UnAsk A Question

Uncyclopedia project? Edit

moved a few sections down where it chronologically belongs

Too many answers Edit

Sometimes we have multiple UnAnswers to an UnAsked question (or is it an Unquestioned ask? nvm, I digress). Sometimes several of those answers are great (funny, thoughtful, provocative, ...). Often, alas, one or more of the answers thumbs out like a sore stand as not up to the level of the best on the page. Think about how that original "top 10 things..." was great, until it got circulated and became "top 20" or "top 100" and ended up losing what was so great about the original list.

So, realistically, anyone who contributes an UnAnswer here thinks they are clever (funny, thoughtful, ...). On the other hand, we all have bad days. Some of us more than others. To date, we have been loathe to edit or remove less striking answers, allowing them to obscure the excellent ones on the very page. Should we consider weeding out less successful attempts?

How would we decide? Is being bold appropriate here? Humor (and pithiness) is substantially in the eye of the beholder. (I can appreciate the Three Stooges, but I don't think they are the geniuses that others describe. Americans rarely get Benny Hill (and often not even Monty Python or Beyond the Fringe.) So, I'm not sure that we'll be able to agree on the medium-funny stuff. But, I do think we might be able to agree on stuff that really misses the mark and stuff that is exceptionally creative/worthwhile.

Do people agree that we should act to avoid diluting the Unanswers brand? If yes, how do we go about it?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:31, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

If there is one thing I hate, it is apricots, but beaurocratic fatheads are up on my list. Like apricots, they leave a foul taste in my mouth. Unlike apricots, they are not wrinkly. But apricots never hurt many people, and I hate to see these BFs (I shall not name anyone, charitwo) make fail decisions without our consent when many of them have not even involved themselves with our wiki. Heck, they don't really contribute to wikis anyways. I of course, have butted heads about Wikia with AFK in the past; my views are, ofc, familiar to you all. Aikiw htiw nwod, says Yallow 21:21, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
No. My ego would be smashed to pieces if this happened, because a good portion of my answers fail. I want to labour under the delusion that I am clever and thoughtful. I might not get up in the morning and contribute if you weeded out some of my UnAnswers. Also, it just screams to me that we set evil standards (SOCIALISM). Everyone should contribute even if their answers aren't the best, because they get better. Removing one of their answers--especially while early on--would be a hard slap in the face, at least for me. Yallow 21:58, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
I've done it at times, but it's hard to anticipate whether someone will be offended. If we extend UA:BOLD to this, though, we might just delete (or replace) with more courage, in the knowledge that if somebody disagrees, they can just add the old answer back. I certainly wouldn't mind having some of mine replaced. --◄mendel► 22:02, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Many humor sites are moderated - you submit something and it doesn't get chosen. The nature of a wiki means we can't pre-moderate submissions, only sort of post-moderate them. Is that worse? We might get by with not moderating at all if we can present to our readers only the best-quality submissions. --◄mendel► 22:15, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Leaping Lizards, Socialism? Capitalism would require that we give contributors points based on contributions and that would earn them votes, that they could apply; highest voted answers stay, lowest votes leave. A Platonic system would mean we give the b'crats or b'crats/sysops the power (good for Yallow's ego! :-) A country-western/proto-rock system would give only TEF rights to moderate, but even I find that hard to justify based strictly on the unintended resemblance between my name and the fantabulous gospel singer.
More seriously, how about finding a way that we can at least identify awesome answers and highlight them. For example, we have an unask with five unanswers. Somehow, we happen to think one of those unanswers is among the best 10 anywhere on the site, so we apply some sort of nifty template that makes it stand out. (Same with the other nine elsewhere.) All other answers remain.
The points is, we have 6000+ unquestions, 3500+ unanswers ← plausible, but invented statistic — how many of us believe that even 500 of them are worth a visit to the site?
Also, quite seriously, I do want to find a way that helps promote brand integrity while encouraging the most number of contributors (or at least, fails to discourage); today's less-than-humorous member might be tomorrow's brilliant wunderkind. Mebbe there's an uncylcopedia entry that covers how other fictional humor sites handle this.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:29, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
The numbers are these (copied from Category:UnAnswered): 12,241 UnAnswered + 921 UnAsked = 13,162 category entries. There are 12,544 articles on the wiki; the rest are obviously subcategories.
The Uncyclopedia guide is How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid; there's also HowTo:Be Funny and HowTo:Be absurdly funny and not just a content freak.
Suggestion: We might add another namespace to the wiki where the unmoderated submissions go, and promote/move the good answers to our main namespace. We'd do this by checking the ratings, or by people tagging UnAnswers with "promote". Thoughts? --◄mendel► 06:54, July 9, 2010 (UTC) & 07:08, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: Reverse UnAnswers: come up with a question that makes the answer sound funny? --◄mendel► 10:51, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

