Forum:Let's deep-six the phrase 'content-free encyclopedia'

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Let's deep-six the phrase 'content-free encyclopedia'

Note: This topic has been unedited for 3567 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Here's one way we can differentiate the two wiki's and unload something that has at least bothered me since I got here. The slogan of uncyclopedia, the words under the potato on the main page, "content free encyclopedia". I've seen plenty of content here. Makes us sound like self-debasing little shits. Aleister 1:45 17-5-14

New vote

Further to Jesus' suggestions, maybe we should post all ideas here and have a vote? I picked some, left some others out because some users nominated a bunch, cracked jokes etc. Add noms and vote! Leverage (talk) 10:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The content-free encyclopedia

Score: 5

~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Jun 1 '79 0:00 (UTC)
~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!)
-— Lyrithya ༆ 19:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinA Y B CUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 21:32, Sunday 29 June 2014 -
– Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:54, 29 Jun 2014

The freer encyclopedia

Score: 1

Aleister

The fact-free encyclopedia

Score: 3

The Free-love Encyclopedia

Score: 2

S_t^raⁱ_nj 1 . . . . TALK
-- Kip the Egg Talk Works

The information-free Encyclopedia

Score: 2

—Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM
-- Kip the Egg Talk Works

The Slogan-free Encyclopedia

Score: 5

Snarglefoop (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
J F C 03:04. May 29
-- IFYMB! Talk to me baby! 22:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
--ShabiDOO 22:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
---- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 20:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Humor sit omne hominis

It's got it all -- class, accuracy, clarity, and incomprehensibility, all in one compact package!

Score: 2

Latin rocks! (I wish I knew some!) Snarglefoop (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
The best TheWikiMan026 (talk) 08:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Vote

Deep-six the uncyclopedia identifier "content-free encyclopedia".

Score: -3

For. Gives me the willies. Aleister 1:47 17-5-14
I don't know exactly what you mean by 'deep-six' but assuming you mean to get rid of it somehow, I may or may not have an opinion. It's supposed to parody wikipedia's slogan 'the free encyclopedia' and I at least think it's funny. I appreciate the desire to distance the two sites but probably against unless you have another funny slogan in mind. That's my -3.1415i cents on the matter. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 18 May 2014
Dozens of them. How about "the freer encyclopedia" (it even rymes), but choosing another one is the next step. Getting rid of the one we have unloads lots of baggage from the site, imnho. Aleister 2:43 17-5-14
Now wait a minute, I just realised that doesn't rhyme at all. Unless you pronounce it 'encyclopedier', or you never pronounce word-final 'r' even before a word beginning with a vowel. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:10, 27 May 2014
It rhymes in Boston. Snarglefoop (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
For. Dunno about the distancing part nor the willy part but I kind of agree with Aleister about the content part. It's got lots, it's just not always completely ... er ... exactly accurate. Snarglefoop (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Agin. "The Content-Free Uncyclopedia". It's perfect. Why change? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, May 23 '14 5:32 (UTC)
Agin. I have been trying to think of a better pun, but can't. I think it works pretty well. Leverage (talk) 10:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Abstain. Stuff is just too tangled up for me to know what's right. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:08, 27 May 2014
And by that I mean this: Wikia is using the content-free slogan and probably won't want to let it go, so sure we want to set ourselves apart from them, but we've also got this lovely article on the subject (featured, no less) that's linked from the main page, and it would be a shame not to showcase it. Besides, we came here to be who we are, and this is who we are. All that said, however, I really love Snarglefoop's slogan. On the other hand, however, does that really describe us? No, it doesn't. This is all about having a slogan that describes us, and that one doesn't...but we must decide if we wish to describe ourselves, or to be funny. Content-free does both, but it does them halfway, and ends up in between. Slogan free does only the second, but falls short on the first... doing both is probably the best solution, but it's so hard to know. So many buts. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:27, 28 May 2014
Against. We shouldn't fuck with the slogan we've had for almost a decade. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 01:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Errrm... I can think of at least five good reasons for sticking with the current slogan (a number not unrelated to the number of so-called "much better" alternative slogans listed above) but the fact that we've had the current one for ten years doesn't seem like a compelling reason to conclude it must never be changed. That seems a bit like saying "My house has has this very same coat of paint for over fifteen years so I'm certainly not going to repaint it now!" Snarglefoop (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Against. I like "the slogan free Uncyclopedia" as an alternative, but I don't want to change. Not now anyway. J F C 02:17. Jun 26
Against. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:40, 30 Jun 2014

New slogan???

