Talk:Redundancy
[[Talk:Talk:Redundancy|This is first, foremost, and most importantly a link to the talk page of this talk page.]]
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Redundancy article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Redundancy article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Redundancy article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
Can someone add a link to Mojo Jojo in the "see also" section?
I have restored it to its almost original glory. And protected it, because it was WAY over the top. Strong Rad 14:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this page has become maybe just a little too over the top --Huffers 01:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Try to keep this page less obvious (like 1874 came after 1873) and more redundant
Okay. Fine. Yes. I've done, completed, and finished that modification, or change. --RadicalX 17:23, 2 Aug 2005 (UTC)
Before I clicked, I figured that this subject was too easy, and thus the article would be stupid. On the contrary, it is very nicely done. One might even say awesomely awesome. --Marcos_Malo S7fc | Talk 04:35, 10 Aug 2005 (UTC)
What happened to the edit buttons for the sections? --Kennyisinvisible 23:54, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)
- Someone added __NOEDITSECTION__ --Splaka 00:00, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
We have a Calandar converter here, here, here,
here, and here. -- Toytoy 04:10, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)
This web page, a page on the Internet, http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy is well-written, nicely constructed, and good. I laughed, chuckled, tittered, and smiled by raising the corners of my lips and lowering the center to form a curve opening upward. Was that overkill, too much, going overboard? --Infobacker 17:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) --Infobacker 17:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC) --Infobacker 17:54, 17 Oct 2005 (UTC)
- It was okay, fine, good, and acceptable. I like, enjoy, and am pleased by the uniqueness, innovatity, and nonboringness of the article. Please edit, modify, and change the article.-((Foo21 22:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC))(Foo21 22:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC))(Foo21 22:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC))(Foo21 22:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)), and finally (Foo21 22:02, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)) .)
Our upgrade to the lastest MediaWiki version, or the time at which MediaWiki was updated on this website, webpage, and internet site, has caused, started, and created a discrepancy, mismatching, and difference in the two, or one more than one, tables of contents, or the section that display what is on this page, article, or entry. --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- This web page, a page on the Internet, http://www.uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Redundancy is well-written, nicely constructed, and good. I laughed, chuckled, tittered, and smiled by raising the corners of my lips and lowering the center to form a curve opening upward. Was that overkill, too much, going overboard? 82.253.152.2 09:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This page made me poop my pants. Compliments (and fresh pants, please) (because I pooped them) (my pants) (poopedmapants)
This article is sooo funny!!!
---
Indeed. I agree. This article not only made me laugh, but caused me to engage in laughter. -WVI, the person who is WVI
The above is an opinion based on personal taste by WVI.
This page is very well writen, thoughtfuly put down on paper, and a very good artical. ---Kikimora
This is worthless[edit]
One of the mains rules on Uncyclopedia is NOT to do the first dumbass thing that pops into your head. Repeating oneself over and over is exactly what would be expected. To be fair, repetition is listed in the How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid page. --Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)--Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC) To be fair, repetition is listed in the How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid page. --Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)--Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
This is worthless[edit]
One of the mains rules on Uncyclopedia is NOT to do the first dumbass thing that pops into your head. Repeating oneself over and over is exactly what would be expected. To be fair, repetition is listed in the How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid page. --Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)--Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC) To be fair, repetition is listed in the How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid page. --Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)--Whyhow (talk) 06:26, November 9, 2013 (UTC)
Lame suggestion[edit]
I do realize this would most probably mean an automatic nomination for noob of the month, but isn't mojo jojo the supreme deity as far as redundancy is concerned? he doesn't get a mention? unfair.--Alamandrax 20:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Less is more[edit]
This article would greatly benefit from bit of subtlety. Saying the same thing twice is not an interesting example of redundancy. Some things are good, but they are drowning in an ocean of unfunnyness. I would clean it up, but I have noticed that it's not much use editing uncyclopedia because in no time it gets fucked up all over again. If anyone agrees I might help though. Al-Pita 12:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good grief! This article is nuts! Good grief! This article is nuts! Good grief! This article is nuts! Good grief! This article is nuts!64.241.230.3 17:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This page shouldn't be protected.[edit]
This article was so funny just a few days ago, but now that someone chopped it all up, it's rather boring. The parts that were funny were removed, and the unfunny parts were left in. For the benefit of all of us, this page should not be protected, so that we can all make it more funny.
