Forum:Vote: New UnNews Main Page

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Vote: New UnNews Main Page

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5177 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This forum is for the purposes of voting on whether to implement UnNews:Main Page Beta as the new UnNews Main Page. Where possible, please explain your reasons for voting.

Invariably votes come to an end, so must this one. This forum will be locked at midnight (UTC) tomorrow. Which by my brand new silver watch is about 34 hours from now (5/9/2010 13:00 (UTC)). Vote now, and we can all have smallpox tomorrow morning.

For

Score: 16

1.  For. Fruit of my loins, etc etc. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:12, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
2.  For. Loin of my fruits. Mimics the WikiNews page (is sleek and sexy), is functional and easy (if not easier) to use and update, addresses and fixes several problems that the regular UnNews team pointed out, etc. --EMC ^[TALK] 20:13 Aug 23 2010
3.  Consensus -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 20:17, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
4.  For. Perhaps it's just because of the Pillsbury Doughboy, but I think this is far closer to what actual news sites look like. Not that anybody should be trying to emulate them, but still...--KUN VFH POTM VFP(IMAGES⇔TALK) 20:20, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
5.  Fucking magic So yes, this looks far cleaner and a bit more professional. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:26, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

   Looks fine to me, not that I have strong feelings either way. pillow talk 21:49, August 23, 2010 (UTC) Apparently, there's drama. I don't have a dog in this fight, so I'm staying out. pillow talk 22:54, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

   vote for the third section if that is the case. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 22:57, Aug 23

6.  Forsooth As per the above. Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 02:02 Tuesday, August 24, 2010
7. For. Keeps us up to date with wikinews. We ARE still a Wikipedia parody, right? -- 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 22:57, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
8. As per TFK - Not particularly sincere, Sir ColinAYBCUNVFHWhoringMore Whoring at 22:28, Wednesday 25 August 2010 -
9. As per Colin SIRE FREDDMOOSHA AMUSE ME 01:49, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
10.  For.Looks good. -- Simsilikesims(♀UN) Talk here. 02:46, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
11.  For. I wanted up-to-the-microsecond news, like in Wikinews, with the banner thingy... |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Pinoy CUN|IC Kill | 11:35, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
12.  For. Looks great but for one thing: I wouldn't place the map as the background of the text on the right. Looks messy. Not impossibly so, though. In any case - only a skinflint bastard would vote against. Clearly a lot of work has been done. -- Style  Guide 13:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
13.  For. Yes, its sexy i want have sex with it --++ 21:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

    bullshit 05:50, August 29, 2010 Olipro (Talk | contribs) blocked Teh pwnerator (Talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 1 day ‎ (Whilst I respect your right to vote, it doesn't mean you can vote for the purposes of being a cunt) -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 21:14, Aug 30

    Full Disclosure: I edited his comment to include the block comment - the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth etc etc -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:23, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

    You going to strike out this vote too Olipro? By your reasoning for crossing out the other one this one should be invalidated too.

    Indeed. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:00, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

14.  For. The current page is poorly designed. Remember that we actually want people to use UnNews, not be turned away by how horrible it is. -- Mitch 02:38, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
15.  For! - The current one is abhorrent, while the new one is everything I've ever dreamt. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 11:15, Sep. 5, 2010
16. lolpenis -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 20:03, Sep 5

Against

Score: 9

1.  Against. There has been no problem statement other than, "It's four years since the last reform"; and every time I have tried to identify actual problems and seek solutions--in Forum:UnNews problem statements and in UnNews:Newsroom--Olipro has asserted that the only proper subject for debate is his project and his vote. EMC, don't imply that "the regular UnNews team" has bought in; I don't see them here. The proposed changes supersede months of work done by UnNews regulars; I would not have done my part if I knew there were Alpha Uncyclopedians that could put it aside despite never writing an UnNews. Olipro, it is not all about you. Spıke ¬ 21:29 23-Aug-10

   Btw, not that its in any way relevant, but if you look on my userpage you'll see a list of articles I've written including loads of UnNewses, 5 of which are features. e|m|c has probably done more than that. Please at least get your facts straight before you start throwing around irrelevant attacks. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 11:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

   I didn't imply that at all. Have a look at the problem statements. The article query mechanism, the jumping from text to audio bit and the navigational bar have all been problems which the news team pointed out and which we've adequately addressed with our beta page. The headlines will always have to be manually updated. If the months of work you're referring to are on Gert's WIP changes, there are still numerous problems with it, like the fact that DPL and forum don't work together, and that it's aesthetically horrendous (but that's a matter of opinion). And I can't see what Oli having not written an UnNews has to do with anything. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:55 Aug 23 2010

   Spike, usually you're good at getting valid points across, all this says is wah wah wah, you've stepped on our toes so I'm going to attack you for it - personal grievances are not a valid reason for voting against this, so come on, give me something relevant that I can at least attempt to address -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 05:50, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