If only that was all it took. (Plus, remember that sometimes there'll be an awesome answer on the same page as 2 lesser quality responses and 1 truly terrible one. Rephrasing would hurt awesomeness and not do enough for terribility.)  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:46, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
Well, with the rephrasing, you'd move the different answers to different pages. Anyway, I think we should focus on finding a bunch of good questions and presenting those to visitors; that#s doable and positive. --◄mendel► 17:30, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) It occurs to me that part of the problem is that, for most people, recent changes on this site is a box on their left navbar that contains only the most recent 5 edits. (So we quickly lose some great content for lack of visibility.) What we want is to keep poor-man's RC and be able to highlight some recent zingers, knee slappers, and lmao. Maybe 5 questions with great potential and 5 great answers. For starters, (assuming someone creates the code for the Recent Zingers or whatever display), I would be comfortable letting the admins populate (e.g. the B'crats get to choose 3 articles, the sysops 2). That would get something up there fast, while we contemplate our navels and other ways of reminding people of when we were funny.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:00, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Have a look at Special:Top. The monaco style navigation offers flyouts that list page titles from those lists or categories automatically, so adding that would be good. I'm about to advocate tagging questions with "up" and "down" to rate them ,too; these should be hidden tags as soon as mendelbook supports them (which it might actually do by displaying icons for them). Hinges a bit on somebody working on that navbox, which I'm going to make a priority. --◄mendel► 09:49, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
IMO few questions need to be vivisected. I think that only the featured questions and maybe high ranking ones (there should be another category for those, IMO, and links on the main page to a list of featured questions and higher ranked ones) should even be considered for such surgery except under quite extreme circumstances where it goes something like: "What is my name?" "Fuck you you dipshit." Humour is notoriously fickle and often a few small adjustments can make something lamous into something famous. The crap is what gives the flowers their nice smell. If everything was perfumed, we'd suffocate. 'sides, I'm not sure we have any expert excrement expeditors here. Khono 23:28, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Most of the answers that already have been removed were going towards vandalism (answering every question with 42, or the more profane version as Khono gave an example of), most of them by Yallow's great work iirc. Perhaps there are some unfunny answers, but do consider that it could also be you not getting a reference or something. If we go over to actually cutting out answers we should be careful of those, because I'm fairly certain there isn't a single person that gets every reference in all the answers on UA. Of course, if people check each other a bit, I think that problem would be effectively removed.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:47, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Icon? Edit

As long as we have one topic that isn't getting much traffic, let's have two!

So, I was wondering aloud (erm, whatever the equivalent is for talk page speculative nonfiction) about the UA icon. It implies that we're against questions! We're not! We're against good answers. (Well, at least those that aren't funny without editing.) So, do people agree/disagree? are there alternatives?

We're about real questions that didn't really deserve or require an answer. We're also about unquestions, which are unquestionable intended to allow for clever repartee. We're also about UnAnswers, which would be the clever repartee or the undeserved or unrequired answer. So... here's my brain dump of possibilities

  • a light-bulb in a thought balloon, with the anti overlayed = we're against good ideas
  • a burnt-out light bulb in a thought balloon (no anti symbol) = we don't have good ideas
  • A yin-yang symbol with Q on the yin and A on the yang (or vice-versa) and half the symbol anti'd = we're smart, but we're not going to help you anyhow
  • A professorial looking cartoon character covered by the anti = we don't gots no smart answers here
  • A picture of a local yokel braining the professorial looking toon above = we're really against smart answers here
  • A universal anti symbol over a blue question mark = we're out of ideas for now.

