Forum:We have surpassed 30,000 articles

Forums: Index > Village Dump > We have surpassed 30,000 articles

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4681 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

This is a fucking travesty, get deleting at once goddamnit. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 03:25, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

And many are about to be burned with fire. -- Lost Labyrinth • (t) • (c) • (a) 03:27, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

We surpassed the 30,000 threshold many months ago. Now, after deleting thousands of articles in those couple months, we're almost below the threshold again. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 22:42, 19 December 2011

I don't know if that number on the front page is cached (probably is), but the recent proper use of maintenance templates will soon get us back to within an appropriate threshold. WE SHALL NOT GROW WHILE I'M ON THE JOB! -RAHB 04:06, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

So we have barely more than the number of WW2-era first person shooters. (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2011

We spent too much time deleting articles and not enough time improving them! No wonder so many of the articles need to be recreated again! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 10:48, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Agree with joe.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:50, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Must be a foreigner thing... -RAHB 23:22, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

@Joe9320: @Fcukman: Agreed. Half of my favorite articles on this site have been mercilessly huffed, so in all fairness, I don't think any more good articles need to be huffed for the rest of 2011. C'mon, it's Christmas! We'll save the huffpocalypse for 2012. ~[ths] UotM 00:46, 12/21/2011

And I wonder how many deleted articles are there in total. Not Funny Complain To Me 02:34, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Not enough. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:42, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Other than the fact that that ponderance makes absolutely no sense, I agree. Not enough. -RAHB 08:05, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Just how many of the articles are actually decent?--CenterBack 01:20, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

What have you got in your pocketsies? Decent, well there's the rub. Are they any good? Now that is the question. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:52, December 30, 2011 (UTC)

Aim for quality AND quantity

We must surpass the 30000 article threshold! And then to the 40000 articles! Then delete 2000 of them! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 08:36, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Lol

We're UNDER 30,000 now. Good work Zombiebaron. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:50, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

But are you really laughing out loud? Are you? --EpicAwesomeness (talk) 13:55, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

The 'get under 30K' thing is ridiculous, what if somebody comes here to read about say, a music group but it's not here because it was deleted? Thay guy would rather read something that is not the funniest thing ever than nothing at all. Mattsnow 15:06, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:58, 23 December 2011

Mattsnow has a point - our content will only rise in number over time, so perhaps we should encourage editing (IC, adoption/Pee) to improve existing content and encourage new contributers who will be more interesting than myself or others who have been here for years...--Sycamore (Talk) 18:22, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is, people discover the site and more often than not the first thing they read isn't very good - so they bugger off to some other site and never come back. I'm starting to think that we might be better off with, say, 5000 top quality articles (so we can concentrate on them and newcomers will have more chance of finding something funny when they first get here) rather than 30,000 of which the majority are mediocre and many just crap. Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 18:28, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

What if I was to say we have an article which is UnRecipe:Fantastik flavored hallucinogenic ham with Uranium seasoning (written by me), but we don't have one about Vince McMahon? granted, the recipe article is good, don't delete it lol, but who would come on the site looking for it as opposed to looking for a laugh about Vince McMahon? And may I also remind you we have the "Featured content link? Besides, our readers numbers have only been growing since the summer, as you can see here: [1] Mattsnow 18:33, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

