Talk:Uncyclopedia/Archive 4

Bullying?

"One Epsom Girls' Grammar School student's name and cellular phone number was posted to Uncyclopedia without her knowledge, along with degrading language, although she stated that students commonly added full names and photographs to their own pages. The concern over the use of Uncyclopedia, as well as the Bebo website, was also present at several other schools, including King's College, Auckland Grammar School, St. Edward's School, and Diocesan School for Girls."
Uh...The citation for this paragraph is of poor quality. Also, is this even worth saying? Any semi-moderated public contribution device available to view on the internet could be used for this purpose. Mythiran 19:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It was most likely source grab out of a google news archive in order to make Uncyclopedia seem more notable. --MichaelLinnear 04:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, which source were you speaking of? Also, even though this occurrence was a big deal for the site (major policy overhaul, etc.) it probably doesn't need to be mentioned in this article. tmopkisn ^tlka 16:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tompkins, would a better place be in the history section do you think? It seems like it could be more applicable there. --MichaelLinnear 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blanked

Uncyclopedia appears to have been blanked. What gives? — Rickyrab | Talk 15:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That must've been very temporary, if it actually occurred, and it may have been due to glitches on my computer. Disregard. — Rickyrab | Talk 15:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

ACtually, Bots probablly reverted it VERY fast. They can tell when you blank a page (I have not done that; I just looked at the recent revisions.)riking8 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not the vandalism-type blanked, it is something like a glitch that made the uncyc site appear blank, or something. Also, this discussion was made nearly a year ago, so there's really no point continuing to talk about it. --AAA! (AAAA) 14:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Introduction

I suggest that we improve and expand the introduction as soon as possible so it will look like an article for a website. GreaterWikiholic 00:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section

Isn't the first paragraph referring to the same thing as the third and fourth paragraphs? Andjam 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Dissapearance of uncyclopedia?

The site itself seems to have dissapeared. When I try to go to uncyclopedia, it keeps giving me an error message. Something about a database error. Just wanted to point it out in case it would change the article any. 71.112.87.158 05:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I can get on just fine. Captain panda 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Really? Must be something wrong with my computer... Disregard previous then. 71.112.87.158 17:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you try going on it from a different website? Like searching uncyclopedia on google then clicking on it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.110.82.251 (talk) 01:47, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did. I tried the google method, clicking links on this article, manually typing it in, and also accessed the page in the google cache. I found it in the Google cache, finally. Trying to navigate away from the homepage results in an error message, but it's there, at least as of August 19 at 1:57 PM GMT. Don't know why my computer refuses to acknowledge its existence, but it's there. Or Google is lying. 71.112.87.158 17:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

incyclopedia.org

There is an Incyclopedia that operates as part of Steve Jackson Games. "The In Nomine Character Encyclopedia, or INcyclopedia, is one fan's attempt to make the character information from the role-playing game In Nomine easily available for GM's and players." It has no connection to Uncyclopedia or Inciclopedia, but should there be some sort of disambiguation on this? --66.102.80.239 17:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"criticism" section

An anon-IP just removed the entire section on Uncyclopedia's critics; revert as vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.239 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

'Kitten Huffing'

I was redirected here from Kitten Huffing, yet the page itself makes no mention of this. 80.229.155.137 18:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Inside Uncyc joke. W1k13rh3nry 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suspect this page did mention it at some point, but subsequent edits have removed much information - especially after Wikia deleted this planet to make way for a new hyperspace bypass. --66.102.80.239 04:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is (quote) an "in-joke". It's when you put a kitten's head in your mouth:D

Vulcan, Romulan, and Trill, not HUMAN! (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Other way round. --86.134.68.225 (talk) 18:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unavailable?

Uncyclopedia is currently unavailable, as is noted on the link to it from this page. As it is hosted by Wikia (and reaching the URL currently enters the Wikia webpage) I'm going to try to find out from our good friends what's going on. If the site is down I think we ought to report it, but I'm digging for confirmation. Does anyone else know anything about this? TaylorSAllen 03:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope to death Uncyclopedia didn't leave us. It was one of the only Comedy Wikis we ever had. Goodbye. (Sniff)

UNCYCLOPEDIA (2005 to 2007)

SEE THE BOTTOM OF THE TALK PAGE Georgewilliamherbert 03:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Is the site down?

