Forum:Oh, iCarly...

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Oh, iCarly...

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4894 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What should we do with this rebellious teenager? The current article is the best version so far, but it's incredibly unpopular with the masses. Should we restore this, or do something else entirely? —Pelozurian (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I say restore it because Hyperbole thinks its funny. Also, the wiki has become more accepting of "random but funny" articles since the article was VFD'd. And, there were some issues with the VFD vote, mainly it was only up for 2 hours 55 minutes. I'm not saying the article would have survived had it be up for a full day or two, but it may have. It had 5 supporters in VFG before it was deleted, and that many keep votes on VFD is generally enough to ensure the survival on an article, in the "modern" era at least. --Mn-z 03:31, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Granted, it was an over-long injoke/preggo infested mess, but it was our over-long injoke/preggo infested mess. But now for the obligatory vote. —Pelozurian (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was about womb newts, not pregnancy. As a point of information, the current version is actually a foot-noted vandal-rant against the original version. There are also a few other versions of the article. Of those existing, there is User:Meganew/iCarly_(Porn) which existed before the current version, ICarly/WIP which is a recently created expanded version of the new article, and User:Mnbvcxz/ICarly, which is a slightly expanded and edited version of the womb-newt version. --Mn-z 04:08, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Votes for (un)deletion

Keep the current article

Score: -3

•  Against. Per Mn-z —Pelozurian (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Against. AniMerrill, a.k.a. Ethan Merrill 23:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)AniMerrill
•  Against. It's a vandal's writing, and we don't care about vandals. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:35, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Stop crying about your article getting deleted. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:29, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Restore the old article

Score: +3

•  For. this seems to be the most sensible choice right now. —Pelozurian (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  For. per womb newts being funny. --Mn-z 04:08, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• That article was voted for deletion as far as I remember. ~ 08:26, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

  Hence the attempt to undelete it. --Mn-z 18:53, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see why this article needs to be undeleted after it has been VFDd - and for a good reason. Shall we create now the UnVFD voting page? The page needs to be rewritten to differentiate itself from the VFDd version. ~ 20:45, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

  The VFD nomination was only up for 2 hours 55 minutes, and it already passed VFG. And even if it would have been deleted, it seems as though the community consensus is changing on the article. If an article can get about a dozen VFH noms, and 3 VFD noms, I don't see why we can't revisit a VFD deletion.

  And with regard to differentiating it from the the deleted version, this version has Oscar Wilde shoe-horned into the article, which should add a net +2 or +3 to its keep total. If that isn't enough, I could always template-ify it and add a few references to Belgium. --Mn-z 04:54, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

  I'd like to remind you that VFG has no "official standing" in Uncyclopedia and is a user ran operation - and thus has no bearing on the issue. I'm not going to restore that version as is, because this will set a precedence of undeleting any piece of crap we ever deleted. You want a new version? Just rewrite the damn thing. I honestly don't understand what's the big fuss about this article, it was never funny nor do I think it has the potential of ever being funny. ~ 04:17, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  The point is that there were at least 5 people who liked the article enough to vote for on VFG, yet only 1 of those was able to vote keep because the nomination was active for only 3 hours. --Mn-z 05:36, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  The other point being there were 5 people voting for the deletion of the article with non, including yourself, voting to keep it. This discussion is moot, we're not changing VFD policies for ICarly so my suggestion is to drop this point and put some effort into rewriting it, putting it for colonization or any other writing group. ~ 05:52, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  The reason I was unable to vote on it was because I was at work at during the 3 hours the article was on VFD I voted on every other VFD nomination on that archive page, except one, which was nommed and deleted in 7 1/2 hours. --Mn-z 14:36, May 20, 2010 (UTC)

