Forum:The dwindling of Uncyclopedia

Forums: Index > Village Dump > The dwindling of Uncyclopedia

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4238 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Along with fatigue at the many editing and policy "wars" and the manner in which they are fought, and the recent overt declaration of our hosts that (initially, for things found obscene) our creativity is to be subordinated to the needs of corporate legal staff, an article in The Atlantic suggests that the reason Wikipedia is seeing the same decline is simply that the job is nearing completion. And an increasing number of Uncyclopedia articles are done well enough that the average rank amateur does not think he can improve on them (and if he is sufficiently rank, we revert him when he tries), and an increasing number of these have been Featured Articles and implicitly resist alleged improvement.

Something separate is that the Internet continues to grow and diversify. Like any amateur starting a Web-based (or not Web-based) business, once your Bright Idea has been put into effect, you achieve traffic--usually through advertising--or the business dies. It is just not enough any more to be the world's best parody of an on-line encyclopedia that is itself becoming less notable among web pastimes. People have to care about it. Failing that, there is an ever-increasing number of alternative websites begging for hours of amateur effort. Spıke Ѧ 10:36 5-Nov-12

I dunno, man. "Job complete"? We certainly have plenty of quantity, but precious little quality. A random sampling of pages (Halloween, Paul McCartney, Shark, Oklahoma, Russia) turns up a cornucopia of mediocrity. We have 2,000+ featured articles; let's say we've got three times that number that are decent or better. That leaves 20,000 stinkers that are doing double duty as "placeholders".

I think what's doing this place in is Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Hulu, Crackle, etc. When the site started in '05, our target demographic didn't really have other major, organized distractions besides Wikipedia. Twitter didn't exist. Facebook had 5 million users. MySpace had less than 30 million. Hulu didn't exist; YouTube didn't go public until May; and streaming video was still a buggy mess. The iPhone itself wasn't even released until mid-2007, and Android handsets over a year later. (These facts amaze me.)

So when the original base of users who joined from 2005-08 grew up, graduated, or got "work" or "lives", or got eaten by lions, their replacements were being drawn to brain-droppings on Twitter, or cat videos on UBoob. When the user base didn't replenish itself after 2008, Uncyc was set up for the constant and now-accelerating attrition. Unlike, say, The Onion or Cracked.com, we have no marketing, so the actions of Wikia are just driving the damned knife in.

I agree with you, SPIKE, that there needs to be some diversification, but how to accomplish that is beyond me, especially with our Corporate Overlords. The only way of getting more users (and viewers) here is by word-of-mouth, pulling them in ourselves, kicking and screaming. I'm not giving up just yet, but I'll be sending out prayers to St. Jude, the patron of hopeless causes. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Mon, Nov 5 '12 16:40 (UTC)

There's always been new discoveries, but not as much groundbreaking ones though. And new events come and go, and comedy is not going to die out just yet. When comedy goes extinct, we go extinct. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 06:45, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

A Cornucopia of Mediocrity

Chart showing the current composition of Uncyclopedia articles. Stolen from Wikipedia's version, because fuck originality. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Thu, Nov 8 '12 13:45 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia: A Cornucopia of Mediocrity is our motto. Always has been. Besides, comedy's dead. The next big things are Korean rappers dancing like they're riding horses and shorting Facebook stock. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 03:30, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was Uncyclopedia: Thank God for Ceftriaxone. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Nov 6 '12 4:38 (UTC)

A new joke mine needs to be discovered. A new Columbus required....--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 12:46, November 6, 2012 (UTC)

The next Big Thing

There are far more "my sojourn" jokes out there than there are "suddenly raccoons". Maybe what Uncyclopedia needs is a new forced meme. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 15:48, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Promote Navelism? --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 23:03, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

"Suddenly, Raccoons" refers to all Uncyclopedia in-jokes, ranging from My Sojourn to anything Bat-Fuck related. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 9 '12 3:49 (UTC)

