Uncyclopedia talk:Wilde

Formatting Problem?

When I hit this page, I occasionally see wild's picture from the Oscar Wilde page overlayed on some of the text from that page. Does anyone else have this problem? If not/so, with what browsers? --Famine 03:03, 8 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Reorg Talk

I'm trying to toss together something like Undictionary for Oscar Wilde quotes. Is this a good idea? I have no idea. But I'm willing to make a mess for the sake of science. Mumm...science... --Famine 23:05, 20 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, this seems to be working fairly well. My method is as follows:

On the article page containing the quote, replace the quote with {{OWQ|quotenamehere}}. Save the page, click on the link, and it takes you to Wilde:quotenamehere.

Drop in {{Wilde|Insert quote text here, punctuation but no quotes.|NameOfReferringPage}}

This will produce a formatted

"Insert quote text here, punctuation but no quotes." ~ Oscar Wilde on NameOfReferringPage

If you need it to end with "~ Oscar Wilde on the NameOfReferringPage " use ((Wilde2)).

If you need to use a pipe on the link, use ((NWilde)) like so:

{{subst:NWilde|Insert quote text here, punctuation but no quotes.|NameOfReferringPage|WordsYouWantLinked}}

For the Wilde "dictionary page", use {{OWQL|quotenamehere}}.

(The "L" is for list..er...I guess...)

Does it make sense? --Famine 01:57, 21 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I thought it stood for Large ;) ---Hooloovoo 12:35, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Ligatures, symbols and numbers

I've added another index below the letters, for good measure. ∩ has a Wilde quote, for instance.. so do a fair number of numbers. ---Hooloovoo 09:23, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC) Speaking of which... {{OWQ|∩}} doesn't really parse well, it gets turned into:  :(. I've replaced it with direct use of ((Wilde)) on that page for now. Hooloovoo 09:33, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC) Not using the entity unicode, but copy/pasting the rendered symbol works, strangeness. Ah well. Hooloovoo 09:38, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

New template Template:NWilde

“What do you mean, click here?”

~ Oscar Wilde on The Any Key

You people have shit for grammar!

It's "myriad talents." Myriad is an adjective, and therefore, the caption for the fire-breathing picture on this article makes no sense when it says, "myriad of talents." Morons. See Wilde:Requested Articles for an example, and the template's talk page for usage. brought to you by Hooloovoo 10:18, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Not true. Myriad is both an adjective, meaning many, innumerable, and a noun, meaning a great number. It derives from a Greek word meaning 10,000. Both the noun and the adjective form are well established. Here's what Merriam-Webster ( www.m-w.com) says: Usage - Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it. (User: Not registered. Date: Aug 13, 2006.)

This template has been replaced by {{Wilde}}. --Carlb 07:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorting names

I've sorted Wilde:Stanley Kubrick to Wilde:K, and Wilde:Jimmy Page to Wilde:P, as I noticed Keith's entry under K was likewise ordered. What's your guys/girls' opinion on adding them to 'first name' page too? Hooloovoo 20:45, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, sort by last name if a person. I began the opposite way, and changed to that, and it seems to work decently well. --Famine 12:40, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Page length

Do we subdivide pages like Wilde:P sometime in the future? It's getting to be a bit long, tbh. This could be done by creating subpages like Wilde:PA-PPK, etc. Maybe we should coordinate this with the undictionary project... Hooloovoo 20:45, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I took a stab at it. I'm not totally happy, but it's the best I have the ambition for at the moment. If you don't make it sexy, Hooloovoo, myself or someone else will get to it, I'm sure. --Famine 13:18, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

I'll see if I have time to sex it up some tomorrow, even though that's Thursday, which I never could get the hang of. Hooloovoo 20:26, 27 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Adopt a quote

In the near future an adoption agency will be opened for article-less Oscar quotes. You may then find it somewhere near those letter and number thingies, likely. Adopting a quote will be an easy and painless process; you fiddle the template a bit to add the 'on articlename' bit, dump it in the article, and move it to the proper Wilde Side index page. Failing to do so will unleash the Grue, or that's my idea anyway. Hooloovoo 20:45, 26 Jul 2005 (UTC)

User:Oscar Wilde

possibly this page could link to User:Oscar Wilde? Nerd42 02:10, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oh My

Oh My yes indeed.

Strangely short

This article seems to have become a lot shorter recently...I liked this before, because it seemed to be an exception to the size rule - because, of course, Wilde deserves a giant page. But now it seems like most of the content has been removed...it makes it feel less special...less magical...and more like a normal article...this must be stopped, I say, Wilde must have an offenseively long article which is a tribute to the love he holds on this earth.

Bless the Wilde --Joewithajay 17:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG~What the hell is this?Darth Oscar??.....classic indeed,LOLx100000. p.s:To bee or not to bee, this is sweet question. kisaku15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

But I like the Oscar Wilde quotes!

Why would everyone want to get rid of the quotes? It's a huge part of the humor on Uncyclopedia! Why get rid of them?

Cheddar Cheesia 22:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you actually edit them?

Every time I paste a template in the browser, it tells me I've used a "bad title" because of the "|". This is driving so insane I can't think! Some of the quotes have unintended typos or could otherwise be improved, but I'm starting to think that only admins can change them.. is this in fact the case?

Who decided these were funny?

Seriously, because they're not. How did this start? Please don't give me that humour-humor crap because that's just a lame excuse. Quadzilla99 14:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See Unquotable:History of Unquotable. Would you like to help with the "re-factored" project, then?  c • > • cunwapquc? 15:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "re-factored". Quadzilla99 16:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The new project will crush the original project like tiny bugs!

Well... The purpose of the original "Wilde Project" was to add an Oscar Wilde quote to every page on Uncyclopedia. The purpose of the re-factored project is to remove roughly 70 percent of the quotes added by the original project. Of course, the original project is still going on, at least for some people - mostly n00bz, but this could result in some conflict down the road. Therefore the re-factored project isn't for just anybody — members of the team have to be dedicated, self-reliant, willing to make sacrifices, and secure in the knowledge that what we're doing will ultimately be for the good of all, even if some of us fall along the way! Godspeed, comrade!  c • > • cunwapquc? 00:19, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

So i just start removing them what do I say in the edit summary "per Oscar Wilde Project"? Quadzilla99 17:07, 19 January 2007

Not yet. This is just my opinion, but I wouldn't use the words "per Wilde Project" until we have several more members, and a little more "official" recognition. Something simple like "rmv bad quotes" would be more appropriate at this stage. Right now, none of this is really being taken seriously, which in some ways is good - flying under the radar is the best strategy when one is numerically weak...

Also, there's an art to it. You have to pick your targets carefully - articles with a ton of top-quotes aren't automatically good targets. The important thing is to check the edit history and determine if the article is being edited on a near-daily basis. The last thing you want to do is insert yourself into someone else's edit war! Also, don't concentrate on any particular topic area - use Special:Randompage to locate heavily top-quoted articles. Roughly one out of five pages will have at least one...

And above all, make sure you don't delete any quotes that are actually funny! You won't find very many that are, but there's no better way to derail the Project than to make articles worse instead of better. (And to that end, don't hesitate to make other improvements too, like spelling, grammar, formatting, etc. - it'll be good for the Project's image and reputation, not to mention your own!)  c • > • cunwapquc? 01:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)