   Spike, there's no real valid objections contained in there. We need a reskin because we don't look like wikinews any more, which is who we're meant to be parodying. Gert's reskin doesn't look like that. All the work done by other coders is only relevant if they offer a better alternative, which they don't. While we appreciate all the work you guys do on UnNews, the fact is, your code doesn't work, and can never work, because you're trying to use DPL with Forum, which are entirely separate and incompatible pieces of technology. I'm sorry if you guys feel superseded, but that's not our problem. UnNews is not your baby, what matters is what's good for the site, and what works. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 22:42, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

2. Spike and Zim are the publishers and editors of our newsroom, and I'll go along with what they prefer. Aleister 21:44 24 8

   UnNews belongs to the community, not to Spike and Zim. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 02:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

3.  Against.. I prefer the work Spike and Zim have done, perhaps I am biased but those two writers have actually been the mainstays of providing stories for this page. Is that what we are voting against here in favour of Olipro's ideas?? I was hoping something could be agreed before a vote was considered. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 22:22, August 23, 2010 (UTC)
4.  Looks pretty yellow and therefore has a bit of a sickly appearance. The way this layout handles the rectangular UnFunnies (see the Peanuts comic up as of the time of this post) is also unsatisfactory, as it leaves a good bit of whitespace around. Oh, and no horoscopes. I didn't see the need for the new BBC News layout, and I don't see the need for one here either—UnNews has developed on its own significantly enough that an aping of the Wikinews layout isn't necessarily a good thing. It's more trouble than it's worth. Sir MacMania GUN—[22:41 23 Aug 2010]

   What do you mean by trouble exactly? The way this new layout works is a lot more efficient maintenance-wise than the existing is. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:31, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

   I was talking about any potential problems that might occur as a result of moving pages around, deleting deprecated subpages, and whatnot else. I suppose it's relatively insignificant ... Sir MacMania GUN—[22:47 24 Aug 2010]

   In regards to the UnFunnies, that is an incredibly (but not at all necessary) fix. Just change the images so it fits. Simple as that. You're basically saying "that window is broken because a rock was hurled at it." Simple solution, don't throw a rock at it. Simple solution here, don't make the UnFunnies stretch like that. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:38, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

   This probably works for four-panel and one-panel comics (assuming square panels). Would two-panel and three-panel comics stretch the cell if the panels were vertically arranged? Sir MacMania GUN—[22:47 24 Aug 2010]

   Thinking it over, I don't suppose so. And even though horoscopes aren't on the front page, can't be too hard to access them through the link. Sir MacMania GUN—[22:51 24 Aug 2010]

5.  Against. As an infrequent contributer I gotta say that the change just sort of hurts my eyes. I like the old way because not only do I not like change, I also think the older version has much better organization. I like organization and this newer one is totally lacking. And the older one has a certain neat style to it with the neat little boxes on the top, and the cute easy to find search bar on the top left. This newer one sacrifices all of that in the name of mimicking wikipedia. Well fuck wikipedia, scumbags, all of them. I don't know really what else to say I'm simply making my statement seem longer in order to fit in with the large lengths of the other againsters. -

   kingkitty ~Fuck you~

6.  Against. I'm for having both (or multiple portals really) but when it comes down to it I like this one better. See Aleister's comments for additional info.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  26 Aug 2010 ~ 01:34 (UTC)
7.  Against. My few cents. First, I do not feel any obligation, as I've seen mentioned, to emulate Wikinews or any other News or news parody way of doing anything. While I've played Chief and whatever, I've come to think UnNews has undergone an organic (and frankly, disgusting) process, to become what there is now. To me, the "Un" in UnNews means a lot of things, not just a parody trailing along behind somebody else. Second, I don't like the Sections menu being so bland and buried. I think these sections feature us as a "tremendously significant, busy and vibrant organization". This, of course, is a front during slow periods when contributions are skimpy. Great functionality aside, I find it neither better (more intuitive, cooler, something like that) nor do I find the look and feel of what we've got to be unsightly, as some think. I've had a period of not feeling well lately, so I apologize for any seeming lack of interest on my part the last few weeks. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:18, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

    Against. just to shit on whoever spent so much effort to make the new one. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 04:52, Aug 29 lolpenis -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 19:55, Sep 5

   Can someone strike this vote? It's clearly done only for the sake of dickishness. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 14:40, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Or done to take you less seriously than you take yourself. Dickishness is asserting yourself as the complete authority on everything, including whether we follow Wikinews, that changes should be radical rather than evolutionary, what forum should decide, and now, what is and isn't a legitimate vote. With tag-team rebuttals everywhere and armchair psychology on your opponents. This isn't the work of bettering Uncyclopedia, but of manufacturing a personal victory. Spıke ¬ 14:54 29-Aug-10

