Forum:Amount of highlighting and linking in UnNews

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Amount of highlighting and linking in UnNews

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4232 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Okay, I'm going to put this on the dump, because there are several UnNews editors who are all doing the same thing to all the new UnNews articles, and I just don't get it.

Let's look at a random Wikinews article - we'll take Atlantic storm Danielle strengthens to hurricane force.

As we can see, it says this:

Meteorologists predict that Danielle will be the first of several storms to form within the next two weeks, as the Atlantic hurricane season is currently at its peak. "There are signs that the Atlantic is acting like it should in August and September. We're seeing more activity than we did earlier in the season," said Rick Knabb of the Weather Channel.

It does not say this:

Meteorologists predict that Danielle will be the first of several storms to form within the next two weeks, as the Atlantic hurricane season is currently at its peak. "There are signs that the Atlantic is acting like it should in August and September. We're seeing more activity than we did earlier in the season," said Rick Knabb of The Weather Channel.

Why the heck are our editors going through all the new articles and making everything look like the second example - bolding all the proper nouns^*, italicizing all the quotes, and dropping in dozens of links essentially at random?? If we're going to satirize Wikinews, why wouldn't we preserve their format? The second example is so ugly that I don't even want to read it. pillow talk 22:23, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I remember when the standard was not like this. I preferred it when people didn't come through my article and bold nouns for no reason^*. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:26 Aug 25 2010

Agree too. -- shiny Ape (recollect) (Riot Porn) 22:27, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

As far as the bolding of words is concerned, I only think it should be done when there is supposed to be some sort of yelling effect or something^*. I personally almost always italicize quotes in articles I write and that's to make them stand out a bit. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:31, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

No newspaper, news magazine, online news site, or news wiki that I have ever read in my life has italicized its quotes. pillow talk 22:32, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Lies. Or blind. Or unread.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 23:00 (UTC)

Like I said, that's just me. And I haven't written an UnNews in two years anyway. But yeah, the bolding of the proper nouns is pointless^*. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 22:36, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

That's because UnNews runs on a butchery of the AP and Chicago style. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:34 Aug 25 2010

I don't know if you're saying that the AP italicizes its quotes, but they don't. pillow talk 22:37, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not saying that. Just saying that they butcher them. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:46 Aug 25 2010

Well, let me rephrase because I don't want to sound smug. I myself, admittedly, have italicized quotes. But I've never bolded nouns^*. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:47 Aug 25 2010

I've italicized quotes too, just to keep with our conventions. But I've never liked the way it looked. And now I'm wondering why on earth a satire site would have different conventions than the articles it satirizes. pillow talk 22:56, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Before anyone else jumps in, there is a discussion about these points on UnNews_talk:Style page. Suggest that is read first.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Looks a lot like this forum, actually: people complaining that we format the UnNews articles in such a weird and ugly way, and other people explaining that that's just how we do it here, and no one explaining why.^* pillow talk 08:20, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

It's because

We have a dedicated team of super-heroic Uncyclopedians who wade through all of the UnNewses (good or bad) and correct them to conform to the heartily approved Uncyclopedic standard. This is done to give the section consistency and quality enjoyed by those who visit the site weather they be a contributor or casual viewer.
Also this: fuck all of you.
Thanks for listening. Cheers!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  26 Aug 2010 ~ 01:29 (UTC)

...'weather'? What, you work for AP too? ~ *sqlorsh* (harass) (stalk) -- 20100826 - 04:10 (UTC)

Ha! (When I posted that I notice the error but left it, trust you to catch it & come up with a hilarious retort!)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 04:47 (UTC)

an hilarious retort from the weather vain showing which way the wind blouse-- ⦿⨦⨀ Phrage (talk) 13:17, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

No. It's a computer virus. A computer virus. It's all over the internet. I'm surprised no one here knew. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:31, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Things I am For

• Italicized quotes. I'm with Dex on this. I like them.
• Bold date. Bold location. Nothing else bold. Except me. I'm like that. Bold, I mean. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:19, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Things I am Against

• All the other things. Also, while I'm at it, bolded captions in mainspace articles. You know who you are. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:28, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

How about this

• Italicized quotes totally optional; UnNews staff will just leave it the way the author did it.
• Bold date and location; nothing else bold except Modusoperandi.
• UnNews staff should try to avoid linking random words to articles they probably haven't even ever looked at and that probably suck.