Thoughts?  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:19, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Yes! We need to erase traces of the old administration, with something needlessly complicated. I shall thinketh of it this week, sometime. Yallow 02:33, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, if you can think of something - go ahead and post it here, and we'll see which one is best -- RandomTime 04:45, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
How about a man with an empty speech bubble? Felix Omni Signature 05:03, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
To me, UnAnswers means an answer that hits the spot, but from an unexpected direction - like somebody with a handgrenade on an archery range, or any other number of surprises. A good UnAnswer is one that surprises. Maybe a Jack-in-the-box would be a good logo? Or a subtle animation (slowly changing, or chinging in a small detail? Or one of those pictures that have another way to see them? --◄mendel► 07:10, July 12, 2010 (UTC)
Also, sitenotice? --◄mendel► 07:11, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Edit statistics Edit

I ran some simple statistics on our top contributors' latest 250 mainspace edits (if you'd like to be included, just drop me a message). The statistics count every edit that's not a new question, a move/rephrase, or an "Adding categories" as an answer, even if it simply corrected a typo, so bear that in mind.

User UQ UnAsked UnAnswered Rephrased Tagged
A F K When Needed -94 96% 3% 0% 0%
Deetaha -11 46% 37% 4% 12%
Dancing Penguin -18 56% 39% 0% 5%
Khono 73 12% 79% 2% 7%
Lineriderfan -19 58% 39% 2% 1%
M.mendel 83 8% 80% 6% 7%
El Nazgir 55 21% 72% 1% 6%
Nyerguds 97 2% 97% 1% 0%
Pikapi 17 40% 57% 1% 2%
Randomtime -31 63% 33% 4% 0%
Solar Dragon -29 50% 27% 3% 20%
Tennessee Ernie Ford 34 29% 58% 0% 13%
Yallow 78 11% 86% 0% 3%
Yowuza 6 41% 46% 4% 8%

UQ := 100 * (answered - asked) / (answered + asked)   =   200 * answered / (answered+asked) - 100 

You get a negative UQ if you ask more than you answer, and a positive UQ if you answer more than you ask; if you only asked and never answered, you'd have -100, and if you never asked you'd have +100.--◄mendel► 09:46, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

So what does this mean? We have to answer more questions? Yallow 16:12, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
It means: some peeps like asking more than answering and that not every question deserves an answer (or: not every question has an unanswer worthy of the unquestion).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:40, July 13, 2010 (UTC)
Yes to the first part of your statement and /disagree to the second: I believe every question can receive the answer it deserves, but some question are heretofore lacking an editor capable of coming up with one. I can't recall having ever given up on a random question, though it sometimes takes a while. Ironically, this is why I initially started doing these types of answers on Wikianswers: the dissatisfying realization that it would take far more thought and research to properly answer some question than the asker had spent on asking it. --◄mendel► 22:21, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

(RI) Interesting way to devalue contributions.
You forget that some people will prefer asking questions; some will prefer answering them. As you can't help someone ask a question, there's only one way to encourage more people to contribute. Pro tip: that's not by giving their contributions a minus score. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 18:40, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

It's not intended to devalue anything; I don't think it really does. I've taken your comment to ponder different ways such a scale could be constructed; short of abandoning the attempt altogether (and thus losing out on useful feedback), any other scale could be argued to "devalue" someone, if you were looking for an argument.
"You forget that some people ..." -- indeed I don't, the table shows exactly that (and who). It's intended to give our frequent contributors some feedback about where they are on such a scale, and maybe get them to ask themselves whether that is where they want to be.
As you can't help someone ask a question -- what does that mean? I don't understand it.
There are several ways to encourage the people on this list to contribute; which one were you thinking of? --◄mendel► 18:57, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Skin Changes Edit

I've heard User:M.mendel has some ideas for skin changes, and User:Randomtime seems to agree with his ideas. So, what are your proposals? I would like to hear them and maybe give suggestions! Yallow 01:02, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

It's unpleasant. Mendel changes skin with RT, RT changes skins with Gigathrash, and... You should see the new UA insurance bills. OTOH, you could copy what Mendel told me to do here to User:Yallow/answers.css to see for yourself. Feedback currently goes there.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:15, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
Screenshots and step-by-step instructions are at User:M.mendel/mendelbook2. --◄mendel► 06:54, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Tagline Edit

Our MediaWiki:Tagline currently reads, The Q&A Wiki which proudly has 0 answers! (The Q&A Wiki which proudly has 0 answers!). I suggest changing that to UnAnswers — We answer any question! or something similar. What do you think? --M.mendel 12:39, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

