Uncyclopedia talk:About

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

Protection, v 2.0[edit]

Lately, we've been averaging about a revert a day on this page. While we've picked up a bit of good content in the last few months, I'm starting to wonder if it's a battle worth fighting. We could probably save a bit of admin time by protecting this page, and actually following the "standing on one knee position" policy upon the top of the page. Any objections to protetion? Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 21:02, 30 Oct 2005 (UTC)

With no complaints, and with me reverting again today, I'm cleaning it up and protecting. Yell if bad. Also, propose changes here if you think this page needs them. Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 02:55, 2 Nov 2005 (UTC)
How about moving the table of contents to be under the "About" section so that there's actually something to read at the top of the page besides quotes? Or just removing the "About" heading in the first place because it's redundant. --Nerd42 22:44, 27 Nov 2005 (UTC)


Hello guys.. since yesterday the italian uncyclopedia is closed due to Vasco Rossi's humour... Please help italian people!!!!


Did you guys launch this inspired by Kamelopedia, or is it a translingual coincidence?

I'm recommending Uncyclopedia to every Wikipedia burnout I can think of. It's just what one needs after a hard day's nerdery - David Gerard 17:20, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Oh - there's an English edition, but it ain't done much - David Gerard 17:23, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)

It's not related to Kamelopedia at all, and I wasn't aware of it's existence when we launched. --Sophia

I just read every entry on the English Kamelopedia. I fear I don't find camels that interesting. The German version looks better, now I need to improve my German - David Gerard 20:10, 9 Apr 2005 (EDT)


SA guys, if you don't think it's funny... make it funny. That's why it's open and editable. I see alot of whining and not much writing. From my impressions on SA, it's rather not that funny, but very egocentric.--Chronarion 23:40, 23 Apr 2005 (EDT)

Are you suggesting that the SA goons are in fact NOT the pinnacle of earthly evolution? Heresy. Or not. They might not be too amusing, but I'll be darned if they ain't fun to block. (For valid reasons, of course.) --Rcmurphy 03:16, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)
YAMS YAMS YAMS YAMS YAMS YAMS YAMS Avertist 13:06, 24 Apr 2005 (EDT)
HAMS HAMS HAMS HAMS HAMS HAMS HAMS --Chronarion 03:03, 25 Apr 2005 (EDT)
CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ CQ DE KG4WIJ 24:40, 14 Sep 2005 (CDT)

== Casual User browsing this site and reading about the meaning of this page and saying to himself: 'Seriously WTF?'


Starting new pages[edit]

How do I start a new page?

Take a look here: Uncyclopedia_talk:Community_Portal#noob_question. --Famine 17:32, 9 May 2005 (EDT)

Why did uncyclopedia change its logo.[edit]

The New logo is much better (Which Is Not Really A Good Thing For An Encyclopedia Of Junk) but why did they change it? it's supposed to look stoopid!!!

Actually, it's because when I updated mediawiki, I accidentally overwote the old logo and don't know where I put the original. Now there's a logo contest ongoing. --Chronarion 22:16, 21 May 2005 (EDT)

Uncyclopedia redirects here[edit]

I think Uncyclopedia:About should be a serious page covering the true porpoise of Uncyclopedia, while Uncyclopedia should be a humorous page claiming Uncyclopedia to be the world's most reliable source, Wikipedia a misguiding rip-off etc.

In no uncertain terms, I agree. I agree with a level of agreement seldom seen before -Norph "Helv0r" Helvig

I agree: The main page should be dressed in a nice little outfit fringed with green and he/she/it should carry a matching handbag full of Important Things to read out loudly in public libraries . . . otherwise they should shut up and stop moaning about The Inviolable page . . . . hahahahaha! And I do not know anyone called Sieffe . . .why do you ask?

