Forum:Vote: Replace our Main page
Uncyclopedians,
Hello. Uncyclopedia's mission is to sarcastically parody Wikipedia, and the Wikimedia organization as a whole. As is part of our tradition, and located in numerous Uncyclopedia guides, we employ insightful humor, not stupidity: the best humor is that closest to the truth. Last year, the main page was changed to a style unlike that of Wikipedia, without nearly any community involvement, instead of fixing our front page to mirror theirs. Upon request from editors, I have rebuilt the entire front page in exactly Wikipedia's style, and also fixed previously broken elements involving styling and the VFP functionality. This page can be viewed here. Please compare it to Wikipedia's front page, located here.
I am continuing to work on this and polish up the last bit at the bottom to perfect the duplicity. Based on my work, I have been asked to put this up for vote to replace our current front page with this one, to better parody Wikipedia as is our intention.
Thank you.
The new Main Page
For. This page is our first impression to many visitors, and should act to match en.WP's style and function. Our current page does not, and does not serve to forward our mission. →
L A B O R A T O R I E S 09:24 24 January 2019
Boner. -- Kip the Egg 
Talk Works 09:27, Jan. 24, 2019- For. The current main page's formatting leaves a lot to be desired. It doesn't seem like a lot of thought was put into its organization, leaving each box looking jagged and randomly placed. I suspect this is because it was designed with 4k monitors in mind, and in fact, it's completely broken on a number of older browsers and PC systems. The color design looks nice enough if you have the monitor/browser to support it, but smaller monitors are left with unruly amounts of white space. As always, I'd much rather we stick to parodying Wikipedia. This design addresses all of my issues. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 09:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Strong keep. The current page is vastly better from a technical and visitor standpoint. I don't like the Wikipedia mainpage, which is way out of date and works badly with mobile devices. Kept only because Wikipedia forums are populated with incompetent morons. Plus the proposed mainpage is actually a vastly inferior copy of Wikipedia's, missing several key functions, and Wikipedia's mainpage is designed only to partly display on mobile devices. Arthur (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Against. This is a bad idea. The new front page design reflects the main page of Wikipedia (in fact, it's adapted from a 2016 proposal), but it also represents a new step forward for the site, a sign that we're tidying the place up, that we care about adapting to changing times. For one thing, it incorporates our social media presence through the icons. It's more up to date with current web design standards, using flexbox CSS and opening up whitespace for less eye-strain. And, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but it's been a labor of love. Not just the main page design, which was *ahem* adapted for our purposes, but also the functioning of the main page. It's been hundreds of hours of work, but I've managed to fix up months worth of anniversaries, fix the featured picture template, fix up the unnews and recent articles templates, and devise a featured article scheme that keeps the front page from being filled with DPL no results errors. It's far from perfect, but nothing is. I understand Wikipedia has stayed with their main page mostly because they're a slow, angry bureacratic labryinth that can't agree which shoe to tie first. We're not that, but we parody it. And more than just parody of Wikipedia, we are a platform for all types of comedy writing. I believe our current, newer main page reflects that. Keep Sophia bold! That concludes my TED talk. – roza☭ 10:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain - I'm probably an idiot for doing this, but I'm changing my vote because Roza apparently put a lot of effort and emotional investment into the current main page. On a technical, non-emotional point, my only real gripe with the main page is that I don't like how the featured article has its own entire section at the top while you have to scroll down to get to UnNews. But it's not a deal-breaker for me, so I can continue to tolerate her, I mean, it. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 11:10, Jan. 24, 2019
Strong For I have spoken to Roza many times over the past year about her changes to the Main Page. I have consistently opposed them, and Roza's point of view has been that because she has put a lot of work into the new main page it must be the best current iteration, with no competition. I will never deny that Roza's Main Page was "a labo[u]r of love", as she says, but it was never voted for by the community. Now that we have a clearly superior parody of the en.wp Main Page, I feel there is no other choice. -- The Zombiebaron 11:12, 24 January 2019 (UTC)- Abstain. I dislike the main page for the reasons crossed out above and strongly prefer Aimsplode's design, but not enough to cause someone to have an emotional breakdown over removing it. I'm leaving it up to the rest of the community. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 11:49, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Against. IMHO the current main page is way clearer than the previous one. Alvgjerd (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- Against. I think it looks fine the way it is to be honest. -- MagicBus Can you ride my Magic Bus? 12:59, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment. We can stay as a parody of Wikipedia, but why should we based on the English version (our language being English is not a good enough reason to stick to be a parody of just one of the Wikipedias)? The main page of English Wikipedia is clearly obsolete, and I'd prefer our main page based on Wikipedias abroad, such as the Japanese version or the French version. Being more futuristic than the original will surely make a good parody.--The Pioneer 