It's a faulty logic to assume weaker content discourages people, the mix is what made the site appeal to me. Indeed my favorite article would be regarded as weaker by the "hit VFD crack sqaud" - by the same token it also brought me to Uncyclopedia via google. There's no telling who'll be hooked in by the funny line that happens to be in an article that is objectively a little shit. I'll let everyone ignore this so someone else can repeat this point somewhere else along this thread.--Sycamore (Talk) 18:40, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the statistics show that our site had the most edits when we had 15,000 articles. -- The Zombiebaron 18:43, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about readership, why would we be scared to have say 50K articles next year? I think we'd reach more people, that's all. Also, how about having an award entitled "Rewriter of the month"? That would encourage people to rewrite half-funny articles. Mattsnow 18:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading that forum earlier this year... what was never mentioned was that in the meatspace in 2008 there was a massive recession in the US, UK and most of Europe, by the same token there is little understanding or research that I know of which can predict what happens to wiki when they reach certain sizes or when there is an entrenchment of the same contributers like yourself or me over a long period. Under the premise that deleting stuff back to the stone age, are we not falling in the trap of saying we don't want to be a wiki (with the mixed content which essentially goes with that), nor uncyclopedia, but simply restart and relocate this community to some other format which seems more suited?--Sycamore (Talk) 18:52, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Update: We're back over 30,000 articles, just. D: ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 20:02, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I completely ignored what Sycamore said, but when I came here and started editing, it was a below par article that got me here via a google search. I read through the article and said to myself This is okay, but it could be better. I then added more to the article, and then added more again. I then broke it into two separate articles and worked on them both some more. While I was doing that I looked at a tangential topic and wrote an article on that, and then decided to do another tangent. In the meantime I also did a few other things. So from that first sub-par article, I ended up writing 4 articles that eventually became features, and a few decent articles that didn't. If I had come across only articles here that couldn't be improved, I don't know that I would have wanted to add any new ones. I agree about getting rid of bad stuff, and by that I mean less than 10 on a PEE review scale, but the stuff that would be between the 10-20 mark (which we've also been quick to delete) actually serves a purpose when it's a popular topic and has even just a couple of lines in it worth salvaging. Rewriter of the Month is a brilliant idea, as is mainstreaming Der Unwher. Also having more people involved in UN:IC, which, Joe has just resurrected, encourages people to rewrite stuff rather than scrap stuff. I like the wiki getting bigger when we do articles that have a direct par on Wikipedia. When we have articles like Orthodox Monsterist Church being created though, it's a bit of a waste of time. Pup 12:46 24 Dec '11

Very interesting, Puppy, so what would you think about a "Rewriter of the Month" award? Maybe I'm too shy to start a vote... Mattsnow 01:52, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

I had spent my time rewriting articles that had been deleted by idiots. It's payback time. |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 04:32, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

It's not a good idea at all if you think we can improve the wiki by the bottom, yes utter crap should be deleted, but just go see ED. 90% of their articles qualify for VFD here, we are so much better. Let articles be lol, but I still feel people don't get our readership is up Mattsnow 05:06, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

