Forum:Uncyclopedia:Timeline is shit

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Uncyclopedia:Timeline is shit

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5651 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Title says it all. Or most of it. Uncyclopedia:Timeline, with a few exceptions, is utter listy bullshit. No one wants to read it, because it has no sense of comedic pacing at all - it's just a bunch of random attempts at one liners, and many parts of it fail HTBFANJS. Just making up stuff doesn't make it funny, and it certainly doesn't make it entertaining.

While the VFD nom failed, the general consensus seems to be that something really does need to be done about Uncyclopedia:Timeline. I don't want to go through nominating one page at a time, because they all suffer from about the same issues, and while I'm a jerk, clogging up VFD is a new level of jerkiness I don't wanna descend to if I can avoid it. But I'll say it again: Something has to be done about it. Any user projects want to take this on? Should we have a Massive Vote for Deletion here? Somebody come up with an idea, I'm done thinking for now. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 14:48 Jun 23, 2009

I'm going to take it into my own hands to nominate the timeline for deletion. However, i'll do it one at a time and in order, to provide a better discussion. Saberwolf116 14:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with that. Clogging up VFD should only be done as a last resort, if people want to discuss each and every page as it goes through. Otherwise it's just a pain in the ass. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 14:52 Jun 23, 2009

What I mean is, i'll put one part of the timeline on VFD at a time, not all at once. That way, we can indentify a part of the timeline that might be redeemable. Saberwolf116 14:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonable. Hopefully VFD will be okay with that. I wasn't even aware there was a rule against deleting categories. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:01 Jun 23, 2009

I really don't think VFD has an anti-clogging policy (in terms of nominating several similar articles) I've launched several "crusades" against certain types of articles. As long as you spread the nominations over several days so that you don't overwhelm VFD, you won't be breaking any rules. For better or worse, VFD is our only means of deleting those type of articles. (Or, you could put a fix tag, wait 30 days, and hope they get deleted.) --Mn-z 15:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm doubtful it will ever be funny in its current form. The only thing I can think that may work is hack it apart and replace most of it with short sentences detailing events in the "uncyclopedia universe" like Led's Physics Act of 1707 ect. - even then it would just be stealing humour from elsewhere though. Really it wouldn't be a great loss if it goes right now, I don't think I've ever read past about 2 lines before today. --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 14:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've put Beginning of Time of VFD; let's see how it goes. Saberwolf116 15:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What about IC and Der Unwehr?

We should probable tell sysrq and guildy about the issue.. These usergroups can handle it, I'm sure. IC takes the big-ass ones, unwehr takes the small-ass ones, case resolved, everybody goes home and we all eat pie and drink tea Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 15:37 June 23 '09

Because it's not something that requires fixing. The concept itself is shit enough. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 15:56 Jun 23, 2009

Ok. So how about deleting the future shit, and rewritin the real historical timeline range Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:05 June 23 '09

Perhaps, but do we really need the old pages to write new ones? – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 16:08 Jun 23, 2009

We merge everything into one, really long, really funny article. And delete the rest Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 16:16 June 23 '09

Shortcut

Since rewriting history so that it actually is funny (yes, I know, it depends on the sense of humorr) is pretty fucking hard, how about someone just goes and blots out everything that's not funny on the spot? Single subjects are so much easier than a long list like that so I doubt it's possible to rewrite all the thing in any meaningful way with a reasonable effort. Kill me if I'm wrong (if you can). -- Style  Guide 18:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Unwehr

Saberwolf actually brought this to my attention a while ago. I made a forum topic, which was (in typical fashion) promptly hijacked, driven off-topic, and forgotten before anything was actually discussed in a serious manner.

In any event, I wouldn't mind (believe it or not) tackling the whole thing, by myself, in a very slow and eventual fashion. I often find myself skipping between the VFH page, the Forum, and Facebook in the wee hours of the morning when I don't feel like writing anything major or reading, and doing this would actually help with that as I'll have a not-too-involved, long term project to tend to. The fact that I'm a History major helps too, I suppose.

In any event, if someone could be a dear and post all the required links on my talkpage, that would be pretty cool, because I'm going to the mall in about 10 minutes and don't feel like looking myself. If anyone wants to help out, that would be just fine, but yeah. I would also suggest killing all the "future" timeline articles in VFD, because the whole idea of a future timeline is just stupid. So yeah.

—Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 19:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you certain you're not spreading yourself thin here? (P.S. if the pages get deleted, and they probably will, I'll always offer to restore them to your userspace for working on.) – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 19:29 Jun 23, 2009

Well, like I said, it's going to be a long term thing. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I would propose that someone or some people skim through the stuff that's there now and collect the few stuff worth saving in one page. Years and periods with a lot of material can get their own article. Though if someone (like Guildy) wants to just start from scratch, that's fine with me too. I do think we need at least one timeline page (maybe something like "A Great Abridged History"). —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a go at that --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:DJ Irreverent/Timeline funnies feel free to add more if you can stand treading through that crap --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 09:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks, DJ. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Request from a poopsmith

Can the admins that huff things on VFD hold out for a full 24 hours after the initial nomination of any timeline page as to give fair chance for any supporters of the timeline to vote keep and state their case? I really don't want some people to come and complain "UH! IT WUZ TEH HUFFED'd B4 I iz GOAT CHANCER's 2 VOAT!!! UNFAAR!!!". 24 hours should be long enough for any and everyone who at all cares to vote and make their case. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. VFD isn't exactly full to bursting. Give it a little time, Modus! – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:04 Jun 23, 2009

I thought I did. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A history of the Timeline and, perhaps, a counter-argument

I have two things to admit to you all: 1) I was responsible for the genesis of Uncyclopedia:Timeline, and 2) its current state does not live up to my intentions. Those admissions aside, let me tell you a little about the purpose and intentions behind the timeline and give, perhaps, an alternative option.

Uncyclopedia:Timeline was founded for two purposes, to unify articles about years/numbers and to mirror the similarly unified pages on wikipedia (ex. 1927). In my opinion, Uncyclopedia:Timeline does a semi-decent job of serving both of these goals. It is certainly not perfect, as this discussion clearly illuminates, but it might be something that could be redeemed. I always envisioned Uncyclopedia:Timeline as a means of organizing humor, as opposed to a means of direct humor.

All that said, I have a suggestion: implement a template like wikipedia:Template:Year nav and put it on numbered pages (with otheruse links pointing to articles about numbers); scrap the Timeline headers/notes; unify the style of such pages in much the way that wikipedia's pages are. This may, perhaps, be one of the few places where lists could be justified (my track record should show that I hate them at least as much as you do). --Sir gwax (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I see your intentions, and I think it really can be used as a way of organizing humor and making it navigable, either by the method you described or otherwise. Its current state, however, is pathetic, and it's become a breeding ground for pathetic attempts at one liners that all fail HTBFANJS. I think we can rebuild the system from the ground up and prevent it from becoming infested as it currently has. But I also think that what we have right now has got to go, cuz it's crap. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:01 Jun 23, 2009

I don't know what you said, but I love the way you said it. I'm for whatever Gwax said. Or something. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "organizing dates" issue should be a topic for a second forum, or perhaps even a task we can give to one of the two article improvement usergroups. Or Cajek. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:05 Jun 23, 2009

Aww man

People are voting to keep it on VFD. *sigh* I knew it was too good to be true... Saberwolf116 23:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, man. This isn't about getting stuff deleted. It's about recognizing the issue and figuring out the best way to go about solving it. If the consensus isn't to delete, I'm hoping people will come here to discuss what happens next. I'd rather have a thought out discussion than a result that goes against the opinion of a large chunk of people. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:03 Jun 23, 2009

I suppose so. It just seems easier to delete; there's so much cruft in there... Saberwolf116 23:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I made my own suggestion here. Saberwolf116 23:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're definitely reacting too quickly. Let it be for about a day or so, then see how the situation is. Not everyone lives on the Internet, you know. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 23:22 Jun 23, 2009

One thing I don't really see is any actual reason from those voting keep other than the fact "it's an easy fix." ... If that were the case, why have they not fixed it? Just because something is an apparent easy fix, doesn't mean it'll get fix. Also, they don't seem to be offering a way of fixing the timeline. It's namely us who have voted to delete those articles who have been trying to come up with a good solution... I'll shut up, as those voting to keep are admins. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually...

