User talk:JediGanesh
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Welcome![edit source]
Hello, JediGanesh, and thanks for joining Uncyclopedia! Before editing further, please take a gander at our Beginner's Guide. If you want to find out more about Uncyclopedia or need more help with something, check out the following pages:
- About Uncyclopedia and The five pliers of Uncyclopedia
- Help Pages - if you need help with a specific issue
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~) or use the "sign" button (
) above the edit box. This will automatically produce your name and the date.
If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page, ask at the community forum or in the chatroom, or ask an administrator on their talk page. Additionally, our Adopt-a-Noob program can bring experienced editors straight to you. Simply leave a message on an adopter's talkpage to join. I hope you enjoy editing here and being an Uncyclopedian! ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 
09:28, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
Changing links to Jediism[edit source]
Try not to overdo it. Where the links relate to Jedi as a religious role, it's okay, but if they aren't then you may be directing them towards a page that's not relevant to the context. The few I've seen are okay, but subtlety is the key. Nominally Humane! 03:02 17 Aug
- I was trying to be rational about it, and I fixed a couple where the links to Jedi would look better... other than that, yeah, I pretty much was thinking about things the way you suggested. --JediGanesh (talk) 05:12, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. It was more a suggestion than a criticism, by the way. Nominally Humane! 05:36 17 Aug
- Still, it was a good suggestion, was just seeking feedback on the other link-fixing things I was doing. --JediGanesh (talk) 04:39, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I haven't noticed them. Or rather, I have either seen them and agreed and marked as patrolled, or reverted them. As long as the link is a logical one, and isn't a redlink, it's cool. Redlinks are a pain, and I'd suggest deleting them if the topic is unlikely/unimportant, redirecting them elsewhere if there's a logical place for them to go, putting them in an {{RL}} template if important and unable to be redirected elsewhere. Jedi could possibly be converted to a dismbiguation page that links to Jediism, Star Wars and possibly a couple of other likely topics as well, such as characters. Also, there is a Star Wars template that could happily have the link to Jediism included as well. Oh, and have a look at VFH while you're here. This is the process by which we choose what pages are to end up as featured. And also check out Womp Rat, which is possibly my favorite star wars related article. It was written by one of our better current writers, User:Funnybony, who you might be able to get more feedback from on your article. He is someone I think you should get to know. Nominally Humane! 12:29 18 Aug
- Thanks, Pup! Will check out those articles, they do look awesome. Also, I was using the redlinks in my article as a part of the humor. For example, Microsoft Corporation has never done anything it ever promised (in addition to never making an Uncyclopedia entry), and Silent Bob is notably silent. Is that still acceptable? JediGanesh (talk) 16:53, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- If you're doing a deliberate redlink then there are two ways to do it that won't drive people up the wall. The first is a real link disguised as a redlink like Microsoft corporation or an intentional redlink like Microsoft corporation. Nominally Humane! 12:22 19 Aug
- Considering the way I've done this already, I think the span is better, but the issue remains that the way I've worded it and the lack of an actual page makes it far more humorous. I'm going to have to figure out how to do a redlinked category, too, since someone has already tried to remove it... the redlinks in this case are really subtle parts of the humor that a couple of people have actually gotten and one even chuckled a little. I don't want the link to say "Microsoft Corporation" as this would negate the witicism of saying "a company that never delivered on anything it promised" and having the hover link go to Microsoft Corporation (a link which they apparently can't deliver to Uncyclopedia, either...). I might be being too cerebral, here, in which case I'll try to figure something else out. Or, I could just write some kind of a stub for the Microsoft Corporation, with a spanned redlink as you showed. What do you think? JediGanesh (talk) 07:45, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
- I like the Microsoft knowledge base link, but then again I made that article, so I'm bias. Redlinks are a pain as they create technical issues further down the line, which is why we avoid them. In History of the world I used redlinks in a similar fashion (for the stuff on India) where one of them goes to a relevant article, and the others go to this page does not exist as that is a redlink that is designed to remain as a redlink. Redlink categories are more of an issue, and TBH I'd avoid using them, as cats are there for a purpose beyond the humour value. (Or in short, it screws up even more.) Nominally Humane! 08:10 19 Aug
- So, here's the issue I'm having: the way I have it right now, the words say something and hovering allows you to see which page it goes to (as does clicking the link). Because I'm citing the "lack of delivery" the humor is because of the fact that not even a page has been delivered. While I can understand the category issue (wasn't thinking about it, so... yeah, I'll just have to accept Cat's edit and remove the link), I am hoping for some other means to deliver humor which is as effective as having the redlink to start with. The link to "Silent Bob" is silent... there is no content, because Silent Bob can't speak. The one to Ryan and Dorkman... okay, maybe I can remove that one, or perhaps even get a stub going for that one. I guess I just can't be funny in the way I'm aiming for, period, on that. I've always held that redlinks help people see what kinds of articles are needed. I don't know why this would create technical issues, as it usually makes people want to write articles (or at least stubs) when they see that there are in fact places to write them when they see the "missing links" page. What kinds of technical issues are there? JediGanesh (talk) 17:06, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