•  For. This version, however random, was funny and I think best represents the spirit of Uncyclopedia. The current article is just unacceptable. AniMerrill, a.k.a. Ethan Merrill 23:25, May 17, 2010 (UTC)AniMerrill
•  For. Me and Mnbvcxz worked very hard on it. I personally feel that the VFD was undeserved and biased, seeing as it was there for around 3 hours while most last for 3-4 days. Restore it, or else I'll open a new segment on Uncyclopedia where I vandalize 1 random page each month. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:28, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  And you'll be perma-banned for doing that. Not a good idea... MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:16, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

  Shut up, Dexter. If I have to prove a point by doing it, I will. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 12:19, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

•  Against. The vote was kind of bad, I respect that. But I still like how it is right now, and don't care much for womb newts. Sorry.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 03:02, May 22 2010 UTC
•  Just restore it already. If there's some kind of debate, put it on VFD again, but let the nom go for at least 24 hours. Everyone can argue themselves to death there instead. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:39 May 22, 2010
•  Against.. The article was deleted because it sucked. It always sucked. IronLung 02:14, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Create an UnVFD voting page in Mordillo's userspace and Christen it with the nomination of User:Hyperbole/ICarly

Score: +4

•  For. this seems like the only sane course of action. Also, I like to do all my Christening in Jewish userspaces. pillow talk 23:19, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

•  For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  20 May 2010 ~ 02:16 (UTC)

•  For. baptizing Jews and the like. --Mn-z 04:59, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
•  For. See above. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:32, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
•  For. Because there's a couple articles I'd like to resurrect. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 13:03, 2 June 2010

Something else entirely

Score: +wishful thinking

• Only if someone comes up with a better idea. —Pelozurian (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Weak for - I've actually been trying to come up with something for a while and failing. Maybe I should put my fucking back into it. pillow talk 23:34, May 17, 2010 (UTC)
• Here's an idea - delete and protect from creating. ~ 04:18, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
• 100% agreement with that horrible Israeli bloke - insofar as this kind of subversion of the very mild system of control we have here will lead quickly into vicious (probably quite perverse ED/4chan users at that) cleaks running the place via sub-pages and forums. If if goes on VFD, then it has to be re-written completely, simple as.--Sycamore (Talk) 16:57, May 22, 2010 (UTC)
• Here's a better idea: Heck no! --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 21:36, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
•  For. I'm leaning more toward doing a IC-style rewrite. I think we can do better than the old version. --Mn-z 03:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Put Mordillo's user page on VFD

Score: 2

 Nom and  for. Seems like the best option at this point.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 03:00, May 22 2010 UTC

How about some respect for the people keeping this place going for people such as yourself?--Sycamore (Talk) 16:57, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

You're actually not the first to take my jokes seriously. Why would I really want Mordillo's user page on VFD?--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Saturday, 06:12, May 22 2010 UTC

 for --SadisticWolf 18:12, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

• Ineligible. Sorry guys. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:22, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

 For., mainly for some Uncyclopedia users actually going against the admins for once. --High Gen. Meganew (Stuff I've Done) (Chat With Me) (Get an Award!) FORCES ENLIST MUN 12:21, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not against anyone. The admins are cool and sexy. I mean, I even filmed the second season of Admins Gone Wild.Seriously though, I acuatlly agree with Mordillo here. It was just a joke to lighten everybody up, gosh.--Sir HELPME Talk (more? --> CUN ROTM NOTM Pleb USS Pees SK ) On Sunday, 05:56, May 23 2010 UTC

Continue jumping to conclusions and throwing "slippery slope" arguments around instead of conceding that perhaps this slipped through the cracks, then continue to insist that the system works

 HELL YEAAAAH – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 03:37 May 22, 2010

 HELL YEAAAAH 2: ELECTRIC BOOGALOO —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:12, 23 May 2010

 EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT MY POSITION TO JUDGE ON SUCH A MATTER, I JUST DID, SO TAKE THAT SHIT, SOCIETY. YEAH. --SadisticWolf 11:17, May 23, 2010 (UTC)