Forum:73h Quote Crew r00lz!

Forums: Index > Village Dump > 73h Quote Crew r00lz!

Note: This topic has been unedited for 774 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

A Slight Misunderstanding

It looks as though the Making up Quotes articles have again survived the fiery trials of VFD. In the light of this, perhaps we should realize a few things:

1. People are going to keep making articles like this, and other people are going to keep voting in favor of them.
2. Alot of people on Uncyclopedia dislike the Making up Quotes pages alot, and the arguing to protect the pages seems to be happening more than the actual making up of the fake quotes.
3. Wikipedia didn't want their articles cluttered with quotations, so they started a new project. WikiQuote.

So, this line of thought makes me come up with the following ideas:

1. Perhaps the "Making up Quotes" craze needs to get it's own wikicity somehow.
2. Or, perhaps we should form some kind of group having to do with protecting good quotes pages and getting rid of crappy ones.

Any thoughts? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 19:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

How about a namespace? "Quotes:" sounds good to me. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 20:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

heres the main page: http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Uncyclopedia:Unquotable --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Post-Exodus

Main page now at Unquotable:Main Page. All "Making up quotes" pages have been moved except for Making up Oscar Wilde quotes... Proposed namespace policy and style manual should be posted within 48 hours, but if you want to get started on new pages, I guess now's as good a time as any, folks!  c • > • cunwapquc? 07:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I like this idea. It should make everyone happy - those against it, and those for it. I see Making up (?:Matirx|Winston Churchill|Feb 3|Sun-Tzu|.*) Quotes pages still in the default name space. Are they going to be moved too? --Keithhackworth MUN 13:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Those are all just redirects now (except for Oscar's, since I haven't moved him yet). I'd suggest keeping them in place, perhaps indefinitely, if only to avoid breaking external links and what-not. By the way, I put three proposed logos up for consideration at Uncyclopedia:Logos... Y'all feel free to add/suggest others, of course. (I'm not so sure any of them are all that great!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 14:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

hey awesome. I'm happy --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not So Happy After All, It Would Seem

wait a second, whered the Matrix quotes go? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Red link: Making up Matrix quotes
• Blue link: Making up Matrix Quotes

Whoever deleted the page should be banned. That's what I get for leaving redirect pages lying around, right? --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 17:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

agreed where is it people.... --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia:Pages_for_deletion/archive28#Making_up_Matrix_quotes --—rc (t) 04:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh crap, I thought it had made it. More people voted afterwards I guess. this site sux --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I know this is difficult to face, but if Making up Matrix Quotes was that good, people would have voted to keep it. This wasn't one admin deciding to kill a page, it was a majority of users voting to axe it. --—rc (t) 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I realize the workings of the democratic process. However, I think:

1. A large number of VFD articles go by which people who would like to protect pages don't hear about in time. (happens all the time on alot of wikis)
2. Deletion of content should be a last resort, not the primary method of quality control on any type of user-generated content site.
3. Some people vote on pages not based on the quality of the humor, but because they don't like the subject. A comprehensive SPOV encyclopedia should cover all possible subjects.
4. Sprinkle a few terms like "systamic bias" and crap ... and this list might make sombody sound almost intelligent on Wikipedia. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 22:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Nerd, shut your pie hole and stop whining about how your article got deleted. *pulls out banhammer*--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 04:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

1. That's the nature of the wiki. MUMQ was up on VFD for well over a week. If people don't notice, what else can we do to make them notice that doesn't involve an exorbitant amount of time or energy?

2. Nerd, you've been around here long enough to know that that's not the reality here. We'd be drowning in "well, me and my two friends think it's funny" pages if deletion was a last resort. Uncyclopedia would be a mess.

3. An humor site should not cover every subject if some of the subjects are covered in unfunny ways. Kind of contradicts the purpose. I'm sure some people do vote on pages because they don't like the subject. I'm also sure that some people vote to keep or feature pages just because they do like the subject. If you expect voting, especially on a humor site, to be completely objective, you'll be disappointed.

For the record, I've neither read nor voted on the Matrix quotes page. --—rc (t) 04:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

On people not noticing, I'm not sure what we can do about it, and hoping for something better is thought of, because other people have noticed the same problem. I was hoping / thinking the voting ought to be objective, since I try to vote objectively myself. The policies around here are so self-contradictory they're not even funny. --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 20:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting is not going to be objective for two reasons.

1. People have biases.

2. Humor itself is subjective.

Of course it'd be nice if #1 wasn't an issue, but realistically, it is and will always be an issue.

