Talk:Oscar Wilde

Archive: 1 | Classic version

The Legend Begins

Uncyclopedia's obsession with Oscar Wilde and his stupendously witty quotes started on March 7, 2005, when TheTris create the article Oscar Wilde:

Widely regarded as the King of Quotes, it is considered good manners among the middle classes of England to answer any telephonic enquiry relating to the desirability of a quote with the sentence "Oooo - yes please, can I have an Oscar Wilde one, he's my favourite?"

The correct answer to this, according to the Hudsonian book of etiquette, is to feign complete confusion, as if you were just some monkey employed to harass people into buying stuff

It is easy to find Oscar Wilde quotes, largely due to the national sport of England, which is "Making Up Oscar Wilde Quotes". Indeed, "It's a sorry man who can not invent an Oscar Wilde quote to fit his situation" ~Oscar Wilde

The more progressive and risque among Britain's social climbers may on occasion be tempted to ask for a quote by Winston Churchill, although the old money still views this as irredeemably gauche.

A few hours later, TheTris created Making up Oscar Wilde quotes:

"Making Up Oscar Wilde quotes is the noblest of all the arts" ~ Oscar Wilde

The National sport of England

"A man who can not invent an Oscar Wilde quote is no man at all" ~ Oscar Wilde

Widely regarded as the best spectator sport ever invented, other than Sudden Death Twister.

"If you really think I said this, you're dumber than you look" ~ Oscar Wilde

And to this day, good ol' Oscar can be seen quite everywhere on Uncyclopedia. See for yourself.

Heh

Heh... -- Hindleyite Converse • ?pedia 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You people have ruined the oscar wilde page! where the quote about him being a tri-sexual, and the picture of him breathing fire! wtf – Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.85.231 (talk • contribs)

Yeh what the fuck is this, I had to look at the address bar to make sure it isn't wikipedia. Someones removed all his honoury titles and job roles. Absolutely disgraceful --81.104.231.57 22:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should have a look at what Uncyclopedia is supposed to be, ie a parody of Wikipedia, before commenting. If you are looking for something else there are other sites with different goals. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Well, I know one thing Uncyclopedia is supposed to be: funny. The new article simply is not. --Kpmartin18 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Lame.

The old page is back up under the classic article. --Mnbvcxz 04:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed

This is terrible. The previous Oscar Wilde article was much, much better. This is disgusting. I hate you all. -Your Mother

Don't worry. I've restored the old version at the top, now quite whining. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest

Oh really. Give us one reason as to why the old version is better than the new version. --General Insineratehymn 01:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It isn't. But the old version had some amusing bits in it. Plus, it makes a nice historical tribute to Uncyclopedia. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest

Here's one reason: It actually made me laugh. --Kpmartin18 18:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tri-Sexual? Oscar Wilde breathing fire? the non stupid colored oscar wilde statue with the thing about him being frozen in carbonite, just to name a few classhttp://uncyclopedia.org/index.php?title=Talk:Oscar_Wilde&action=edit

Editing Talk:Oscar Wilde - Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopediaics also the new page is waay to short the oscar wilde article music be an epic read dammit! Edit: oh yeah and the filmography "wilde wilde west" ahahhaa -Combat Wombat