I have asked Jimbo about this and will rm any statements saying that "yes the site is down" until a statement is made. Otherwise, does anyone have any information? W1k13rh3nry 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a mirror on http://mirror.uncyc.org but it is outdated as Wikia hasn't posted backups since July 2. --66.102.80.239 02:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think they're about to move on a new server or something; I've visited Uncyclomedia... Blake Gripling 02:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Birdie tells me technical difficulties, with techs working on it. Georgewilliamherbert 03:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I experience the same thing, it redirected to the wikia main page instead.--Dark paladin x 03:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd recommend reading wikicities:Forum:Server issues today. Definitely seems like it's talking about Uncyclopedia. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I also also think (?) that the article was UnNews:Islam: The Real story. Well it will be back online now.W1k13rh3nry 04:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It got flushed. Got more toilet paper ? 205.240.146.131 04:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a temporary problem with a query from Uncyclopedia causing the rest of Wikia to slow down, so it has been removed from public view until this is fixed. Some Uncyclopedians do have access to it and are trying to help Wikia's techteam get this sorted out as quickly as possible. You are welcome to join #Uncyc-downtime on freenode for updates. Angela. 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Back online, minus featured article. The problem was a database query involving Chuck Norris. 'Nuff said. Spang 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Too perfect for words... EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Contact?

How in God's name can I email them? I keep looking for a contact, but there's nothing. I wanna email them about the seriously offensive things, and complete bigotry and bias. anyway, i shouldn't be complaining here though, can anyone just give me a link to the contact page? C. Pineda (クリス) 04:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's best to contact the community about that, either on the Village Dump or on the IRC channel. Angela. 06:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's best not to bother. You just end up looking like an ass. St. Jimmy 23:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the discussions.Or Village Dump. Or Pee Review. Or just go to the community portal.--Faizaguo (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems

The site is currently experiencing problems and appears to be offline. 65.163.113.182 07:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it appears partially-operational. I can't edit and many of the images don't display. Not sure why there have been so many problems lately, one can only blame Chuck Norris for so long... --66.102.80.239 14:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

In Communist China, content deletes YOU!!

Main article: List of websites blocked in the People's Republic of China

http://www.websitepulse.com/help/tools.php?singletestpage=china-test indicates that the Great Firewall of China is being used to block Taiwanese Uncyclopedia content. Any URL in zh.uncyclopedia.info returns a blank page for users on the mainland, but is usable anywhere else in the world, from Toronto to Taipei. Should this be noted here, or should that issue be left to the Great Firewall of China article? --205.150.76.42 15:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I think someone already added that.--Faizaguo (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Uncyclopedias

There is a list of Uncyclopedias, with article counts for each, here. A certain user has been repeatedly deleting other users' edits not only in the article but on the talk page in order to remove this list, which contains the same info available here and elsewhere. There should be at least a link to these stats. The info about Taiwan's 偽基百科 being blocked by Chinese communist authorities was also deleted from the talk page at least once by an anon-IP. Please do not do this, as it is disruption merely to make a point. --66.102.80.239 00:06, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia is the Worst

The article states that "Uncyclopedia is the Worst" is a page used by the site's users to criticize Uncyclopedia. In actuality, it is used by the site's users to make fun of the people that criticize Uncyclopedia. I have removed this part of the article to keep it accurate. Rune Boomer 17:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's both. St. Jimmy 23:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Parody

Yes, I recreated that redirect, I did it because the disambiguation page that was result as of RfD didn't work out. So if you feel like I didn't redirect it to right article, then tell me. TheBlazikenMaster 10:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I've RFD'd the redirect as it can be considered POV, and not really needed. You can see the discussion here. --AAA! (AAAA) 00:22, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That eye beams picture

Uncyclopedians didn't invent it, it came from Fark. I propose we replace it with a new one. How about this old logo used from Jan-May 2005? --Jedravent 01:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it. --Jedravent 23:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sophia