And I don't know what policies you're referring to. --—rc (t) 04:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

He's got you there Nerd. The very act of voting is the result of generating an opinion. Opinion de facto generates bias. You cna't "Objectively vote" That's bullshit and you know it.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 17:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, becuase I'm feeling argumentatively pugilistic. gwax is noting that there are very few votes for entries (i.e. 2-3), and, as such, it's unfair to decide whether or not they should go. MUMQ had 13 votes, and lost 8-5. Again, nerd, stop whining becuase it was your page.--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, referring to users as "whining" and threatening "banhammer" every time they say something with which you disagree isn't very constructive. Sorry. As for the question of all the deletions that've been happening lately? IMHO the deleted texts should be made available on request, with the one restriction that they not be reposted in their original format to main article space without taking the issue to VFD for a vote.

It may also be a good idea to check "what links here" before deleting, as otherwise pages from a series template like {{cars}} or {{UStates}} will continue to end up on Special:Wanted pages with some artificially-high link count. Editing the template and all affected pages may be necessary to get such a page into "not wanted" status. --Carlb 03:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Believe me Carl, I only leave such choice words for Nerd and his ilk. You've seen me do my civil, helpful thing. In fact, it's usually what I do for most users. It's in my talk page and its archives, and many of my dump postings. Granted, some of it isn't completely friendly, but at least it's professional. In my own experience, I've found Nerd to be difficult to work with, and frankly, I think this is the same song and dance he's given time and again. --Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Top-Quotes and Templates

A (&action=)purge fixes most problems of links and templates. *However*, for Special:Wanted and Special:Whatlinkshere, you have to null-edit every page the template appears in (after changing the teplate of course) to get it off those special pages. Same for categories in templates (which is why we can NRV timestamp them, it isn't a bug it is a feature!) --Splaka 04:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Carib, and as far as the whole site being BS, all I can say is "if you say so" --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Who said that?--Sir Flammable KUN (Na Naaaaa...) 21:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC) 20:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

teh not me. I think the only quotes we should keep are wilde, ballmer, bush, and stalin, and ballmer's up to question. "George Bush doesn't care about black people" and "i'm going to fucking kill google" are only funny for so long, guys--the only reason ballmer's on the list is that we all know he's going to say something stupid again. Scythe33 21:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

{{Bushism}} seems to get away with the joke-in-template structure as Bush has said so many foolish things that one can be retrieved randomly at any time with little risk of repetition. Even then, it only gets away with this by relying on the random option/choose algorithm to keep pulling up new bloopers and misquotes and by not being reused on multiple pages. Jokes in templates (in general) don't work due to their static nature; templates are intended to be used and re-used, while jokes tend to lose their flavour (or at least their humour) when retold too many times. The {{Q}} or {{Quote}} model where the text is not 'canned' as part of the template and not re-used may work sometimes. Even there, there are plenty of unfunny quotes out there just because of the assumption that every page in the entire Uncyclopædia just has to have a quote from whomever. An unfunny quote will fall flat regardless of whom is given the misattribution for it, so the only fix is to look at every quote on every page and remove the boring ones. No small task. --Carlb 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Award

Carlb is right - I'd estimate we're talking about at least 2-3,000 pages with top-quotes, probably more, and at least half of those quotes are el suckola. If people were only doing it because they thought they were supposed to, then that's easily corrected - but as for the existing "damage," maybe it would be enough to just eliminate whatever intimidation factor there might be in removing stooopid top-quotes in general? There seems to be little stigma attached to NRV'ing pages, for example, so maybe something as simple as an award might help get the ball rolling:

The QUAKKinator Award This user is hereby cited for tirelessness, bravery, and astuteness in the removal of not-especially-funny top-quotes. Respect this person. Bestowed by the Unquotable Automatic Kwote Killer

Any suggestions/objections/etc.?  c • > • cunwapquc? 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cool template. Although someone already made one, it's on my userpage if you want a glimpse at it. FreeMorpheme 09:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Either way though, really - technically this isn't a template, it was just posted here in raw-code form a couple of months before the In-Joke Exterminator award template was created, but hey, whatever gets the job done!  c • > • cunwapquc? 09:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's What User:Nerd42 Thinks

I think U R all nuts --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 15:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You've only just noticed? ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 13:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

no i used to think you were Monkey Fish Banana Poodle Tree Crazy --Nerd42eMailTalkUnMetaWPediah2g2 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)