Someone claimed to "improve" the article, as he said on this discussion page, but all he did was take out the essential parts of the article. For example, what happened to the logo of the Department of Redundancy? Furthermore, there were previously three pictures of Lord Redund, which was actually quite funny, with each one's captions, but now there are only two. There are these, and far more revisions that have drastically reduced the "funniness" of the article.
"Someone" is the original author of the article. This article got WAY out of hand and out of the spirit of the joke, which was not to be simply repetitive by placing the same information over and over, but to be truly redundant, which is to say that the same information was displayed differently in a redundant way as to explain the same topics superflously and more than what is required.
That being said, I've restored the James Joyce quote, as it is quite funny, and redundant. I also replaced the Department of Redundancy Department logo. I will further examing the contributions of the past and re-add those that are in the spirit of the article. Strong Rad 20:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Subtlety?[edit]
Despite the suggestion the the article "would greatly benefit from bit of subtlety", many of the "unfunny" items that have been dumped were the jokes that had some subtlety to them -- Philip Glass, recursion, and the final passage of James Joyce's Ulysses being good examples. (The last was one of my own contributions; the other two were not, so I'm only expressing a partial personal bias here.) This is pretty common in Uncyclopedia, which certainly contributes to the overall regression to a mean that is, at best, only mildly funny and rarely subtle.
When people cut out jokes that they just plain don't get, are they taking any time to ask whether it's their own lack of context, as opposed to the jokes' lack of humour? I thought the reference to Philip Glass was one of the funniest things you could find in an article on redundancy, but then, I'm familiar with Glass' work.
I've restored the Philip Glass joke. This page required major surgery to make it funnier than the jumbled bunch of crap it had become. I apologize for removing things so draconianly, but I am working to restore the funny jokes. PS: Sign you posts, please. Strong Rad 20:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
This was funnier before, in that I lauged when it was way over the top the first time I read this article, when I came across it and saw it listed four times under each category.[edit]
Read above, in the title of this section, the words to which I have written, that part being the header, the part of the section that divides it from the rest of the sections on this talkpage. Crazyswordsman 16:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC), this being the date and time to which I wrote this message, on the 9th of July, the 7th month.
- Also, I should probably add that this page has become another crappy will-imposed page now. All the humor is gone. Crazyswordsman 02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Butchered[edit]
Who butchered this article? God, this used to be much funnier, something that I used to send the link to and draw them in. Now? This is just mediocre shit, barely a step above the worst that Uncyclopedia has to offer. —Xoid (MUN F@H Talk) 16:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Not redundant enough?[edit]
We need two copies of this article for redundancy, methinks.
- I was just thinking the same thing. If I knew how to do it, I'd do it myself... just copy the entire article and paste it a second time, including the headers.
- I was just thinking the same thing. If I knew how to do it, I'd do it myself... just copy the entire article and paste it a second time, including the headers.
- no we don't --Huffers 21:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
The edit summary field, which is filled in when one makes a change so that the page becomes different, is too short to enable enough to be put in or entered[edit]
Can anyone be able to suggest, speculate, guess or form an idea of the reason, motive or justification why the edit summary box is so restrictive as to limit the quantitative amount that can be entered into it to an upper maximum of one hundred and ninety nine (199, CXCIX) characters?
I had no other alternative choice but to be forced to make the contents in the container that holds stuff shorter than I would have ever expected, anticipated, liked, desired or appreciated, by going into less detail and, as such, consequently make the content more brief, short and vague. -- Pocketfree equality 23:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
- That's not funny. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- If repetitive redundancy doesn't appeal to your sense of humour or funniness, nobody's forcing or compelling you to participate in this article as an alternative rather than anything else on Uncyclopedia. -- Pocketfree equality 12:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Alright, now this article really, REALLY sucks.[edit]
The humor is too subtle; it needs to be more laugh-out-loud, like it was before. Since some people obviously don't get humor, I created User:Crazyswordsman/Redundancy/funny version. Because the article, as it stands, sucks (it's not redundant enough). Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 04:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've checked your version and I didn't laugh out loud. What I do find funny is that you say "Since some people obviously don't get humor" and then suggest we put something else in place. Do you mean we are writing this for people who don't get humor? That's a funny idea. A bit like writing an encyclopedia for people who can't read...
