Forum:Emergency Collaborations
good morrow, fellow uncyclo people. i have recently been struck by an idea whilst perusing the VFD page. it seems currently, the article concerning the popular movie Twilight is rather bad. i use the terms 'rather' and 'bad' fairly loosely here, as simply reading the quotes and introductory paragraph may have given me chronic lung problems somehow. i say: this must be fixed.
now surely you are saying to yourself things like, 'sure gerry, but what can we do about it?', 'there are countless subpar articles, but why fix this one?', and 'i wonder if my hot pockets are ready?'. my point is that this isn't an obscure below-average article that will probably bother nobody. this article is probably where a large fraction of web surfers go immediately after stumbling upon this silly wiki. in a sense, articles about currently popular subjects are just as important as features and other highlighted materials, because they are viewed so much. i'm sure we lost a lot of potential good users because they were disappointed by the level of quality of the article they first chose to view. and i think your hot pockets might need another 30, pop 'em on back in the microwave.
in this vein i say 'let's do something about it.' now i am in fact familiar with uncyclopedia dogma such as UN:LAZY, but i feel if we can band together, we can at least make some popular articles go from cringe-worthy to decent. i'm thinking about something along the lines of Colonization, only, we actually do it. users could nominate articles that are in a sad state from many, many recent edits from a large number of contributors, and we then pick articles, discuss a general approach on the talk page, and improve said articles. it wouldn't need to be week-long nominations and such like colonization, more of a general list at any time. a good example would be the ruckus that is Barack Obama. surely we, as a collective group of humorists and humorites, can do better than this?
ok, your hot pockets are done now. 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I can't remember what the first thing I looked for was, but I do remember it not existing, maybe we should first make sure we have a sub par article on everything before we improve them? But in all serious I think you have a good idea here! I say for! ~Orian57~
~Talk~ 
17:04 12 February 2009
- Back in my "reader but not yet even ip editor" days, I used to hate it when major subjects were not covered, like notable cartoon and video game characters. Also, links that redirect back to the article they are in also annoyed me to no end. Most noobs use this like wikipedia, using the search box to find articles, as opposed to the "featured content" link. --Mnb'z 19:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I remember my experience with Maverick. I had wrote the UnNews story about Hillary being chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and using and linking to Maverick only to find an absolutely dreadful article written in Rasta pigeon English. I burned a lot of time by myself making it look presentable because the term was so in vogue last year and was likely to get more hits than other pages. I'd be happy to help with some emergency collaborations in the future.-- 17:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we would be better off attempting to improve colonization than creating a new movement that aims to do the same thing. Personally, I think it's a bit of a lost cause. I write articles when I have a good inspirational idea. Writing about a topic that I haven't got a real interest in is hard work and it's not as much fun as writing something for yourself. Plus there's all the crap that you have to wade through and prune back. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hate to say it, but I think Mickey hit the nail on the head. I heard he also hit an orphaned Bolivian child on the head, but I can't say I agree with that. (C'mon man, were the brass knuckles really necessary?) --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Mick is right. Colonisation is a worthy idea, as is this slightly tweaked version of it, but it's hard to get enthusiastic about it enough to get working on it most times. And you need that enthusiasm to write anything decent. I don't see what this will do anything to change that, if there is anything that could change it. --UU - natter
16:16, Feb 13
- Mick is right. Colonisation is a worthy idea, as is this slightly tweaked version of it, but it's hard to get enthusiastic about it enough to get working on it most times. And you need that enthusiasm to write anything decent. I don't see what this will do anything to change that, if there is anything that could change it. --UU - natter
For. Reviving Colonization. -Sockpuppet of an unregistered user 15:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)- For ignoring our baser instincts to have a vote on the subject and instead get our asses in gear. If we need a leader on this, I'll be more than happy to get things up and running again. I didn't know about colonization until it was already sorta over, and I'd love to be a part of it. Gerry's right, and this has been a concern of mine for a while. I think we've all kinda let ourselves get into this groove of "lol i write articles with long titles because i'm teh shit" when there are plenty of mainspace articles that are utter shit right now. I'm just as guilty of this as the rest of you. But we need to improve those articles that casual readers are going to look up, and we need to do so asap. Google sez we're falling behind ED as far as search volume goes. To bottom line it for you, if we need someone to step forward and lead this project, I'll do it. Just say the word and I'll devote all of my free time to it. —Sir SysRq (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sideline note: To be honest, I could care less if ED possesses more hits than Uncyc. It's the sense of humour that differentiates, as the obsession with internet memes makes more than just the grade with a large majority of 28-year old virgins on the internet (et al). I like to think that Uncyclopedia is, with the articles the dedicated users do so well to highlight, mostly independent of memes, instead instigating various forms of humour that doesn't simply try to literally form an encyclopaedia for the internet, instead of the world as a whole, further chasing the dream of Wikipedia (within it's comedic context, of course). As for the topic raised by Gerry, it is definitely a sensible idea, but we shouldn't quite force ourselves on articles if we don't want to. If someone is willing to pile their hearts unto researching Twilight just for the sake of gathering humour material, then I highly respect them. All in all, my general opinion is that no real oh my god it's an emergency! situation should be put at hand, as important the idea is that Gerry has put forward. Just my £0.02p. --
-kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bold text The whole ED thing was just a minor point. My real point is that as long as these sub-par mainspace articles are allowed to go without improvement, we lose many of our IPs that probably share our sense of humor, they just found one of the bruises on the great apple that is Uncyc. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bold text highlights the only bothersome things than I admit such as the "oh holy god you're right, sissie, i'm wrong, please don't hurt me i only ever wanted to listen to killing joke, jesus christ". It was only a sideline note though. In fact, I don't know what the useless parts of my opinion matter on a humour website, such as my choice of what shade of green I prefer my grass scenery to be on my model trainset. I understand your real point and I revere it deeply. Can I go back listening to Killing Joke now, please? ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what Killing Joke is. All I know is how to make my text distracting to other readers. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- In answer to what Killing Joke is, my favourite shade of green for grass scenery is a kind of light green, as to not overpower the classic 1930s deep green odour of the rolling stock and coaches that 'trundle along my rails. As for bold text, Killing Joke are a band. Listen to "Love like Blood" for a decent song that yet possesses no flow to it whatsoever. ---kun "whisper sweet nothings into thine ear..." 00:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- In answer to what Killing Joke is, my favourite shade of green for grass scenery is a kind of light green, as to not overpower the classic 1930s deep green odour of the rolling stock and coaches that 'trundle along my rails. As for bold text, Killing Joke are a band. Listen to "Love like Blood" for a decent song that yet possesses no flow to it whatsoever. --
- I don't know what Killing Joke is. All I know is how to make my text distracting to other readers. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Bold text highlights the only bothersome things than I admit such as the "oh holy god you're right, sissie, i'm wrong, please don't hurt me i only ever wanted to listen to killing joke, jesus christ". It was only a sideline note though. In fact, I don't know what the useless parts of my opinion matter on a humour website, such as my choice of what shade of green I prefer my grass scenery to be on my model trainset. I understand your real point and I revere it deeply. Can I go back listening to Killing Joke now, please? --
- Bold text The whole ED thing was just a minor point. My real point is that as long as these sub-par mainspace articles are allowed to go without improvement, we lose many of our IPs that probably share our sense of humor, they just found one of the bruises on the great apple that is Uncyc. —Sir SysRq (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Sideline note: To be honest, I could care less if ED possesses more hits than Uncyc. It's the sense of humour that differentiates, as the obsession with internet memes makes more than just the grade with a large majority of 28-year old virgins on the internet (et al). I like to think that Uncyclopedia is, with the articles the dedicated users do so well to highlight, mostly independent of memes, instead instigating various forms of humour that doesn't simply try to literally form an encyclopaedia for the internet, instead of the world as a whole, further chasing the dream of Wikipedia (within it's comedic context, of course). As for the topic raised by Gerry, it is definitely a sensible idea, but we shouldn't quite force ourselves on articles if we don't want to. If someone is willing to pile their hearts unto researching Twilight just for the sake of gathering humour material, then I highly respect them. All in all, my general opinion is that no real oh my god it's an emergency! situation should be put at hand, as important the idea is that Gerry has put forward. Just my £0.02p. --
- Hate to say it, but I think Mickey hit the nail on the head. I heard he also hit an orphaned Bolivian child on the head, but I can't say I agree with that. (C'mon man, were the brass knuckles really necessary?) --S0.S0S.0S.0S0 01:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- It seems to me that we would be better off attempting to improve colonization than creating a new movement that aims to do the same thing. Personally, I think it's a bit of a lost cause. I write articles when I have a good inspirational idea. Writing about a topic that I haven't got a real interest in is hard work and it's not as much fun as writing something for yourself. Plus there's all the crap that you have to wade through and prune back. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey) 19:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I hope you get some capslock, Gerry...
But seriously, the Twilight article is shit. Colin 
ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, his style of writing is impeccable. --Nachlader 17:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like my penis. Colin
ALL YOUR BASEHeaney! Casa Bey Superfly Portfolio 18:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Like my penis. Colin
Ideas wanted
Ok, I read the book Twilight, and actually liked it somewhat, though the first 100 pages or so were slow. Never saw the movie, looked like it was made for preteen females. So I do know something about the first book anyways, but am better at detail work (like fixing formatting, grammar, spellchecking) than humor. No, there was no sex in the first book, but plenty of teenage obsession on the object of her crush. I agree that the guy in the movie had bad hair though, and surely there's gotta be some humor take on a sparkly vampire who makes truces with werewolves and is like a vegie vampire because he only eats animals (not people). So basically I need some GOOD ideas to build the article with, other than that the series sucks, only retards like it, blah blah blah. Hate by itself doesn't make for a good funny article, though it can be implied in a very subtle manner (statements about Edward Cullen being gay and the writer having no talent are NOT subtle). If you hate romance novels, and books written for female teens, you would hate the book too, since it is essentially both. And by the way, to understand my perspective, I am female myself, but far too old to be romantically interested in a 17 year old. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Oh? How about a 97 year old with rickets and one good eye? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 08:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Write it about twilight the classic baseball movie. Or, in other words, The Sandlot but with the twilight characters' names. (There is a scene with vampire baseball in it, right?) Alternatively, you could write it like it was written by a whiny 12 y/o girl trying to defend the book. Either way, see here for the proper way to satire a movie. Also, see the bottom of this talk page. That goes for all of you! - T.L.B.
WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 15:01, Feb 16