"Seems to me that this not only improves the article formatting but also creates way less work for the UnNews staff, right?" said Hyperbole. pillow talk 08:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here replied by saying, "Yeah."

Socky says "Homicidal tigers should be allowed to use boldation for emphasis, though." —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:16, 26 August 2010

What Hyperbole said. When I was a young UnNews reporter, the part of this rant that I fought hard against, that I disliked the most, was the over-linking. I gave in to every other standard, even got used to the italicized quotes, but I despised all the useless links that added nothing to the humor of the article and could not even be said to promote this wiki very well, being links quite often to bad articles. I often removed links that were added by the editor in the "tidied up" stage. That's all. Back to my hole now. -- GlobalTourniquet: UnAstrologer, UnJournalist, shameless narcissistic America-hating liberal atheist award-winning featured writer 16:08, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Against.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 04:49 (UTC)

I have a better idea, as always

WE ALL BRAKE OUR CAPS LOCK KEY AND START WRITING LIKE THIS ITS FUNNY LOL!!!! -- Style  Guide 18:30, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

THAT'S A GREAT IDEA!!!! TRY IT! Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 20:45 Thursday, August 26, 2010

Link only when funny or really relevant

I agreedish that there are too many just-plain-links on many news stories. Not needed. I try to add links as humour on my pages, a twise to a point or a direct link to both the named article and possibly a secondary article. Linking can be considered an art in itself, served with wine and cheese, to be hung on a wall and spit upon or enjoyed. Aleister 18:40 26 8

Tip: The next time a plain link just won't work as humor, but you still want to link to that same article, try clicking on the What links here at the bottom of the page and then the Hide links option to see all of the redirect options available to you.

For.  Linking can be an art in itself. (Although it is just slightly failing me now.) I'd also be for linking when a new joke is created as well.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 05:18 (UTC)

I only add links to other pages that are also by me. My rampant ego centricity is just one of my many, many awesome characteristics. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 01:24, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Another forum vote

Since we plenty of us seem to be disliking the bolded names thing, let's have a little vote to see if we should make a note in the UnNews Style page that all mention of bolding proper nouns^* and stuff in the style guide shall be removed and users suggested to not do that. Also, a recommendation to keep spurious linking down to a minimum has been unilaterally added by me, because that's just common sense and good for the site.

Score: +7

• Yes let's add this little note into the style guide, since it's plenty more similar to actual news website styles and is also plenty less distracting and ugly. To illustrate how distracting and annoying this can be, in an UnNews made yesterday, the word "Chinese" was bolded. Chinese! -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 05:46, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

  Since neither Zim or Spike seem to be around at the moment I will prefer to hear what they say before voting on any other bits of UnNews users here like or dislike. I don't think holding a vote like this is being fair to them considering the work they have done for UnNews in the last seven months. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 06:52, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

  They can vote when they come around, it's not like I'll see 3 votes and close it within 24 hours like I had originally planned. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 07:19, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

  No, what "it's like," apparently, is that you will edit the style rule and start editing articles to conform before closing the vote. Spıke Ѧ 20:41 30-Aug-10

  I gave it three days and I saw consensus. I thought the fact that action was taken was enough to close a vote, but to humor your desires, hooray this vote is closed measure passed and stuff. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 21:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

• For MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 07:49, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
• For. per above. --Mn-z 18:41, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Chinese Aleister 18:23 27 8
• For. This madness must come to an end. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 18:54 Aug 27 2010
• For., Zim and SPIKE are great guys, but we need to stop treating UnNews as their baby (mainly a reply to Romartus, above). -- shiny Ape (recollect) (Riot Porn) 18:55, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you say what's really on your mind? If I say "Ape is a great guy, but..." it means I think you're a useful asshole, not to be taken seriously. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 20:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