This one fits the joke, and sounds pretty classy too: "The Free-Form Encyclopedia" Aleister 17:32 21-5-14

I've never liked the "content-free" bit that much, but I don't think "free-form" is catchy enough. How about information-free, or sanity-free, or knowledge-free, or marbles-free, or something? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk)

GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 08:28, 23 May 2014

The Slogan-Free Encyclopedia ... OK, I'll be quiet now. Snarglefoop (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I like that one. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 21:07, 23 May 2014

Hey, what's wrong with The Encyclopedia of the Intelligent Monkeys (which Llwy suggested)? Snarglefoop (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I suggested that, but ok. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 14:28, 23 May 2014

If we want class we could put it in Latin! Google Translate thinks it might be something like Curabitur est intelligens in Encyclopedia. Snarglefoop (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Written by the Voices in Your Head .... Snarglefoop (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

That's accurate anyway, at least for some of us, and it doesn't parody Wikipedia's slogan which could be either bad or good depending on how you look at it. On one hand we're intended to be a parody of wikipedia, in sort of a fractal way - the articles parody wikipedia articles by appearing factual but actually being twisted, the different namespaces parody wikimedia projects, and the whole thing parodies wikipedia itself, one great article, if you will. On the other hand, however, there are too many differences between wikipedia and us to sweep under the rug or rationalise away. We parody not only wikipedia, but its sister projects, and we do not limit ourselves to wikimedia project parodies but branch out into a wikiHow parody, and even some things that are entirely ours, such as Why?. We also have differences in appearance, some accidental, some coming from divergent traditions or things we have created ourselves. In the end, when everything is taken into account, we are not a parody of any single encyclopedia, but of all and any of them. What can we conclude from this? Merely that we cannot conclude anything, because we are not limited to any one conclusion. That's just a fancy way of saying 'I don't know where I was going with this'.

On another note, that slogan is kind of longish which might be a concern, or it might not. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:09, 23 May 2014

Not your Parents' Encyclopedia ... That's accurate too, actually. At least for some of us. (But where does that apostrophe go?) Snarglefoop (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The Consent-Free Encycolpedia..... As far as I see it, the "content-free" part was a joke on the "free" part of the wikipedia slogan .... varying it too much from the original slogan would go against the whole premise of the joke. Something maybe based on a variant of "free"? The Free-love Encycolpedia... nyah.... - S_t^raⁱ_nj 1 . . . . TALK

04:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion?

Status quo

I'm not sure about all that. Not sure it's a good idea. Not right now anyway considering the Status Quo. Actually, I'm not sure there is actually anything which we, here and now could actually do to change the slogan of Uncyclopedia even if we all wanted to. Everyone all over the internet knows that Uncyclopedia is the "content-free encyclopedia", and identifies us with that. We could change every page on the wiki, but then everyone else on the internet would still think that we were the content free encyclopedia. All the places on the internet with links to us describing us would not change, and they probably mention our slogan. Also, there are all the other different language Uncyclopedia which (I assume) have a slogan similar to ours. I doubt all of of them would want to change their slogans to match whatever we did. It would be like when Prince changed his name to symbol or whatever it was. Now don't get me wrong, I actually like some of Princes music, and even believe the newspapers when they tell me he is a heterosexual, but everyone has to admit he made a prick out of himself with that name changing thing.