Add a section about "userspace" to the Beginner's Guide

Userspace is no longer mentioned in the Welcome message, nor is it mentioned anywhere in the Beginner's Guide. This should be fixed, so that new users can take more time to practice writing articles in userspace before getting them stomped on in mainspace. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 06:35, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

Was the Welcome message not slimmed down exactly to be more "user-friendly"?! Spıke Ѧ 12:09 11-Nov-12

The notorious {Fix} tag

Let's allow the creation of encyclopedia dramatica-like articles, articles about famous wikipedia vandals, articles about famous memes, and stop deleting funny articles like Uwe boll. In fact revive most articles that were killed by fix tag abuse in 2011-2012. that will help a lot.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 08:05, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a bad idea. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 08:06, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Also, don't forget to exodus from wikia. LIKE RIGHT NOW--fcukmanLOOS3R! 09:40, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Illogicopedia tried that...their new server was so slow that they lost even more users. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 15:37, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

---

Revive most articles killed in the fix tag abuse in 2010-2012 if they are not overly terrible.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 03:08, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

@Mr-ex777 if you want to fix up such articles all you have to do is ask an admin to restore it for you, so you can fix it... ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 05:45, November 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the {{Fix}} tag was indiscriminately applied to good articles, nor that the Way Forward is to encourage a new supply of bad (def.: Encyclopedia Dramatica) ones. But it was offputting, when I returned after a ban, to see that some of my articles had been tagged, making my first task on return either to obey the Admin (in fact, the one who banned me), or remove the Fix tag without repair (which was called for in a couple cases) and thereby openly defy him. That dilemma might have induced users not to return at all. Spıke Ѧ 12:09 11-Nov-12

New Direction: Allow ED-style humour with wit of the Onion. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 07:50, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

I have an intricate plan to potentially bring in a brand new userbase for you guys...

...However it involves bringing in a flood of bronies. Is it worth it? Choose carefully and let me know if, as a last resort, you want me to press the button. It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 16:15, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

Enough defeatism! This is turning into Vichy Uncyclopedia!! Bah!!! --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 21:38, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

We have two options: Die now but have a good legacy, or die later and have a shitty, brony-infested legacy. We already brought in Kirby, and we haven't died yet, so...I guess it's worth a shot. I lost all my brony contacts in the Great Aimsplode Rapture of 2012 (which was significantly more rapture-like than the previous two years), so we'd have to rely on Kirby and THS to recruit.

Seeing as they are both teenagers (*shiver*), but also noting that the majority of our audience are <13 and 14-20, that actually makes pretty good sense. In fact, why don't we have sort of a recruiting competition? We can form teams of three or so, and try and get as many people to the site as possible. Whoever wins gets, like, a free UN:STORE item for each member of the team (it will be one of the cheapest things there, of course). That seems like some good initiative. Although I realize this site is a part-time weekend job for most of us, I believe that we can revitalize it sufficiently to the point that we have a constant stream of new articles being put out and fixed up. History never stops - it never will - so we should focus more on ongoing events and recent things than old-time things that people have forgot about. Nobody cares about Y2K anymore, so that's irrelevant: but the upcoming "Fiscal Cliff" that everyone's got a stick up their ass about? We could make some good shit out of that. ^{←HGA→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} _{22:03 11 November 2012} And that was HGA's response that veered wildly off-course and turned into a full-out rant. Maybe someone could make some use out of it. Also note that we should write more about things younger people are in to, not old fogies like us (meaning the people older than 25).

You're going the wrong way. We should try to appeal to old people. Their kids bought them computers, and they're just filling the empty days before they kick off. Plus, once they get going, they're full of inappropriately racist humour. And the best part is, all we need to do to attract them is put out a bowl of mints, kick up the thermostat ten or twenty degrees, and knit cozies for the toaster and spare toilet rolls. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:27, November 11, 2012 (UTC)

No; and, no. Self-styled leaders of an Uncyclopedia recruitment drive have no greater expertise to target specific age brackets than national leaders have expertise to decide we need to reinvigorate manufacturing versus push solar energy. The energy of the young and the perspective of the old have always combined to give this place vitality. Yes, whether Y2K or the resignation of Spiro Agnew, as an event fades from importance, articles get deleted or at least face a greater burden to prove to the new reader that he should care; that's a natural part of staying relevant. Let us not give anyone the feeling that "you are not whom we are after." (I understand that Modusoperandi's tongue is in cheek, and I'm not sure about Aimsplode.) Spıke Ѧ 00:32 12-Nov-12

Bronies are all ages, just saying. I could pull off the plan single-highhandedly. I'm only half joking.