• For., although I'd also like a provision that italicizing quotes is totally optional. pillow talk 19:43, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
• For. Not to disrespect anyone, but bolding everything just makes pages look ugly.--HM (T) 22:08, August 27, 2010 (UTC)
• For. I firmly believe this doesn't (and shouldn't) reflect personally on anyone, but nonetheless, any oligarchy, whether percieved or real, is a patently bad thing -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:05, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

"I firmly believe", "doesn't reflect on anyone"... sounds like any politician saying "here's what's really going on"... an oligarchy? perceived or real? It's all quite insulting, and I have no stomach for Machiavellian maneuvering. I will excuse myself now for being a patently bad thing. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 20:20, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

• Against. I like bolding for newsiness. (I'll bold your mom if I want to.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 22:52 (UTC)

Comment. Besides it's not the bolding that looks bad, it's just the bolding in this particular font. Lets make all UnNews in a different font.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 22:54 (UTC)

That's a lot of work rather than just not bolding.--HM (T) 23:02, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

I know, but your mom deserves the best.

• For, although this is a wiki. It's not like you can stop people from making ugly pages. Ugly people make ugly pages. It's a fact. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:20, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
• Against. The current effort has little to do with style and a lot to do, sometimes overtly (see above), with pushing aside first Zim's idiosyncrasies, then Zim. I do not support the process of having UnNews non-regulars bring issues to this forum, declare votes on whatever topics suit them, and stage-manage the vote. And TKF/EMC/Oli/Ape, I know you have to have the last word, but please keep it to yourself. Zim induced the production of content with carrots. You kids have nothing but sticks. Spıke Ѧ 20:41 30-Aug-10

  Well, you didn't say my name (Mostly because I'm not trying to get involved and I'm not really "in the know", as I'm not an UnNews writer) so here I go. I don't see why you're assuming all of this bad faith. This vote is about style. Nobody is trying to pass stuff for the sake of it. People are doing this because they think it would be better. You don't. That's fine. It doesn't mean they're part of some clique conspiracy. I know I'm being really frank here and I have no place in this debate, but I think you're being unfair. Just because myself and others haven't written a huge amount of UnNewses doesn't mean we're blind.

  My two cents. I'm now leaving this forum and not returning, as I have a feeling I'm about to be screamed at, and I have no place debating this. Bye!--HM (T) 20:52, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Against satirizing Wikinews

...and their unbolded marginally italicized pigswallop of a site. Screw them and their unoriginal bland look and reporting. Rape their children, cornhole their spouses, and then behead the lot of them, and then defile the corpses.

• For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 22:58 (UTC)
• Naw. Can't sell their organs on the black market very well if you do that. ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100827 - 23:20 (UTC)

Comment. But the video sales make up for it!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  27 Aug 2010 ~ 23:33 (UTC)

Comment. How about we compromise? I harvest their organs while they're still alive and then you can have your way with them as they die horribly and take videos of that... ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 01:33 (UTC)

Cha-ching!!! Oh! write a book on it and we've got a New York Times best seller! (but probably not endorsed by Oprah.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  28 Aug 2010 ~ 05:27 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Will it pay my way through art school? ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 08:00 (UTC)

Sorry no. (But your naked modeling should cover that anyway.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  28 Aug 2010 ~ 08:04 (UTC)

I didn't read any of this LOLOLOL -- Style  Guide 09:57, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good for you. (But Happytimes, it's the english majors that do the modelling. I thought you knew that.) ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 13:48 (UTC)

Don't I know it! Now that all those artists are dead the paintings I had to buy back from them in my college days are worth a fortune. (It took a long time to get back all that naked artwork of me... to sell or keep hidden... Delimma, delimma, delimma.)  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  28 Aug 2010 ~ 22:16 (UTC)

The basis of current policy

The current UnNews style is explained in From the Chief, Section 2.1.

Romartus, in the intro of this page, calls attention to the previous debate on this topic. I had documented the UnNews style in UnNews:Style. In April, based on this debate plus input from Mordillo, I moved the highlighting tips to Section 2.1, casting them as Zim's preferences rather than immutable style. Yesterday, Froggy edited Section 2.1 to further weaken the mandate on links.