I think the Uncyclopedia slogan decision was probably been made, a long time ago, and we might be stuck with "content-free encyclopedia". We should have gone with with "the freer encyclopedia" from the start IMO, but then I bet "content-free encyclopedia" has been useful to a laywer at some point in the past also.

Obviously we got loads of content, and along similar lines to what Al is suggesting About needs an overhaul IMO. Especially considering that it's linked from the toolbar and in so many other places. J F C 09:19. May 22

This is like saying "we gave up our right to describe ourselves in 2005...or 006". Saying we are stuck with a stupid slogan which defines us as stupid is like saying we are stuck with having to use mouthwash or anything to do with washing. The "About" page needs to be torn up and flushed, imnho, and, wait,.....Jesus Fucking Christ Jesus Fucking Christ, since you were in the tomb for three days you may not have seen my Guidebook to the faces in the cloud page yet!!!! Read that one and tell me we have no content, as it is actually one of the most accurate articles on the Selma Voting Rights Movement sitting on the web right now. I still say we should go with 'The Free-Form Encyclopedia', as that is both classy and would set us apart from wikia (unless they do it too, which I'll suggest right now). Keep on turning water into fish, or whatever it is you turn things into. Geese! Aleister 18:04 22-5-14

p.s. And calling it "The Free-Form Encyclopedia" makes it much easier to promote, imnho. It defines the site more and gives it a backbone, something that reporters and feature editors can hang their hat on.

I decided arbitrarily a while back that the slogan of Welsh Uncyclopedia was y gwyddoniadur rhydd o gynnwys, which is also 'the content-free encyclopedia' (assuming I didn't screw up the translation), which may prove something somehow. I'd say though that there is no reason why all the uncyclopedias should have the same slogan. Just look at the French one, for example - it's the encyclopedia of the intelligent monkeys. However, if for some reason I were to decide that nid gwyddoniadur rhydd o gynnwys ydy Celwyddoniadur, and I tried to adopt one of the proposed slogans, I would probably do a terrible job of translating it and that would just make everything that much worse. None of that proves anything, of course. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 19:03, 22 May 2014

Wikia can change their slogan if they want. Why don't they do that? I would like that. ... Are they? I have no idea what's going on there... J F C 08:39. May 23

Do they even have a slogan? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 13:59, 23 May 2014

Yes but it's insincere. Snarglefoop (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

compromise?

on the UnNews page I have made up about a hundred slogans and things. maybe we could keep the existing one and have the option template so we could add a few more slogans to vary things up? Leverage (talk) 17:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't our identity get all blurry if we had multiple slogans? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:55, 23 May 2014

We have an identity with the present slogan of stupidness. Duh, no content, hahaahaha. You can point your finger into a dictionary at random and come up with a better description. We've talked about getting more publicity, try selling "The Content-Free Encyclopedia" to feature writers or to the editor at the assignment desk, or even to major backers. And it was another suggestion of a way to continue to form a distinct identity for this site. Pick any animal, tree, or insect and it's better: The Mayfly-Free Encyclopedia. Aleister 10:52 24-5-14

How about "The fact-free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Leverage (talk) 10:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

For. --EMC^[TALK]03:51 May 27 2014

How about 'the parody encyclopedia'? Is that too hateful a term, considering that I have already floated it and had chocolate-covered stones thrown at me? It's what our subreddit says we are and it's all my fault so you can throw more stones at me. Don't bother with the chocolate, it's a headache trigger. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:58, 27 May 2014

So are thrown stones. Snarglefoop (talk) 19:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How about this...

