From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Minimalist Talk

LOL! Codeine's come back to ensure the least funny version of Minimalism remains!

Why must people change stuff to boring facts? If you want real facts, go to real wikipedia. Minimalism is best summed up by the proper article, i.e. the one when i typed this. Keep it that way!

New version[edit source]

I thought the original apple joke was good but just a little too long to effectively self-reference minimalism. The current version that I replaced ("As little as possible.") is a better self-reference but isn't a joke. I changed it to "Lazy design." because it's the most minimal of the three, while still being a joke (but a joke about minimalism instead of apple). Feel free to improve it or revert it back to the original apple joke.

Idea[edit source]

What if somebody made the article on minamilism long and complicated?

No, it's not bad[edit source]

But the trouble is, It doesn't really sum up minimalism in general as a whole. I like the idea of typing so little though, I was debating on going with "ALAP".

I personally think the joke about minimalism is far better than personal bias against apple. I'll laugh at anything and frequently do, but I didn't laugh at the apple joke.

Page Protected[edit source]

Because someone keeps perpetually changing it to "very little". I see what the idea is, but it lacks the subtlety and/or satire of the current version. If you have The Best Idea Ever™ and desperately want to edit this page, contact me via my talk page. -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I was about to make this article, which would just read as this: "The." --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 16:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's obviously no longer protected, but I think it should be again, too many pointless edits by anon IPs. HOMESTAR ME!!! TURTLE ME!!! t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 17:39, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Depends on which version we keep it at. The iPod joke sucks, and I think "The." works much better. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 17:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Haha, this version is even better. Given how many different jokes people have come up with, perhaps we ought to have several pages for Minimalism, and a disambiguation page. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Ooh, I definitely prefer that version, Nintendorulez. Leads up well to the punchline; to be honest the current (locked as of 20/6/07) version is exactly the same joke as Nihilism, except less funny. Sod.jpg I crave recognition 18:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No, there's subtle differences in what may seem at first to be closely related subjects. Nihilism is basically the belief that nothing has meaning, therefore the page has nothing on it, as nothing you could put on the page would have any meaning anyway. Brevity, another one often wrongly considered the same thing, is making things as short and uncomplicated as possible, and leaving only what is direct to the point. Minimalism, on the other hand, is leaving the meaning there, but stripping away everything that is not needed to give that meaning. Hence the page informs about minimalism is the most minimal way. Minimalism is explained perfectly in this quote:
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
~ Antoine de Saint-Exuper
Also, it's been protected since 06, not 07. And for good reason! Spang talk 12:37, 21 Jun 2007
It was the joke, not the subject, that I was comparing to Nihilism. And, yes, Brevity is also the same joke. I prefered the old version because I thought is was a more advanced joke, and because UC needs some variety. And when I said locked as of 20/6/07 I meant locked at the time of (my) writing, since that was the date (yesterday) at which I wrote the comment, and realised it was locked. ;) Sod.jpg I crave recognition 07:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from reverted vandalised version)

Three months?[edit source]

I think that\'s a little excessive isn\'t it? Part of the terms of using Uncyclopedia are such that if you post something, expect it to change. If you\'re concerned for your weedy little article being changed, then it shouldn\'t be here. For someone with administrative rights, I expected better. There are ways of editing uncyclopedia with a banned IP address. If you don\'t know them then that\'s misfortune for you, isn\'t it. Expect an article on real minimalism in the near future. What a sad reflection on modern society. SIR codeine. How pompous.

You got the ban you did because I clearly and politely explained my reasoning above. You chose to ignore the civil and proper method of contacting me (by using my talk page as I made clear above) and instead vandalised both the article and this talk page. When people deliberately do that, I hand out a longer ban. Simple as that.
Incidentally, I didn't write this article; in fact, I don't even know who the original author was. I do however know that what they wrote is wittier than your "version" by a long way. I suggest you use the time off to read How to be funny and not just stupid and try to understand why that is. As for your hilarious "threat": "There are ways of editing uncyclopedia with a banned IP address. If you don\'t know them then that\'s misfortune for you, isn\'t it." - rest assured that any further disruptive edits you make to Uncyclopedia will be caught by either myself or another admin, regardless of which username or IP you use; and trust me, between us we know far more about how wikis can be edited than you do. That's why we're administrators, and you're just another angry young flamer who's been banned twice already for your stupid immature attitude. If you want to contribute positively to Uncyclopedia, you're as welcome as anyone to do so, but if you keep vandalising and engaging in aggressive behaviour, you'll keep getting blocked. One last thing; vandalising my articles was hilariously inept. Do you really not think that they might just be on my watchlist? -- Sir Codeine K·H·P·B·M·N·C·U·Bu. · (Harangue) 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Still Way Too Long and... Factual![edit source]

I still have to say, I think the best version of the page thus far is when it was one word. Now there are titles and sections and headings, and it's all far, far too complicated. My suggestion is to make it one word again. If "the" doesn't suit, then perhaps "minimized" or "not much" would be better... perhaps having a See Also page would help, but 4 full sections, even at one sentence each, is not minimalism. ...i doubt a minimalist would even use wiki-formatting... --epynephrin 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternately, I've started thinking about another version --epynephrin 18:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, consider how little is in these few sections we have. It couldn't be VFHed from the previous version since we already featured The. I think this version turns it into a "complete" article, while still being fully minimal. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 19:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally disagree still. I still like my version, although I may be biased. did you see it? were there any thoughts? I just think that having all those sections makes the article way too long... "average" article length is not minimalist enough. (</my opinion>)--epynephrin 21:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I've got a piece to add.[edit source]

<div class="noprint" style="border: none; margin: 0 0 0 1em; font-size: 90%; background: #f9f9f9; width: 200px; padding: 4px; spacing: 0px; text-align: center; float: right;"><span class="nounderlinelink">''[[Minimalism/2|<span style="color:#000000;">Different</span>]]''</span></div>

From {{Alt}}. --User:Nintendorulez 20:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the problem anyway?[edit source]

I see nothing wrong with headings, and it's good to differentiate minimalism from brevity, etc. Uncyclopedia's great because some of the pages are actually intellectual humor rather than dumbing it down for the masses.

Plus I actually have a printed copy of this page somewhere, it's my favorite style reference. Ninjastar-no.png Megalomaniac Martin “The Unfortunately Unfeatured” Ultima(VOTE FOR ME!)talk(AND MY PICS TOO!)contribs 14:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Phillip Glass?[edit source]

Pfft, everyone knows Phillip Glass isn't a real minimalism musician...

Please add...[edit source]

[[es:Minimalismo]] Thank you. XalD 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Idea[edit source]

I second that. I think the article on minimalism should be as long and convoluted as possible. I feel like the subject has a lot of potential, and the current article isn't funny at all.

Why[edit source]

...Are so many gay, dumb-ass pages like this protected??? This is why people leave. ~Formerly Annoying Crap 12:37, 14 October 2015

But sometimes a kitten in shining armour might come and save the day. - B@NZai k!tten BANZAI! (Meow?)B 13:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Ooh, the british spelling. *SWOON* ~Formerly Annoying Crap 13:36, 14 October 2015