My opinions:

1. It is important that all UnNews stories look similar. It reinforces the surface impression that UnNews is a legitimate news outlet.
2. Zim seems to prefer overlinking, and overuse of highlighting, as an in-joke that ridicules hyperlinked articles. There is nothing wrong with this.
3. Fidelity to Wikinews, again, is a non-goal.
4. This vote, like the vote nearby on the drive-by reform of the UnNews structure, seems to be the effort of a clique, perhaps taking advantage of Zim's illness-based absence, to take a well-oiled machine and "repair" it, from time to time mentioning that a side goal is for Zim not to feel as though he owns it, although it will fall to him to change his procedure and maintain it.
5. The active UnNews staff has expressed unanimous opposition to these changes. Even if a majority can be assembled in the community outside UnNews, I don't see what it proves or why it should prevail. The goal here is not democracy but inducing content to be produced.

This effort is like the out-of-towners who came to Rec volleyball to show us "how the game is really played." They made the event miserable before vanishing, as a bloc, to go to their tournament. Spıke Ѧ 13:51 28-Aug-10

For the second thing, that's fine for you, but those who aren't clued-in on UnNews will just be like "What is this?". Also, don't be so paranoid- the fact that Zim isn't around much right now has nothing to do with the vote. Also, I'm sure the vote won't be closed until Zim and the other people that use UnNews frequently have posted opinions. Finally, there is a vote for the whole community for a reason- everybody deserves a voice in these debates.--HM (T) 16:59, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Not everyone does. *shifty eyes* ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 17:56 (UTC)

There's no "clique" at work here. Virtually every single Uncyclopedian who isn't UnNews staff apparently agrees the overlinking and the bolding of proper nouns needs to stop, and even UnNews staff are at a loss to explain why on earth they do it (besides, basically, "Well, we've been doing it that way for a while."^*) pillow talk 18:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Good point Hype. Hey Spike, do you also believe that 9/11 was an inside job? For the record, the gov't didn't do it. The Jews did. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 19:02 Aug 28 2010

this effort is like the Soviet Government desperately clinging to remain in control as the union disintegrates around them. Don't you just love metaphors? -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:09, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because we're implementing glasnost. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 19:18 Aug 28 2010

Gesundheit. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

SPIKE, to answer all your points in turn:

1. Sure, we're not saying that there shouldn't be a consistent look and feel, we're saying bolding all the proper nouns looks like shit.
2. As pointed out before, there's no way for the average reader to figure that out.
3. As I asked before, who decided that? We're supposed to be a parody of WikiNews, and while we shouldn't necessarily do everything they do if it involves a huge amount of extra work, where it makes no real difference, I think we should err on the side of emulating WikiNews.
4. ZOMG conspiracy. There is no clique operating here. Its well known, for example, that Oli and Hype don't really get on, and I don't think I've ever spoken to HELPME and Mnbvcxz. UnNews is owned by the community, and while your opinions are important, it's not your domain to do what you want with, and you have no veto powers against the consensus of the community.
5. Again, as "Staff" you work for the community, you don't control UnNews. If you aren't willing to implement the changes the community wants, then perhaps you shouldn't be in that position in the first place.

Now can we please start discussing things like adults? This whole power-struggle game we have every time a new policy or idea is suggested is pretty pathetic. -- shiny Ape (recollect) (Riot Porn) 20:23, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Adults?! I only came by because people were being morons. It's cute. And then an Ape had to come along and be reasonable... *mutters* ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100828 - 21:55 (UTC)

APE, to answer all your points in turn:

