The Life and Death of a Template

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Or what they did to the Uncyclopedia template wasn't right, it just wasn't

More on The Life and Death of a Template may be found in Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia parody.


1) Inappropriate banner add for a 3rd party website. 2) Makes it appear as a member site of the Wikipedia projects, same style and look. An example of what it looks like is here, bottom of page. --Stbalbach 6 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)

  • Delete. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 05:53 (UTC)
  • Delete - Ta bu shi da yu 6 July 2005 06:18 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep only if it's changed to wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha format and used in the External Links section as User:Elvis suggested below. Keep I created the Uncyclopedia template so people who want to make funny, sarcastic, and even biased comments can put up their thoughts at the Uncyclopedia site, instead of filling up the talk page. I found this article, "Uncyclopedia joins Wikia", saying that it is a first-party site hosted by Wikicities (it used to be 3rd-party hosted). If it is not a 1st party site, I will certainly change my vote to Delete, as I don't want to support outside sites. Read more about the Uncyclopedia here. Hopefully, this template will promote actual wikipedia:satirical humor, instead of just the stupid stuff that's on most of the pages. -Hyad July 6, 2005 06:51 (UTC)
  • Wikicities sites are 3rd party, it's just a hosting service and doesn't control content. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)
  • OK, Stbalbach. I updated my vote. I know I said I would change it to Delete, but making it the like the wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha seems to be the best compromise. I realise now that the Uncyclopedia is a 3rd party site like wikipedia:Memory Alpha, but it is still very popular, so I think it should have its own template. Maybe in the future, the creators could relinquish their copyright and it could become a 1st party site like wikipedia:Wiktionary. -Hyad July 6, 2005 21:21 (UTC)
  • Delete. We are a serious encyclopedia. I feel that in almost all cases it is a bad idea to put this kind of satiric humor in the article name space. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 07:07 (UTC)
  • Keep for use on talk pages only --Henrygb 6 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a sister project. Radiant_>|< July 6, 2005 09:53 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fredrik | talk 6 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)
  • Delete per Dragons flight --MarSch 6 July 2005 10:56 (UTC)
  • Weak keep for use on talk pages and user pages. Uncyclopedia is not a sibling project, but since it's one of the more popular parody sites with a community that overlaps with Wikipedia to some extent, keeping the template doesn't do much harm. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 6 July 2005 13:09 (UTC)
  • Keep just for the lolz Tom k&e 6 July 2005 13:16 (UTC)
    • Your voteing on the use of banner adds, not if it should be linked or not. It can still be linked in external links like all other external sites. Why does this site deserve special treatment and stand apart from all other 3rd party websites? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Uncyclopedia is not Wikipedia (by design, its mandate is different) but there are a couple of cases where a link to or even may be completely appropriate:
    1. A template to indicate an article which should be moved to Uncyclopedia, to BJAODN or to another humour site as it doesn't fit in with the main Wikipedia, much like {{dictdef}} indicates something would belong more in wikipedia:Wiktionary.
      A BJAODN template was deleted by consensus recently. See the log. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    2. A link from pages in main article space which are in some legitimate way humour-related, such as You have two cows, wikipedia:List of backronyms or wikipedia:BJAODN, to the corresponding pages on the other wiki --carlb 6 July 2005 14:39 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite into wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha form as per it's TFD becaue of (2) above. --ElvisFromUncyc 6 July 2005 14:50 (UTC)
    • It may be desirable to rewrite the template to indicate *which* page at Uncyclopedia: is the link target? As written, it appears to assume both pages will have the same name, an issue if using this on user pages. -- 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
      • It should be noted that I mentoined nothing about only using on talk pages, I don't have a major problem using it on the main article page (where appropriate), the satirical portrail of a subject can I think cast light on the the way people view the subject, etc. therefore I think some of the Uncyclopedia articles can be usefully referenced. I would consider changeing the template to say "A Spoof article on XXXXXX is available here" however.--ElvisFromUncyc 6 July 2005 15:44 (UTC)
        • Please tell us your thoughts why it must be a banner add and not in the external links like every other 3rd party website. Why is this site special and set apart and given special treatment? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am concerned that some of the people voting keep may not have an appreciation for how Uncyclopedia works. The point of the template in its current form is to link Wikipedia page X to Uncyclopedia page X where the Uncyclopedia version is intended as a humourous rendering of the topic. Consider some examples: Oscar Wilde, Darth Vader, laser, France. While enjoyable, I don't see making article space links to any of these as being appropriate. The Uncyclopedia doesn't really have the equivalent of humor pages to link to, since all pages are humor, so there doesn't seem to be any way to use the current template only on wikipedia:BJAODN or other wikipedia humor pages. Also, since Uncyclopedia intends to cover all encyclopedic topics some day, even placing it only on Talk pages would quickly get to be abusive as it would be everywhere. I'm not opposed to linking to Uncyclopedia in appropriate places, but the function intended by this templates seems inappropriate to me. If people can figure out how to rewrite this to make it useful, then by all means show us. Dragons flight July 6, 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  • Comment. Keep in mind what you are voteing for: the use of banner adds for a 3rd party web site. The article can still be referenced in the external links section. Please justify your keeps of using a banner add and making it stand apart and special from all other external links. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 16:44 (UTC)