Brain dump:
  1. The Q&A Wiki which proudly has 0 answers (and over 6000 UnAnswers)!
  2. The Un-Q&A Wiki which proudly UnAnswers any question.
  3. The Wiki which proudly offers the least helpful answers of any Q&A site around.
  4. The Q&A Wiki which...what was the question?
  5. The Q&A Wiki with the most questionable advice.
Tennessee Ernie Ford 16:21, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I like your 2 and 4.
  1. UnAnswers - the wiki that unanswers anything!
  2. UnAnswers - we're not proud!
  3. Answers you didn't want to hear to questions you didn't dare to ask!
  4. UnAnswering unanswerable questions since ... let me check my watch ...
  5. UnAnswers - where you can find the answer to any question, not necessarily on the same page
Your turn (yes, you, <insert name here>

)! --M.mendel 17:10, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

"Welcome to UNANSWERS, the Users Noting Stupidly that Answering Questions Non-Stupidly Will Entice Rioting Society! We will let the acronym speak for itself." This could use a little tweaking, but as our founder said, it was 'pure sexy win' :) Yallow 22:47, July 15, 2010 (UTC)
I like Mendel's ideas 5's execution. (I like Yallow's idea; not sure the long acronym lends itself well to a tagline). Copying the old list:
  1. The Un-Q&A Wiki which proudly UnAnswers any question.
  2. The Q&A Wiki which...what was the question?
  3. UnAnswers - where you can find the answer to any question, not necessarily on the same page
And new ones:
  1. UnAnswering questions no one dares answer.
  2. Questionably answering quietly.
I must say that my favorites were most questionable advice and least helpful site (I think that really gets to the heart of this site's strengths.) Tennessee Ernie Ford 00:41, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
We go where no Q&A wiki had gone before Yallow 01:55, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
I've gone where no man has gone before, but... I was in Mexico and her father gave me permission! — William Shatner, I am Canadian Tennessee Ernie Ford 02:08, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
6a. UnAnswers - proudly the least helpful Q&A wiki on the 'net!
6b. UnAnswers - proudly the least helpful answers wiki on the Internet!
--M.mendel 04:43, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
If we're going that route, then, ...
(6c) UnAnswers — proudly the least helpful UnQ&A wiki on the innerwubz.
(5c) UnAnswers — the most questionable Q&A site in all Innirwubz.
and so on.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:42, July 16, 2010 (UTC)
UnAnswers - the most questionable answers wiki without horse porn
This will do wonders for us in terms of SEO. :-) --M.mendel 07:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

Also, we have $1 - UnAnswers - The Wiki That Answers Questions Differently ($1 - UnAnswers - The Wiki That Answers Questions Differently) as our title slogan. --M.mendel 07:21, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I liked Mendel's first suggestion, but I'd change it to " UnAnswers — We answer any question! Really!". For the rest, I'd prefer to stick to "internet" over innerwubz or other mutilations of the word. (going for 6b).--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 11:00, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia project? Edit

A couple of us at Uncyclopedia have been discussing the idea of including UnAnswers as one of our site's projects. We've got similar projects such as UnBooks, UnNews, UnTunes, Why?, HowTos, etc., and we're just too lazy to create anything like UnAnswers (in fact, some of us want you dead because you beat us to the idea). Our idea(s) (which we've been shooting around with RandomTime in IRC) are:

Have UnAnswers listed as an Uncyclopedia project. This would require no action by the UnAnswers community. Everything would be on our end. Doing so would hopefully attract contributors from our site to yours (and vice-versa, though this is not our intention). We like humor wikis and would like to see them grow and develop, and if being attributed as an Uncyclopedia project by namesake alone is a bump to your project, then by all means we might like to do that.
  1. As a stand-alone project and website (we emphasize that you will continue to run your site yourselves without an overlapping of administration; our community and our sysops cannot and will not throw weight around on UnAnswers) we would like to set up interwiki linking from Uncyclopedia to UnAnswers.
  2. UnAnswers users will all be on our guest list for our annual Pie Eating Competition in Waterloo, Iowa.