13:36, 24 January 2019 (UTC)- Against. I like the current one better, and moreover, I think we need to start get rid of all the Wikipedia templates sometime soon. We are a LOT more than a Wikipedia parody, and that's exactly what the front page is saying. And a huge thank-you to Roza for making it what it is now. Unbelievable. ~ Kakun · talk 15:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'm late to the party, but I gotta say that while I essentially don't care one way or the other what the main page looks like, the old version looks like someone loaded a bunch of words into a shotgun and then fired it at the screen, while the new version has a modicum of elegance. And I'd like to clarify that my opinion is in no way related to or influenced by the fact that Roza has promised me a coupon for $5 off any 12, 16 or 22-ounce Jamba Juice purchased before June 30th, 2019, and a 2012 custom-built gaming PC filled with 6GB of DDR3 RAM, an off-brand Radeon GPU, a CPU with possibly as many as two cores, and 13 kgs of dust. In fact, I turned down that offer, because I will not settle for a rig with anything less than a liquid-cooled RTX 2070. Nvidia is at the top of their game, and any sensible person would take full-resolution real-time raytraced reflections over low-res cubemapped or incorrectly-projected screen space reflections. I'll be seeing fully-realized explosion fireballs that would make Michael Bay's penis weep for joy, and I'll be able to see them perfectly reflected in any surfaces below a roughness cutoff that is less than half that of SSR's. I'll even be able to track my enemies around corners by seeing them in reflective surfaces, and they can rest assured (as I'm 360 no-scoping them) that such a feat would be utterly impossible with SSR. In short, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm fine with the front page, and the next anus-hoovering cunthammer who starts a forum to revert it will get a free ban lasting at least until the heat death of the universe. ~ BB ~ (T)
~ Fri, Jun 1 '79 0:00 (UTC)
- For. Look, I don't hate Roza's main page design. I do however prefer the proposed version of the main page that Aimsplode has put forward, as it does closely resemble the Wikipedia main page, and being a satirical parody of Wikipedia tends to be what people first hear what Uncyclopedia is. First impressions count and the main page should serve to fulfil that purpose. I would like to add though that we can still work towards being a good platform for various different types of comedy writing, and in many ways we already achieve this, just don't forget where our roots lie. -- Lost Labyrinth
• (t) • (c) • (a) 20:42, 24 January 2019 (UTC) - I don't really have an opinion, but last I looked the proposed version looked different from enwp's. It should be exact, right? Anyway, what we really need to be doing is coming up with a new layout for enwp and proposing that to them and getting them to adopt that. That would be the best. -— Lyrithya ༆ 23:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
For. This page is our first impression to many visitors, and should act to match en.WP's style and function. Our current page does not, and does not serve to forward our mission. →
Strong keep. The current page is vastly better from a technical and visitor standpoint. I don't like the Wikipedia mainpage, which is way out of date and works badly with mobile devices. Kept only because Wikipedia forums are populated with incompetent morons. Plus the proposed mainpage is actually a vastly inferior copy of Wikipedia's, missing several key functions, and Wikipedia's mainpage is designed only to partly display on mobile devices. 
Against. This is a bad idea. The new front page design reflects the main page of Wikipedia (in fact, it's adapted from a 2016 proposal), but it also represents a new step forward for the site, a sign that we're tidying the place up, that we care about adapting to changing times. For one thing, it incorporates our social media presence through the icons. It's more up to date with current web design standards, using flexbox CSS and opening up whitespace for less eye-strain. And, I don't want to toot my own horn here, but it's been a labor of love. Not just the main page design, which was *ahem* adapted for our purposes, but also the functioning of the main page. It's been hundreds of hours of work, but I've managed to fix up months worth of anniversaries, fix the featured picture template, fix up the unnews and recent articles templates, and devise a featured article scheme that keeps the front page from being filled with DPL no results errors. It's far from perfect, but nothing is. I understand Wikipedia has stayed with their main page mostly because they're a slow, angry bureacratic labryinth that can't agree which shoe to tie first. We're not that, but we parody it. And more than just parody of Wikipedia, we are a platform for all types of comedy writing. I believe our current, newer main page reflects that. Keep Sophia bold! That concludes my TED talk. – 
Abstain - I'm probably an idiot for doing this, but I'm changing my vote because Roza apparently put a lot of effort and emotional investment into the current main page. On a technical, non-emotional point, my only real gripe with the main page is that I don't like how the featured article has its own entire section at the top while you have to scroll down to get to UnNews. But it's not a deal-breaker for me, so I can continue to tolerate her, I mean, it. 
