Forum:Mayhaps it's just me, but...
It seems like it's unnecessary to have two articles parodying the exact same thing (especially when the quality varies so drastically between the two). I'm talking, specifically, about the articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica. One seems to be a crumby, insulting — both to ED (not that they're entirely undeserving) and Uncyclopedia — and overall not-entirely-funny mess, while the other is a well-crafted, subtle reference to the subject in question. Now, given, I've only just recently started to become an active, contributing member of Uncyclopedia, and I'm not particularly well acquainted with the way things work around here (I'm trying to learn), so maybe there's a reason why the previous article was kept as opposed to being scrapped and replaced with its better half. It just seems to me that the article "Encyclopedia Dramatica (Website)" only serves to distract from the quality and legitimacy of Uncyclopedia — Uncyclopedia's quality and legitimacy being important to all of us, I know.
To be clear, this isn't so much a proposition that the article be deleted (if that were the case, I reckon I could have simply just thrown it up onto VFD), as it is a way to get an overall sense of where other members of Uncyclopedia stand on issues of "quality dilution". — 02:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, we have quite a few articles that are explained by their title- most of them were made in 2005, featured, and thus can't be deleted. There was a problem with making a funny parody of ED, and having an article where people could just post stupid things in parody of ED- so, we split it in two. Kind of like what we did with George Bush- we split it into one article for left-wingers, one for right-wingers. Since we have a good one and a nonsense one now, I say no harm is done. Saberwolf116 02:32, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- When I look at it in that light, the secondary article suddenly makes much more sense. I suppose there are some things you just have to live with if you want to maintain harmony. — 02:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- When you say we... ? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:26, 20 May 2009
- Of course, I mean the hard working Cabal. Saberwolf116 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Cabal, which continues to not exist, doesn't really care. If neither of them are features, tag both of them with the Merge tag. Later, merge the two. Later still, put one on QVFD, with a note saying that it had been merged with the other one. That's what I would do, if I cared. Which I don't. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Shouldn't the "bad one" go on VFD, not QVFD? Atleast that's what I heard. --Mnb'z 06:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Cabal, which continues to not exist, doesn't really care. If neither of them are features, tag both of them with the Merge tag. Later, merge the two. Later still, put one on QVFD, with a note saying that it had been merged with the other one. That's what I would do, if I cared. Which I don't. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 04:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- Of course, I mean the hard working Cabal. Saberwolf116 04:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)