   Its not about personal victory SPIKE, its about not allowing a useful change that will be good for Uncyclopedia, and which has just under a 2-1 majority behind it, to be derailed because of your fragile ego. You're the only one who's making this a personal issue. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 15:06, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   That's quite enough. SPIKE, please address other users as you would wish them to address you regardless of how you may feel about them, if you feel you are incapable of this then do not address them and find someone to mediate for you. No more allegations of possible motives, it does nobody any favours, I understand you have devoted a lot of time and effort to UnNews, and I have no objection to you disagreeing with the above, but I do object to you attacking other users, find fault with what is proposed for UnNews if you wish, if you feel another user is wronging you speak to an admin. Ape; you are already on an office rule for your past conduct, so I don't want to see you continuing with this discussion in the same vein, no more allegations that SPIKE is this, that or the other, nor do I wish to see you jumping down the throat of anyone who votes against, people may vote however they like. I hope I am understood, if this behaviour persists both of you can sit this discussion out for a few days. --ChiefjusticePS3 15:20, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   I was amazed to Zana Dark's name on that link! I hadn't realised she had a 'bit of a past' regards misbehavior but this didn't stop her from becoming a very valued member of this community afterwards. It's just a shame Zana has appeared to have gone on a extended break at the moment.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 15:42, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Everywhere I go on this site now, there are ban threats from ChiefjusticeDS. mAttlobster. (hello) 15:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   It's because everyone gets on so well and are so unlikely to fight with each other, I feel I must stir things up somehow. --ChiefjusticePS3 15:51, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Sorry Chief, you're out of line here. Responding to someone's comments with argumentation is not jumping down their throats. Asking someone to back up their claims with concrete examples rather than vague hand-wavey "things will be different" nonsense is not harassment. Responding to someone's hissy fit by pointing out they just had a hissy fit is not harassment. Responding to baseless and paranoid accusations of dickishness by telling the person to stop making it a personal issue is not harassment. (In any case, I presumed that since the forum to discuss rules for admins that we were promised never materialised that we were just ignoring all the stuff in that other forum.) If you are going to ban me for trying to robustly put forward an argument then you might as well make it permanent, because I have no intention of staying in a community which operates like that. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 16:06, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   As I attempted to say, I am not forbidding argument, but rather argument by telling other people they are doing, various things incorrectly. Remember what you see as a "hissy fit" is what someone else sees as a robust argument in favour of something they have worked hard to do. All I'm asking you to do is to argue based on the merits of the new UnNews page, and not to join in any argument that invites rudeness. All I ask is that you speak in a civil manner to other people and try to consider things from SPIKE's point of view, that UnNews is something he has devoted a lot of time and effort to, and consider his feelings in light of this. I don't mean bend to his will, I just mean argue but without saying "you are having a tantrum, that is clearly why you said this" state your case, and if he responds in a way that you feel is unnecessarily offensive tell an admin. I appreciate how you both feel, but the way you were both speaking is not the way any argument should be conducted, I am simply trying to minimise personal attacks and drama, from either one of you. --ChiefjusticePS3 16:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Hissy fit. Paranoid. Right. By the way, Olipro struck out Pawnerator's vote. Spıke ¬ 16:58 29-Aug-10

   If you're interested in the matter, check Pwnerator's talk page. Now what was that about *ahem* paranoia? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 20:40, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Correction: Struck out his vote, banned him for a day, called him "provocative," and gave him instructions on his talk page whether and how to vote when he returns. (Whenever manufacturing political theater, always manage the voting yourself.) And typed the above comment, which reinforces Ape's "paranoia" theme, as though I have misinterpreted some aspect of this. Spıke ¬ 22:23 29-Aug-10

   How to vote? are you serious? You seem to be mixing up "how to vote" with "what it's alright to say" I'm not telling him he can't vote against, and you damn well know it. seriously, give it up. The World + Dog is growing increasingly tired of you using personal attacks to try and oppose this, if you want to stop damaging your credibility, I heartily suggest you focus your efforts on finding fault with the redesign rather than attacking the people who created it or what you think we're supposed to be. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:50, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   On the italics, I wrote the former, I meant the latter, and I accept your correction. But you are neither the repository of my credibility nor the measure of how tired people are getting--nor "The World" nor its spokesman. In fact, it is you guys who tirelessly return to the subject of my credibility, as when you amplify my error, above, and cast it as proof that it is time for me to "give it up." Spıke ¬ 23:02 29-Aug-10

   As the saying goes; "no smoke without fire" if you could bring yourself to drop the attacks and conspiracy theorisation, then maybe, just maybe, questioning of your credibility wouldn't occur. In earnest though, this is simply yet another red herring that's diverting from the issue at hand. My original statement still stands. Now can we please move off of the personal attacks? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:08, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

   I'd like to add to some of this and retract other parts of it: SPIKE, yes, your credibility is not in question, clearly not, so I apologise for that. However, what I am questioning is why this has turned into a baseline back-and-forth offensive war of accusations and attacks... However, I think everyone knows the answer to that and so I would prefer to keep this as simple as possible, so here goes: looking back at all that has (regrettably) occured above, I would like to make it clear to you, SPIKE, that all I wanted to know was what is wrong with the Beta Page? I'm going to leave it there, either you're going to reply with an answer to that question or something that will be more of what we had above. Here's to hoping it's the former rather than the latter - I don't take this personally and I hope you don't either, I have no interest in forming a rivalry with you. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:55, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