1. "...bolding all the proper nouns looks like shit." is an opinion. Yes it's shared by a large portion of Uncylcers but another large(r) portion has no problem with it at all. Then there are those people like Me who actually, and thoroughly, enjoy it as we prefer Tabloid Format magazines and this is one of those.
2. Who the fuck cares if the "average reader" ever figures it out. The average reader can't figure out that Justin Bieber is the next Du Jour. I certainly don't the fuck care. (The average reader doesn't care either.)
3. As I asked before who decided that we're supposed to be a parody of WikiNews? I've never even read WikiNews (and I doubt the Average Reader has either). It's always been my understanding that: 1.) We are a humor site first and foremost. 2.) UnNews is a parody of other news sources on the Internet at large. 3.) We are a humor site first and foremost and therefore should do whatever we feel like doing.
4. UnNews is, and has been, owned by Me since I purchased it from Zana Dark for the low, low price of $0.07 back before I officially joined and was only know as: "That IP made some good edits there."
     OK, seriously, it seems as if this whole process is a round-about way to instill a veto on the current UnNews as it exists now. It does not appear as if you've organized enough to form a clique; it's obvious this is a jump-on-the-bandwagon type of action. UnNews is owned by the community; I'd say it belongs to about %60 of the UnNews community "Staff" and %40 to the Uncylopedia-at-large community.
5. %60/%40. We don't work for you either and you don't control us; the, "Do what I say 'cause I said it!" attitude is becoming tiresome.
     This isn't as much of a "power-struggle game" as it is an invasion, and from where I'm sitting you're all a bunch of [[insert famous major war-loosing country who is now looked on with disdain here]]'s. I do believe that statements like, "every time a new policy or idea is suggested" are weak. Phrases like, "pretty pathetic" are pretty pathetic as well, and would never make it in a real journalistic setting.

In conclusion... read all of that again; twice. I'm going drinking now.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  29 Aug 2010 ~ 05:11 (UTC)

There's no way to prove which side has more support, and trying to would really just result in a lot of really pointless bickering.--HM (T) 05:25, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I take it you're new here. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:01, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Reasons? We don't need no stinkin' reasons!

You whiners and complainers may have noticed I've been doing a lot less of that emboldening, italicising and such lately in response to the minging about it. This was another convention that settled out of the solution, and it makes the statement that, even though we think we're the greatest journalistic institution, we are actually a bunch of hack journalists who no one in their right mind would hire for a real journalism job. Links are just good wiki business practice, and bad links are funny if only because to send you to a stupid article in good grammar English language. "Excessive" numbers of links tell the readers we are certainly not professionals. Our presentation combined goofy features of tabloids and other awful publications with our own way of doing it. I also had yellow journalism in mind when I started doing it to almost all articles. It is probably my own fault that I never made this clear before.

“America is the greatest land in our country.”

~ Glenn Beck on his membership in Mensa.

Because I haven't been well (more unwell than usual?), I've been online much less than usual, so I decided, "if they don't want me to do the extra work, I won't do it. In fact, I don't really have much time to do more than some periodic chores, so I won't edit anything for the most part." I pledge, once I'm feeling better, to be a more social and well-informed Uncyclopedian, and will commit to keeping myself more informed about community stuff to avoid causing or fanning the flames of kerfuffles. Maybe.

Uncyclopedia is the worst, and UnNews strives to be worse than that. I live my life by this principle. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 21:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

APE: Surely you can't expect us to discuss a topic like UnNews rant without being utter dick bags about it? Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 21:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have no major preference either way with regard to the page - there's a lot I like and dislike about the existing version and Olipro's new version - but this seemed as good a time as any to say "Hope you feel better soon, Zim - the old place needs you." Rabbi Techno kvetch Contribs FOXES 21:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, on a serious note, sorry you're not feeling well, Zim. Get better! pillow talk 23:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks folks. Y'all rock. Cheers! Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 23:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Boldface for proper nouns

discontinue the bolding of proper nouns, and begin the bolding all improper nouns. Who's with me? For.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  29 Aug 2010 ~ 03:35 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you? pillow talk 03:57, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I think he's just joking, Hype. Well, I hope he's just joking... MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 04:02, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I dunno; it makes more sense than bolding the proper ones. ~ (talk) (stalk) -- 20100829 - 04:52 (UTC)

I agree with Happytimes, this is a great idea! —fj0j3ddjoaw;rfjaew (r30qjd) 04:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Happytimes is here. Outside of that, any other defects are inconsequential. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:08, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

The bolding of proper nouns is an actual tool found in the style referred as the "Tabloid Format" taught in journalism classes at schools around the world (and not a reference to junk magazines at your local checkout stand).