- Anyway, go ahead if you must. I personally think the article should be a lot shorter, because jokes tend to become less funny the more you repeat them. (Really, try it with a random joke and you'll see!) Jokes about redundancy are no exception. Al-Pita 14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Btw. Something which would make the article better is changing the "Fidelity - Bravery - Integrity" text on the DORD logo with "Thoroughness - Clarity - Duplicity" or something - can probably be improved further, but it should have something to do with redundancy. Al-Pita 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Btow. Note that the featured version of this article (follow link to 11 October 2005) was quite simple. Al-Pita 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's like what happened to Vandalism awhile back. I liked the way it was. Now it's, well, not that redundant. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- And besides, I have the right to decide what's funny to me. That's why I made the subpage in my userspace, so we wouldn't have to drag this out the way Euroipods and Vandalism were. I took the funny version and put it where I can enjoy it forever and ever. Is that a crime? Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that saying the same thing twice is just a bad example of redundancy. Maybe you could create the article Repetition which is now a redirect to here. Al-Pita 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Point. Although my main concern is there needs to be another pic of Alvin Redund in there with a long caption. Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 20:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is that saying the same thing twice is just a bad example of redundancy. Maybe you could create the article Repetition which is now a redirect to here. Al-Pita 08:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Wonderfull article[edit]
I think that whoever wrote this page did quite an excellent job. Congratulations on your work! Definitely one the best articles on Uncyclopedia. I think I'll send this to some friends as an example of the best that Uncyclopedia has to offer. Well, maybe not, but perhaps. In any case, I must commend the writer(s); that is what I came here to do after all, and I should get about doing it, by jove! So sir(s), I commend you! An excellent job, what what? Quite so, I believe. Esn 09:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
- I concur. I especially like the Redundancy department of Redundancy seal, where the words go in a circle. . . department of redundancy redundancy department of redundancy and so on. IQ 15:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
- The department of redundancy department was mentioned in Iron Man v4 #13 (Marvel). Is it a real department or is Uncyclopedia that popular? 90.229.149.136 19:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
it's pleonastic[edit]
the opening paragraph says plenoastic, The correct spelling is pleonastic. I'd edit it but it's a locked article.
Remember when the whole page repeated itself?[edit]
That was the funniest thing about the whole article. --67.110.209.218 15:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Bah, just delete this article[edit]
Because it's redundant. 201.9.75.32 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There's technically a distinction between redundancy and mere superfluousness[edit]
and outside the context of this article, I think it's important that people know the limits of the "real" definition; still, within the article, I'm willing to ignore that if y'all are. "1734, or the Year of Our Lord 1734" is redundant, but adding the year on the Islamic or Chinese or Jewish calander is instead superfluous -- does that make sense? Still, it's quite an excellent article, once us usage nazis get past that detail. --Lenoxus 18:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice Article[edit]
You can say that again. 217.147.80.137 03:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
See Also[edit]
Add Czech Translation[edit]
add cs:Navíc plz :)
[[Talk:Talk:Redundancy]][edit]
talk page for the article's talk page. HumongousButtFungus 22:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
- Someone should make a talk page for the talk page of the talk page!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Citation Needed (talk • contribs)
- I'll do it. 01:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Congratulations[edit]
http://improbable.com/ig/2008/webcast/stream.html
Theme of ig Nobel prize 2008 ceremony was redundancy! --195.50.205.196 13:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
When was the first usage of "Department of Redundancy Department" first used?[edit]
Was this phrase coined or invented prior to the 1969 use by Firesign Theater in 1969? It seems like such an obvious joke that surely someone would have thought of it earlier on account of it being humor that is rather obvious. Would someone who puts it on a T-Shirt or coffee mug be violating a copyright or trademark by printing it of a caffeinated beverage holder or an article of clothing? I found no usage earlier than 1969 when I did a web search and searched the world-wide-web and found no use of the phrase prior to 1969. 72.251.90.48 00:31, November 1, 2009 (UTC)