Uncyclopedia talk:Top10 05

WE MOVED THE DISCUSSION BELOW TO THE DUMP

2005

So, should articles that were featured in 2006 but written mostly in 2005 stay in the list or not?--Rataube 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. We don't need to be too strict. We are here for the fun. It was fun to vote for uncyclopedian of the year 2004 when in fact uncy wasnt created until 2005. I say any article featured before the creation of this page can stay.--Rataube 18:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• No. In the interest of keeping this going, I think feature date is a good cut-off. If we are to have top ten of 2006, we need to make a distinction. --KATIE!! 18:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• No. Use the feature date as the cut-off. ~ T. (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Vote: The cutoff should be articles featured before the creation of this page. It is simplest and fairest that way. ---Rev. Isra (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• No. We need a Top10/2005 list and a Top10/2006 list......and next year a Top10/2007.....that way it can be formatted as part of bigger section, AND in the case of 2006 be ongoing over the next year. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me) 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yesh I don't see a big problem with having a 14-month Best Of this year and only a 10-month Best Of for 2006, and it's easiest to organize this way. --—rc (t) 23:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hell no!! Just doesn't make sense. --~ sin($) ^tan(€) 00:04, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yes. Take a look at Mac OS V. Not that this is anything near top 10 stuff, but it makes a good example. It was created in 2005, placed on VFD, and I saved it in 2006 by totally redoing it. If it were better and were featured, shouldn't it qualify for top 10 for 2006? I think an article should qualify for top 10 if it were featured in that year, regardless of when it was written. --Keithhackworth MUN 13:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• NO i think the reasons are obvious --Da, Y?YY?YYY?:-:CUN³ NotM BLK |_LG⁸+::: 07:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• No. It's called "Best of 2005", not "Best of 2006." Swordmaster 22:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

*

What do the *s after certain article names signify? Are you just trying to mess with my head? I bet that's it.—Sir Mandaliet ♠ CUN PS VFH GN (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably that they were featured in 2006 and not 2005..... -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Isra added them and they mean what Mhaille said.--Rataube 15:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting several times

A question raised on IRC: can one use several votes for the same article? - Sikon 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it was added to the rules about a week ago, and I tried to fix all occurances that I saw. If there are any others, feel free to fix them yourself.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 18:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Templates

Has somebody made a "Top 10" template yet? We could have custom templates for each of the articles, using something along the lines of these for text: (I'm using some of the more famous articles)

• AAAAAAAAA!, Alliteration, Redundancy and Nihilism:

(Follow the rest of the article's style.)

• You have two cows

You have two cows. They voted this article for Top 10 in 2005. This made you very happy.

• World War I (video game)

SERBIA_ROLLZ: w00t! we're top 10 German_Emp: n00b go away

• Gerrymandering

This article

was voted top 10 of 20

05.

and so on and so forth. Good or bad idea? Swordmaster 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)