Just how desperate are we, anyway?

It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 02:28, November 12, 2012 (UTC)

What I said is serious, Spike. THere are more young with computer access than old. ^{←HGA→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} _{02:31 12 November 2012}

Eh, my experience with bronies is that they're often intelligent, funny people (which is exactly what we need, no?). I'd be willing to look past their kinda weird obsession with a kiddy show and accept them in. At least they're not Twilight fans, right? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 02:34, 21 November 2012

Worse. Bronies are in the same level as furries. any brony saying that they won't clop is in denial, the same for furries and yiffing.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 04:10, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

Scofield is a Twilight fan. He's worth ten of the average bronies who edit Uncyclopedia. I'm not sure, but the ones that edit here might all have missing brain hemispheres. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Wed, Nov 21 '12 4:09 (UTC)

Advertising, anyone?

Why not we move to a new server, like some cloud computing service that can host our shit for us? |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 07:46, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Someone has to own the site to deal with payments, legal issues (people complaining about articles, copyrights etc) and general work to keep a site running. That is why the original owner of this site sold out so quickly. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 08:24, November 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yup. (Joe, editing articles from home using Wikia software is exactly "cloud computing.") Also: Servers are good, but not yet immortal, and someone has to pay for the repairman. Also salaries of software engineers to deal with what I am told are bugs in MediaWiki, also plane fare for junkets to Poland to visit them, also--if some on the site are bigger slaves to fashion than this XP fanatic is--installation and debugging of follow-on MediaWikis. As always, the only sustainable solution is a solution with revenue, either user "subscription" fees (a technique whose use elsewhere induced me to return here) or advertising aimed at visitors (which, back to the start, assumes there are visitors, which there will not be without advertising). At which point, hiring another team of psychiatrists to tell Aleister why Free Speech doesn't mean free servers.

I don't like writing in corporate environments, and site-warnings are only the start of the concern; after a while, writing is done not to communicate but comply. I don't understand the business plan that lets Wikia deal with us so passively and tolerate page-footer advertising space that apparently no one ever buys, unless it is to develop a pool of creative talent for harvesting later, or to use this and other wikis to build a competing mega-social site for those with the desire to build something bigger than a personal page. The next step for them must be to spend real money to actively tout Uncyclopedia as a destination. As in: 15-second radio spots, cryptic ads in magazines, and perhaps another prankster shutting down the Boston subway system, this time based on something he read in UnNews. If Wikia is getting serious about disclaimers, they should get more serious about boosting traffic. Spıke Ѧ 12:43 13-Nov-12

The sad things is, we really can't do anything about what Wikia is doing. Who really has the authority to ask to "buy" Uncyclopedia off of Wikia's servers and move it? Since Wikia "owns" us now, would they even allow us to move? ^{←HGA→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} _{14:51 13 November 2012}

We are allegedly free to "fork" the wiki, i.e. take the articles and our current user base somewhere else, leaving this particular site as an abandoned amusement park. However, according to some interview which you can find posted somewhere in these forums, Jimbo Wales "liked uncyclopedia so much that [he] purchased it" (allegedly for many thousands of dollars). So, while Wikia does not own the actual articles, and does not apparently own any trademarks on the "uncyclopedia" brand, they DO own the domain uncyclopedia.org, and they'll be damned if they relinquish it to us. (I assume, I haven't asked.) Someone else owns uncyclopedia.com, and is no longer open to discussions about purchasing it. As for "buying back" the uncyclopedia.org domain (which is almost the only thing about uncyclopedia that isn't freely available to us through a database dump)...I doubt uncyclopedia is for sale, in the first place, and I doubt anyone here has the money to buy it back, even if it were. Our options are (a) continuing to allow Wikia to screw with us, in exchange for freely hosting our drivel, or (b) paying for a move to some other domain, ourselves, a move which will most likely be ignored by Wikia, and even actively covered up. Rock and a hard place. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Tue, Nov 13 '12 16:27 (UTC)