Strong For I have spoken to Roza many times over the past year about her changes to the Main Page. I have consistently opposed them, and Roza's point of view has been that because she has put a lot of work into the new main page it must be the best current iteration, with no competition. I will never deny that Roza's Main Page was "a labo[u]r of love", as she says, but it was never voted for by the community. Now that we have a clearly superior parody of the en.wp Main Page, I feel there is no other choice. -- 
Comment. We can stay as a parody of Wikipedia, but why should we based on the English version (our language being English is not a good enough reason to stick to be a parody of just one of the Wikipedias)? The main page of English Wikipedia is clearly obsolete, and I'd prefer our main page based on Wikipedias abroad, such as 
- For. I highly appreciate the effort put forth by Roza for the current design, however I'd have to vote against. The main reason for this is that Uncyclopedia at its core is a parody of Wikipedia, and it should initially appear to a new user on landing on the site that they've come to Wikipedia. Whether Rozas page is of superior quality or not isn't relevant, the main thing is I believe Uncyclopedia should look similar to Wikipedia even if it turns out to be a slightly inferior design. Secondly, speaking even independently of being a duplicate of Wikipedia, I think Aimsplode's version makes more efficient use of space by making the Featured Article a column instead of full width, and also reducing whitespaces in various places. I also feel it is neater due to having all columns the same width. On a smaller and trivially fixable note, I feel the font used in the headers and the fact that it is bold makes them easier to read in Aimsplode's version. Inhooman (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
For I like the look of Aimsplode's more. The current one having the feature up above and UnNews, what has long been the most active part of our site below makes little sense. The In The News/Did You Know Split is right down the middle of my screen, but the On This Day/Be a Writer split below it is off, and it doesn't look as nice. That being said, I do like the idea of showing our features from years ago if that is possible, and I'll bold this next point for emphasis, We absolutely should have the "Stay Connected" area on the Front page. It needs to be somewhere, and it should be noticeable. Also, Roza's "Welcome to Uncyclopedia" Banner looks about 1000x as nice as the other one. I understand the Wikipedia style, but it would be a shame to lose the banner. The Woodburninator 
Minimal Effort ™ 00:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)- Against
anything Aimsplode ever says. If y'all want to start a new forum about this then whatever but I hope I don't need to remind everyone here that Aimsplode is the guy who was 1) a nazi and 2) sexually harassed every single female user in IRC private chat. Fuck Aimsplode with a fucking cactus dildo.Addendum: I've spoken to Aimsplode and now apparently he's not a total piece of shit and he's apologized for his bullshit. I hope we can welcome him back into our community with open arms now. So forget about all of that but I still agree with the latter part of my comment which is here: Also I guess I'll say here that we haven't been a parody of Wikipedia in a long time. We're just a general purpose comedy site. We've got several namespaces that don't correlate to Wikipedia, we've had first-person and second-person articles getting featured for as long as I've been here. We are our own site at this point and the Wikipedia gag died ages ago. Let it go, guys. -User:FajitaTaylor/sig4 04:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)- Hey Fajita, glad you could make it to the vote. I would like to respectfully disagree with you though. None of the points you mention (namespaces, first/second-person writing) make us less of a Wikipedia parody, and in my view actually make us more of a Wikipedia parody. Being a "general purpose comedy site" is extremely bland, and this way of thinking has left us rudderless for several years now. We should be committing ourselves to a common purpose, and while being generally funny should be a part of that, parodying Wikipedia is where our roots have always been. To me, the funniest stories about Uncyclopedia are always the ones where somebody didn't realize until they got halfway through reading a page that they weren't reading Wikipedia, and I think we should be trying our best to keep that tradition alive. -- The Zombiebaron 12:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that many, if not most, of Uncyclopedia's best work has eschewed the standard encyclopedic format. It's a good baseline to draw satirical humor from, but to limit ourselves to just that is tantamount to censorship. – roza☭ 14:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Roza, thank you for joining this discussion. You seem to be misunderstanding me, so I'll try to explain myself again. I've always held strong anticensorship views, and choosing one joke over another joke is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of comedic opinion. Your Main Page isn't a joke, or if it is I can't find any humour in it, whereas a parody of the Wikipedia main page is inherently funny. Nobody is censoring you and you are free to post your Main Page anywhere in your userspace, but our Main Page should be the funniest possible. I'd like to add that ever since you unilaterally added your Main Page it has been broken on my PC, and you've repeatedly dismissed my bug reports. -- The Zombiebaron 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Zombiebaron for the quick response. I would like to first say that the main page should feature humorous content, but it isn't necessarily a skit onto itself, with a few historical exceptions, and second, I have addressed and fixed numerous issues that users have brought up, with the main page and with the site in general, and am more than glad to