I don't think it would have attracted 3,000 or something edits had it been written in 2005 like the page did before Chief saw fit to replace it. ...and now people think it's just to take an article which has attracted 3,000 or so edits and slap a completely different article over the top of it? ... So that all the links which the wiki has evolved over the years to point to that article now point to a different one? Sorry. I think Chief was wrong on that one. Users, and IPs liked reading and editing the page as it was before. If this is FA, that will stop. What is being done here is funny to Uncyclopedians, but not to others. Or not as funny to others anyway. We must cater for them, not us. Change the name of this article to something else and put the old page back please. Then I would vote this for FA. JFC 02:24. May 30
- Chief asked me about replacing the page and I said it was ok. I was just some random person then too but apparently I was enough. There was a vfd on wikia but not here. Maybe that was wrong. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 04:42, 30 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- Good point, JFC. Well argued. You've convinced me, at least (but I'm just a peon here, so convincing me doesn't win you many points...). It's a different article, and what was done was a little like uploading a totally different image on top of an existing and rather widely used image: It may be funny but it's still not right. Snarglefoop (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe we should have a ... deletion review? No, that's not right. A VFD? A thingy? But this is a thingy, and it's rapidly approaching nowhere in particular, which is doing no one any good. Or any anything, for that matter. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 05:07, 30 May 2014Uncyclopedia is a community site that anyone can contribute to. Discover, share and add your knowledge! UncyclopediaUncyclopediaIllogicopediai:fr:LogimalpediePaudurapedyjaFrithchiclipeidUncapaediaAbsurdopediaScotypedia
- It's a right mess. I blame Chief. Maybe ask him what to do about it? I think a VFD would be a terrible idea here. ... The VFD voters would struggle to understand the issues. It's like asking people "do you want this ugly page which has 3,0000 edits in the history which looks bad, but needs editing and when edited may be one the the central pages of Uncyclopedia, or do you want this other page (yours) which looks nice, and is finished. It's forcing the person on VFD who wants to keep 3,000 pages to agree to edit and fix the 3,000 edit article to make it look better than yours. In my opinion the correct thing to do here is simply to undo Chief's mistake. I don't see how any article can have the right to go and sit on top of another article like this. This has happened before. I will spare you the list, but it's been done a few times, and... It's wrong IMO. Lets say there was a VFD... and I say ... "Um actually I will fix it. Move it to my userspace, and I will fix it in a few days".... Now ... I fixed it. Actually now it's a world class article. Where shall I move the fixed version back to? Oh wait. Someone has stolen the page. Can you see the problem? This page does not belong to this article... JFC 10:26. May 30
- Rant amendment sometimes we (like on Jew and Jew/Classic) create a subpage, and move the "old" articles history to that sub page, and then link to that from the top of the other page. Stereotype is another page with lots of edits where similar to this happened, but many, many old edits were forgotten, and lost. IMO "stealing" a page, even in this way is wrong, but we do it sometimes. I guess it depends if it's more important to have an article which lots of people will be able to edit, and will want to edit, and have another article which looks nicer, and is over all more polished, but is less accessible to edit. In some cases it's clearly more one way than another. Sometimes the edges are more blury, but IMO in this case... I want IPs to be able to come onto Uncyclopedia, find the making up Oscar Wilde quotes page and... edit right there and then. I want them to be able to make up Oscar Wilde quotes! On that page. Just like I wanted a similar setup when they replace Stereotype. Dam that Puppy. JFC 14:06. May 30
 Comment. I genuinely don't care where the article goes. The old page, Uncyclopedia history or not, was very poor, if an IP wishes to create an Oscar Wilde quote then they can simply write a new article and do what they have done for years. A repository of hundreds of quotes that aren't particularly good isn't much fun to read. Why not put this in the HowTo section if you would like the original page to get the exposure as opposed to this one? ChiefjusticePS3 18:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Hea Chief. You know I'm not attacking you personally, so I will jump straight to my point... "We" (I agree obviously) might think that the old article was "very poor", but 3,000+ edits PROVE that we are both wrong. Did you look through all 3,000+ edits? Maybe some of it was good stuff. Some pages are popular to edit, and shutting them down from editing is not always good for wiki growth. ... What we do about this is not up to me. I'm not making the decisions here, just pointing out a perspective. JFC 18:35. Jun 7
|
For. stellar article 
Against. These are nothing like a collection of the best made up Oscar Wilde quotes on Uncyc. We have much better lying on the ground randomly around the wiki. Also, the whole thing generally lacks cohesion. We can do better than this for such an important tradition IMO. 
Comment. I genuinely don't care where the article goes. The old page, Uncyclopedia history or not, was very poor, if an IP wishes to create an Oscar Wilde quote then they can simply write a new article and do what they have done for years. A repository of hundreds of quotes that aren't particularly good isn't much fun to read. Why not put this in the HowTo section if you would like the original page to get the exposure as opposed to this one? 