Forum:Forest Fire for Pussies Week 2014

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Forest Fire for Pussies Week 2014
Note: This topic has been unedited for 2349 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

As per the comment I made on Forum:Forest Fire Week 2014, I think there should be an alternative to the fast-paced craze of Forest Fire Week, which a number of people including myself disapprove of. If ever Forest Fire Week were a temporary alternative for VFD, Forest Fire for Pussies Week (the title could be amended...) is likewise for ICU.

How it might work. There is (by which I mean 'would be') a page called "Forest Fire for Pussies Week", and then whatever season of it that it is, there is "/<current year>". On this page, those who partake in the week put a heading for the article, under which they explain the issues of the article and possible ideas for its new direction. Under that, other users add in their ideas. Once the rewrite is complete, the problem article gets a link on its talk page to the FFfP Week discussion.

To emulate the destructive energy of Forest Fire, articles are stripped of all content and built up from scratch, but not deleted, so as future editors can research the old article, and also FFfPW rewriters can take any jokes from the old article. Also, because of its different nature, it might end up being a Fortnight or a Month.

So, what do you think? EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(get dtf) 20:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand >.<  Kamek siggy.png ŤäŁķ ¿Ș₮áłĶ?฿¡฿↓¡ography 21:32 10.16.14
Basically it's a week-long project of large collaborations for fast rewrites--EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(get dtf) 21:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, I'm all Symbol for vote.svg For. -- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 21:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it too. My point on the original forum was never to delete things for the sake of deleting them. It was about reducing all the cruft. This would have a similar effect although I don't know how efficient it would be at doing so. --Talk to me! Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 00:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
It sounds like a great idea, but just a question. Isn't it what Uncyclopedia:Imperial Colonization is for? Anton (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Good point. I had heard of it, but just forgot. You're right to fear too many formats for the same thing, of course this would be somewhat different from Imperial Colonization and Conservation Week, but it may still lie redundant as a middle-ground. Once all thoughts and points are assessed here, I'll open it to a vote.--EveryOtherUsernameWasTaken(get dtf) 19:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of UN:IC, we've got to start on fixing FDR the president. I'm not starting until we have an idea and at least 3 users committed to the project though, it's a big job and I don't want to leave it sitting half baked for the next group of people. Think of it as our Hoover Dam, just not Hoover, the next dude instead (Leverage already did President Hoover, featuring a naked midget... like everything good). --Nikau (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Speaking of UN:IC, our last colonization, Albert Einstein isn't finished and requires a lot of editing. Anton (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Two thumbs up. I'm in. -- MagicBus Talk to me! 17:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)