The smart thing to do here would be to have everyone start researching a different webhost, than decide upon one and pool some money together each month/bill time to pay for the hosting. I would definitely help pay for webhosting, and on the subject, one of my closer friends happens to be a lawyer. I could probably convince him to represent us for free, or maybe some small favors from me on the side. Is anyone even up for changing hosts, if we had the money, and if we had a webhost willing to take us in? Again, I believe the pooling in money system is a good way to go. We could set up a PayPal and everything, sort of like Wikipedia and their fundraising. Together, if we all gave like $5, we could pay for hosting pretty easily. As for hosting, we could get www.uncyc.com, or www.uncyclopedia.biz, or some flashy new domain they have out there (I see an uncyclopedia.xxx in our future...!). Any suggestions/comments on that? ^{←HGA→ (Der_Führerbunker--Wehrmacht Factories)} _{<small::>01:57 14 November 2012}

I am seeing an uncyclopedia.org in the future. But uncyclopedia.com is a safe bet, and we can get some much needed money from advertisers. Google hits ahoy, like Cracked! (But Cracked was a magazine) |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 04:36, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Don't wanna sound like a broken record here guys

• The solution to all of our problems is clear: deletions on a massive scale. Tear down all the old rotten trees, and clear up room for new trees to grow. The logging industry calls it clearcutting, and they practice it for "scientific, safety, and economic reasons." Let's burn all the shit to the ground and save the site! -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 06:30, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual idea right here. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 06:37, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ghey as hell--fcukmanLOOS3R! 06:54, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Why not you tell Wikipedia that? There are 4 million articles already! We only have 30,000 something of them! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 08:41, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

We are not Wikipedia. Wikipedia should have an article about everything. Uncyclopedia does not need an article about everything, we need funny articles. It takes a certain rare talent to create a full article out of an Uncyclopedia stub, but on Wikipedia it is fairly easy because all you have to do is talk about the facts. It has always been my opinion that it is easier to write Uncyclopedia articles when given a blank slate. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 08:50, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

we do my dear.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 08:54, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

Advertising and marketing is very much the way to go here. Perhaps Wikipedia itself may be of some help.... --Lord Scofield Stark 09:13, November 15, 2012 (UTC)

I never used to be one for mass deletions...but I'm beginning to think there is good reason to put most of the other articles under a pedestal. What I have in mind is keeping the main space for featured articles and perhaps a few more (however that is decided). Then a sandbox space for highly searched articles and reasonable articles in developement (surviving ICU for example), and yes...burn the crap, even if it might have some good ideas. Burn it. In any case, I finaly agree that articles that are immediately visible, should be limited to very good and funny ones, even if it means a limited amount of immediately visible articles. (all other good humour sites are composed only of good featurable funny articles).

The ultimate goal is, that if someone searches for an article and its not a very good one or featurable one, that the article as is, is not shown, but instead an invitation to view the article in its current status and or improve it...which tells the visitor that only the best of the best is shown and that they are welcome to join in and help. People who wanna read funny articles will go on and search somthing else or click on "read a random article". People who are interested in the article will go ahead and read it (which may have a few laughs) and maybe help out and write.

This...I think...would acommadate certain people who we would not name...who don't like the idea of destroying reasonable material good or not, I think Ali would agree.