help you with yours. My main concern is with your statement that being a "general purpose comedy site" would be extremely bland. I feel quite the opposite. I feel that Uncyclopedia contains an incredibly diverse collection of works of different formats, genres and even mediums, and that celebrating our eclectic content would be the opposite of bland. We shouldn't merely tolerate difference, but celebrate it. Variety is the spice of life after all. Again, thanks for the response. – roza☭ 14:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I don't deny that we are a far more diverse wiki project than Wikipedia, but to me that is part of what makes us such a well executed parody of them. I'm not sure what you mean by "skit", but I don't understand what is controversial about the notion that our Main Page design should be the funniest possible, whatever that may be. You claim to be willing to help resolve my issues, and yet every time I brought them up over the last year you have been extremely dismissive, what has changed? -- The Zombiebaron 15:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks Zombiebaron for the quick response. I would like to first say that the main page should feature humorous content, but it isn't necessarily a skit onto itself, with a few historical exceptions, and second, I have addressed and fixed numerous issues that users have brought up, with the main page and with the site in general, and am more than glad to help you with yours. My main concern is with your statement that being a "general purpose comedy site" would be extremely bland. I feel quite the opposite. I feel that Uncyclopedia contains an incredibly diverse collection of works of different formats, genres and even mediums, and that celebrating our eclectic content would be the opposite of bland. We shouldn't merely tolerate difference, but celebrate it. Variety is the spice of life after all. Again, thanks for the response. – roza☭ 14:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hello Roza, thank you for joining this discussion. You seem to be misunderstanding me, so I'll try to explain myself again. I've always held strong anticensorship views, and choosing one joke over another joke is not a matter of censorship, it is a matter of comedic opinion. Your Main Page isn't a joke, or if it is I can't find any humour in it, whereas a parody of the Wikipedia main page is inherently funny. Nobody is censoring you and you are free to post your Main Page anywhere in your userspace, but our Main Page should be the funniest possible. I'd like to add that ever since you unilaterally added your Main Page it has been broken on my PC, and you've repeatedly dismissed my bug reports. -- The Zombiebaron 14:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to add that many, if not most, of Uncyclopedia's best work has eschewed the standard encyclopedic format. It's a good baseline to draw satirical humor from, but to limit ourselves to just that is tantamount to censorship. – roza☭ 14:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hey Fajita, glad you could make it to the vote. I would like to respectfully disagree with you though. None of the points you mention (namespaces, first/second-person writing) make us less of a Wikipedia parody, and in my view actually make us more of a Wikipedia parody. Being a "general purpose comedy site" is extremely bland, and this way of thinking has left us rudderless for several years now. We should be committing ourselves to a common purpose, and while being generally funny should be a part of that, parodying Wikipedia is where our roots have always been. To me, the funniest stories about Uncyclopedia are always the ones where somebody didn't realize until they got halfway through reading a page that they weren't reading Wikipedia, and I think we should be trying our best to keep that tradition alive. -- The Zombiebaron 12:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Comment. The proposed new mainpage doesn't look anything like the Wikipedia mainpage if you compare them in mobile view. Since 42% of our readers are on mobile, this means it doesn't do too well at being a parody of the Wikipedia mainpage. Also, the proposal is broken af on all mobile devices tested so far with sizing problems, broken padding, and squeezed content, even on landscape mode. Arthur (talk) 15:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Arthur. I am currently working on fixing the mobile page view, and it should be done by the end of today. For reference, Wikipedia redirects all mobile users to its mobile-only homepage, something we are working on correcting as Uncyclopedia also maintains support for this feature. Thank you! →L A B O R A T O R I E S 15:59 25 January 2019
- Hi Arthur. I am currently working on fixing the mobile page view, and it should be done by the end of today. For reference, Wikipedia redirects all mobile users to its mobile-only homepage, something we are working on correcting as Uncyclopedia also maintains support for this feature. Thank you! →
- It's been brought to my attention that Roza didn't actually put a lot of effort into her layout but actually just copy-pasted Wikipedia's 2016 redesign and made very minor alterations. I won't change my abstain vote, but I will leave this here:
For I like the look of Aimsplode's more. The current one having the feature up above and UnNews, what has long been the most active part of our site below makes little sense. The In The News/Did You Know Split is right down the middle of my screen, but the On This Day/Be a Writer split below it is off, and it doesn't look as nice. That being said, I do like the idea of showing our features from years ago if that is possible, and I'll bold this next point for emphasis, We absolutely should have the "Stay Connected" area on the Front page. It needs to be somewhere, and it should be noticeable. Also, Roza's "Welcome to Uncyclopedia" Banner looks about 1000x as nice as the other one. I understand the Wikipedia style, but it would be a shame to lose the banner. 