Because we are Uncyclopedia, and because Uncyclopedia is a humours parody of Wikipedia, perhaps our slogan should be whatever Wikipedia say our slogan is on their Uncyclopedia article. So... If someone could convince Wikipedia that the slogan of Uncyclopedia was the freer encyclopedia, then we would have to change slogan to the freer encyclopedia. Now... The tricky thing here is... How does anyone get consensus from "Uncyclopedia" to change their slogan in the first place, so that they can tell Wikipedia that Uncyclopedia have changed it. Well... Obviously, you just ask us. Here. In a forum like this. Because we are Uncyclopedia, so we can answer that question. Or try to. ... But... Can you convince Wikipedia that we (this forum) are Uncyclopedia, so that Wikipedia would change their slogan for us? If so that would be very useful to Uncyclopedia. Or as Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothschild might have said:

“Give me control of a nation's Wikipedia and I care not what is the slogan”
~ J F C 23:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

How about we toss names in a hat and I'll pick them totally at random (ok, just did it, and "The Freed Encyclopedia" tied with "The Free-Form Encyclopedia" pulled five times in a row each.) So I guess that's it then. And both of them are easier names to promote to media, because they actually mean something. Aleister 15:25 28-5-14

Did you use the Urim and Thummim? If so Wikipedia might possibly believe you. ... I got no idea how we might go about the next step of concing Wikipedia that we were heaven, and that some other place was hell. Trust me, I have tried to convince people of such things previously and sometimes they just don't listen. Especially Wikipedia... J F C 15:54. May 28

Please let's not bring wikipedia into this. They may have stolen our cat, but I thought we buried the bones of that hatchet back in Noctember. But seriously, let's not. Because things. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:07, 28 May 2014

I have no idea what you are talking about. J F C 22:58. May 28

Trying to go to wikipedia and convince them of something would result in Spike pointing to this forum and accusing us of something horrible, some sort of fight breaking out in which someone gets threatened with a block for making uncyclopedia look bad or claiming to represent it, Spike being dragged to COIN or AN/I for being obnoxious, and ultimately, if we persist long enough and the dispute grows into a big and slimy enough mountain, we'll all end up at arbcom, which will probably mean someone gets banned and/or blocked, or at least depressed. So we shouldn't mess with Wikipedia. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:00, 29 May 2014

If we do not have the bottle to confront wikipedia, and or whoever I suggest we are in no position to be talking about changing the slogan of Uncyclopedia. J F C 00:09. May 29

I suggest that doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia is in no position to determine our slogan. Just forget them. Now can we get on with this and stop taking nonsensical detours? – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:31, 29 May 2014

I suggest I made myself clear at the top of this section. Perhaps you might like to read it again and perhaps comment on what I said. If it is a nonsensical detours, it is nonsensical to you and not me. J F C 00:39. May 29

I suggest we have both made ourselves clear and we will each consider the other to be clear as mud no matter how many words we throw at each other or how pointy they are. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 29 May 2014

I would like to understand your point of view. I don't. Here is some more of mine: What I don't want to do is give hell anything. Especially the possibly of giving hell more traffic because they are perceived by the outside world as somehow being "uncyclopedia" when we are in some way different. In my view if wikipedia say our slogan is "content free encyclopedia", yet we have a different slogan to that then those searching for "content free encyclopedia" will never find us. Which they should. I do not care about wikipedia, but I care about the rest of the world, and wikipedia is perceived by the rest of the world as the yardstick of knowledge on the internet. In my opinion if we are in this forum are not able to convince wikipedia that we are Uncyclopedia then... Well... That would mean we are not Uncyclopedia right? If we are not Uncyclopedia how can we possibly change the slogan of Uncyclopedia? ... As I said, I would like to understand your point of view more. As for throwing pointy words. Nonsense. Jesus loves you. J F C 01:20. May 29

How did Wikipedia get into this? When (I hope) we change our slogan, all we need is one media outlet to print the slogan upon doing a story on us, and then the Wikipedia page can say that the slogan of one site is such and such, and the other is such and such, and I think any number of them are better than "content free" which means nothing (literally). And I'd go with Jesus' "Freer" except it's not read the same as it's pronounced - it doesn't look like it sounds. Aleister 1:37 29-5-14

Ah, cool. I had no idea that was the way to get Wikipedia to jump through hoops like that. Or that you knew how to do those things... :) My worry still remains that many of the other Uncyclopedia sites will still identify (in various ways not just slogon) with "content free encyclopedia", and possibly always will, so that's kinda always going to be hanging around Uncyclopedia, and pointing in a direction other than ours. Well, so long as hell remains intact anyway. Still... As you pointed out Aleister, I voted for your idea! I thought you came up with freer ? Hmm... You are loosing you sneakiness because I can see the love behind your actions. :) J F C 02:17. May 29