    • I don't see how this is a "banner ad" (if by "add" (sic) you mean "ad" like the animated .GIFs on commercial websites) --carlb 6 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)
      • I think it's pretty clear what a banner ad is. The only sites that get this special treatment are Wikipedia sister projects, not 3rd party external links. Stbalbach 6 July 2005 18:56 (UTC)
  • Delete. The template gives a misleading idea of Uncyclopedia's relationship to Wikipedia. If someone wants to link an article to the article's parody on Uncyclopedia, then add it in the External links section of the article.--Alabamaboy 6 July 2005 18:03 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a sister project, and even if it were, I don't think it's appropriate for articles; link these from External links instead. A template used in this manner wouldn't be such a bad idea, maybe something like this: "A wikipedia:spoof of this article on Foo can be found in the Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia parody site." AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 6, 2005 19:20 (UTC)
  • Keep and make the template clearer that it's a parady and an external link (no right float or border?). "Many a true word said in jest" -- we're not bound to use it if the link isn't funny. Ojw 6 July 2005 20:17 (UTC)
    • Whats your rational for giving this external site its own banner, when others dont get one? Do you favour this external site over others? Stbalbach 6 July 2005 20:51 (UTC)
      • Must you ask this question of everyone who disagrees with your vote? I already read your comments chastising 4 other people for their votes. This is not a "banner ad" (300x75 pixel flashing red banner at the top of an article) but a link which I already said should look more like an 'external link' and using the template to more easily keep track of such links, and change their format/wording when appropriate. In short, telling everyone "you're voting for banner ads" in response to any 'keep' vote is not helpful Ojw 20:39, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Uncyclopedia should never be linked from any article here on Wikipedia, except Uncyclopedia of course. It is not an encyclopedic source in remotely any way, so not even a revised version of this belongs. Uncyclopedia is a funny site, but that's all. -- Netoholic @ 6 July 2005 20:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not a sister project (Wikicities is part of a for-profit venture and unrelated to Wikimedia) so it shouldn't have a sister project box; does not contain encyclopedic information, so it shouldn't appear in external link sections except in its own article. —Cryptic (talk) 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
  • Extreme delete. See about Unencyclopedia: "Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies." wikipedia:Iff kept, it should be rewritten (wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha-style with no boxes and making it VERY clear that it is parody wiki!), and ONLY used on Talk and User pages. BlankVerse 6 July 2005 20:39 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as advertising. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 23:58 (UTC)
    Contrary to popular misconceptions, advertising has never been a criteria for speedy deletion. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 00:07 (UTC)
    It is. CSD includes "vandalism", which includes "Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion." I wouldn't call this vandalism, though ;-) - Fredrik | talk 7 July 2005 00:11 (UTC)
    Curiously, wikipedia:WP:CSD lists "pure vandalism" (which I would say this is not). Vandalism lists spam as a form of vandalism. Spam then tells you that advertising should be taken to VFD. Dragons flight July 7, 2005 00:22 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uncyclopedia's goals are irreconcilable with Wikipedia's, as admirable as they may be; there is no conceivable case in which a link to an Uncyclopedia article could provide background information—background noise at best. In fact, if by some mistake an Uncyclopedia article did provide useful information, this would probably be fixed quickly. Even putting a link on the talk page shouldn't be done. This is even ignoring the (fixable) formatting issue that misleadingly suggests Uncyclopedia is a sister project, which it isn't. JRMTalk 7 July 2005 00:09 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising, inaccurate, inappropriate. --tomf688(talk) July 7, 2005 00:55 (UTC)
  • Delete Not a sister project. If users want to use it, they should userfy a version of it, otherwise they can use an ext link. Also, Wiki is not an advertising agency, and this template does nothing to enhance the encylopedic value of Wikipedia articles. <>Who?¿? 7 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
  • Delete. Yes, the parodies on Uncyclopedia are often hilarious, but linking to them from the main article space is a perfectly dreadful idea; and as others have said, it's not a sister project. Antandrus (talk) 7 July 2005 16:50 (UTC)
  • Delete. As per Antandrus. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 7 July 2005 17:00 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising for another wiki is still advertising. - SimonP July 7, 2005 17:17 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Sn0wflake 7 July 2005 18:09 (UTC)
  • Delete, do not change to plaintext version. We should only ever link to an external site when it provides more information on a topic, or demonstrates the topic. Uncyclopedia does not provide information about anything. Joe D (t) 7 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)