-- Kip the Egg 
Talk Works 16:03, Jan. 25, 2019
- Yes I've been very open about this. I've never claimed to have built this myself. You might be interested in this mockup of the main page I made, which keeps the panel design but has the same structure. – roza☭ 16:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- For. --EMC [TALK] 21:08 Jan 25 2019
The new new Main Page
The compromise solution. Guaranteed to make everyone happy. lol – roza☭ 22:11, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- For. Likey likey. Arthur (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- For. I don't know whether I should vote here if I already voted against "reverting"? But uhhh... yeah this looks like Wikipedia, only it actually flows when screen resolution goes below a certain width (which is more than I can say for Aimsplode's proposal at the moment) and keeps the nice gradients. Once again, I don't really care what the front page looks like. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Jan 25 '19 22:29 (UTC)
- For. Can we vote on different proposals? Or is it a one-to-one thing? I'll go back and strike out my old vote if its that important. – roza☭ 22:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Against. Same. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Against. Still looks bad, still doesn't look like Wikipedia, still breaks on mobile. Ticks zero of the boxes. →L A B O R A T O R I E S 22:38 25 January 2019
- Confused Against This doesn't really seem like a "compromise", as it disregards most of the feedback I have seen in this discussion. For example, there was a large consensus on discord that the Social Media section should be removed, and yet as part of your "compromise" you left it in. -- The Zombiebaron 22:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- For - Fuck it. -- Kip the Egg Talk Works 00:21, Jan. 26, 2019
- Against. - It looks the same as all the other main pages here. -- MagicBus Can you ride my Magic Bus? 01:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- For - With "hide" option added to the social media & whatever. ~ Kakun · talk 04:57, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Aimsplode's proposal and mobile devices
Some users at our Discord server have shared pictures of Aimsplode's proposed design on their mobile devices. Mobile traffic makes up about 45%, nearly half, of all visitors on the site.
Exhibit 1
As you can see, a lot of the site elements are unnaturally smushed at the side, and some of the text might even overflow although I have not confirmed this myself.
Exhibit 2: Electric Boogaloo
Along with the smushing, the headers are also strangely padded, and body text seems to run off to the side, dangerously close to the edge.
Exhibit 3: The Reckoning
This may just be personal preference, but the columns are incredibly narrow, cutting off any long words and forcing users to squint like that Ken Jeong gif.
Exhibit 3: The Murphy Brown Reboot
When one admin (hopefully as a joke lol) said that mobile device users should just "turn the phone on its side", another user offered this screenshot, which looks better than before, albeit with the same strange header padding issues.
I understand if this is an issue of personal preference or nostalgia, or some philosophical argument about the purpose of Uncyclopedia (as per the friendly discussion with ZB above), but as of now, Aimsplode's current proposal is fundamentally broken for 45% of all our site's readers. Not that it looked great on desktop either but you didn't hear that from me 👀.
Comments? Concerns? Hopes and dreams?
This concludes my TED talk. Also sorry for making you look at R. Kelly. – roza☭ 16:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi Roza. This concern was brought up by Arthur already, and is already being repaired. Please see my reply north of this location. Thank you! →L A B O R A T O R I E S 16:08 25 January 2019
- That's good, but maybe fix your proposal before it is proposed. Someone brought up an issue with the current main page (something affecting 4k monitors), and when I fixed it, Zombiebaron reverted the edit as he said it "muddled the issue" due to the current vote. I suggest you keep your proposal as it is, in line with this precedent. Thanks for your time! – roza☭ 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally the current main page would've gone through the same process of being reviewed by the community to ensure it didn't present any issues for, say, an administrator before implementing it without community support. As for the supposed issue you're referencing, I was previously told by you that it was a "design choice" rather than a bug, and that we'd just have to get used to it. That's not really comparable. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- I did a search of "get used to" on Discord and didn't find anything like you've described. Maybe it's on IRC somewhere. If I did ever say anything of the likes of "ignore the bugs, get used to it!" then I apologize for not being receptive to your concerns, and of the community's. But my point still stands. If Aimsplode suddenly does come out with a brand spanking new version of his proposal, that would muddle the vote, same as if I addressed a user concern and made the current main page better for them. Anyway, it's fair to say we've both taken things a little too seriously, and personally. I hope we can be more civilized on the Wiki. – roza☭ 16:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Hi again Roza, as I mentioned explicitly in my opening message, I am actively working with the community on the proposed revision, as this is an ongoing vote. Meanwhile, you did not consult the community when implementing the current main page, which you have consistently claimed you slaved over (when in reality it is a rejected 2016 proposal from Wikipedia), nor did you consult the community when changing Uncyclopedia's logo, or when changing the organization of our Discord channel. If your standards are to be observed, your main page as it is now would not exist. I look forward to hearing your continued concerns. →L A B O R A T O R I E S 16:22 25 January 2019
- Hello again Aimsplode. As I've stated above, I never claimed to have created the design by my self, the attribution for the current main page design is on the source. When I said I've worked hundreds of hours on the site, it's in reference to the numerous templates that are used on the Main Page, like the Uncyclopedia:Anniversaries. As per the logo, I conducted an (admittedly informal) IRC poll/discussion of whether to implement the new logo, and when Zombiebaron felt this was insufficient, he helpfully created this forum page to vote for the logo. The vote closed with us deciding to keep the current logo for now, and maybe implement a newer version in the future with more community input. As per the Discord channel, that has been resolved. Cus I literally can't edit channels anymore. What else you want. Anyway, I hope this vote concludes with something similar. As a newer admin it's always fun to see returning users, and I hope next time your contributions are more constructive rather than reductive. Thanks again. – roza☭ 16:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, very few instances of you telling people to "get used to" the design remain on Discord, as you deleted the channel these were posted in last year, along with your old Discord account and I suspect many other individual posts in other channels. You seem to be confused why your op privileges were removed on Discord, and this might be a good indication why. As this was not an isolated incident, I'm sure other users are willing to confirm the veracity of this. We were told many times over the course of a year to "get used to the main page" because you labored over it for countless hours and felt a personal attachment to it, despite a number of technical issues that continue to plague it. I have managed to find a few instances from IRC logs that support this, but please keep in mind there were many more on Discord before you purged them, and the few that remain are both incomplete and posted by "Deleted User". Here are the IRC logs in question. While not directly related to this vote, your sudden willingness to compromise and cater to the community is surprising to many of us on Discord, as we were explicitly told your iteration was an all-or-nothing deal because of your emotional attachments to it.