By the way...I have wet dreams about all of you...sometimes wet dreams about all of you at once. Hot wet dreams that soak my bed. --ShabiDOO 04:44, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is workable - IP's and users who are new to the site could easily create new, garbage articles in the mainspace, not knowing any better, when a better article already exists in this "Sandbox" namespace. So unless we are willing to protect the entirety of the mainspace, I just don't think this idea would work. Besides, sometimes articles of very high quality can actually scare new writers away from writing if they don't think they can do any better. On the other hand, it might attract writers of higher caliber, but there are fewer quality writers than there are mediocre writers, and it seems like you need to attract both the bad and the good in order to find the ones who are good. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 07:35, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Shabidoo, stop being a anti-humor nazi. Deletionism is tourneyfaggotry and anti humor, and we don't need them. We have enough of them.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 09:42, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and you are now banned for your rather rude remark. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 10:10, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Sims...I think you have my wrong here. I said...only featured articles (and perhaps excelent articles chosen in some way which I dont know) would be allowed in the main space. All other articles are in another space (call it sandbox) which would have a message the first time viewed saying something along the lines of "work in progress...help make this article better (or create it if non existant" or "check out featured content" or something of the like. Also...ICU stuff that didnt survive would be burnt.

I used to be a pretty big defender of saving all articles, but i just don't see the point anymore of presenting awul awful crud as though its publishable. Is isn't...and it should be sandboxed...out of view from readers and available to would be editors/creators.

And Mr-ex777 ... I love you too. --ShabiDOO 10:41, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

.

Well, i have been warned to not argue with you, but many others disagree. Why do something that would disenchant our readers?--fcukmanLOOS3R! 11:47, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

Also, VFH is low on votes in a really bad way. Doing this won't help. Even ED does not have such a rule. And those said bad articles are sometimes classics and are not that unfunny. Doing this would just disenchant them.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 11:54, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

While I didn't really mind your post, I can understand how an admin would find calling someone an nazi in the lines of tourney faggotry (and I have no clue what that means) is not disagreeing with a colleague (and apparantly not the first time they've noticed it), but insulting someone and attacking the person rather than the idea. I've been banned at least a dozen times but I've never inuslted another user. Throwing out names is the least effective way of expressing your view and only makes one look like a dick rather than wise. Note how simsims expressed his (valid) disagreement in a more than agreeable way without throwing feces at me.

As per your recent post, there's no reason why having a minimum standard for main space that it would exclude non featured items (as I've said others can be included in some agreed upon way) nor is there any reason why it would affect VFH as we still feature a new article every day, and that very process is what gets your article into not only the "best of the best" but in the case of a limited main space, an article that's not just given a sticker, but equal standing among other articles that are actually worth reading. And finaly, I don't think uncyclopedia can be compared to ED at all. --ShabiDOO 15:03, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

many articles are wroth reading, but they did not get featured. And they are funnier than most featured articles (in my opinion). Your arguement sums up to we can delete those as well. Well. Most readers, and especially us don't like that.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 15:40, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record. I have no argument and it cannot be summed up. I said three times now...that we can agree on a way to include some article that are not featured as well...meaning...that the articles that you love...that are not featured...can be mainspaced. I agree...that this is important. We are not in disagreement. We love each other. We share everything...including the things that touch us deep within our tiny animal hearts. --ShabiDOO 19:31, November 16, 2012 (UTC)

What if one person loves an article, and another detests it? People like different things. I may never like the article on Rape for example, nor the article on Girls. But that doesn't mean someone else doesn't find it hilarious. You say the method of figuring out which ones that weren't features could go in mainspace is "to be determined", and even if it involves voting, eventually, it could deteriorate into a dramafest ending in someone ragequitting. Especially this would be the case if the vote is divided on an article. Finally, we have trouble enough getting people to vote for featured articles or articles to be deleted - imagine trying to vote on all the articles on the site that aren't features! This seems like a monumentally impossible task. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 08:00, November 17, 2012 (UTC)