No one bolds all proper nouns. We have bolded people's names, and usually names of institutions, on the first occurrence in the story. Not, for instance, names of states or countries. Spıke Ѧ 12:10 29-Aug-10

I had tabloids once. After a few days of putting medicated creme on them, I could sit down again. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 05:20, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Cool factoid. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 11:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

From Phrage

Tuppenceworth of an involuntarily emboldened n⦿⨦⨀b: The emboldening may have been taught in journalism schools in Ancient Greece but its excessive application still makes reading a piece with it tiresome, like that fucking dancing green condom making this page look maggoty( an otherwise wonderful guy has chosen it as his moniker-go figure)

Tabloid rags in the real world use scattergun emboldening sometimes, but no quality paper does.

The italics,when applied to quotes, are equally idiotic . Italicization is for other purposes.Inverted commas work just fine. Italics AND inverted commas -belt and braces?

Hell, I don't even like Italian food.

And what is this shit about all UN news articles needing to look the same ? Will stand up comedians be required to wear a standard beige uniform next too ?

It might be different if articles here sat side by side on a page together but they stand alone. Anyway a parody of a Reuters bulletin SHOULD look different to a NYT one, etc. Does any newswebsite online embolden proper nouns through the text ?

Who is Zim? Whoever he is -if he is ill I wish him well. Ah, there he is -Get well sir-- ⦿⨦⨀ Phrage (talk) 11:49, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

The analogy of stand-up comics is imprecise. No one wants Bob Newhart and Sam Kinison either to dress or act alike--but you would hate to go see one and wind up getting the style of the other. There should be an "UnNews look"--this is more important than the particulars--and I don't agree with Zim's implication that part of the joke is broadcasting that we have low standards.

I too have told Happytimes that his signature "makes it look like there are ants on my screen!" This was on a page he had signed 15 times, and in the spring when there often were ants on my screen. Spıke Ѧ 12:20 29-Aug-10

Better on screen than in your pants I suppose, unless the screen ends up sticky . Like ants, some of the denizens here never sleep. They patrol the corridors muttering("I coudda bin a contendah on the WP ? )and waving blue pencils. -- ⦿⨦⨀ Phrage (talk) 14:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

From Happytimes to Phrage (and the general populace at large).

1.) I don't know if boldering was taught in the journalism schools of Ancient Greece, I'm not that old; and can't be bothered to look it up on the interwebs.
2.) I like animated GIF's in signatures and would have one regardless of image.

(important reference point)

3.) It's a dancing green banana, not a condom. I think the intention was that one day the banana would turn from green to yellow when I stopped being a noob-- but that's never gonna happen as I eschew responsibility.
4.) Thanks for the compliment. Cool.
5.) Please give us three examples of tabloid rags in the real world that sometimes use scattergun emboldening.
6.) I think most people either like, or are indifferent to, italicization at this point. (I for one like it.) The argument is for bolding however, (see BELOW:) ....
7.) I don't think the intention is to have all UN news articles look the same, just have a consistency to the feel of the UnNews portal.
8.) You make some good points about the side-by-side & the parodying of other news sites. At this point I don't believe we have parody "templates"/formats for other sites however... maybe this would be a solution to the, "we parody the "<insert news service here>" argument???? Should be easy to implement in the article creation widget if we decide to go that path-- (but it would be very time consuming for the "programmer" who would make it seamless to the average person.)
9.) Zim will get better. Better and betterer.
10.) There are actually tiny, tiny, tiny ants on the banana, that's the real reason why he's dancing! (He's happy weird about ants for some reason.)
11.) (The call for the bolding all improper nouns was a joke.)

BELOW:
...I think an argument can be made that as a wiki-format we often link in place of bolding when enhancing people's names and institutions. However;

1.) Linking all enhancements would cause additional work to provide quality linking with alternate links.

2.) I don't see why we can't do both as we've been doing so far (aside from the fact that some people think it looks like shite.)

I've often wondered over the past few days what it would look like if UnNews went to a different font/format. (Doing so may soften the bold edge that so many have expressed a personal preference against.) But I think that may not be a solution now as I see no support for it.