Simply put, the community has been repeatedly told for the last year to get used to your broken main page design simply because you spent countless hours developing it, and a number of people are voting under this false pretense. These templates you spent a lot of time working on have nothing to do with this proposal, and I have no idea why you keep bringing them up. This narrative that you've always been honest about stealing it from a failed Wikipedia proposal is horseshit, and most active members of the wiki have spent enough time on IRC and Discord to know this isn't the case. You've spent the last several days bullying, harassing, and personally attacking users who disagree with you and threatening self-harm over this, and now you're trying pretend that you've always been rational and open to collaboration.
For the community, I ask why are we even holding this vote right now? Everything about this is premature. The original main page design from 2016 (along with this new proposal) historically worked as intended. There are issues with the text being squished on mobile, but the content is still readable. Especially in landscape mode, as is the case with the vast majority of websites. It's not pretty for mobile readers, but it works. The current iteration was never voted on and never given the proper time to be tested, and the community was never consulted about any of this. It remains broken for many users, including one of the wiki's administrators. This is extremely unacceptable on every level.
If Roza wants to take the time to fix the issues with her version of the main page, we should let her take the time to fix these issues and address the community's concerns, since she's suddenly now open to collaborating with other users, and then we can worry about voting. Meanwhile, Aimsplode can continue working on the improved mobile version of the main page, which will also be tested and voted on. If others want to create their own versions of the main page, let them. This is what should have been done from the start. In the meantime, I strongly believe the main page should just be reverted to the 2016 copy and tweaked as necessary to fix any bugs that have popped up since then. Regardless of how you feel about us parodying Wikipedia, or the supposed sleekness of the current design, these are topics for another time, and to vote for either right now would be extremely premature. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 18:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)- For users in agreement with Geeky, please keep in mind that my proposal is an improved (see: fixed) version of the 2016 copy he mentions and it is still being improved further to address mobile viewers. We are Uncyclopedia, famed for satirically parodying the English-language Wikipedia; our derivatives in other languages can parody the Wikis in their language. My proposal is an almost-perfect copy of the en.WP page, with the addition of our social media links at the bottom, and without some features that Uncyclopedia does not maintain (such as the "featured lists" area). We should not have a rejected en.WP proposal from several years ago as our home screen, and we should not make these determinations based on any threats or extortion, as is currently the case, nor should we be endorsing the mockery being made out of self harm, although that is a topic for another time. →L A B O R A T O R I E S 18:44 25 January 2019
- For users in agreement with Geeky, please keep in mind that my proposal is an improved (see: fixed) version of the 2016 copy he mentions and it is still being improved further to address mobile viewers. We are Uncyclopedia, famed for satirically parodying the English-language Wikipedia; our derivatives in other languages can parody the Wikis in their language. My proposal is an almost-perfect copy of the en.WP page, with the addition of our social media links at the bottom, and without some features that Uncyclopedia does not maintain (such as the "featured lists" area). We should not have a rejected en.WP proposal from several years ago as our home screen, and we should not make these determinations based on any threats or extortion, as is currently the case, nor should we be endorsing the mockery being made out of self harm, although that is a topic for another time. →
- Unfortunately, very few instances of you telling people to "get used to" the design remain on Discord, as you deleted the channel these were posted in last year, along with your old Discord account and I suspect many other individual posts in other channels. You seem to be confused why your op privileges were removed on Discord, and this might be a good indication why. As this was not an isolated incident, I'm sure other users are willing to confirm the veracity of this. We were told many times over the course of a year to "get used to the main page" because you labored over it for countless hours and felt a personal attachment to it, despite a number of technical issues that continue to plague it. I have managed to find a few instances from IRC logs that support this, but please keep in mind there were many more on Discord before you purged them, and the few that remain are both incomplete and posted by "Deleted User". Here are the IRC logs in question. While not directly related to this vote, your sudden willingness to compromise and cater to the community is surprising to many of us on Discord, as we were explicitly told your iteration was an all-or-nothing deal because of your emotional attachments to it.
