Forum:Uncyclopedia Layout != Wikipedia Layout

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Uncyclopedia Layout != Wikipedia Layout

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4984 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

If you go to Wikipedia's Main Page you will notice that it does not look the same as Uncyclopedia's Main Page. This incongruity is the result of Wikipedia's (somewhat) recent update to their page layout. This layout incongruity carries over to all pages on their respective wikis. I believe that it is time for us to update Uncyclopedia's layout and styles to better match the current Wikipedia layout. Discuss. --Sir gwax (talk) 22:07, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

You're so late. --ChiefjusticeDS 22:17, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

That was then and this is now; now, it's too easy to recognize, at a glance, that you are not reading Wikipedia. The great advantage to maintaining the same appearance as Wikipedia is that, if you aren't careful, you might forget which wiki you are reading and take untruth for truth. --Sir gwax (talk) 01:57, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

For. -- The Zombiebaron 22:50, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's new look is ugly, boring, puts me to sleep, and has lost much of its former energy. Someone over there has done a very stupid thing, imnho, and Uncy would be as stupid if we followed the lead of a fucktard. Aleister 2:01 22 9

Honestly, I don't mind wikipedia's new look, myself... parts of it are pretty stupid, but it's not overly ugly. On the other hand, Uncyclopedia is just fine as it is, anyhow. Still recognisable, and it ain't wikipedia's tricky sister anymore... the folks of the last votey whatnot summed it up rather well. ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100922 - 02:40 (UTC)

A wise man once said, "If all you friends jumped off a bridge, would you?" And I replied, "Of course I would because their bodies would be stacked up to about the bridge by the time I jumped!" I'm sure that was going to lead somewhere, but honestly I think Uncyclopedia looks fine the way it is. I mean the new look at Wiki just has something OFF about it, like an Adam's apple on a hooker...--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 02:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

We should follow Wikipedia's lead. We call it: Uncyc beta. In Soviet Russia, Pepsi drinks YOU! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 05:30, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

 For. per parodying wikipedia. I think holding off for a while in case wikipedia decided to change its skin back was a good idea, but the new skin is going to become the "standard" eventually. If we keep the same skin for another 5.5 years, we are going to look dated. --Mn-z 10:45, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that when wikipedia inevitably changes its skin to something so "new" and "chrome" and "shiny" that people's faces begin melting off like in "Raider's of the Lost Arc", we should change to that skin to keep up with the times?--129.21.116.156 16:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be pretty funny. But how would we be able to replicate the look if our faces melt off before we can properly see the site and change our layout? MangaManiac 16:25, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I say we get the new wikipedia skin if we can.--Sycamore (Talk) 19:24, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

After actually trying to use wikipedia for editing, I've changed my mind. The new skin sucks. Have you tried it? Have you? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100922 - 19:43 (UTC)

 Meh. Let's work on this instead.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  24 Sep 2010 ~ 03:17 (UTC)

• EXTERMINATE! Wikipedia looks totally different. Should we go through all the trouble to make our skin look exactly like theirs? Wikipedia has an uglier logo now. Should we make ours uglier too? Wikipedia has been overusing templates for a little while now. Should we mess up all our content just so we can parody Wikipedia? I hope that answers your question. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:42, 24 September 2010

 For.We are a parody of Wikipedia, not a weird looking cheap ripoff like Ilogicopedia. We are clearly better than that, and should show this to the greatest extent we can, for we are. Honestly, I hate the new layout, it takes away from the wiki's personality hugely, and just makes us look like a gaming wikia site. Smuff 19:54, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

If it was a gaming site, it would have a creepy long haired guy playing with dice and leering. I.e. someone who looks possibly Australian! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:35, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

DAMMIT!!!

Their layout changed again apparently. Or not. It apparently just changed back. --Mn-z 20:40, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

They must have an informant on the inside!--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 20:45, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

I know they have a spleen weasel on the inside! (It makes them gassy.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  24 Sep 2010 ~ 23:35 (UTC)

Now they're a parody of us. How derivative. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:18, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

I tried turning off the new stuff there and got a database error. This was around when it changed, apparently... odd. Does that mean it was my fault? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100925 - 00:23 (UTC)

Well let's not jump to any conclusions... but... probably yes.--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 00:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible? Has one of these sites on the bandwagon of changing perfectly fine layouts into bloated messes of unusable bullshit actually backed off of their "progress" train and listened to the users' feedback? Or have they just hit a bug caused by all the stolen code? Eh, I guess I'll wait a bit and find out. -RAHB 00:24, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

They'll destroy themselves soon enough...--Sirrah CatshirE Chess the Striker2117 00:26, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Will they? Or will a cat beat them to it? ~ *shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20100925 - 00:42 (UTC)

It was showing the "Modern" skin instead of its new default "vector". The modern skin is close to ours, but has a stupid blue on gray color scheme. Every time I checked since, its been "vector". --Mn-z 02:47, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Now it's periwinkle. We should check it more often!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  25 Sep 2010 ~ 03:12 (UTC)

Yes

Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia. That is its claim for existence. If we don't look like what we are parodying we look stupid. Having said that, wikipedia's current look is not disimilar to our current look as a standard. However, our mobile look is, not to overstate this, is fucking awful. If we want to survive as a parody medium we need to have a better mobile interface. There is an Uncylopedia app available for iPhone but it is dreadful for those of us who want to edit, and editing this site is somewhat awkward on iPhone as well. Along with that it is difficult to upload images - at least I haven't quite worked out how to do that on iPhone. There is a need for some layout change, and there is always the option of choosing a different skin. Oh, and the ads are getting even more annoying. Nominally Humane! some time Saturday, 14:09, Sep 25 2010 UTC

I would hold off in case they change the skin back: does anyone know if the new "vector" skin is "permanent" or if the community is thinking of going back to monobook and/or adopting a compromise skin? --Mn-z 14:22, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

No idea. And I agree on holding tight for a little while, but not on Uncyclopedia mobile. I'd hate to think that ED has a better mobile view than us. Nominally Humane! some time Saturday, 14:25, Sep 25 2010 UTC