8. Against, for no other reason than I perfer the look of the other version. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)
9.  Change is bad and I like the current look more, to boot.     EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank)   21:30, Monday 30 August 2010  

Apparent furor started by Zim's vote

Ok first of all, when was it decided that UnNews is no longer a parody of WikiNews? Surely community consensus is required for such a huge change? Second, the current UnNews main page has quite obviously been cobbled together "organically" over time; that's why it's currently a mish-mash of rainbow-coloured boxes that don't fit together. We're open to suggestions as to how to better use the sections box, but I think the current randomly coloured boxes look unprofessional and just aesthetically ugly. I really don't understand why you guys are being so resistant to this. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 02:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Nothing was decided. It may be true that some of the original founders of UnNews had a wikinews parody specifically in mind. The simple fact is that I have done much of grunt work behind UnNews since 2006, the chores that keep things moving along from day to day. Many people float in and out, contributing some great stuff that helps us keep going, but I've been perhaps the most constant and active UnNews user. I love it. I have a certain amount of emotional investment in it, and I even refer some people to see it. One way I could see this whole argument is an effort by some people who will disrupt any routines I've cultivated, decrease efficiency in keeping articles rotating, paying attention to the daily details. In other words, I'm being told, "You've done what you've done, now it's time for change. There is no guarantee that changes won't just happen, then everybody goes away to leave me and a couple of others to manage. " A few of us have greatly expanded UnNews into sections, over time with slow changes and testing, in order to improve what we have. I think this is pretty good for a disorganized bunch of volunteers like ourselves.

I also take exception to your opinion that, "the current UnNews main page has quite obviously been cobbled together "organically" over time; that's why it's currently a mish-mash of rainbow-coloured boxes that don't fit together." I and others think it's great because, like UnNews is not news, the interface is not slick, cool, or whatever. It's clunky looking by design. It fits in nicely with the adage, "Uncyclopedia is the worst". My point is that it looks the way it does on purpose. When you've written one or more UnNews stories more than 40 days in a row, rotated headlines daily for months on end, done a new comic every day for more than 30 days, done an UnHorosope column every week, managed content, edited articles, done UnNews audios every day for more than 30 days, pandered to and encouraged users to help, made 4 brand new sections from scratch and tried to be laid back about it all, then we can talk. I haven't had much in the way of complaints.

I'm not trying to come off as whiny or complaining. What I am trying to do is to show that the way things are and have been going require a lot of love, and I've been a great lover. Other frequent UnNews contributors seem to feel similarly. This is not unreasoning refusal to change. This is people who do the brunt of the work saying we like things the way they've been going. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 20:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then simply, give us some concrete examples of exactly how this reskin is going to make your life harder, because we've been trying to hammer home the fact that as far as we can see, it will make it much easier -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I did not mean to say the intention of your work is to make my life harder. I know we here have the best of intentions, and want the best for UnNews. Also, apologies if you felt demeaned by my statement about who'd been doing what; you remain a vital UnNews member, as are we all who are here discussing this. I think the biggest hurdle to jump in convincing me for a need of a reskin of this order is that I like the way things look. I'd certainly be happy if things got coded in such a way that one could do things better (whatever that means), but as for presentation, I like it for reasons I've already mentioned. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 21:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I've written tons of UnNews stories, I've done work to clean up the UnNews main page in the past, I've done audios, and I've updated headlines. I've done a lot of what you're talking about too Zim, though not as much as you have, for which your thoughts are taken into heavy consideration. Oli, Ape, and myself, who know how to code and design, also have an emotional investment in UnNews. Oli designed the current UnNews main page in 2006 and wanted to see it develop into something better. So we all got onto a Skype call and worked on this design for an entire night. We all want to see it look better and be more functional. We've implemented things which make doing a lot of the work that's currently done MUCH easier. We've had no legitimate arguments against the functionality of this page. The problem statements which were brought up were addressed or already covered. --EMC ^[TALK] 21:27 Aug 28 2010