I've always looked at the formatting of UnNews (including bolding) articles as a service up until this debate started. I can understand if we discontinue this service as a wholesale entity, but I don't think it should be verboten after the conclusion of this topic. (Maybe we should leave it up to the author when they create their articles in the future? We could put a statement like this maybe:

<!-- Mark boxes if you don't want our fiendly editing staff to improve your article with:

additional links [ ], italics [ ], bolding [ ]. (See style guide for more info.) --> ???

I think I'm with HELPME at this point & will bow out of the debate now. (I'll follow-up on questions asked though.)
To wrap it up here: I'm for bold, italics and linking. The Average Reader is most likely an idiot.

P.S. I got the sand out of my vagina after some late-night drunken Karaoke. Sorry for acting like a semi-ass to make my points.

That is all. Cheers!  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  31 Aug 2010 ~ 00:54 (UTC)

does anyone actually think the bolding looks good?

i've seen plenty of people saying the bolding looks like pure (roman) dog shit, yet not many people coming out and saying that bolding is aesthetically pleasing. Any guesses as to what this could mean? -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 05:44, Sep 1

My motivations for creating the old "UnNews standard formatting" (1) It was unique to UnNews (2) amusing because it's cheesy (3) amusing because it loosely mimics shit publications (4) UnNews staff have inflated self-image. Many seem to feel that it's ugly (of course, it is, intentionally so), and that is reason enough to stop doing it. I don't care in the end. It's actually less work. As far as I can tell things are in a state of flux, but soon UnNews formatting will essentially be the same as Uncyclopedia formatting in general. Rev. Zim (Talk) Get saved! 17:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see a huge problem with things being formatted at least similarly to each other. Otherwise I like penis, and it is less friendly to people who are 'normal' uncyclopedians trying to branch into unnews. -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 20:35, Sep 3

I like it for the above reasons that Zim has mentioned, plus some others, plus I think it looks pretty sexy-- but I use the wrong font and thusly have my vote invalidated yes?  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  04 Sep 2010 ~ 02:48 (UTC)

Isn't the formatting transparent "to people who are 'normal' Uncyclopedians trying to branch into UnNews" as it takes place well after they are done with their article?

Spike flips

A little highlighting breaks up the monotony of an entire article in Roman, as illustrations and references to {{Old news}} do too.

But I can't agree with any of Zim's rationales above: (2) Having UnNews stories look cheesy, and (3) having UnNews mimic shit publications, goes against the goal I stated above of having UnNews superficially resemble a legitimate news outlet. (4) UnNews staff may have an inflated self-image, but it certainly doesn't support my charge above that the movers were flexing their egos to counter that we have bigger egos.

And (1) that the style is unique to UnNews is not just not a defense, it nullifies my argument that this is the wrong Forum for this decision. While minor issues of aesthetics and implementation should be decided in the UnNews:Newsroom by UnNews people, with no one excluded but with some weight given to each's level of participation, Uncyclopedia at large is always entitled to rein in gratuitous stylistic variation in a department. There is no question that the reader is in UnNews; the logo at upper left changes, and UnNews stories don't look like mainspace articles. That "of course, it is [ugly], intentionally so" is not necessary and not an enhancement.

Happytimes, such changes aren't transparent to authors; it actually simplifies the task of writing a story, as the author need not insert as much highlighting in the article. Other stylistic decisions, such as choice of font, indeed are applied independent of the source file. Spıke Ѧ 10:22 4-Sep-10

No Comment

*cough* -- Kip > Talk • Works • • 12:51, Sep. 5, 2010

did you do that just to show everyone how fucking terrible highlighting and linking can be? -- Soldat Teh PWNerator (pwnt!) 05:21, Sep 7

That's an actual article? Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 04:01 Thursday, September 9, 2010

Too many "BIG" tags inserted for sure.  ~ Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!*  (talk) (stalk) Π   ~  ~  11 Sep 2010 ~ 04:10 (UTC)

There are a lot of things that shouldn't be there. Leutnant Herr Thatdamnedfollowspot 04:42 Saturday, September 11, 2010