• You guys are getting off topic. This header is for discussing mass deletions. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 16:45, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed...only one out of 100 ideas for a new way of thinking are ever implemented. A forest fire month...of double intensity might be the best idea. --ShabiDOO 20:18, November 17, 2012 (UTC)
    • We do not wish for such things.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 03:20, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
      • When you say WE are you talking for yourself? For certain users of uncyclopedia? As a super natural diety? As the queen of England? As an invisible pink unicorn? --ShabiDOO 04:14, November 18, 2012 (UTC)
        • most non-admin/non bizzeebever/non SPIKE uusers, me, and our readers.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 09:01, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this proposal would be that might not actually change anything. Wouldn't new readers be equally turned off by seeing that half their searches are turning up "Work in Progress" messages? They'd probably think this is a parody encyclopedia without much of quality content, which is probably the same way they'll feel if we don't do anything. What I feel is that we need people to be actually interested in contributing to this place and improving upon existing pages if they can. With the way things are, I don't think articles excluded from the mainspace might ever find their way back. It's almost like dying a slow death. --Lord Scofield Stark 14:06, November 19, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 03:51, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

I guess we see things differently. I would venture to guess that most people give up searching for articles they'd like to see a parody of after they discover that most of the ones they already searched for are awful, not funny and an utter waste of time. It would be far better to have a few thousand even minimally acceptable articles than tons and tons of searchable crap. All successful commedy sites have limited material and quality standards FAR above "minimal" and maintain a much higher audience than we do. The fact that we are a parody of a very large site with millions of articles doesn't mean we have to write millions of shitty ones in an attempt to resemble them. The goal is to make people laugh and enjoy our articles...not comb through a pile of garbage searching for the rare gem. But I think this is the same old dichotomy that comes up again and again and that forest fire week is the only foreseeable lowest common denominator solution...as it makes few happy as some think every article...even stubs...are sacred...and others think the whole website must be burnt and rebooted. --ShabiDOO 04:33, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

just get your lazy asses up and rewrite them. Like i do.--fcukmanLOOS3R! 06:12, November 20, 2012 (UTC)

I recently attempted a rewrite of an article that was VFD on a site that shall not be named, and was not satisfied with the result. Otherwise I would have copied it back to my sandbox here and had an admin restore the revised article. I wish I were better at rewrites. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 02:15, November 21, 2012 (UTC)

I Have an Answer!

Uncyclopedia will likely not start growing again until the shackles Wikia has placed on us are removed. That is all. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 23:51, November 18, 2012 (UTC)

Meganew! I thought you were dead! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 00:43, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. I'm alive again. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 18:30, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Move back to Wikipedia?

I think one final solution to the Uncyclopedia question is this: move back to Wikipedia, and revive BJAODN. Because Wikipedia had its 4 million articles completed. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 00:45, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be a bit like Seth Rogan trying to climb back inside his mother's vagina? I mean, I'd pay to watch that shit. But there's no way it would ever work. ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 23 '12 10:59 (UTC)

Better solution

Redirect Uncyclopedia.wikia.com to porn.info. ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 11:01, November 23, 2012 (UTC)

Better idea: delete everything, lock up wiki with sysop protection and javascript haxx, call it a life. All in favor? ~ BB ~ (T) ~ Fri, Nov 23 '12 11:06 (UTC)

Against. Then I'd have nothing fun to do. --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 01:13, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

Against. There are still some features on here that I still haven't read. -- Simsilikesims(♀GUN) Talk here. 03:30, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

For. →A (Fallen Reich)_{18:29 24 November 2012}

Here's MY solution

Get a celebrity, any rich or famous or both person to create an account and add quality content to this place. They can also whore our site on the multiple public platforms they use! I don't care who it is, it could be Seth Rogan, Peter Dinklage, Justin Bieber or even Donald Trump for all I know! Only the cult of the famous person can give us back what was taken from us! --Lord Scofield Stark 13:21, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

If you can find their email addresses, send them a link. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 19:26, November 24, 2012 (UTC)

There is only one celebrity who will do well on Uncyclopedia. Charlie Sheen for Sysop! --Revolutionary, Anti-Bensonist, and TYATU Boss Uncyclopedian Meganew (Chat) (Care for a peek at my work?) (SUCK IT, FROGGY!) 22:22, November 24, 2012 (UTC)