Forum:Old Oscar Wilde page restored
Ever since the Oscar Wilde page was rewritten by Mhaille, the anonymous IP's have been complaining and moaning on Talk:Oscar Wilde. They like the old "kookier" version better, and there may be some Uncyclopedia users that feel the same way. I have taken the liberty to restore the old version here, and I plan to move it as an archive to the top of the talk page. I need to know if moving it is a good idea. Also, having the normal page semi-protected would be wise. -- Kip the Egg 
Talk Works
- Moving it to the talkpage is a horrible idea. -- The Zombiebaron 19:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- My plan is to make Talk:Oscar Wilde/classic. It will be linked to the top of the page. -- Kip the Egg
Talk Works
- I support this idea very much. It seems to me like an extension of Jocke's Containment policy, unless of course I've completely misunderstood the containment policy, which isn't unlikely. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 19:20, Aug 23, 2007
- It's been contained. ~
Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.
23/08/2007 @ 23:04 - Yeah, sounds good. I've been thinking of doing the same for Russian Reversal - I miss the old listy thing in a strange and inexplicable way. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're not the only one. Harumph! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thirded - the original concepts were way better (no offence), they just needed a little TLC, not complete sacking and writing from the ground up. I even know some people (not naming any names) who actually prefer wiki articles written collaboratively over a long time to ones written by a single person and then touched up (sometimes inappropriately) by others. (Also, brackets). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:45, 24 Aug 2007
- Meow! But also, I agree - it's a shame when years of work get suddenly disappeared for whatever reason. I always tell people who are doing rewrites: if there's good stuff in the old page, try and incorporate it into the new if you can. Not that that would necessarily have worked in these cases, I'm just rambling now... -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree completely. In almost every rewrite I've ever done, I've kept large portions of the old text, only deleting the really bad stuff, and just expanded on the concept. That's what I did for Russian Roulette(The board game concept was already there) and I really liked the way it came out. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 16:50, Aug 24, 2007
- I agree completely. In almost every rewrite I've ever done, I've kept large portions of the old text, only deleting the really bad stuff, and just expanded on the concept. That's what I did for Russian Roulette(The board game concept was already there) and I really liked the way it came out. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- Meow! But also, I agree - it's a shame when years of work get suddenly disappeared for whatever reason. I always tell people who are doing rewrites: if there's good stuff in the old page, try and incorporate it into the new if you can. Not that that would necessarily have worked in these cases, I'm just rambling now... -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 08:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thirded - the original concepts were way better (no offence), they just needed a little TLC, not complete sacking and writing from the ground up. I even know some people (not naming any names) who actually prefer wiki articles written collaboratively over a long time to ones written by a single person and then touched up (sometimes inappropriately) by others. (Also, brackets). • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:45, 24 Aug 2007
- You're not the only one. Harumph! Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 00:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's been contained. ~
- Make it The Artist Formerly known as Oscar Wilde Sir Severian
(Sprich mit mir!) 
- How about The longwinded and rambling, totally random and seemingly pointless version of the Oscar Wilde article? -- Sir Mhaille
(talk to me) - I like the New/Classic differentiation. It feels like Coke from the '80s. -Tritefantastic 21:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- How about The longwinded and rambling, totally random and seemingly pointless version of the Oscar Wilde article? -- Sir Mhaille
- I support this idea very much. It seems to me like an extension of Jocke's Containment policy, unless of course I've completely misunderstood the containment policy, which isn't unlikely. P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- My plan is to make Talk:Oscar Wilde/classic. It will be linked to the top of the page. -- Kip the Egg
Who listens to anonymous ips anyways? They're the scum of the universe. -
11:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Just want to make it clear in case I have made Mhaille mad. I find the current version the best version, and was rightfully be the #1 of July. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works
- Mhaille SMASH!!!! Actually I'm not mad at all, well a little crazy maybe? With something as vague as humour you're never going to please everyone. In rewriting this specific article I did incorporate some of the original article into my version (at least some of the funnier stuff), and the vast majority of feedback was more than positive, which no doubt led to the lots and lots of for votes on VFH post PLS. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
- The old page was a mess. The new version is united by its creator's singular vision. He's a cyclops. Nearsighted. Lazy eye, too. True story. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)