...let's just kill the timeline, or at very least just forget about it. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Go and vote delete on all of the articles I have on VFD. We can overwhelm them! MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 23:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I've sort of changed my mind yet again. I do think some of these have some sort of potential, especially after reading Saberwolf's idea. So, I Guess I'm sort of on the fence for now. Yes, I know, I'm lame. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You flip-flop more than an American politician. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 03:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Socky's idea was good, too. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 07:56 June 24 '09

It was. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 14:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It still is. Also, go DJ! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 16:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe just forget about it? I think the timeline is shit, but I don't want it deleted..—Flutter (Talk•Games•Fun Pages•Awards•Help) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The timeline

The timeline has been in Uncyclopedia since 2005, and if we delete it, then what about the future stuff that goes into it? Chronarion wouldn't like that. |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If it is deleted, no future stuff would go into it. Chron wouldn't care. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, from old archives and forums, chronarion had buggered off and abandoned us. Correct me if I'm wrong Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:14 June 24 '09

I've seen him occasionally stroll in the chat to say he's awesome. That's about it, though. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 08:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Chron wouldn't care but another crusty admin might. Personally, I think that Saberwolf116 has some good ideas. --Sir gwax (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

support

i support your noble cause, skull. something must be done. it's like the anniversaries, which are often terrible, but about 4,000 times worse. my solution for the anniversaries has been to slowly try and improve them. i think we can band together and tackle the timeline. we can even encourage whoring via the insertion of articles in timeline entries! SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 13:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I can list five things wrong, six things that are arousing sexually, and seven things that are anti-Semitic in what you said, Gerry. Seriously. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 16:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

just think of the possibilities...and by 'possibilities' i mean 'copying the wikipedia time line and adding 'a wizard did it!' at the end of every entry'. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 17:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Magical. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I support your support. Also, if you read gwax's rather enlightening paragraph, the original purpose of the Timeline was to organize dated articles in the same fashion that Wikipedia does. So yeah, whoring via timeline articles is quite the ticket. Hence my support! And we've come full circle (2πr). – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 00:38 Jun 25, 2009

Support my idea? Pl0x? Saberwolf116 02:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

1 revolution, 2π radians, or 360°--it's all good. - T.L.B. WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 02:45, Jun 25

Uncyclopedia is suppost to be the exact opposite of Wikipedia So, Wikipedia dosnt have a timeline, So me Must Have one! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sodra (talk • contribs)

Uncyclopedia is suppose to be a parody/satire wiki, not just an opposite of Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia doesn't have something, we should have it. Nor does it mean that if Wikipedia has something, we should have our version of it. (Note: I'm not against having a timeline, but the current one is complete trash and needs to be replaced by funnier, more organised one.) MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 21:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

True, but organization is important on both sides of the coin. I strongly believe that something timeline-esque would be quite beneficial, even if it were rather limited in its humor. The main problem that seems to exist is the preponderance of bad humor and the desperate need for a cleanup; I suspect that these issues can be resolved better through some semi-protecting, decent templating and a bit of work than through pure deletion. --Sir gwax (talk) 07:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Spearheading a rebuild committee

I am willing to spearhead, focus and provide adminly duties for a rebuild of the timeline but I am unable to commit sufficient time to Uncyclopedia to do it all by myself. How do people feel about the idea of forming a committee, co-opting colonization (colonization people, please speak up), or the like to undertake a concerted rebuild operation? If we can get about a dozen people involved in the project, committing not very much time, we should be able to get things in pretty solid shape within a week or so. Who's with me? --Sir gwax (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Count me in. Colour Sig For Make Mahm00shA Look Cool 08:20 June 26 '09

i will join you in this quixotic quest, provided you lay down strict guidelines for us to follow. colonization is unlikely to help out as an entity, as we appear to be lazy and can barely finish our own articles, but individual members would most likely be willing to help out. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 12:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I support everything that includes writing rather than deleting. ~ 12:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. Just semiprotect each one, and i'll get to work rewriting it. Saberwolf116 15:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have created User:Gwax/Timeline rebuild and User talk:Gwax/Timeline rebuild to manage the process. First, we plan and, soon, we begin work. Rally the troops! --Sir gwax (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we keep the 2100 AD - Before the End of Time part? |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Aussie CUN|IC Kill | 09:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Definatly. —Flutter (Talk•Games•Fun Pages•Awards•Help) 18:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

How else are we going to know about about the time Luigi, Gay Luigi, Mama Luigi, and Weegee brutally gang-raped Napoleon III in 9595 AD while Paris Hilton watched and Mr T. pitied fools? (Please note the sarcasm). --Mn-z 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)