- Hello again Aimsplode. As I've stated above, I never claimed to have created the design by my self, the attribution for the current main page design is on the source. When I said I've worked hundreds of hours on the site, it's in reference to the numerous templates that are used on the Main Page, like the Uncyclopedia:Anniversaries. As per the logo, I conducted an (admittedly informal) IRC poll/discussion of whether to implement the new logo, and when Zombiebaron felt this was insufficient, he helpfully created this forum page to vote for the logo. The vote closed with us deciding to keep the current logo for now, and maybe implement a newer version in the future with more community input. As per the Discord channel, that has been resolved. Cus I literally can't edit channels anymore. What else you want. Anyway, I hope this vote concludes with something similar. As a newer admin it's always fun to see returning users, and I hope next time your contributions are more constructive rather than reductive. Thanks again. – roza☭ 16:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ideally the current main page would've gone through the same process of being reviewed by the community to ensure it didn't present any issues for, say, an administrator before implementing it without community support. As for the supposed issue you're referencing, I was previously told by you that it was a "design choice" rather than a bug, and that we'd just have to get used to it. That's not really comparable. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 16:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- That's good, but maybe fix your proposal before it is proposed. Someone brought up an issue with the current main page (something affecting 4k monitors), and when I fixed it, Zombiebaron reverted the edit as he said it "muddled the issue" due to the current vote. I suggest you keep your proposal as it is, in line with this precedent. Thanks for your time! – roza☭ 16:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Supergeeky1
That's a lot of response to cover. I know you're a fan of the Gish Gallop but jeez. Anyway, let's get on it.
You've spent the last several days bullying, harassing, and personally attacking users who disagree with you and threatening self-harm over this, and now you're trying pretend that you've always been rational and open to collaboration
Okay, so this is a lie. The only user I "personally attacked" was Supergeeky1, it was a private DM on Discord that I sent him yesterday I think, which he offered to share on the server after I'd argued that Aimsplode's proposal (an almost exact copy of an old iteration of the Main Page) was fundamentally broken for nearly half of user's devices. It follows an old pattern of SG turning arguments about the site into discussions of my personal mental state. As for bullying and harassing and personally attacking other users, perhaps you'd have a better case if this entire forum hadn't been started by Aimsplode, a user notorious for stalking and harassing female IRC users. I'm sure he's reformed since then, but I can't say the same thing about SG and the same playbook he uses when he wants to argue with other users.
It's incredibly annoying to be treated like some histrionic harpy everytime I have a disagreement with SG1. To say I've threatened to "self harm" is another way he can shift the focus of this argument from boring old facts to scandalous details of admins personal lives. Yes I "threatened" to drink myself into a stupor, not exactly me dangling from a cliff. Perhaps he's confusing me with Llwy-ar-lawr, another user he may have harassed and bullied out of the site.
The current iteration was never voted on and never given the proper time to be tested, and the community was never consulted about any of this. It remains broken for many users, including one of the wiki's administrators. This is extremely unacceptable on every level.
I will say that SG does have a point about the community not being completely informed of the change. The changes were done over IRC, with the the knowledge and acknowledgement of several admins, but clearly this wasn't enough transparency. Maybe to have avoided this drama, I should've started a forum page, not unlike this one, to vote on the changes made to the site.
Now for the idea that Aimsplode's proposal is the steady sturdy workforce original that's bug free and works for everyone, and the current main page is a Lamborghini made out of cardboard, I don't know where to begin. I'll be more than glad to help that admin with their issues with the main page (Flexbox is still somewhat new and only works on 99.64% of desktop browsers so far), but as for Aimsplode's design, I've already shown how broken it is on mobile. Strange how Aimsplode's proposal can be janky and awkard for 45% of all visitors and be called perfectly fine, while the current main page should be tossed aside because of one user's complaints. This has gone one for far too long. If you wish to return to an older, buggy, ugly iteration of the main page, by all means, vote for. I will respect the community's wishes. I just don't see why users here feel it necessary to drag me over the dirt. – roza☭ 21:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
- Since it's apparently sinful to write comprehensive replies on comedy wikis, and also because there's not much here for me to actually reply to, I'll keep this (relatively) brief and shut up about it.
Firstly, I'd like to note that my reply in the private message Roza shared is actually a message she previously left Spike on Wikia. I found it funny, because it is funny, and this message is semi-regularly posted by myself and others on the Discord for a giggle. I shouldn't have sent it back to Roza in this particular instance, but I'm used to receiving these volatile private messages everytime she disagrees with me on something, and I didn't see the harm. I've never engaged back beyond mild flippance, but still, they come. From now on, I'd prefer to keep our discussions entirely public for obvious reasons.