I acknowledge your copious writing and efforts on behalf of UnNews and Uncyc overall. I guess I was strenuously trying to make the point that I like things the way they are and feel no compelling reason to change the look and feel significantly, and that I feel my opinion should carry enough weight to merit a strong argument. Please know that I appreciate the huge amount of work done by staff, yourself above many. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 22:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Zim, that looks a hell of a lot like a polite way of saying "I've got my reasons and I shouldn't have to explain them to you", man, please tell me I'm wrong -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:04, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oli... AAAHHHH! sorry, I don't mean anything of the sort. I wonder if a fellow stupid American would have read that into what I said. No, absolutely not. No way. Really, dude, you're like, my Uncyc godfather, man. Cheers! Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 22:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Cool brah, cool, what say we make a little cabal love on IRC and sort this out? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Not just making work easier, bu additionally, automating tasks and hence making them redundant -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:31, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that everything on Uncyclopedia should deliberately look like shit because that's funny to you? Anyway, I notice you still haven't provided anything concrete about how this makes things harder for you. Because we've implemented DPL properly, all the sections and article lists will basically generate themselves, so you no longer have to generate a new category manually every day. What that means is that if you happen to disappear for a day, the system would keep going rather than collapsing. All I see is a more aesthetically pleasing skin, with an underlying system that makes things work more efficiently. I really don't understand your recalcitrance. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 21:35, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Asking me a question beginning with "Are you seriously suggesting..." makes my eyes glaze over. If you can show me where I said, "everything on Uncyclopedia should deliberately look like shit because that's funny to you", I'll gladly retract it. Don't get chesty with me, you mewling little opposum rapist with gap-teeth and 52 extra sets of eyebrows. Still, I read it. I don't know what you're talking about... DPL? So, why can't the existing system be fitted with the new underlying system? If you're in a great rush to do whatever you want to do, I'll be in the ground soon enough. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 23:16, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Again, the "mish-mash of rainbow-coloured boxes" in the Nav Bar, a recurring sticking point, is not random; each is in the color of the section to which it links. The garishness, especially for Oil Spill and Sappy News, is deliberate.

Yes, things were "cobbled together over time." In particular, over the past six months, Zim integrated the Nav Bar into the Front Page and I expanded and renamed other components--gradually and after test and consensus at the UnNews:Newsroom. Then Gert5 returned from some heroic quest and proposed a total reimplementation, one that in retrospect looks listy and for which none of the article indexes ever reach the second page. Then Olipro/EMC/Ape proposed another total reimplementation and a majority vote in a completely different forum (full of people who don't know the history).

The fact that the previous changes were piecemeal and previous progress was uneven is an enormous positive. It is the way a wiki is supposed to work. Spıke ¬ 12:36 29-Aug-10

The way a wiki is "supposed to work" is entirely subjective and down to the people actively involved in shaping it, I fail to see the relevance is of knowing the "history" as you call it; a proposal to change the main page of UnNews is something everyone should be entitled to vote on, whether or not someone is closely involved with UnNews is irrelevant. In *ANY* instance of page design, the people whose opinion you are supposed to take is that of the readers, I can't think of a single website that bases all its design decisions solely on the wishes of the people maintaining it, because if you do, you're essentially desiging it for yourselves and not the audience. This leads me on to another question: Was a public vote ever held on the changes that have currently been imposed upon the existing UnNews Main page; specifically, the Sections header. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 15:45, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

---

Did we ever parody them? huh.

Actually it's new. New & improved & the like.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  28 Aug 2010 ~ 05:20 (UTC)

I Farted

Score: 1

Yum -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 22:31, Aug 23 I lied, I actually took a shit -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 04:51, Aug 29

1. Well, I cannot deny that this is in fact the case. pillow talk 22:58, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

comments

I'd personally feel more comfortable with someone talking it over with Zim. Granted, this needs a wider concensus but did run UnNews, mostly by himself, for the last who knows long. I think as a curtesy it would be the right thing to do (and if I missed that part being done already, just ignore me). ~ Mordillo where is my FUCK? 11:29, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think it's courtesy Mordillo rather than curtsey which suggests to me a woman bending down in a dress before Queen Liz. It now plants in my mind of the users here squeezing into dresses (unless they are women) and knocking in Zim's door for his opinion. However according to wikipedia curtsey and courtesy originally were the same thing and meant entitlement to an estate! So perhaps you are not really wrong anyway. Anwyay in my view Zim ought to have an important say regards UnNews future though I do accept the general community has an important voice too. I hope there is a way of resolving this before it goes RADA in here. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:54, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I shall bring this topic to his attention if he doesn't follow the village dump. At the end of the day, this is just a vote, nothing more, if this is perceived as some sort of threat to someone or something, I would like to know what, and why. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 11:56, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see this vote as a threat. I see it as more of alternative way of presenting an idea to clients - like in an advertising campaign perhaps. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:58, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a threat to the status quo, but when did they last release anything worth listening to? Whilst Zim has done more than others in dealing with a lot of crap surrounding UnNews he has tried to work with as many interested parties as possible to make "the magic" happen. I don't think its unfair to involve the people who have put a lot of work into the running of UnNews and take on their opinions, without the assumption that the suggested changes are perceived as a threat to anything. Should I curtsey now? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

That's exactly what we did; after the page was created, topics were opened in the VD for feedback etc; SPIKE (amongst others) raised some issues and we addressed/dealt with/changed/implemented them, I also showed it to zim via IRC, he said he liked it but hadn't taken a proper look... this was weeks ago incidentally. So, what I'm saying is... it's not as if this was created and we've just bulldozed our way straight into a vote -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:07, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I recall several discussions being opened to discuss this. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:17, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