Having been an Uncyclopedian since the earlier days, I have never once seen the puzzle potato referred to as Sophia. It has been my understanding that Sophia is a play on the Gnostic deity and Sophia Lauren. Sophia is Uncyclopedia's patron saint, not its icon. --gwax UN (say hi) 18:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you been around recently? The potato's been called Sophia ever since I became active, back in August. There actually seem to be three Sophias: Sophia the potato and site logo, Sophia the sex icon that's praised by haikus, and Sophia the diety. There also seems to be a beauraucrat/sysop named Sophia. Boomsta 18:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Recently? Not so much. Must be a new thing. I do know that Sophia the deity, Sophia the sex icon and Sophia the sysop are meant to be confused for/considered the same thing, just not that someone had named the potato after her. The day I get my Uncyclopedia cultural news from Wikipedia is a sad one indeed; I guess that means that I should get myself back in the loop. --gwax UN (say hi) 19:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The potato has been called Sophia ever since I can remember (so a long time). The Sophia praised by haiku is the deity, but since she transcends earthly understanding she is often represented symbolically by Sophia Loren. So there are two Sophias, plus the sock-sysop named Sophia. Rcmurphy 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The potato has always been referred to as Sophia. From as far back as I can remember, which would be about 5 or so days after Uncyclopedia began,she has been Sophia. The only person who could probably remember back further would be Chronarion himself. So... that's my two cents. --PantsMacKenzie 23:24, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Chron said here that "Following with the Pseudo factual theme of the main page, Sophia is the gnostic deity of Wisdom, sort of. In our case, the potato is hereby named Sophia." --Jedravent 03:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The History section

This section needs expansion. What else is important enough to include? --Jedravent (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Intro

I will change around the wording in the first sentence so that it matches the Uncyclopedia entry on Wikipedia. It doesn't change any information, and why not? W1k13rh3nry (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Relations with Encyclopedia Dramatica

The other big comedy wiki like Uncyclopedia is Encyclopedia Dramatica. Both sides hate each other profusely, while the smart ones choose to remain neutral. Shouldn't there be any mention of ED's relationship with UP here, or an ED article on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.247.196 (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe if there was an Encyclopædia Dramatica page, we would. --Jedravent 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Won't happen, not notable. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Dont you rather mean "Wont happen, as be have personal hate against the site"? The last vote for deletion more or less ended with "yeah, its notable, yeah, its bigger than uncyclopedia, tviv, ectect, but Our Adminship doest not like it, so delete!1". (just as a hint, take a look at the alexa rankings, for example...) 70.231.144.137 (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia.com has a traffic rank of:  335,997
Encyclopediadramatica.com has a traffic rank of: 2,972
ED is clearly much more notable than Uncyclopedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC) 

• • Oh, ok, thank you for that insight. You're clearly right; please go and make an ED page for us. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 02:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That's not true. Uncyclopedia's rank is 6,357. We're at Uncyclopedia.org. --Jedravent (talk) 02:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Clarification: Uncyclopedia.com was a domain registered by David Manz of Oregon's Mountain Dome Winery at the turn of the millennium as part of a personal project that never really got off the ground. There's been nothing there but parked linkspam for several years now, presumably where it can be used to monetise typo traffic intended for encyclopedia.com. The Uncyclopedia is on uncyclopedia.info (Asia-Pacific), uncyclopedia.org (German, English), pedia.ws (Brazil, Finland) and various other domains, plus various bits scattered across wikia.com - so it appears at least a couple times in the top 10000 Alexa sites and once more around the 20000 level. Too many domains to list, although most of the primary ones are listed on the main page at encyclopedi.as or uncyclopedia.info --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Two words: "Nobody cares". Thank you and good night. --AAA! (AAAA) 03:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
        • Bigger than Uncyclopedia? That's doubtful, as it's a third of Uncyclopedia's size. --Jedravent (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
          • [1] According to alexa, encyclopedia dramatica is bigger —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.123.68.176 (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
        • Which Uncyclopedia? There are forty-six of the blasted things at last count... --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
• I don't understand the logic in having a page for uncyclopedia and not encyclopedia dramatica. Both are just as notable as each other, it doesn't make sense to have a page for one and not the other. Admins need to to stop letting their personal vendettas get in the way of making this a more comprehensive site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heatsketch (talk • contribs) 00:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Might be best to take a look at the various article-for-deletion discussions for both sites. All of this has been argued to death, including the differences in content between the two projects. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions

Just some suggestions/critiques/list of stuff I should do with this article later.

1. Less history in the "Lead-in" portion, more of it in the History section.
2. Content - needs a topic sentence "Uncyclopedia is full of funny articles, mostly parody", etc
3. List-cruft. Yes, it smells like an uncyclopedia VFD nom! Less lists. The "other projects" list is just all of the Namespaces on the wiki. Don't really need it.
4. In other languages - Very factual. This is one section where a list would be nice, but make it simple.
5. Update the screenshot of the main page - Yeah, it's nit-picky, but the main page looks different nowadays.

