Forum:New Cabal

Forums: Index > Village Dump > New Cabal

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6470 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Cabal has gotten a rewrite. Now when you click the link, it goes to Cabal@home. If you want to see the various "There is no cabal" yadda-yadda, you have to refresh the page, as they have all been placed on the main page with <choose><option>. Personally, I don't like it. I think we should keep the subpages and link Cabal@home on Cabal/Cabal8, but EugeneKay doesn't agree with me, and our bickering towards each other won't solve anything. This is where you come in. – Kip > Talk • Works •• 03:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no new Cabal. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no forum about the new cabal. -RAHB 03:51, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no comments on the forum about the new cabal. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 03:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kip. Also fuck quality. Three word sentence. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 04:05 Oct 23, 2007

After giving it much thought, if you want to change the Cabal@Home link, go ahead. Just make it link to something funny. Having it link to the edit page is asking for trouble, and misses the opportunity for a good joke. I do think, however, that the <choose><option> route is a good way to keep from having to wander into the talk page and then through Cabal/Cabal8 and friends to find the various funny options. As such, I am strongly against removing the <choose> blocks.

Similarly, if you want to add or remove an <option>, just make sure any new ones are funny, and any removed ones really aren't, and you include a new funnier one to replace it. I picked the original cabal page entries to have <option weight="10"> simply because they were what was already there.

    EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   04:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)  

The reason I don't like the new version because I don't like to refresh pages. Most of the time with <choose>, options will repeat themselves before you see them all. Also, with this you don't know how many versions of the page there are. It's pretty annoying, in my opinion. (See Three word article.) With the old version, it continued as a series, so it wasn't a stub. – Kip > Talk • Works •• 05:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Kip - I don't particularly object to refreshing pages, but the Cabal pages are only subtly different from each other, which in my opinion makes them better strung out in a line than chosen at random. By the way Kip, I've been trying to keep Three Word Article so that it reads well in the source for those who don't like choose tags - I've just gone and cleaned it out again since you linked to it, so thanks for that. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the series is that most people won't know to look for the rest of the series through the talk page unless there is a link to it. Perhaps the external link can be used to begin looking through the series, but I think the <choose> works better. As I've said before, if a new article is presented, reviewed, looked over, and voted on to replace Cabal, I will have no problem with it. It's what I did for HowTo:Cut Your Own Head Off With a Chainsaw when I added the sequel.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)     

Strong Concur with Kip. Not in the mood for typing a long winded reason, so here it is in short: Keep the choose/option, kill the joke. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 22:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What Kippy said --AAA! (AAAA) 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm a fan of the old cabal page. If you were smart enough to click those light-blue links, it took you through a series of 8 amusing pages. Although the option tags are ok, the options feel just a little "off" to me, unlike the way the older series of pages sort of flowed, and escalated. That was thing I liked about the page(s). - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 02:55, Oct 26

What Cabal?

The problem with this topic is the discussion of some Cabal. Anybody with half a brain knows that there is no Cabal. So therefore this topic is invalid. --Capercorn FLAME! what? UNATO OWS 17:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the issue is about the page that tells the fools there is no Cabal. Some silly changed it to say there is a Cabal! Not even Uncyclopedia can let such a blatent lie stand! Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

A decision must be made by the Cabal

At this point my rage has cooled way down and I'm almost apathic about the situation. However, the majority seems to agree that the old version was better. Yet we need to make a decision on whether or not we're going to link Cabal@home, and where we're going to do it. Also, I need to know if EugeneKay is mad at me  : ( – Kip > Talk • Works •• 21:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm for dropping Cabal@home, but keep the <choose>. Just find something funny to link to with the external link. Or switch it up on each one. You decide! And why would I be mad? Arguing on the internet is like running in the special olympics...(you know the rest)    EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   12:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)  

Yes, but given that it looks like we've decided to drop the choose tags, what shall we do? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 18:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps only on the first page we can have the best of both worlds. That is, we can have one option as the traditional first page, and the other can be admitting there is a cabal and links to Cabal@home, but with a different style. – Kip > Talk • Works •• 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you forgot there is no cabal. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)