What is the hurry and why the need to 'bulldoze' anything? Are we up against a deadline?? Let Zim have a look at it. I want to also here the tech questions mentioned in Ape's comments too in this as I have no idea about that side at all. I have my own preference but hope other users get involved with this discussion too. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:14, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, I wasn't saying there was, I was implying the opposite. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 12:19, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. My word blindness. Apologies --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:20, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

The tech issues are with the other reskin currently being worked on. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 22:35, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

If I may draw your attention to the Polish Wikinews page, you'll see something of a ticker at the top. What if we implemented this and/or various pieces of each language's Wikinews into the new UnNews, instead of just copying the English Wikinews? Or, this being Uncyclopedia and not Inciclopedia or Désencyclopédie, are we restricted, in a sense, to simply parody the Wikipedia of our language, with Inciclopedia parodying the Spanish Wikipedia, Désencyclopédie parodying the French Wikipedia, and so on? Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 20:13 Thursday, August 26, 2010

I also don't see the need to ape Wikinews either. If for some reason they changed that page layout radically (or any page), is Uncyclopedia duty bound to always follow suit? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 11:45, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

No. --EMC ^[TALK] 18:25 Aug 28 2010

Olipro - if you want me to mangle Spuke for you, I will. -- Style  Guide 13:21, August 28, 2010 (UTC) No I won't. What I will do is: I will stay the fuck out of the site. Not that anyone cares much. How much more idiocy can you take? -- Style  Guide 13:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

you guys are thick

I was trying to make a valid point with my against reason in the unnews vote page. I don't think anyone is actually voting one way or another just to "shit on" somebody else. Spike had it right when he said "Or done to take you less seriously than you take yourself. Dickishness is asserting yourself as the complete authority on everything, [also, I suck cocks]". Now everyone should and stop taking this fucking shit so seriously. If you guys weren't so emotional about this garbage you would've realized that was the point of my vote. Nobody (except Olipro, that bastard) is trying to shit on anyone else. There are no attempts to murder anyone else's family or friends. Olipro does want to murder your babies. Watch out for him. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 21:07, Aug 30

So the purpose of your vote was to assert that you don't take it seriously, and apparently that's not shitting on anyone or essentially a wind-up... riiiight. If you were of that mindset, your original I farted is perfectly appropriate. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:14, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think Spike, our resident armchair psychologist, had it right when he made polarizing remarks such as: "EMC, don't imply that "the regular UnNews team" has bought in; I don't see them here. The proposed changes supersede months of work done by UnNews regulars; I would not have done my part if I knew there were Alpha Uncyclopedians that could put it aside despite never writing an UnNews. Olipro, it is not all about you." --EMC ^[TALK] 21:23 Aug 30 2010

if he voted for instead of against with those reasons he wouldn't have gotten banned. now i see he got banned again for his statements. conspiracy, anyone – Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.207.23 (talk • contribs)

yeah, TheKillerFroggy is clearly my sockpuppet -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:33, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think his "for" vote is why he got banned. anyone else see a conspiracy going on here? I'm probably next to get silenced – Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.207.23 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments. Yes, the black helicopters will be upon you any moment now... or not. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

as an unregistered user do i get a vote? and how do i sign? I'll copy paste the one you added for me i guess – Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.207.23 (talk • contribs)

No, you don't get a vote... so uh... register an account if you want to vote. you sign by putting ~~~~ at the end of your comment. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:57, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I gave Pwnerator a short ban because I felt the velvet touch of hypocrisy that can only be delivered by a preachy header against the vast conspiracy of dickishness entitled "You guys are thick." -- 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 22:05, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

RFC

Moving the voting above completely aside, I'd like for anyone reading to use this section to post comments with what they think could be changed with the Beta page to make it better.

obviously I am mainly reaching out to those who voted against because they were unhappy with a particular aspect of the design. please use a * (bullet point) so that suggestions are all itemised. and please: be constructive -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:44, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

My technical comments on your reskin are still at Section 1.4 of your user talk page, and I have no new ones. Spıke ¬ 23:50 30-Aug-10

yes, I replied to those, you didn't give any further questions or comments. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 00:23, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Need a new Editor-in-Chief

Zim appears to have blanked his user page, though Froggy has already edited his preferences into the Style Guide (as he is conducting his own vote nearby) and gone in to articles to make them conform.

UnNews is indeed a subsidiary of Uncyclopedia. But Corporate Headquarters, seeing a subsidiary function smoothly, often keeps its hands off. Until the founder's son returns from Business School, decides to impart what he has learned, changing product names and business terms, and confusing and pissing off customers. The above is not to claim we have intimate knowledge of the UnNews readership, only that you don't fix what ain't broke.

A group, acting in concert, rebutting criticisms directed at each other for the sake of appearing impartial, communicating off-site via Skype, and filing each other's changes when one of them is banned for a week, has seen fit to re-skin UnNews, a process I compare to the out-of-towners who come to Rec volleyball to show the locals how it's done, until they leave as a bloc to go to their tournament. As there, the result has been misery for the locals. When I resist, they call it paranoia; when I object to such armchair psychology, I get that term thrown back at me too.