I'll see about doing some of these later. Anybody got some more suggestions? --ekashp / EugeneKay 14:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Other languages

I notice that someone has edited this page to claim "Uncyclopedias in languages other than English were soon created, eventually spanning over forty languages. Since some of these wikis were on Wikia, which did not own Uncyclopedia, ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain name was transferred to Wikia in 2006.[8]" and "Since Wikia's users wanted to create Uncyclopedias in other languages, and Wikia was uneasy about doing this with a domain they did not own, Huang transferred ownership of the uncyclopedia.org domain to Wikia on July 10, 2006.[8]". This is patented nonsense, as no non-English Uncyclopedias except de: ever were (or, seemingly, ever will be) hosted as *.uncyclopedia.org. Even where a project has its own domain (such as desencyclopedie.com, the oldest non-English Uncyclopedia) Wikia takes ownership of the domain name and most often uses it solely to redirect to *.wikia.com. The takeover of the domain name does not benefit other-language Uncyclopedias; if anything, it has primarily been detrimental to this effort.

Certainly there are serious practical implications related to Jimbo Wales gaining control of Uncyclopedia.org's domain name; for instance, should the project ever attempt a move to another webhost, Wikia would be free to use the old domain name and the CC-BY-NC-SA open-content to operate in direct competition with the Uncyclopedians on whatever host they ultimately use. Wikia has done this to various Uncyclopedia-related projects; the most severe issues with this being the Scandinavian wikis (sv: no: fi:) where in some cases Wikia forced outbound interlanguage-links from en.Uncyclopedia to point to their version of a wiki instead of the main project elsewhere.

If there isn't a reliable source for the claims as to Wikia's motives in the backroom deal to take Uncyclopedia's domain name, other than Wikia itself (evidently COI here), the changes must be reverted. --carlb (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

That was me. I notice that there was no stated reason for the acquisition, so I tried to be bold and add one. --Jedravent (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Might as well add that the "Uncyclomedia Foundation is an offshore corporation established in the republic of Porchesia, where it operates beyond the reach of all laws including Ohm's and Murphy's law." Source here, as reliable as the other if not more so. After all, a non-profitable Foundation would never have any motive to lie to us. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Great Firewall of China block on zh.uncyclopedia.info

Not sure why this was removed, I just checked http://www.websitepulse.com/help/tools.php?singletestpage=china-test and the test results are indeed the same; you still can't get to 偽基百科 on this domain from Beijing:

Website Test Results
Tested From:	Beijing, China
Tested At:	2007-12-09
18:04:37 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://zh.uncyclopedia.info
Resolved As:	64.86.167.130
Status:	Empty reply from server
Response Time:	5.500 sec
DNS:	0.000 sec
Connect:	0.364 sec
Redirect:	4.750 sec
First Byte:	0.021 sec
Last Byte:	0.364 sec
Size:	0 bytes
	
Tested From:	Brisbane, Australia
Tested At:	2007-12-09
18:04:37 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://zh.uncyclopedia.info
Resolved As:	64.86.167.130
Status:	OK
Response Time:	11.640 sec
DNS:	0.000 sec
Connect:	0.250 sec
Redirect:	3.174 sec
First Byte:	1.016 sec
Last Byte:	7.200 sec
Size:	68029 bytes

So this has gone from bad to worse? The zh-simplified version (zh.uncyclopedia.wikia.com) is now failing too, in the same manner:

Website Test Results
Tested From:	Beijing, China
Tested At:	2007-12-10
06:43:10 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://zh.uncyclopedia.wikia.com
Resolved As:	216.224.121.158
Status:	Empty reply from server
Response Time:	3.341 sec
DNS:	0.000 sec
Connect:	0.664 sec
Redirect:	1.997 sec
First Byte:	0.017 sec
Last Byte:	0.664 sec
Size:	0 bytes
	
Tested From:	Munich, Germany
Tested At:	2007-12-10
06:43:10 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://zh.uncyclopedia.wikia.com
Resolved As:	216.224.121.158
Status:	OK
Response Time:	2.027 sec
DNS:	0.000 sec
Connect:	0.175 sec
Redirect:	0.624 sec
First Byte:	0.176 sec
Last Byte:	1.052 sec
Size:	88564 bytes