Per my original message, there's a large enough overlap between the wiki's community and whatever chatroom bullshit we use, so the truth in what I said is pretty well established and I welcome anyone to refute anything I posted. I would not post about Roza's mental state if 1) it wasn't directly involved in her motivations for keeping the main page as-is, and 2) she hadn't given me the go ahead in the second screenshot above. If you don't want to call your behavior the other night a breakdown over this vote, that's fine and I'm sorry for using those words, but the point still stands. I suggested taking a break to cool off before doing anything more regretful, and I hoped that postponing the vote would help that.
Where ever you stand on the main page, Aimsplode has greatly matured in the last decade, and his intentions here are only to benefit the site. It's sad to see his past repeatedly brought up like this, but I get it. As for me, I personally feel that I've always acted civilly and with respect when engaging with you, and for the sake of this wiki, I'm sorry you don't feel that way. At the end of the day, I'm confident I've done everything in my power to avoid this sort of escalation, and whatever you feel about me personally is of no consequence to this.
As for the actual topic at hand, the current main page is factually broken for at least one of our administrators and presumably a lot more people. The proposed main page has since been updated with better support for mobile, and remains unbroken. End of.
— SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 22:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Great job guys
I think Arthur (is he Cornish Guy on Discord?) congratulated all of us on the Visual Editor kerfuffle as being a great parody of Wikipedia's Visual Editor Kerfuffle from five years ago, but really, we have outdone ourselves with this one. Great job, everyone; please give yourselves a round of applause. That being said, we're a tiny bit short of...
- 127,000-word essays (thanks for the work on that, though, especially, Supergeeky1! Thumbs up!)
- Multi-page flame wars extending across six user talk pages, leading into...
- Threats to permanently resign from the wiki, followed by...
- People telling each other to "FOAD ALREADY!"
- Spiteful site-wide vandalism
- Unilateral perm-bans of established users, followed by ban-reverts by other admins, followed by re-bans, re-re-bans, re-re-re-bans, leading into...
- Spiteful sockpuppeting by the aforementioned perm-banned users, leading to...
- More perm-bans, and the arguments being carried over onto Twitter, Facebook, Carlb's mirror, Wikipedia, and Wikia Uncyc (or fuck it, the entirety of Wikia), followed by...
- De-op forums. (In the past, we've made due with one or two, and while I should really consult an actual Wikipedia user for the optimal number, based on my research, we should be able to get by with only four, so long as we get at least 20 votes in each.)
- Doxxing, real-life stalking, and vociferous disagreements conducted with automatic weapons at Bed, Bath & Beyond
Aside from these (very slight) issues, everything has gone really well, and I'm very proud of everyone. Great effort! I know we still have a lot of work, but if we want new users to be completely fooled into thinking that we're a roiling mass of scalded monkeys, we need to buckle down. Flamewars don't write themselves (OK, they do, but it still takes careful editing to channel the vitriol in a proper parodic manner). Keep up the good work, and may the road rise up to meet us all! ~ BB ~ (T) 
~ Fri, Jan 25 '19 19:40 (UTC)
Vote to burn this vote
After some more level-headed discussions on Discord, I'd like to propose we forget this entire thing ever happened and start fresh at a later date, when people have had more time to prepare. I suggest for the time being reverting the main page to the last revision prior to Roza's changes, with the addition of any minor bug fixes as needed. It might not look the best on mobile, but it'll work and it's only a temporary deal until there's an actual community consensus on each section.
We'll organize a contest for users to design as many mockups as they want with all of the features of their ideal main page designs, which should hopefully address any and all user concerns and give everyone enough time to work out the kinks in their designs for both desktop and mobile. If someone even wants to design their main page concept in MSPaint, we can help each other see that vision become a reality.
Instead of voting against the design we dislike, we can vote for any designs we do like.
Instead feeding off interpersonal drama, we'll inspire creativity and collaboration with one another.
Additionally, Zombiebaron has offered to chip in a $5 Walmart gift card prize for the winner(s), and we can promote this on social media to pull in new readers. It's the best of every world.
- For. I hate all of you. — SG1|Hereish [citation needed] 00:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Partial Against temporary reversion of main page to 2016 hell version. For the contest for a new and improved mainpage. Noting that Zombiebaron is awesome. Arthur (talk) 00:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Strong Zombiebaron -- The Zombiebaron 01:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Only if it is not an e-gift card. →L A B O R A T O R I E S 01:07 26 January 2019
- Before I vote, I need to know if I'm still getting the Smoothie King coupon. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sat, Jan 26 '19 1:11 (UTC)
- For. They all look the same to me, so who cares! -- MagicBus Can you ride my Magic Bus? 01:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
- Against. This vote has no results anyway. A contest won't solve anything, it's just another vote disguised as a contest and it will make even a bigger mess. I'm for Roza's compromise, and the social media or any other section other people don't like can come with a "hide" option, just like the site notice. ~ Kakun · talk 04:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)