- I like the Microsoft knowledge base link, but then again I made that article, so I'm bias. Redlinks are a pain as they create technical issues further down the line, which is why we avoid them. In History of the world I used redlinks in a similar fashion (for the stuff on India) where one of them goes to a relevant article, and the others go to this page does not exist as that is a redlink that is designed to remain as a redlink. Redlink categories are more of an issue, and TBH I'd avoid using them, as cats are there for a purpose beyond the humour value. (Or in short, it screws up even more.) Nominally Humane! 08:10 19 Aug
- Considering the way I've done this already, I think the span is better, but the issue remains that the way I've worded it and the lack of an actual page makes it far more humorous. I'm going to have to figure out how to do a redlinked category, too, since someone has already tried to remove it... the redlinks in this case are really subtle parts of the humor that a couple of people have actually gotten and one even chuckled a little. I don't want the link to say "Microsoft Corporation" as this would negate the witicism of saying "a company that never delivered on anything it promised" and having the hover link go to Microsoft Corporation (a link which they apparently can't deliver to Uncyclopedia, either...). I might be being too cerebral, here, in which case I'll try to figure something else out. Or, I could just write some kind of a stub for the Microsoft Corporation, with a spanned redlink as you showed. What do you think? JediGanesh (talk) 07:45, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
- If you're doing a deliberate redlink then there are two ways to do it that won't drive people up the wall. The first is a real link disguised as a redlink like Microsoft corporation or an intentional redlink like Microsoft corporation. Nominally Humane! 12:22 19 Aug
- Thanks, Pup! Will check out those articles, they do look awesome. Also, I was using the redlinks in my article as a part of the humor. For example, Microsoft Corporation has never done anything it ever promised (in addition to never making an Uncyclopedia entry), and Silent Bob is notably silent. Is that still acceptable? JediGanesh (talk) 16:53, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- To be honest, I haven't noticed them. Or rather, I have either seen them and agreed and marked as patrolled, or reverted them. As long as the link is a logical one, and isn't a redlink, it's cool. Redlinks are a pain, and I'd suggest deleting them if the topic is unlikely/unimportant, redirecting them elsewhere if there's a logical place for them to go, putting them in an {{RL}} template if important and unable to be redirected elsewhere. Jedi could possibly be converted to a dismbiguation page that links to Jediism, Star Wars and possibly a couple of other likely topics as well, such as characters. Also, there is a Star Wars template that could happily have the link to Jediism included as well. Oh, and have a look at VFH while you're here. This is the process by which we choose what pages are to end up as featured. And also check out Womp Rat, which is possibly my favorite star wars related article. It was written by one of our better current writers, User:Funnybony, who you might be able to get more feedback from on your article. He is someone I think you should get to know. Nominally Humane! 12:29 18 Aug
- Still, it was a good suggestion, was just seeking feedback on the other link-fixing things I was doing. --JediGanesh (talk) 04:39, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Cool. It was more a suggestion than a criticism, by the way. Nominally Humane! 05:36 17 Aug
- The technical issues aren't gigantic. If the article is one that should exist (like Silent Bob), then a redlink is fine, but can look ugly. In those cases using
{{RL|Silent Bob}}means that it comes up in Special:WantedPages, but shows as normal text on the page. If the page is later created it then comes up as a link, so:{{RL|This page does exist}}comes up as This page does exist (and also adds Category:Template RL to be removed to your talk page.){{RL|This page does not exist}}comes up as This page does not exist
- To do a redlink that goes to an existing page, the best tricks are:
<span class="new">[[Penis]]</span>- or
<span class="new">[[Penis|<span title="Penis (This page does not exist)">Penis</span>]]</span> - or to really push the boat out
<span class="new">[{{fullurl:Penis|actıon=edıt&redlınk=1}} <span title="Penis (This page does not exist)">Penis</span>]</span>
- Hope that makes sense. Nominally Humane! 03:32 20 Aug
- The issue here is this: you're trying to get me to have redlinks to pages that exist, while I'm trying to firmly keep it going to a page that doesn't exist. The first redlink:
[[Microsoft Corporation|a company that never delivers on what it promises]]
- might actually have some
suckerkind-hearted individual write up a stub for the Microsoft Corporation page, in which case we would immediately move to have it moved/renamed, deleted, or merged with another article (for the integrity of the humor on the page). It *should* go to a page with no content, unless we mock up a protected page which looks like an unauthored page. - I mean, the span title idea... that might work for Silent Bob, and honestly as long as it merely retains the appearance of a redlink, that's really all that matters on that one.