Previous attempts to test using this tool indicated just uncyclopedia.info (or zh.uncyclopedia.info) as the target. I guess this explains why uncyclopedia.wikiachina.cn as a domain is no more? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Well, in that case, does en.wikipedia.org work for the three locations? We will probably have to update the information of the blocking of Wikipedia, although that website is probably not a reliable source. So, we might not be able to cite that in this way. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

In Beijing at least, en.wikipedia.org doesn't respond at all - not even with a 0-byte reply. It just times out:

Test results

Website Test Results
Tested From:	Beijing, China
Tested At:	2007-12-12
16:35:59 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Resolved As:	66.230.200.100
Status:	couldn't connect to host
Response Time:	0.852 sec
DNS:	0.852 sec
Connect:	0.000 sec
Redirect:	0.000 sec
First Byte:	0.000 sec
Last Byte:	0.000 sec
Size:	0 bytes
	
Tested From:	Brisbane, Australia
Tested At:	2007-12-12
16:35:59 (GMT -05:00)
URL Tested:	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Resolved As:	66.230.200.100
Status:	OK
Response Time:	4.641 sec
DNS:	0.944 sec
Connect:	0.233 sec
Redirect:	0.000 sec
First Byte:	0.338 sec
Last Byte:	3.126 sec
Size:	51067 bytes

Quotations

"One feature of Uncyclopedia's articles is the presence of quotes, which are often attributed to a person or other entity. Some of these individuals have gained an in-joke status with a reference to at least one of them on almost every page."

Um, isn't this being on "almost every page" something that the Uncyclopedians claim to rather desperately be trying to get away from at this point? What's the status of this item? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really trying to get away from it, more so avoiding the overuse of it, hence the, as we/they call it 'Quoticide' (Mass removal of quotes from an article). We still permit a quote or two on the top of the pages. - Enzo Aquarius (talk) 03:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Normaly we tend to keep 2 or 3 funny quotes on each article, and others on subjects like people or important things tent to have entire sections for quotes.--ThatDudeGuy 04:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Some Uncyclopedians do get carried away with quotes, therefore raiding the pages with Oscar Wilde, Russian Reversal, Captain Oblivious and the kind(there are even special Oscar Wilde templates). We usually delete the not-so-relelvant ones and keep the useful ones. But there are exceptions. The quotes are usually about Uncyclopedia in-jokes.--Faizaguo (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica article?

Um, ED is ALOT worse than Uncyclopedia, why hasn't anyone made a article about ED? I can't make it because i ain't good when it comes to making articles. -- Angus Nitro 10:37am, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica and Encyclopædia Dramatica are protected from creation, so no one can do it. --Jedravent (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's due to the prediction that, in the event of such an article being created, it would most be likely vandalized and trolled beyond belief by... enthusiastic Encyclopedia Dramatica users. Though I may be wrong in my assumption, they do have a history for that sort of thing. Feebas factor (talk) 03:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, pro-Uncyc users vandalize this page far more than anti-Uncyc users. So that would be expected for their page.--Jedravent (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No, it's because there are a lack of reliable sources for Wikipedia to have an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Encyclopedia Dramatica has been mentioned in reliable sources, but coverage appears to have been trivial. If enough reliable sources existed Wikipedia would consider having an article on it - I wouldn't object if an article could be written with enough third-party material about Encyclopedia Dramatica.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 17:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I just looked through a few logs of votes for deletion for the older ED pages, and I think that was a major part of them deleting it before. I also think that this info is useful for this article about uncyclopedia; for example, less internal sources and more external sources are better. - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 04:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we include something about Winkler?