How about a bit of text near the top that says something like, "This is a serious article about the Uncyclopedia. If that's not what you were looking for, try The Uncyclopedia."? 19:25, 11 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think that Gerald, The True Porpoise of Uncyclopedia, does not get enough attention. EamonnPKeane 20:36, 3 Dec 2005 (UTC)

And now The Uncyclopedia redirects here as well. What happened? 22:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Foundation[edit]

Should the Uncyclopedia Foundation article be mentioned here ? Presently it has no links anywhere on Uncyclopedia. 05:40, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Or Recyclopedia for that matter. Might be an intersting addition to a history of Uncyclopedia article. 17:29, 7 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I think it's Wikimedia Foundation, not Wikipedia Foundation. - 06:58, 24 Jul 2005 (UTC)


Has anyone got any problems with unprotecting this page?--Elvis 08:46, 8 Jul 2005 (UTC)


right now, this bit (originally thought of by me and then revised by somebody else) is under the About section of this page:


"Unicyclopedia is the official encyclopedia of Unicycles. It has all the information on unicycles that you will ever need. (But if you ever need any more, you can just add it because it's a wiki.) Unicyclopedia is a place for unicycle enthusiasts to share all their greatest unicycle secrets! Go 1 Wheelers!!!

Um, actually...

Uncyclopedia is an encyclopedia full of misinformation and utter lies." and so on...

I think it's funny but it's not my site, I hope my adding that wasn't rude and I hope this bit stays in because IT'S FUNNY! But anyway if you get rid of it please leave it here in the Talk Page at least so the idea doesn't die. Nerd42 01:51, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It will always remain in the history of the page, regardless of whether it stays in the current edit. I moved it to the About section because while I like the idea, the goal of this page is to be informative, and having it as its own section broke the flow of useful(ish) information. If you feel like doing it up right, you could start a new Uncyclopedia called Unicyclopedia, and fill it with Uni articles. Also check the Multilingual coordination page if you're interested.
As this is supposed to be a somewhat useful page on the site, I can't guarentee that your idea will stay on it. However, I liked it enough that I didn't revert it, so here's to hoping that other admins feel likewise. --Bone F clear.png Sir Famine, Gun Petition » 23:05, 26 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Hebrew Uncyclopedia[edit]

What do I do in order to open a Hebrew Uncyclopedia? Kakun 20:53, 4 Dec 2005 (UTC)

You can get things started in the He: page (we have fake namespaces for languages, see Uncyclopedia:List_of_Uncyclopedias). Just prefix every Hebrew language article with He: and link them from He: (and to each other). At some point you might have enough to start an offsite mirror (we have 4, Italian, German, French, Polish). --Splaka 04:28, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)
Thank you man. I want to type from right to left, do you have any idea of how? Kakun 04:59, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you can get too stylistic here like they do on he.wikipedia.org. However, you can try something like this.

Testing 1 2 3. Seems to work (using: <div style="text-align:right"></div>) --Splaka 05:04, 5 Dec 2005 (UTC)


Un-cyclo-pedia - Not-bike-feet? (Not-bike-children?) ( 21:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC))

Nooo... "Uncyclopedia" comes from Pseudo-Latin "Unus Encyclopaedium", meaning "The Only (True, Best) Encyclopedia". ~ Ghelæ talkcontribs 11:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Satire, funny (if false) or anything off the top off your head?[edit]

Which one of these fits Uncyclopedia best? 10:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this is a stupid question, but...[edit]

Is there a single page in Uncyclopedia that doesn't use the word "gay", "homosexual", "lesbian", or something of that nature? Yes, I know it's to be funny, but I find that if you have to resort to that to make people laugh then you're gonna need more variety.