I'll still write UnNewses, when the real news is sufficiently absurd. I took an ownership interest in this subsidiary--writing down the standards we seemed to be using, and editing other articles to bring them up to standards--because, although I am at the opposite end of the humor spectrum from Bat Fuck, Zim's unconditional reinforcement made me want him to succeed. I have no such fondness for the new crop of street fighters. You can re-skin UnNews. You can supplant Zim as leader. You cannot lead a team of creative minds. You are punks. Spıke ¬ 23:24 30-Aug-10

If Zim (or you) is petty enough to leave over this then he obviously should never have been in the job in the first place. Don't let the door hit you on the way out mate. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 23:42, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

As always, Ape with a clever rebuttal. zim

See you around zim. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 01:07, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Rumors of my demise are premature. Rev. Zim_ulator (Talk) I am the dirt under your rollers 02:16, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 02:19, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

How about instead of UnNews we just show them a massive picture of an Elephant being Fried in Butter -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Chill.

OK, now I'm completely done with this argument. One word, it means everything here. Chill. Seriously. All of these insults over a relatively minor vote. Vote against to your heart's content, but enough of the fucking screaming at each other. (This is the first time you guys have seriously pissed me off in months. Just saying.)--HM (T) 01:16, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Against: Reasons and such.

People keep asking for reasons....

1. The yellow banner at the top of my page extends past the edge of my screen (when I'm logged in). (Plus the standard font doesn't work for me in this header.)
     Put the left part of the header into a justified, centered block and italicize "The content-free news source you can right!" or eliminate the exclamation point in place of a period.

   The text in the header should be considered separate, it can be whatever everyone wants it to be. As for it going off your screen, whether you're logged in or not shouldn't affect it, so please tell me what screen resolution you're on. better yet, take a screenshot.

2. I like the way the current page now represents the Latest News as individual (linked) days separated out (and with only a few highlighted articles). The beta has a long list (OMGWTFBBQ LISTS!!!) block which causes my ADD to skip over everything there.
    Against. adding all new articles to this page. (Is ok on front page.)

   OK, this could be changed to split it up into dates, I will make a separate page that does it like this so that they can be compared side by side.

   I'd like to see that. (I like the old format style.)

3. There is excessive whitespace below the article links. The mainpage fits all it's blocks together nicely.

   I'm not sure where you mean, a screenshot with an arrow to the area would help.

   Even in your example the Latest News block has quite a lot of whitespace underneath until you get to the Moscow & UnWikiLeaks section. Suggest moving Write a new UnNews story: above it and maybe UnFunnies below it if they fit.

4. The three column format fails, repeatedly again & again. My browser is narrow... Epic fail. Fail. Failure.

   Uh, just how crappy is your screen res? how does it compare to wikinews?

   OK, you pic shows my that it's not epic fail, just minor fail. With the wiki banner on the side framing the page this effectively makes this a four columned page (even though the wiki column is tuned out by the reader). It's just too cramped for me to be comfortable. I shudder to think what this would look like on older squarish monitors.

   I've never read wikinews so I can't compare. (I suppose I could look at wikinews, but it would be in Monaco.)

5. I  love how the "Write a new UnNews story:" block is at the top of the page. This speaks to our readership in a way other online "news" sources cannot. The encouragement to write for UnNews should be encouraged and be paramount.

   I find it unlikely that anyone with the ability, intelligence and inclination to write an article is going to be assuaged simply because it's not right at the top.

   I've now read some of the other discussion pages and know you feel strongly about this. I feel strongly too. It's an opinion thing I suppose.

   So I edited to put the write an UnNews box up to the top. Someone else can decide what to put in the free box that is now left behind. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 12:48, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

6. The Recent UnNews Audio format (smaller) on the old page looks much better to me.

   That is an issue of font size, I'll get that sorted.

   Cool.

7. No UnMagazine cover on the new format.

   Where would you wanna stick it? Personally I'd be in favour of having the system randomly pick between showing UnFunnies or the UnMagazine on any page view. or we could kill the "About UnNews" part since I doubt anybody gives a toss anyway.

   Have it replace the "About UnNews" but move the AU to another page, I like it, just not on the main page.

   Added in the UnMagazine, I might replace the About thing with Horoscopes if you guys are nice to me. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 13:18, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

   Naw, fuck it. The horoscopes are 1. Too long and 2. All copypasted by hand. -- boorish Ape (graphitise) (Riot Porn) 13:29, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

8. I'm not in love with the color choices of the old format's header block, but the solid weak-yellow "Sections (Archived indexes)" is bland and uninviting.

   Agreed, I think if we get some little thumbnail images to stick beside each section link, that should sex it up sufficiently.

   Yes. However, make the image border-outline the same color as the linked subsection like the old page is now. (There may have to be a discussion on what the sub-sections colors should be if we need to tweak this a bit... this will be a rehash since we've done that before: red for sports, etc. Orange is always a harsh mistress online.)