Since it ties in with the other bit about cyberbullying? -- User:St jimmy:Ape —Preceding unsigned comment added by St jimmy (talk • contribs) 21:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nah, since it's just an in-joke that's not really worth noting, like Fisher Price. --AAA! (AAAA) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Mr. Winkler himself is not terribly notable in the grand scheme of things (and probably wouldn't have an Uncyclopædia page were it not for other pages mocking the incident). Still, a claim like "attack pages and clear vanity pages are now deleted on sight, leading to the deletion of many new articles" may need to be qualified a wee bit if the Winkler nonsense is kept. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

CC-by-SA confusion

I see that content on Uncyclopedia is in fact released under CC-by-SA, which is linked to from the site and says that content is released "for noncommercial purposes only". Yet Wikia is a for-profit company, and when it lists the site as a "featured Wikicity" that seems like a fairly prominent content draw. This makes me wonder what a commercial purpose really is, or whether Uncyclopedia is consistent with its own license. On the other hand, the actual page edit says "all contributions to Uncyclopedia are considered to be released under the Creative Commons SA License" but that doesn't literally specify that the editor is considered the licensor under that license, so maybe there's some witchcraft somewhere buried in the site that says that all contributions become their property, so actually it's them releasing it under that license? I may be entirely confused here but I hope someone figures out the apparent contradiction. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd suspect it's non-compliant. The contributions are the property of their respective authors, not the property of Wikia. Wikia is a for-profit company operating primarily with commercial motive in their dealings with Uncyclopedia and the CC-BY-NC-SA content.

There's also the question of the copyright status of articles from the English, Czech or non-Wikia projects once they've been copied or translated to other Wikia-hosted Uncyclopedia projects. In some cases, hundreds of pages in other languages have been created on uncyclopedia:en:babel/(whatever) - therefore CC-BY-NC-SA - and then moved to their own separate wiki under an incompatible license. Wikia (like Wikipedia) is GFDL, so incompatible with Uncyclopedia and its non-commercial license.

So yes, it's like the elephant in the centre of the living room that no one really wants to acknowledge is there... --carlb (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if there's a discussion someplace. After looking at this article again, I realize that some of my suspicions were unfounded (i.e. the license predates the site). I'm very skeptical that anyone at Wikia believes they are breaking the policy outright. Certainly the commercialism at the site is fairly minimal - a one-time promotion, a few tiny tags at the bottom of the page, some of which are the sorts of ads that many noncommercial sites give away free ("Powered by Wikia, Powered by Mediawiki, Digg This, Del.icio.us") It's a far cry from a fully commercialized Wiki (e.g. http://www.overclockingwiki.org), and many noncommercial entities use free Web space with some kind of ad in them. Nonetheless, this is what makes the question interesting. How far can a "noncommercial" restriction on distribution be eroded if the content is nominally held by a separate entity from the containing site? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The license itself is here. The wording is (section 4c) "You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation."

If Wikia's primary intent in using the CC-BY_NC_SA content is to obtain "commercial advantage" (presumably so, as they're using it primarily to drive traffic to other wikis on the site, which in turn are jam-packed with commercial advertisements) then yes, this is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.102.80.212 (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Active users

I'm not sure if I'm reading the chart right, but if I am the FFXI wiki has passed Wookiepedia in active users and now has over half the number of active users as Uncyclopedia. The chart (again, if I'm reading it right) shows an increase of 103% in active users during November, which is what caused it to jump up in the charts so quickly. So if this data is right then the article has to be updated to include this new information. The only reason I'm not doing it myself is that I'm not sure if I'm right. I'm just a shining star of self-confidence. Boomsta (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

You should really be more WP:BOLD(whatever the hell that means). Look at me, I'm linking to POLICIES!! - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 03:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, shouldn't that say be italic? :) --66.102.80.212 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

War on Wikipedia?

I was wondering, since this may or may not happen often, should this article mention that some articles that are only on Uncyclopedia, such as Double Ristretto Venti Half-Soy Nonfat Decaf Organic Chocolate Brownie Iced Vanilla Double-Shot Gingerbread Frappuccino Extra Hot With Foam Whipped Cream Upside Down Double Blended, One Sweet'N Low and One Nutrasweet, and Ice, have been added and deleted. Just wondering.--172.165.179.219 (talk) 02:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have references? If not, then no. I don't think it's notable anyway.--Jedravent (talk) 03:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Go to Uncyclopedia, then type Wikipedia in its SEARCH box. 65.163.113.170 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's just a single satirical article. You'll need better proof.--Jedravent (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No, YOU'LL need better proof. 76.19.97.7 (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Deutschland

I've removed a claim that the German-language Uncyclopedia was founded in May 2006. A quick check of the edit history has main page revisions back to 28 Aug 2005. The May 2006 date would appear to be whenever uncyclopedia.de stopped operating as an independently-hosted site, not the date of the project's founding. Big difference. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Screenshot

Just a simple suggestion, Image:398px-WP VS Eincyc.png should be divided into two images, and the browser windows should be removed so that it is just the page. It looks horrible. --Dan Leveille^TALK 10:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of January 18, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Some problems here. Some of the newspaper names are not done in italics (the North-West Evening Mail in the criticism section for example) which makes the article inconsistant. Also, all references should be put directly after punctuation marks, (for example, in the introduction, the second reference talking about the founding of Uncyclopedia such probably be put after the comma "Jonathan Huang" or "Chronarion"), with no spaces between the punctuation and the reference.