I can think of one off the top of my head (AAAAAAAAA!). Some other non-crap articles can be found here. I'm guessing you're just finding the really bad stuff. —Hinoa KUN (talk) 13:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed improvement in Uncyc gimmick[edit]

Dear everyone, I tried to contribute a computer science BS gimmick for Uncyclopedia, fighting against cycles in the document graph. The kayfabe would be something like that whenever facts appear, the graph structure is threatened by cycles, which terribly slows down graph algorithms which run, as everyone knows, best on trees and the facts need to be rewritten to disconnect them from their usual contents. You can see what I mean on Uncyclopedia page. Some other people seem to like the idea, do you think we could pass it forth instead of "Uncyc is full of lies" stuff?

what in the name of crap are you talking about? bicycle and graph wars? innocent facts caught in the middle? wha? Whirlingdervish 04:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

In other languages[edit]

Unprotection, v 2.0[edit]

Someone said somewhere that this page should be unlocked. Agree/disagree? I don't think the semi-protect option was available when it was protected first, so it may be better to use that instead. Just a thought. Spang talk 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Serious section?[edit]

Could we add a serious section to this that tells how Uncyclopedia was actually started? I'm all for the lies and slander that this page currently posits, but I think it would be very nice to actually have a serious section (maybe at the very end) that tells how it all ACTUALLY got started. It doesn't have to be big, but I think it would be helpful for anyone who actually wants a good history of the site. -- Interrupt feed 14:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

No more Uncyclopedia!!!![edit]

Uncyclopedia is the worst encyclopedia website ever and is a blatant ripoff of Wikipedia which is paroded by Uncyclopedia. Anyone who loves it will regret this for the rest of their lives. I hope the cybercrime team gets rid of this site.

We love you too suger tits:-)--Sycamore (Talk) 15:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Instead of uncyclopedia, can it so be called noncyclopedia? -- 08:53, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
But we've had headed notepaper and pens made now... --ChiefjusticeXBox360 08:56, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

OK, now that you are done whith your mother, may I ask a simple question, thank you? Is it allowed to edit with no other purpose than correcting spelling errors? I like the concept but is there a reason why the Uncyclopedia should'nt be legible? 23:10, October 5, 2010 (UTC)


So, i dont know if this is the proper spot to be posting this... clearly i dont really care to much. but i just wanted to say that this website is the funniest shit i've seen on the internet.. a few days ago i was on wikipedia (N) and was just adding random ass shit to the site to piss of the virgin admins and got banned... then i found this site... good stuff!! keep it up.. And just to add, how do people become admins on this website? i'd love to cuss out the people who feel that wikipedia is a reliable site. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs)

Why, thank you! and having stated that you enjoy trolling, we would be eager to have you take over this website. Please submit your request to UN:BP and don't forget to sign it at the beginning. Spıke Ѧ 12:49 20-Jun-12


Why does the page just have giant pink picture of a cat? 20:49, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind. It seems the cat is gone now. This is indeed a strange encyclopedia. 20:52, January 17, 2013 (UTC)


I just turned ten today, and I'm more mature than CoD fanboys. I don't even have an Xbox or PS3! I just go on Uncyclopedia! Oh well. AlexJabei (talk) 12:07, April 21, 2013 (UTC)

Word changes suggested[edit]

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Uncyclopedia:About , Section: Who runs this place

Paragraph 2 originally: million dollars in cocaine, they had almost 22 very, very funny WORDS about Oprah ....

Paragraph 2 improve: million dollars in cocaine, they had almost 42 very, very funny SENTENCES about Oprah ....

Comments: One vote for a semi-real "about us' page; "Hitchhikers Guide to the Galary" considers 42 a funny #.

Cliff in Lebanon, PA

Thanks for your suggestion; I hope you will register and participate further.
The original text seems to be using irony to say that someone found something soooo important that they were able to crank out 22 whole words! thus the unrealistic small amount is part of the humor. I am aware of the significance of 42, but pursuing that strategy would mean that every numeral on Uncyclopedia should be 42 "to maximize humor" — or "over 9000." In fact, reliance on catch-phrases and memes (such as Oprah) is a technique that has mostly run its course; likewise Uncyclopedians writing about Uncyclopedians ("navelism").
If I had written this section, it would be different. Our reference pages are sometimes called up by users who want answers, not proof that we are Funny Guys, and this page doesn't do an optimal job of delivering them. But it way predates me, and like a Featured Article, it is presumed not to need help. Spıke Ѧ 11:00 25-Dec-13