It's sad

This page used to exist as the heart of uncyclopedia. It's disgusting length and bad-taste was simply a cornerstone of the website, and something I think a lot of people had a great deal of affection for. Making it just another article takes away some of the importance. Really, this is so bloody depressing. Who decided this? I say we get together and do some serious REVERTING! Who's with me?? --Joewithajay 00:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The new version is great and was featured, and I already saved the old version. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 06:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh great, it's saved behind glass just in case anybody misses it, that's totally the same thing. --Joewithajay 20:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they're just going to come back here and bitch anyway. -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 20:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So, should I bow to you - the new monarch of this website, or is a sloganed T-shirt good enough? I thought the idea here is that no single opinion about how things should be done takes control. And pardon me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the other article one of the greatest collective efforts this site has seen? --Joewithajay 00:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The old version was a classic example of an article which hasn't been maintained properly. By "greatest collective efforts this site has seen", you probably mean the loads of random shit added by many people who don't know what they're doing. -- Mitch 00:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this isn't exactly the Oxford English Dictionary. And what makes you so sure that this article is any funnier? I don't think it is. The last one was funny for it's total redundancy on the greatness of Oscar Wilde, this one just seems like a meek little parody that could have been written relatively quickly. And NEWS FLASH - if you consider things like that to be random shit, you might also want to erase 99% of the rest of the site while you're at it, including more than a few other featured articles that are overly long and redundant. --Joewithajay 16:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words on my meek little parody. Again, I appreciate that humour is subjective, and that everyone is going to have a different option on what is and isn't funny. Regardless of what you think though, a large number of people voted to have this version featured, with no against votes. As I can state without a shadow of a doubt that the old version would never have been featured I can therefore come to the conclusion that many people view the rewrite as an improvement. I agree that we do have too many random articles, to me the original premise of Uncyclopedia was to be a parody of Wikipedia, and that includes spoofing the writing style and layout, but with added funny.

OK I'm biased with regards to this article, but I obviously feel this version is better for a number of reasons, and not just because I didn't like the old version. Just for the record I DID include some of the original content in my rewrite (at least the funny bits)... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

I didn't mean to offend. This article isn't bad, but it just doesn't pay adequate service to Wilde's legendary status on the site. And the theme is a bit mono-tonal, only really making references to his sexuality. As for being featured, well, it's Oscar Wilde! Isn't it conceivable that people would've happily voted for this to be featured in MOST incarnations? Once again, I do honestly like this article - really, we should think of a compromise. Don't you see where I'm coming from? And most other people on this talk page have mainly been venting their frustration too. Maybe we could simply have a disambiguation page where people can choose what they want to see - Featured quality or Classic quality? --Joewithajay 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not offended at all, was just messing with you. :) With regards to the article though I have to say that from what people have said they would only have voted for the new version. I can't actually see a way to compromise on this, the article now is very focused (you may call that mono-tonal but the point is almost everything that is there is now relevant to the subject matter). I think in the past when we've had two very differing interpretations of a specific subject we've added the alternative version as a subpage (I'll try to dig out an example for you....) -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Windows Vista, Windows Vista (Communist article). -- Mitch 04:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Want to know how bad its gotten, on wikipedia, his real name is Oscar Fingal O'Flaerhty Wills WIlde. this shit is far to close to the truth. Lord Serioch 19:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

NOBODY CARES -- Thankful Kippy Share blessings Bountiful harvest 06:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How do you pronounce Oscar Wilde? Is it ɑskɚ wɪldi? (IPA: GA) --Nordamus (blab • crap) 01:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I pronnounce it Oscar Weeld. Most I think pronnounce it Oscar Wild. ~

Jacques Pirat, Esq. Converse : Benefactions : U.w.p.

29/08/2007 @ 01:35

should we semi-lock this?

should we try and semi-lock this, lots of noobs try to put in senseless jokes in (although I do find it funny)?--Dark Paladin X 23:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should lock it, but, we should do it with the jokes. the first time i saw the article, and all of his honorary titles, i laughed....my....ass...off. --71.8.58.46 23:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Wilde Worship

Every freakin page i go to has something about Wilde. Why don't some of you don't go and screw him for Peter's sake?

Way ahead of you. --Nachlader 17:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

God Template?

It's about time that Oscar Wilde got the God template. Jackie Mason has it because he thinks he's God.

The Classic page has it. --Mnbvcxz 04:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

A compromise version?

I liked the beginning of the old one, but not the rest of it. But the current one just isn't impressive enough. Can we reinstate all the titles - at least up to "Commander of everything Commendable", or preferably "Archmage of Bone"< if you don't want the WHOLE list?

And can we have him travel back in time, so people who lived before him can still quote him? Grue eating hamster 00:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Move the Slapstick to the classic article?