9. I love all the crap at the bottom of the old page is shown, which it isn't in the new. Makes the old look more like a real publication. (Not that we're not real....) The hidden aspect doesn't work for me.

   you mean you dislike the fact it's collapsed by default? personally I prefer it that way. of course, it could again be changed to maximised by default.

   Yes. However with your design a lot of that is now at the top... not sure if I like it to tell you the truth. I am and have always been a firm believer that the sections directory should be at the top, and the staff box should be on the bottom (or on the inside pages 2 or 3 for print). Uncollapsed by default (I like the idea of being able to collapse it.)

10. I like how the main page has been updated, whereas the beta has not... makes comparisons harder. I'm in strong favor of having the UnNews widgetized so anyone can have their own "skin".

    Easier said than done and I think that in any case, this really isn't feasible since the amount of content someone inserts needs to be proportional to any given page design.

    This is true. Makes wigitizing hard I suppose. I bet there's a way to customize that, but it is beyond me at this point.

11. Like how old page handles archives.

    Well, the "Older News" link on the Beta page could be sexed up to be like it is now.

    Yes.

12. No Horoscope. (I saw the link = meh.)

    Again, where to stick it? we could potentially expand the 6 boxes to become 9 if you want so many sections but I think it's going to become spammy.

    This is the very problem with a 3 column format... the formatting should consist of vertical rectangles instead of boxes... boxes are just too boxy! Custom story lengths, adjustments for different browser types; a nightmare in web formatting. DON'T do 9 boxes whatever you do. The box has to be broken up with images and other tricks to give the illusion of flowing vertical space. This is the very core of the original page that I love so much.

13. Like how: This day in/On this day is formatted on old page, with multiple years similar to Latest News format. (Parallels are good.)

    Again, this could also be changed to look the same, so I'll do that one too.

    Copy.

14. The "About UnNews" section should be a link to another page, not on the main page. It's far to prominent.

    Indeed, so based on what I've said above, what should we replace it with?

    UnMagazine/Horoscope (A link somewhere on the page-- staff box area.)

15. The beta looks like a beta-- unfinished. (As far as I can tell if we rework the old page's header the old page is good to go.)

    I wouldn't say it looks unfinished, it's certainly fully functional.

    Functional yes. But still rough around the edges. With the changes discussed here I think it would go a long way to improve the look, but I fear I'll still like the original (2 column) better.

Meh

1. "UnNews: Your source for up-to-the-minute misinformation." & "The content-free news source you can right!" are both good & should be used. The old slogan has more history and should be given top billing.

   Again, it's just text, not something to associate with the page itself, any fucker can change it.

   True, but variations on: "Your source for up-to-the-minute misinformation" pull up UnNews as the first link on Google.

For

1. I like the Breaking News Icon, (but it should be used sparingly, not all the time).

   That's down to the editors naturally.

   Yep.

2. Like the "Image Credit" concept.

 ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Aug 2010 ~ 02:42 (UTC)

NB: All subitems are by me unless otherwise stated. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:15, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

NB: All sub-subitems are by me unless otherwise stated.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Aug 2010 ~ 04:59 (UTC)

---

Just read this: similar.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Aug 2010 ~ 02:51 (UTC)

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST YOU'RE USING MONACO

This skin is not designed for monaco, none of Uncyclopedia is designed for Monaco, why the jesus fucking christing helling are you using Monaco? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:32, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

PS: here's what it should actually look like on your screen res: Clicky

HOLY FUCKING CHRIST YES!

Yep, apparently Monaco is the default font on my machine. (Sometimes I think it watches me when I sleep too.) I'm sure I'm not the only one. (I think we had a discussion on this way back when the quote template was changed... I've gone through a complete wipe & update since then so maybe IBM sets Monaco for some reason? blah

Looking over your image there, I think pretty much all of my observations stand (except for the header floating off the screen)... I'll look over your responses here in a second and see.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Aug 2010 ~ 04:05 (UTC)

Done.

OK, I'll provide itemised responses once these suggestions have been implemented, for now however, I am going to point out to you that this new layout is designed to take advantage of the screen real-estate that the average computer user has; according to wikipedia 76% of internet users have a higher resolution than you, this layout is optimised for resolutions above yours but nontheless does take yours into consideration and therefore, works on it. Nonetheless, your experience is going to be inferior to what people on better monitors get. Conversely, people on wider resolutions suffer from the 2 column format because it is a poor use of screen real-estate. I have two monitors, one is 1920x1080 and the other is 1680x1050, to me the new layout makes far better use of my screen space than the current one does. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 22:26, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Anything over 640x480 is just excessive. pillow talk 22:31, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Inorite. 32k ought to be enough for anyone -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 23:34, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

i am pooping

as i type this in. That's the best part about a laptop. I feel like this comment has more importance than the endless bickering. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 05:47, Sep 1

I agree. Why are my tax dollars going to this infinite argument rather than any action on the part of anyone? Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 00:22 Sunday, September 5, 2010