  • Delete - most of the articles about subjects in Uncyclopedia have either nothing to do with the ones at Wikipedia, or they contain content which may anger supporters of a particular subject. I suggest this be deleted for the sake of Uncyclopedia. If one must add a link to it, they can add it to the External links sections, making sure they state it is a parody. As others said, linking to it isn't a good idea either. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) July 8, 2005 00:41 (UTC) --updated July 8, 2005 06:55 (UTC)
  • Extremely delete. While sometimes the site is funny, there's no reason to give it any kind of special place here, and it there is not going to be any real information there. Eric119 8 July 2005 05:25 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to disagree with many of the contributors that say that spoofs, humour or satire have no connection to any particular subject and examples should ‘’’Never’’’ be referenced in a Serious article on a subject. The definition of wiktionary:satire is that it is often used to provoke or prevent change, numerous examples of this include much of work of wikipedia:Mark Thomas and wikipedia:Chris Morris to take to UK examples (I'm sure other countries have similar examples although none spring instantly to mind). I agree that many articles on Uncyclopedia do not and will never have any use in an serious encyclopaedia, however there are some which I think could be useful linked to, off the top of my head (and not necessarily a good example) Making up Oscar Wilde quotes is certainly a form of commentary about the phenomenon of numerous "witty" quotes being misattributed to Oscar, an example from wikipedia itself is wikipedia:Paedophilia#See_also (the link to Brass Eye 2001 Pedophilia Special. I also think the continuous banging on about not being a "Sister Project" is getting rather tiresome, most keeps now refer to changing the template to the same form as wikipedia:Template:Memoryalpha, I am starting to conclude that those still objecting to the template for this reason are simply attempting to muddy the waters and feel that their "Satire is not useful" argument needs propping up </rant>--ElvisFromUncyc 8 July 2005 10:57 (UTC)
Comment Although I appreciate all users contributions and input, ElvisFromUncyc registered just to vote on this article; see wikipedia:Special:Contributions/ElvisFromUncyc; and is plainly from the website this template would support. It is nice, that he at least made some other contributios to "support", the peoples effected by the latest terrorist attacks. <>Who?¿? 8 July 2005 11:16 (UTC)
I never hide the fact that I'm on Uncyclopedia indeed I think my choice of username proves that I could have chosen something entirely generic and would have done but felt that this would be slightly disengeniouse (once this is over I'll probably do that), however I have been a long time "lurker" on wikipedia and carried out odd edits here and there, just never got round to registering (lazy I know), equally, working for a UK local authority, having friends and family in London as well as being British I felt that I had every right to say what I said, I'm not ashamed of any of my edits wikipedia:Special:Contributions/ElvisFromUncyc (note: Some of the edits of wikipedia:Special:Contributions/ especially the borderline, IMHO, vandalism are not mine due to it being a shared IP - I know, I know I should have registered, of course you'll have to take my word for that)--ElvisFromUncyc 8 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - to keep this is to allow effectively external advertising for a non-sister project, and to provide spoof links for all the encyclopedic articles we're trying to collect. Spoofs of an encyclopedia have no place in that encyclopedia. -Splash 8 July 2005 14:28 (UTC)
  • Strong delete as per above points mentioned. --Andylkl (talk) July 9, 2005 05:35 (UTC)
  • Delete. (SEWilco 9 July 2005 05:53 (UTC))
  • Delete I am also very tempted to line Uncyclopedia up for deletion too, for blatant advertising and non-association with WikiMedia. --JB Adder | Talk July 9, 2005 06:05 (UTC)
    • If any info about anything that weren't part of WikiMedia were deleted from article space, there wouldn't be much left... you would have turned en: into meta: at best, a blank page at worst. Surely you jest? --carlb 9 July 2005 18:18 (UTC)
      • I did say tempted, and I almost did (I retracted at the last minute). The article itself is nothing more than an advertisement; you can tell that from the first line. While for does come across to me (others may see otherwise) like it is associated with Wikipedia, and WikiMedia in general. About the only connections I see it has is its use of MediaWiki and the parodying of Wikipedia, and they aren't enough to form an association with WikiMedia. --JB Adder | Talk 00:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Otherwise we could easily claim to link to, say, WikiAfterDark within reason. Hedley 14:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    Not just that--there's no reason why wikis should get nice boxes and other sites shouldn't! Any site should be allowed a pretty box! Joe D (t) 14:41, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Conditional keep. Should never be used in an article itself, only on a talk page. Motor 15:17, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: In line with my "conditional keep" vote above: perhaps it should be edited to say something like: "Feeling frustrated? Blow off steam on uncyclopedia". :)
(just for clarity, Motor added and forgot to sign this comment) <>Who?¿?
  • Comment: Wording change would depend on where the template was intended to be used (as, if it were kept, most would want to limit its use to talk pages, humour pages, user pages or some narrow combination of these to keep it out of serious article text). A "portions of this text are parody and may therefore be more suited to Uncyclopedia or another venue" might make sense for talk pages, but for user pages? Wording would differ completely. --carlb 16:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Uncyc admin: Inappropriate to directly link with shiny box from article pages on Wikipedia. If they want to use an external link, that's fine, but the box is just distracting and can mislead users. MemoryAlpha format if they really want, but I think only to make it clear that it's a parody, and decrease misleading people in external links only. --Chronarion 12:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. — Ram-Man (comment) (talk) 12:50, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