Voat

Introduce Rewriter of the Month award

Score: 4

•  For. Pup 01:56 24 Dec '11
• Against per not enough people voting for the existing awards already. Alternately, I suggest making Conservation Week a more regular occurrence (perhaps bimonthly). I completely agree about the creation of articles with pointless titles, though. -- 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 04:34, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. I agree very much, as said earlier. Puppy said it better than me. What do we care if the award doesn't get that much vote? But I believe it will, just as the other awards. Mattsnow 04:37, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain. I think Mattsnow's intentions are good but I would rather not create a new award for people to not vote on. Writer of the month is a perfectly acceptable place to recognise those cranking out high quality rewrites as the past few months have shown. I think TKF's suggestion of having more competitions along the lines of The Article Whisperer and Conservation Week would work better. I've seen the fantastic work some users have done on VFD; saving articles by rewriting them competently. Raising the profile of articles that are of poor quality without having to put them on VFD could work well for us. --ChiefjusticePSX 19:34, December 24, 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the apathy this vote is getting, I can see your point. Unfortunately. Pup 09:54 25 Dec '11
    • Sayyyy, Chief...got any examples of the "competently rewritten" articles that were on VFD?  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Dec 25 '11 16:33 (UTC)
• Abstain. Per above (mostly Chief). —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 10:08, 25 December 2011
•  For.Here i go.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:57, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
•  Agin. I'm with Killer.  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Dec 25 '11 16:33 (UTC)
•  For. People tend not to vote on a lot of awards, because they are totally obsolete. What I mean by that is, we still have votes on UOTM, NOTM (most of the time) and WOTM because we have a limitless supply of people who could win that award. To win UOTM just help out with site stuff, NOTM just be the best new user and WOTM write good articles. But awrds like ANOTM don't really attract a crowd because nobody is actively doing anything in that field, plenty of people are re-writing articles so I'm sure it will attract voters and people who deserve to win it. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 20:41, December 25, 2011 (UTC)
•  For. Yeah, why not? I'd say someone should definitely write some rewrites of Alvin and the Chipmunks, and whoever successfully does that (without it getting BAWWleted) I'll nominate for that title. ~[ths] UotM 23:46, 12/25/2011
•  Actually, I see no harm in giving it a shot. Maybe it turns out to be one of those awards people don't forget to vote on. If not, we can always get rid of it afterwards. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:27, 26 December 2011
• Tentative agree. Lets give it a merit-based trial run. -- 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 05:01, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
•  Strong For. The PLS rewrite category encouraged me to begin rewritting articles and i'm sure that an award will encourage others. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 18:10, December 26, 2011 (UTC)
• Abstain. Yet more bureaucracy and more award/voting culture?--Sycamore (Talk) 09:51, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
• Of course, a great idea and a valuable service to fix up the rungs of our 40,000 articles. Aleister 11:33 29-12-'11
• Against. Less votes/awards, more conservation weeks, and an identical amount of thai curries (yum). A serious usergroup dedicated to rewriting sounds good though, which I think they're discussing below (will read it in a mo). --Black Flamingo 17:37, December 29, 2011 (UTC)
•  Against. Don't these things require that we have users? I don't see any users. In fact, now that I mention it, I don't see much of anything. In fact, I think I may have gone blind... 1234 ~ 02:20, 2 January 2012

---

--Sycamore (Talk) 09:51, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

Hold Conservation Week twice a month

Score: 0

• Yeah, why not. I don't even know what Conservation Week is. Whatever is it, I do my part.  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Sun, Dec 25 '11 16:33 (UTC)

  Twice a month? Have you gone insane? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:08, 26 December 2011

  I point ye to TKF's statement above: "Alternately, I suggest making Conservation Week a more regular occurrence (perhaps bimonthly)." Are you tellin' me he meant "once every two months"? Because that would make logical sense, and logic is a foreign concept on Uncyclopedia, sir!  ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Dec 28 '11 22:28 (UTC)

  Given that it lasts for a fortnight, that suggests we have UN:CW running 336 days a year. I get the feeling that it would become a little unexciting after the first 14 days. Pup 03:37 26 Dec '11

•  Against. Seriously, hosting it twice a month? I call it for being hosted every four months, and running for a whole month! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:14, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

Hold a year-long rewrite contest, or create a "Rewriter of the Year" award, if you will (preferably with statistics, so we don't forget who's rewritten what)

Score: 1

• Sounds saner than Bizzee's suggestion, at least. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 03:15, 26 December 2011

  I was thinking of something similar - along the lines of the PEE review top 10. Pup 03:39 26 Dec '11

  Yeah, something like Cajek's Pee page but for rewrites. Hey, aren't you reviving Der Undwehr? --Black Flamingo 17:41, December 29, 2011 (UTC)

  The thought has been there, but hasn't gone into action because (a) it was Guildy's baby and I don't like stealing other people's work without asking and (b) I have no time IRL. But mashing User:Cajek/Pee and Der Unwehr seems like a good idea. Especially if we have a Category:Rewritten to help keep track of it (as a hidden cat) and create Uncyclopedia:Rewrite as a portal type page. Pup 01:11 30 Dec '11

  Well if the userbase are interested in the idea then I can help you with it. :) --Black Flamingo 21:50, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Voat to hold Rewriter of the Week, Month, Year and DECADE!

Score: 1

•  4 the WIN! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:11, December 26, 2011 (UTC)