Forum:Featuring stuff
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Ministry of Love > Featuring stuff
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5879 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
So yeah, when people feature stuff, can they make the blurbs a little longer? Check the lengths of the columns on the main page - the right column is like twice as long today. So can we try and make it so they're about equal when doing the feature stuff? That's pretty much it. • Spang • ☃ • talk • 00:43, 13 Oct 2008
- Maybe the news section should just be shorter, did you ever think of that? - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
(Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:02, Oct 13
- That and the "On this day..." need less. Maybe set the "On this day..." to randomly pick 7 to 10 things. Kinda like the "Did you know" template does... /me shuts up. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- "On this day" just sucks. Invariably. Every day. Full of red links, disorganization, terrible formatting, and lack of funny. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:11 Oct 13, 2008
- I was actually considering starting a forum topic about getting rid of "On this day". It's never made me laugh and it's just an IP magnet. --Mr. Monkey
Pant-hoot here. 01:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Today's made me laugh just now... International Paranoia Day with that picture was amusing, and I liked how it took the theme with the assassination and the CIA...yeah... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 01:29, Oct 13
- Well on this day is still on wikipedia's main page, so if anyone doesn't like it... {{sofixit}} • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:43, 13 Oct 2008
- Yesh, but a) who's going to fix all 365, and b) yes, Wikipedia has it, but if we can't parody it well, what's the point of having it? It's like saying "Well, Wikipedia has page X, therefore we should have a parody of page X," but everyone knows that if the parody isn't well-done it's out the window before you can say QVFD. So why keep it? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:10 Oct 13, 2008
- Uncyclopedia main page ~= Wikipedia main page, above the fold, at least. And it can be parodied well, even if it isn't now, so removing it isn't really a sensible option, as the "It could be better... so delete it" mentality is kinda stupid. I'm pretty sure all 365 don't need fixed, and the link to see tomorrow's one is there for a reason. If nobody can be bothered to check it, one can only assume that nobody cares that much? And what would go in its place if it was removed? Double the out-of-date-ness of In The News? Double the redundancy of Did You Know? Have a huge colonisations box (which is also kinda out of place, really, but out of the way)? Or have nothing at all, as nobody can be offended by the poor quality of non-existent jokes? If that's your thing, you should probably start using http://improved-uncyclopedia.org, which is specifically designed with that way of doing things in mind.
- Best not rock the boat, and just go with taking 2 paragraphs instead of one for the feature blurb in future, eh? • Spang • ☃ • talk • 03:53, 13 Oct 2008
- Instead of "On this day..." it should be "Back in my day...", dagnabit. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 16:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, but that's a different matter. Still, it's something that severely needs work. The Main Page is representative of the site, and having a quarter of it suck so horribly is really not the best of ideas. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 16:59 Oct 16, 2008
- "The Main Page is representative of the site" and "a quarter of it suck(s) so horribly". Exactly. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yesh, but a) who's going to fix all 365, and b) yes, Wikipedia has it, but if we can't parody it well, what's the point of having it? It's like saying "Well, Wikipedia has page X, therefore we should have a parody of page X," but everyone knows that if the parody isn't well-done it's out the window before you can say QVFD. So why keep it? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 03:10 Oct 13, 2008
- Well on this day is still on wikipedia's main page, so if anyone doesn't like it... {{sofixit}} • Spang • ☃ • talk • 01:43, 13 Oct 2008
- Today's made me laugh just now... International Paranoia Day with that picture was amusing, and I liked how it took the theme with the assassination and the CIA...yeah... - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon
- I was actually considering starting a forum topic about getting rid of "On this day". It's never made me laugh and it's just an IP magnet. --Mr. Monkey
- "On this day" just sucks. Invariably. Every day. Full of red links, disorganization, terrible formatting, and lack of funny. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 01:11 Oct 13, 2008
- That and the "On this day..." need less. Maybe set the "On this day..." to randomly pick 7 to 10 things. Kinda like the "Did you know" template does... /me shuts up. --MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 01:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
All In Favor Of Changing "On This Day" to "Back In My Day...Dagnabit"
Score: +3 old gits
- For Also, I've been doing most of the featuring lately. I'll go ahead and step it up starting tomorrow. -RAHB 21:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- For, dagnabit. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 23:30, Oct 16
- If it'll get those damn kids offa my lawn, I'm all fer it. --Mr. Monkey Pant-hoot here. 23:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)