template:Uncyclopedia for Wikipedia[edit]

From Uncyclopedia:Community Portal July 13, 2005:

Given that we now have {{wikipedia}}

do you think we should create a {{uncyclopedia}} template at wikipedia, or do you think it may just piss them off?--Elvis 09:44, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

heh heh --Savethemooses 12:25, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Given that uncyclopedia now has more users that wikipedia, I feel that it's entirely appropriate. Also, as we are such a valuable part of wikipedia, I feel we should be assimilated into their namespace, taking over the currently empty UN: namespace. Hell, I think we deserve at least a slot. If the tightfisted bastards don't give us that, we can at least (re)create the {{uncyclopedia}} template there once a week or so. --Famine 19:16, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorely tempted to create the templat just to see how long it lasts.......--Elvis 10:17, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it would last or not. {{Memory Alpha}} did, but other templates, like {{Hrwiki}}, didn't. Angela 05:50, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Someone made this template on Wikipedia on 5 July, and it went on VfD on the same day. The consensus so far favours deletion. --stillwaters/Talk 12:57, 6 Jul 2005 (UTC)

It's amazing how much debate they require for such a clear cut case for deletion. I like Uncyclopedia, and I like pissing people off, but Uncyclopedia does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia, because it's purpose is directly opposed to Wikipedia. That being said, I don't think we should be linking there either. I think people know where to go if they need some real infromation, I doubt they go looking for wikipedia links here.--TheLibrarian 21:59, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)
Personally I don't think it's a good idea to link to us directly from article pages on Wikipedia. That's borderline vandalism, even if it's funny. --Sophia 11:44, 11 Jul 2005 (UTC)

The whole Wikipedia vfd event should just go on the Uncyclopedia Wikipedia page. Did anyone really expect Wikipedia to want links to Uncylopedia? Get real. It is perfect to have links to Wikipedia from Uncyclopedia using the "so called experts" method. It is not a matter of people "looking for wikipedia links here". Uncyclopedia users might have a reason to link to Wikipedia. For example, sometimes good Uncylopedia articles parody a Wikipedia article. --JWSchmidt 00:20, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command -> The Life and Death of a Template --Elvis 11:45, 13 Jul 2005 (UTC)

ummm..."Good" Uncyclopedia articles?--slack 06:32, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Look up The Life and Death of a Template in Uncyclopedia, the stupid and fictional encyclopedia


More on The Life and Death of a Template may be found in Uncyclopedia, an encyclopedia parody.

Maybe we should have a template like that... More on Uncyclopedia may be found in Wikipedia, an uncyclopedia parody. ;) --Carlb 18:18, 9 Jul 2005 (UTC)

If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine[edit]

Wikipedia once more feels a presence in the (wiki) force as Template:Uncyclopedia has arisen once more too crush it's enemies, see them driven before it, and to hear the lamentation of their women!


Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia. Please take care to keep entries factual and encyclopedic in tone, upholding a neutral point of view.

We only do what we're meant to do[edit]

[1] Delete: Promotional in nature, unnecessary and like-minded Templates previously voted for deletion. Template author contends template is not Speedy Delete since its a different style and wording than the previous one that was delete. Stbalbach 22:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

archived TFD comment stream from July 2005 → deletionCourtland 04:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Comment Err I'm not the author, I just felt that is was suffiently different to be considered a "new" template, and speedy deletion was inappropriate.--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete different wording or not, still a recreate me thinks. Who?¿? 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Spam for another wiki is still spam. - SimonP 22:40, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep All links in the template are interal to wikipedia and it serves a purpose, how can a link to a wikipedia article be spam??--ElvisThePrince 23:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This does advertise Uncyclopedia, even if not with an external link. It is redundant either with {{vfd}} or with the various {{cleanup}}s. -Splash 00:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless.--Pharos 01:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment The creation of this template was not sanctioned by Uncyclopedia. Whether the consensus is to keep or delete this is up to the voters. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 02:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If I really liked McDonalds hamburgers and told all my friends that Wendy's hamburgers aren't McDonalds hamburgers, it would still be advertising, although McDonalds didn't sanction me to do so. (btw I hate McD's hamburgers :) ). Who?¿? 03:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
If telling people that Wendy's burgers aren't MacDonalds burgers is advertising, I'm not quite sure what isn't....-- 03:35, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Nonetheless, uncyc admins did not create this template. Please don't be under the impression we're constantly trying to promote our site on wikipedia, that is not our goal. We take no stance on this template, but will not officially support it. (uncyc admin) --Chronarion 13:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Rewrite and restrict usage to talk pages only. Comments Doubt that {{vfd}} and {{cleanup}} are direct equivalents (cleanup is vague, vfd is an invitation to go vote) - not sure if there are other templates out there that might be a closer match, comments? In any case, am surprised to see Stbalbach attempting to pass this off as a duplicate of some previous template in order to bypass normal voting procedure - if he was the one who originated the previous VFD (different template, same name) he must be familiar enough with both affected templates to know better? --carlb 03:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Well, the deletion log certainly says its been removed by TfD before, and the debate is in the archives. -Splash 04:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think anyone is claiming that a template with the same name was not tfd'd the point is that it's suffiently different to be considered on it's own merits rather than deleted out of hand as a re-creation without even looking.--ElvisThePrince 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. See its use at Talk:Flying Spaghetti Monsterism where it is obvious from the talk page that the article has had all sorts of nonsense added to it that is clearly unencyclopedic (and possibly Uncyclopedia inspired). Or I would also support the alternative of renaming it to template:Encyclopedic, and rewording the beginning to "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia..." Either way, the template should be changed to one of the talk page classes that use the CoffeeRoll formatting. BlankVerse 10:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, not a sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:19, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
    • Did you even look at the template? It not a article page template that links to articles at the Unencyclopedia, like the old template did, its a talk page template that tells editors that the Wikipedia is not the Unencyclopedia and so they shouldn't edit Wikipedia articles like they would articles on the Unencyclopedia. BlankVerse 16:22, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've seen that, but I still consider it linkspam. Radiant_>|< 09:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment, talk:Uncyclopedia claims it's a first-cousin project, and an adopted one at that. ;) --carlb 15:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This just seems to be promoting Uncyclopedia more. Not needed. User:Thorpe/signature 16:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Thsi doen't seem advertising any more than a google test tempalte is advertising google -- indeed not so much, as it contians no internal links. if anything it is a slander against Uncyclopedia. Possibly useful, but should only be used on talk pages IMO, and should be documentd to that effect. DES (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, this is a variant on {{pov}}, not an advertisement for Uncyclopedia. Making this into another redirect to PoV would be fine too. In any case, clearly not a speedy, as the existence of DES's post should show. 02:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I concur with User:BlankVerse. --LBMixPro(Speak on it!) 06:37, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per user DES above. --Misza13 17:14:51, 2005-09-02 (UTC)
  • Delete. It should be obvious that Wikipedia is not a different encyclopedia website. Other than stating that, it just says that Wikipedia has NPOV policies, which is what other templates are used for saying, if it needs to be said. If it really needs to be said, it should just be said -- there is no need for a silly template. --Fastfission 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Coment So your saying that peolle can't write content thats NPOV and in a non-encyclopedia style???? e.g. "Billy Shakespear was a geezer who wrote a lot of plays in Elizabethan England", NPOV (as far as I can tell) but certainly not encyclopedic....--ElvisThePrince 11:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Useless, it applies to all articles. We can make a template of each policy and put it in each article to remind users of these policies. CG 20:49, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    Yer while we're at it may as well get rid of {{Advertisement}} and {{{Vanity}}} as you say these apply to all articles as well.....--ElvisThePrince 10:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Uneccesary, poorly worded.Voice of All(MTG) 04:45, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some articles quite need this sort of template.
  • Strong delete. In my opinion, this template has no legitimate application. It's true that Wikipedia is not Uncyclopedia, but there's absolutely no need to convey such a statement (especially one that singles out a specific parody site, given the fact that it's far from unique). Whether intentional or not, this comes across as a sneaky, backdoor method of advertising Uncyclopedia. — Lifeisunfair 07:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment. Application would appear to be to respond to one specific issue: the insertion of pointless silliness into non-humour articles. As such, not the same as {{NPOV}} or other existing templates. --carlb 22:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm closing this as no consensus. -Splash 03:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Period of comment from August 29th PM to September 8 PM: 9.5days
Removed from TfD September 12th AM: 13.5days