(edit conflict) This is what I am saying:

If we go to wikipedia and try to convince them of whatever, Spike will try to interfere. He would probably find a way no matter what, but this forum is very easy for him to point to and say we are collaborating to skew the article and plotting to manufacture sources. If you really want to go ahead with this, be very careful, and I won't help you because I did last time and it ended up at AN/I (actually I don't know where it ended up, because I never looked at the thread after I posted it, but you get the idea).
Wikipedia does not determine who we are. I see no reason why we should consider ourselves one thing or the other purely because Wikipedia says so, and I am particularly wary of subscribing to such an idea because one of Jesus' statements about 'wikipedia' actually references an edit he himself had made.

Do I make myself clear?

Aleister - re. 'content-free', it means more than you seem to realise. It serves three purposes, as I see it. 1) it describes what we are, as we do not have 'content' in the traditional sense, i.e. information, knowledge and such (except in some cases, but that's technically against some rule or other, and information isn't/shouldn't be the point) 2) it parodies wikipedia's slogan 3) it's funny. Does that not make sense? Maybe not. We all seem to see this in somewhat different ways. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 02:20, 29 May 2014

Clear no? To be clear now I would need to know what you mean by "If you really want to go ahead with this, be very careful" I have no idea what you think I might be going ahead with. Really I don't. You are barking up the wrong tree... I have no intention of pursuing anything on wikipedia currently. I am not plotting anything either. Not that kinda Jesus. Jesus... RE Wikipedia does not determine who we are. Yes. I know that. That's why I said "Because we are Uncyclopedia, so we can answer that question" . You are taking things as attacks on you when they are not. Remember, Jesus loves you. J F C 02:59. May 29

If you're not going to do anything on wikipedia, then everything's warm and fuzzy and nobody need worry. I thought my bold sentence described what I was saying quite well, so I don't feel a need to repeat it; but I was not accusing you of anything, only warning that Spike would. As for the latter part of what you said, now I'm confused. I thought you were seriously saying that we couldn't change anything about ourselves unless it was recognised by wikipedia, which is what I was responding to. I guess you're not saying that at all? Bother. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 03:20, 29 May 2014

Is heaven so corrupt that its administrators might accuse Jesus of planning to edit in wikipedia? It is a sin to do such a thing! ... ;) ... We can change whatever we like about ourselves, including our slogan. We are us. My point is that we need to get others outside of Uncyclopedia to recognise that fact. The more people the better. Changing the slogan will have more power and be more useful to Uncyclopedia if we do that. If we just change it and sit here quietly for a month not telling anyone while hell still has the same slogan that everyone else knows, and is still the only slogan mentioned at the top of the wikipedia page then IMO that would not be good our site traffic. If we change our slogan, let's not let that happen. If we change the slogon of Uncyclopedia lets make a lot of noise about it, and tell a lot of people. I would go further to say that if we did change our slogan, and then if after some period of time wikipedia (and various others) had not noticed, then perhaps that would mean that we had not made enough noise about it. Maybe that's a better explanation... J F C 04:13. May 29

That's half of the purpose of it, so that we can easier attract feature writers to finally do some stories about uncy. Content-free, no-content, etc, are all so stupid that no editor of a newspaper or media outlet would want anything to do with us. We do have content, we do have information. I try to make many, maybe the majority, of pages I write informative with things which will educate the reader. The Guidebook to the cloud faces alone has some of the best information on the 1965 Voting Rights Movement on the web (seriously, it does), and my recent Will Harridge page is true for the most part and is actually breaking real news. If we have a slogan which means nothing, and points to literally nothing, then how can we expect to be taken seriously. There is nothing wrong with seeking publicity, and if we have it there is nothing wrong with adding it to the Wikipedia page. I think the best description of uncy is 'The Free-form encyclopedia', it describes us almost perfectly. We have everything here, and content is one of the things we have. Aleister 19:42 26=6=14