- Hope that clarifies a bit... the aim is to actually intend the redlink and mean it! JediGanesh (talk) 10:50, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- Then you definitely want to direct it to This page does not exist as that page is protected for exactly that reason. Oh, and I created {{Fakeredlink}} today if you do want it to go somewhere. Nominally Humane! 10:54 20 Aug
- But This page does not exist will not pull up the emptied "Microsoft Corporation" page if someone clicks on it...which is bound to happen at some point. And {{Fakeredlink}} is frankly awesomeness in a can. That's going on the Silent Bob link for sure.
- True, but I find that redlinks don't do much to encourage the creation of articles. Besides, Microsoft already has a bundle of articles. {{Fakeredlink}} used with Microsoft corporation will take them to a "This page does not exist" page as well, however. If you really want that page and a redlink, that's what I'd do. (Given that if I saw that redlink I'd probably just redirect to Microsoft anyway.) Nominally Humane! 11:16 20 Aug
- Pup, I tried it... {{Fakeredlink}} is fucking awesome! I'm sold on that now and forever more, for my humorific redlink needs.JediGanesh (talk) 11:19, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
- True, but I find that redlinks don't do much to encourage the creation of articles. Besides, Microsoft already has a bundle of articles. {{Fakeredlink}} used with Microsoft corporation will take them to a "This page does not exist" page as well, however. If you really want that page and a redlink, that's what I'd do. (Given that if I saw that redlink I'd probably just redirect to Microsoft anyway.) Nominally Humane! 11:16 20 Aug
- But This page does not exist will not pull up the emptied "Microsoft Corporation" page if someone clicks on it...which is bound to happen at some point. And {{Fakeredlink}} is frankly awesomeness in a can. That's going on the Silent Bob link for sure.
- Then you definitely want to direct it to This page does not exist as that page is protected for exactly that reason. Oh, and I created {{Fakeredlink}} today if you do want it to go somewhere. Nominally Humane! 10:54 20 Aug
- The issue here is this: you're trying to get me to have redlinks to pages that exist, while I'm trying to firmly keep it going to a page that doesn't exist. The first redlink:
Indian Religions?[edit source]
Hey Jedi, Pup says you're cool? You like religions? Here's some: Guru Maharaj Ji, ISKCON,Voidism, Bhagavad-gita. Cheers!--Funnybony 
14:28, Aug 18
- Dude... I'm going to have to take a look at some of those. I think I can totally improve a couple of those, though I'm not sure on the Voidism... going to have to research some more to see what I can satyrize. JediGanesh (talk) 16:57, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, did some minor edits, and I have a major revision in the works for Bhagavad-gita which will add one section that basically re-interprets the "among X, I'm Y" lines, with an exhaustive bent on every conceivable esoteric spiritual interpretation (several of which will directly contradict), though after a few of these it's going to go off on a diatribe about how yogic breathing techniques can actually help someone speak for 15 minutes without taking a breath... and then link to a new article on yogic breathing which might redirect to "yogurt breathing" or something else which might be suitably silly. Still working on Voidism but the parody provided here is already fairly complete. I'm going to have to work some more on it and see if I can't match the style of the page. But it really is pretty win already. :) JediGanesh (talk) 11:27, August 20, 2012 (UTC)