Then you're meant for one more thing: deletion[edit]

[2] This template is currently not used, nor should it be. It somehow survived a TfD debate here.

  • Delete. —Ruud 12:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, though possibly reword. I suspect this is designed to be used on the user talk pages of Uncyclopedia users who get their wires crossed. -- nae'blis (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is for the talk pages of articles like Flying Spaghetti Monster, whose humourous subject matter could tempt many to non-encyclopaedic updates. Surprised it's not more widely used. — ciphergoth 13:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: wangi 14:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. NPOV does the job. gren グレン ? 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete NPOV covers it's use. If it had a use, it would have been used by now - 20px|UK «ßØÛ®ßÖѧ3» T | C 15:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. --Stbalbach 15:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. We don't need a template for this. If we did, we certainly wouldn't need one that includes a plug for a specific non-Wikimedia website (rather than referring to satirical wikis in general). —David Levy 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. It doesn't have to do with NPOV. This is useful for articles such as Flying Spaghetti Monster or Exploding whales that have a tendency to attract silly edits. - Cuivienen 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Firstly, uncyclopedia isn't all that famous. Secondly, the guidance the template offers is, or ought to be, common sense. Thirdly, it's unused. I think pages such as FSM have a large majority of sensible people around them who will prevent the page being hijacked by non-sensible editors. David | Talk 23:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Useful for Flying Spaghetti Monster and others. Prevents silly and funny edits, not NPOV. DaGizzaChat (c) 23:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Really unnecessary -- Dalbury(Talk) 00:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep for article talk and user talk pages only. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, probably a sneaky attempt to promote Uncyclopedia.--Ezeu 00:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Note. Uncyclopedia is not completely irrelevant in the scheme of things. For example (and rather unexpectedly), MediaWiki provides it as a built-in interwiki uncyclopedia:. It is also part of Jimbo's commercial project, Wikia. In my understanding, however, Wikia is not anything at all to do with Wikimedia (both Wikicities and Uncyc are absent from, the Foundation's homepage). -Splashtalk 02:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Angelo 04:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless advertisements like this will cause more vandalism than they prevent. -Silence 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Unnecessary and pointless. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per David Levy CDC (talk) 00:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - usually articles which contain nonsense or stupid content get speedied or sent to BJAODN, both using their own templates. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 01:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a WM sisterproject. Radiant_>|< 12:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep fucking hilarious if you think about [3] 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I suggest an alteration to the template, in line with Wikipedia:Don't bite the newbies policy. This could be used on User Talk pages as an alternative to {{test}}:
Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. You're alterations to the [[Wikipedia:{{{1}}}]] article were indeed very funny, but I'm afraid we can't keep them. This is because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia, and shouldn't be corrupted by that sort of thing. However, you may be interested to know that there is a very similar wiki called Uncyclopedia that would welcome your comical contributions. This is because Uncyclopedia is a parody of Wikipedia, and welcomes comical content written in good taste. You are welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, however if you wish to submit comical content please do so at Uncyclopedia instead. Thank you.

—gorgan_almighty 14:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


See Also[edit]