Forum:Proposal of Changes

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Proposal of Changes
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1909 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

So, I, Denza come to you to bring some ideas that will in all likelyhood, benefit the site in many ways. I won't beat around the bush so here they are:

1.Enable the VisualEditor MediaWiki extension; opt-in by default

  • This will shift the focus off of ML correctness and more to writing humor. Not only that, it removes the need to require learning MWML syntax, and will be easier for the new users to learn/use.

2.Use Social Media/Word of Mouth to spread Uncyclopedia

  • Uncyclopedia has lost some relevancy in the near past, which has lead to less and less new users, less that stay a while, and even less that are good. If one were to look at the User Creation Log, an overwhelming majority of new user accounts are nothing but spambots. To get new users, we need to become visible on the internet. Google turns up UncycloWikia up more than us, and we can't change that with our numbers. By becoming visible on social media, we might get a new influx of users, and more relevancy. We can't just say "Join Uncyclopedia", we need to make sure they join here, not UncycloWikia. When advertising our site, bashing UncycloWikia would be counterproductive, and will give them more pageviews. Simply mentioning our name and url is good enough. Post UnNews articles, or lists of your favorite articles linking here.

3.Change the Default Webchat Client From qwebirc to KiwiIRC

  • Lets be honest here guys, qwebirc is ugly outdated crap, visually unappealing, and overall bad. KiwiIRC has a modern look, and is embeddable. It has features a younger generation might like, such as Inline Media or themes. Since a lot of decisions start on IRC, it is essential to have a majority of the site use it. KiwiIRC is a way to lower the barrier to those new to IRC.

Since typing on a tablet is gay, I'll expand and add to the above on Wednesday. Any ideas, concerns or suggestions? --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 06:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. I don't understand mediawiki and shit so I cant comment.
  2. We already have a facebook and a reddit and possibly a twitter doing exactly that don't we?
  3. I'm fairly sure most people use their own standalone irc client rather than a web-based one. I have no idea what qwebirc is, I use chatzilla - B@NZai k!tten BANZAI! (Meow?)B 08:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I second every point Banzaikitten made. Explode fire.gif Explode fire.gifNeon Green Hammer And Sickle.PNG - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBExplode fire.gifCUNExplode fire.gifVFHExplode fire.gifWhoringExplode fire.gifMore Whoring Explode fire.gifat 03:40, Thursday 11 September 2014 - Neon Green Hammer And Sickle.PNGExplode fire.gif Explode fire.gif

1. I haven't used visualeditor, but it looks great. If it is easy to add to the site, I say go for it. Banzai, here is some info: 2. We have a lot of social media pages, and if we do get new users, I suspect that is one way we attract them. I post things on the UnNews facebook page ( . If people here want to attract users via Facebook, what we can all do is like the pages, like and share articles we find funny, etc. We have about 250 followers on the UnNews page. The average publication only gets seen on about 25 people's feed. If people like and share a story, that number increases exponentially. I am also going to put something up today, inviting users to message us a story - as a way to get them into the idea of writing their own stuff. I think coding is offputting to the average writer. 3. I don't use the chat, but I agree it looks old. Is the change hard work? --Leverage (talk) 09:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

  1. Many Wikipedians didn't like how VisualEditor worked, as far as I know (I might be wrong, of course). But if it really makes editing easier and doesn't give a headache to those using it, then it's a good idea, especially because we're supposed to parody Wikipedia.
  2. I am sometimes reading our Facebook page and haven't seen any mentions of uncyclowikia there so far. Are you referring to references on-site or off-site? But yes, I agree that we should concentrate more on social media. We should think of an image we would like to give of Uncyclopedia and think of ways of promoting that image. For instance, is Uncyclopedia a site to which anyone can contribute to? A site full of clever humour articles? An awesome community, which anyone can join? You know, we can't be everything at the same time, and social media should reflect the profile we establish.
  3. Finally, the IRC. I think that one of the main reasons why activity on this site is getting lower, is that most people encounter IRC top quickly, even before they get to know how Uncyclopedia works. It might be an interesting place to chat, but it doesn't really encourage content-creation in any way, and Uncyclopedia's content is the reason it ever came into being and still survives. However, writing humour articles on IRC is possible (see HowTo:Rob a bank with your penis, for example), can be a very interesting and productive and is an easier way to collaborate with multiple editors (the social aspect), so my proposal would be to encourage article-writing here and off-site. How about having specific hours reserved to group article-writing project? For instance, our banner could read: "Join our group writing session on IRC every Friday from 6 to 8 p.m. (just a random example)". Of course, there should actually be group writing sessions with someone organizing and monitoring them.
What do you think? Anton (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. I'm all for enabling it and such but I'd personally prefer it to be opt-out by default. At least for users maybe, idk. Source ftw.
  2. The only thing close to Uncyc's social media that I'm affiliated with is the Steam group (other admins, let me know if you want access). But I see what you mean with regards to FB, Twitter and so on and I say go for it.
  3. As somebody who uses a client, I could go either way with this. But if it can be done easily then I don't see why not. -- Lost Labyrinth It's Britain bitch! (t)(c)(a) 21:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In response to Denza's original post:
1) Sounds pretty cool but the thing we have is pretty easy too, isn't it? Is it? Isn't it? Wiki-code is pretty easy. But being easier for noobs is really cool too. So if it's actually easier and works good that's cool.
2) Yeah, we pretty much already do a lot of that stuff. Also it's really hard to effect our search results on a whim. Otherwise everybody would just do that.
-RAHB 02:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
fuck kiwi irc — Capitalis quadrata Y.SVG (talk) (contributions) 03:58:51 2014/09/11 UTC


What the general reaction to all this was:

  1. It might be good, but keep it opt in.
  2. Already doing that, but we could do it more.

So, right now people should propose more ideas that might make an improvement to the site. --The Defender of Light >Grand Warlock Danzathel Aetherwing Inventory 22:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Change the front page, better archiving?

I'm aware we can't depart from the wikipedia template, but the front page has always been an unattractive load of shit. Cracked isn't funny, but check the infinite scroll on their front page... ...article after article, just keep scrolling. Tumblr does it, Pintrest does it, Flickr does it, we honestly need a front page that doesn't look like it came from 2006. We suck because we're funny, but the site is too ugly to sell itself. --Nikau (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

i think that by far the most important aspect of our appearance is that we look exactly like wikipedia. not just close, not just "what wikipedia looked like in 2008", but exactly. the essence of parody is believability (which is apparently a word I just made up), so if we change the front page to not look exactly like the front page of wikipedia, then...that would be bad. also, we have 17,000 likes on facebook??? when did that happen? who runs our social media? great job, high fives for everyone. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 03:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I know. However wikipedia thrives as a database, and the vast majority of humor websites extant on the internet are 'front page' based. The Wikipedia front page is absolutely appalling at advertising the quality of articles we have available. 3000 features out there and only like 20 are ever advertised on the main page. --Nikau (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
yes, a very valid point. our front page should definitely display our best content. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I would say what needs to be reformed the most is the "On this day..." section. Most of the entries are not even remotely funny and riddled with red links. If we could create a set of maybe 30 or so that cycle instead of 1 for each day of the year (i.e. The first of every month is the same entry), we could greatly increase their quality and appearance. Also, we use the section as another means of promoting featured articles. Anyone else agree? --Talk to me! Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for. Anton (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
see discussion at Forum:On this day... SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 01:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I found this page --> <-- quite interesting. Theoretically similar formatting may allow more featured articles on the front page without being too obtrusive and breaking the formatting too much. --Nikau (talk) 10:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)