Would anyone object if I moved all the nonsense to the Oscar Wilde/classic article? Having it in here defeats the purpose of the rewrite. Also, should we add more categories to this article for the sake of giving it more categories? There are alot of unimportant joke categories like those in Category:Categories created by people with too much time on their hands or Category:Useless Category.--Mnbvcxz 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear this:

Everytime somebody cites Oscar Wilde, God kills a joke.--C12 06:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be the only person on Uncyclopedia who is above ridicule. --Narcissus Black 19:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirects

For the ambiguous searches that redirect here, shouldn't there be some sort of link to the disambiguation page?

Never mind, I figured it out.
---- Doctapeppaman 21:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotes

"He's a man I greatly admire" -Oscar Wilde on Oscar Wilde.

Please re-add this :(

It is on the classic version. Wilde never said that about himself.--Mnbvcxz 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

--AmericanBastard 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

This Is A Pretty Good Article.

Category.

Shouldn't oscar wilde bbe under the category "fruit"?

Uncyclopedia = OscarWilde-opedia

Why is Uncyclopedia riddled with references to Oscar Wilde? It is funny for the first few articles but then it becomes annoying. People should know that just putting a random quotation in the name of Oscar Wilde doesn't make it funny. 210.2.158.17 aka Oscar Wilde

the joke is that oscar wilde is usually given credit for lots of quotes, some he didn't say, some bad ones too... so it becomes that if you put his name on a quote, it automatically becomes witty or insightful, you know, anyway putting random a quotation in the name of oscar wilde does make it funny.

I humbly submit this for inclusion

In my opinion, Uncyclopedia is at it's funniest when it's wildly innacurate and biased, often having persons or events confused (kind of like the way Conservapedia is unintentionally funny). In that spirit, I'd like to include this bit:

The following account comes courtesy of Wikipedia, the most trusted source of information on the Internet. During the last days of the 19th century, the comedic actor Gene Butafuocco, never having been nominated for an Oscar, changed his name to Gene Wilder, just to piss him off. Oscar, in an effort to prove that despite the existence of Gene Wilder he was still the wildest man ever, decided to embark on a trip to the New World, in search of glory, fame, fortune and anal sex. He eventually became the leader of the natives, and founded the country of Paraguay. He wrote extensive letters to his friend Charles Darwin, describing the wonderful new species he had found, and shared his views on anthropology.

During an orgy with the natives of Paraguay, Mr. Wilde, almost on the verge of insanity and under the influence of a powerful herbal drug, wrote a manuscript with his left hand, which was the only member of his body not being used during the orgy. This text was regarded by Oscar himself as "the biggest abomination that mankind has ever seen". Disgusted by what he had written, he tried to burn the manuscript, but the Paraguayans had not discovered fire yet, and Mr. Wilde was afraid that rubbing on a stick would bring back traumatic memories from his childhood. Over one hundred years later, this manuscript has been adapted by George Lucas and Steven Spielberg into the blockbuster movie "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". A disillusioned Oscar Wilde returned to England and gave all his notes to Charles Darwin.

I would suggest inserting that into the classic version. --Mn-z 05:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Action figure of Oscar not found

There she is http://www.mcphee.com/shop/products/Oscar-Wilde-Action-Figure.html . Please update, some people don't know how to search. Hmm.

Quotes

More Oscar Wilde quotes: "“Ordinary riches cannot be stolen, real riches can. In your soul are infinitely precious things that will be taken from you.” --Professormcg 03:00, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

"The love that dare not speak its name" - Founding member of Man-boy love association?

I'm surprised there isn't more about man boy love, popularized by the Greeks of yore, who loved their boys in many ways. We all know love with young men in exchange for mentoring and financial assistance is the purest form, according to Wilde, Greeks, High Romans, and associates. I believe Oscar Wilde was the founding member of the modern Man-Boy love association. The lack of a reference to such an important act of sodomy on his part is reprehensible for such an accredited academic resource.

I believe a dedicated section regarding this information is well deserved and will only add to Wilde's impressive history.