Talk:Flying toasters
Castle-being-toasted thumbnail technical problem[edit]
The image is having some problems appearing for me. I tweaked the size of the thumbnail and it appeared in my edit preview. I'm not sure what the problem is now.
If someone can figure it out, or if this is a problem on my end or between me and the server for some reason, please just revert my edit.
Don't ask: yes, i cleared my browser cache.
TheCan (talk) 14:42, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- It is not an animation (which cannot be combined with captions). My best guess is that Snarglefoop uploaded a huge picture and you didn't wait long enough for it to come across the wire (or based on your connection speed, your browser timed-out). The JPG is there and the page correctly references it. Spıke Ѧ 15:02 29-Oct-14
- WTF??? It's not huge -- I try real hard not to do that -- it's 1054x956, and a JPEG, about 197k. But it's showing up blank for me, too, at this point. I'll try to figure this out later today but it may be a lot later. Snarglefoop (talk) 15:25, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Everything is huge if you are on a per-megabyte contract. "Huge" means huger than required by the thumbnail on the page. But thanks for looking into this! Spıke Ѧ 15:28 29-Oct-14
Well, I'm now seeing it elsewhere. E.g.
Here's what Firefox's Page Info tells me for each instance where the thumbnail image should be appearing:
%3D%3D
FYI. TheCan (talk) 19:21, October 29, 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also seeing the blank images. Separately, on User:Romartus, {{USERNAME}} seems to be taking a day off. Wikia's javascript is really flaky, which might or might not explain one or another of these problems. I've tried clearing my cache and my internet connection isn't particularly low-class, so I reckon Wikia's behind this somehow or other. ❦ Llwy-ar-lawr • talk • contribs • 20:01 29 October 2014
- At one point all but one of the images at VFP were blank. Some of the {{For}} ticks weren't showing either. Everything is fine now. Ye Blacke Adder (talk) 15:14, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if this is related to all the above problems, but tables of contents don't display properly. When I click on [show], nothing happens. Anton (talk) 10:26, October 30, 2014 (UTC)
Berkeley Systems toasters addition[edit]
So I've recently added a subsection to this article. These comments may seem long but I'm raising a few points of discussion regarding the changes.
First, I noticed that there was no mention of the old style origins of the Toasters here, and I knew I needed to do something. Anyway...
So, in my thinking, the best way to relate the appearance of the old style toasters, with the more organic wings, to the later style, on which the article based its content, was to associate them with some kind of hybrid angel-toaster contraption. The rest almost wrote itself.
I would've rewrote the whole article to better include my addition, starting it with a history of the toasters rather than the way it is outlined now, but I didn't want to take that on with my first major Uncyclopedia "contribution".
As such, the UFO theme might be difficult to merge, but I rather like it. It obviously needs some work though, and I admit the "little else is known" doesn't sound quite right, unless it were in some fringe science or paranormal exposition. To be honest, I didn't want to make the new subsection any longer than the parent section.
My use of the citations was meant to be a satire on the albeit justified obsession over at the Other Wiki regarding references and sourcing the information. I'm not sure whether it's better to use existing publications with ludicrous articles or to completely invent entirely non sequitur or surreal ones. Probably a balance of both. That's something I should raise in the Dump, I suppose.
Yes, I do realize they seem jarring in this article, as there were none prior to my additions. It was probably too abrupt, and someone less close should trim them back, but the trend should start somewhere.
Regarding other remarks as to the integration of the article itself with other content here: perhaps on a page discussing military craft or history? UFOs (if that theme is preserved with later edits)?
On the whole, I like this article, but that's probably because I really liked the old era of screensavers way back when. I could use a lot more content, but I agree that it would be cult-ish at best.
As to the Do Not Remove From Library, well, that's one of those Flying Circus things. Brevity may be the soul of wit, but irreverence is the blood of comedy. Et cetera.