2. Factually accurate?: Pass: Article appears to be fully referenced throughout.

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass: Article seems to cover all possible areas.

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass: No evidence of bias.

5. Article stability? Pass: Some evidence of vandalism, but this appears to be dealt with easily. Perhaps try and get the article protected.

6. Images?: Some images need fair-use rational. You may want to use the {{Non-free use rationale}} to help you (see images on the Green Wing article for guidence).

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. ISD (talk) 11:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I corrected the problems in parts 1 and 6, but I was unable to get the article protected. --Jedravent (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few references that needed to be put in the correct style in the Press coverage section ("the Tucson, Arizona parody" and "the Hindustan Times"). You may want to add {{Non-free use rationale}} to the Unbooks image as well. ISD (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

GA passed

Well done! Like I said, you may want to try to get the article protected, but it is not needed. I just thought it would be useful to stop vandalism. ISD (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Nomination for Featured Status

I'm a bit confused about how this is done, but I think this article deserves featured status. To nominate it, would I just have to post this comment? Teh Rote (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You would simply have to post it here. --Jedravent (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks. --Teh Rote (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we delete Uncyclopedia now ? 65.173.105.114 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Heheheh ... no. The article became notable in recent days, and that will save it from being nominated for deletion. --Twicemost (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

fair use of images

I've noticed, that the screenshots are show UN in Internet Explorer, which makes the pics non-free, and requies fair use. I suggest, that we should take a screenshot in Firefox, remove the Start menu, save it, and upload. It won't contain non-free content, and anyone, who oppose nomination would be satisfied(at least, i won't be an "agains" criteria). --Drhlajos (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. --Jedravent (talk) 02:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can you do it, Drhlajos, or do you want me to? - TLB ^{(Tick Tock) (Contribs)} 02:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then I'll do it --Drhlajos (talk) 07:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Firefox doesn't make the images shown in the browser free. If the image would otherwise be permissible, you can do this in IE, just crop out the Start menu and the top bar, because that is not relevant to the website. Karanacs (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would still technically be non-free, since the screenshot would be rendered using IE's HTML parser. St. Jimmy 21:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

"The rear it is full"

ネットと現実、どっちが楽しい？ 「リア充」の先にある新しい友達関係 (babelfish: The net and actuality, either one is pleasant? First, the new friend relationship where "the rear it is full") appears to cover アンサイクロペディア with links to Ansaikuropedia pages such as one on love "Love not found. Try again? Some possible alternatives: sex, adult picture book..." As アンサイクロペディア is the largest non-English Uncyclopedia, it deserves at least a mention, but I'm hesitant to use a babblefish interpretation for anything. This language pair, in translation, has very poor intelligibility.

Could someone who speaks 日本語 take a look at this as a possible source for "In other languages" on this page? --66.102.80.212 (talk) 16:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Language list removed

I have removed the huge table of other languages as it is not necessary and is purely trivial information. Other languages are unlikely to be notable. Also see what Wikipedia is not, more specifically a collection of external links or list of external links, nor is it directory.--Otterathome (talk) 00:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Other languages vary in notability, with the largest (pt: and ja:) each providing over 10,000 pages of content at this point. The issue of whether some of the info in the "in other languages" section was repetitive enough to be suited to a table was raised during the first feature-article debate here: "The listing of other language versions is larger than most others but contains mostly trivial content that might be better suited for a table. Prose is not a good choice when the same data is repeated for each entry." There are other suggestions there - but it may be necessary to weed out a few that add nothing new or merely undo existing changes. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The notability of the other languages should not be based on how many pages they have.--Otterathome (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Telford

Someone should update the article with these sources about the Telford controversy: Group fights back after chav slur Is town really a 'chav magnet'? --Jedravent (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, see end of Criticism section.--Otterathome (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)