So how come 'The Free-form Encyclopedia' isn't even mentioned in the list of stuff to vote on 'way up the page? Write-in candidates almost never win. Snarglefoop (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, but we are not free-form: herein lies the problem. Humans may be free, but an integral part of this is that we are free to constrain others, and if we are to have any kind of purposeful encyclopedia, we must constrain it so that it can accomplish its goal. That is why we have people like me. Humanity is at once free-form and terribly constrained; this is what 'freedom is slavery' means. Granted, there are greater and lesser degrees of what appear to be freedom, but the greatest ones are not to be found here. We do not have room for everything. We have only room for a certain representation of everything, which is as real as it is unreal, as all-encompassing as it is narrow - as educational as it is content-free. Content is in the eye of the beholder. It is neither good nor bad. The whole world is content-free, but we at least have the courage to stand up and say it. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:11, 26 Jun 2014

Yes, for sure, but that still doesn't explain why ~~Aliester~~ ~~Alestier~~ Aleistre's (damn how do you spell his name??) favorite new slogan isn't on the list of potential slogans to vote for. Snarglefoop (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask Leverage. It's 'Aleister'. Oh and small tags are apparently deprecated, or not handled properly by firefox's developer tools or something. Who knows. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 20:22, 26 Jun 2014

Just looked it up to see if my definition was right, and the word is "Freeform" (all one word), not 'free form'. Sometimes I am an idiot, which is when I'm at my best. Alsietre 20:35 26-6-14

section, or sub--sub-section, about why "The Freeform Encyclopedia" might fit like OJ's glove.

Up until a couple hours ago I didn't know I'd been misspelling 'Freeform'. I spelled it, like an idiot learning to tie his shoes, as 'Free form'. Anyway, I'd also never looked up the definition, knowing I was pretty close to the meaning. And check this out:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freeform

Oh man, they might as well have a direct link to uncyclopedia in that definition. But not to the entire Uncylopedian Community. Just to this particular website. This idea can't be taken to the other uncyclopedia, it doesn't fit them. And another look at the comparison, Wikipedia first: "The Free Encyclopedia" and "The Content-Free Encyclopedia" as compared to "The Free Encyclopedia" and "The Freeform Encyclopedia". that sends shivers down my spine. All this time I've been misspelling it, and didn't know what it exactly meant. Like a young slug learning in the world, not knowing where the next learning curve freeforms around like Durante teaming up with Silverman. Aleister 22:00 26-6-14

akshully I think it maybe might fit oj's glove a little more uh ... maybe ... uh ... over in ... uh... illogicopedia than uncyclopedia... just sayin ... ? Snarglefoop (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

If that fits like OJ's glove, he must be trying to wear it on his foot. We all have to learn to tie our shoes, btw. Not everyone is Francisco d'Anconia. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 22:28, 26 Jun 2014

Change of slogan in relation to spoon

If we changed slogan would spoon not need to do so? TheWikiMan026 (talk) 08:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The two sites are separate entities. The forksters brought the old Uncyclopedia articles over with them, but most of the content in the last two years has been completely different. It's not even in the interest of the sites to look the same, etc. Leverage (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If both sites changed their slogans, it would defeat the purpose of changing either. – Llwy-ar-lawr (talk • contribs • logs) 18:42, 30 Jun 2014

Forum:Let's deep-six the phrase 'content-free encyclopedia'

New vote

The content-free encyclopedia

The freer encyclopedia

The fact-free encyclopedia

The Free-love Encyclopedia

The information-free Encyclopedia

The Slogan-free Encyclopedia

Humor sit omne hominis

Vote

New slogan???

Discussion?

compromise?

How about this...

section, or sub--sub-section, about why "The Freeform Encyclopedia" might fit like OJ's glove.

Change of slogan in relation to spoon

Navigation menu

Search