This is not binding and your community would be free, at any time, to opt out of being a part of the Uncyclopedia family at any time. --Electrified mocha chinchilla 00:50, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

My views: more users and questions/answers is always good. -- RandomTime 00:57, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
My views: My cat's breath smells like catfood. Sex. Khono 03:28, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
I like it. All it does is bring advantages to everyone.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:15, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
I agree! It will bring more contributors to UnAnswers hence making our community healthier and more diverse (that will render it harder, better, faster and stronger :)). Deetaha 13:16, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... So, we could get more contributors here, making us better, and we don't have to lift a finger? Is there anything wrong with that? Would be good to become part of (or closely related to) one of the biggest and most well known wikis on the interweb. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 13:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
It's a good idea.
I'm not happy with we emphasize that you will continue to run your site yourselves without an overlapping of administration -- while I agree that the administration should remain independent, I'd think it a necessity to have a UA user with clout (i.e. a strong contributor or an admin) RfA here (unless you think none of you can meet our standards? ;-). If we don't do that, we're just cooperating on the marketing; if we do, UnAnswers stands to profit from Uncyc experience. This would not be "throwing your weight about", but rather suggesting developments, which I feel we'd need anyway in order to grow and become more mature. It would also be a sign that you're taking this seriously. It would give the newly arriving (hopefully!) UA users somebody they can relate to. --◄mendel► 18:00, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
I don't like it. Yallow 22:40, July 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yallow, care to explain why?--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:42, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Dr Mendelbook (or how I learnt to stop worrying, and consult the wiki about using a new skin) Edit

Hello UnAnswers. One of the things that was mentioned to me by emc about the Uncyclopedia move (which seems to have support) is a skin change. I agree. The skin we had (Custom I've just changed it, you can change it back in your preferences) looked horrible (although, I am biased, due to the fact that I find white on black very hard to read, and think it looks awful). This has been echoed by Uncyclopedia's fans on facebook, and their wiki community.

A solution was suggested, that the skin be more like "the one used on wikianswers - to this end, i've changed the skin to sky. Like I said, feel free to change it back to custom, or any other - in your preferences.
However, there is a further option. As you may know Mendel has been busy creating a skin hack, dubbed "mendelbook". Mendelbook, in my opinion looks great, much better than the default skin. You can see the changes, and apply them for yourself at User:M.mendel/mendelbook2.
It's down to you:
  • What skin theme should we base our skin in (I'm basing it in sky at the moment, but am open to change).
  • Should we enable mendelbook?
I'd like to hear your views on this issue, but I'm going away tomorrow morning, so might not have the chance to apply them. If we do reach consensus whist both El_Nazgir and myself are away, I'll leave it to Yallow to apply the changes she sees fit. -- RandomTime 14:34, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Well, I personally like the black skin. Therefore, I would like the code to put into my personal Answers.css if it doesn't stick. However, if you think it is better, go with it. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 15:44, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
SD, as far as I understand, the decision to move to the light skin is not final yet. If you want the black skin back right now anyway, follow the steps at User:M.mendel/mendelbook2#How_to_Beta, but use this line in step 2 instead:
@import url(""); 
As a bonus, you get three small skin fixes when you do!
I want to stress that "mendelbook" does work with the dark theme. Simply put the mendelbook2.css line below the black.css line if you want both.
I do need to modify mendelbook to display ads again before it can be used as the site skin, or we'll violate Wikia's terms of service. --◄mendel► 17:54, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
It is actually pretty nice. However, the black is not working for me. It is the white colour still. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 18:50, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
Thank you! Did you remember to reload your styles after you edited your answers.css the second time? --◄mendel► 19:02, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Google trends Edit

Should inspire us to ask popular questions? --◄mendel► 22:53, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Why not? --Yowuza 17:29, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
There's a social ap on facebook that asks you about people on your friends list, why not UnAsk some of those too? Yallow 21:59, August 7, 2010 (UTC)

UnBadges? Edit

Maybe a User who has admin experience with Badges can provide some input on whether we should offer UnBadges. (See Help:Achievements.) It would be worth it only if we could change or disable the standard tracks, i.e. I could see offering a badge for 1, 2 and 3 edits, but not the standard increments; and we could probably create a badge for making edits to the "I want a badge" category. :)

The idea is to make a parody of the Wikia badge system, not to adopt it as intended. --◄mendel► 06:06, August 11, 2010 (UTC) & 06:07, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

OK, we have them on Wikisimpsons and to be honest, I have mixed feelings about them. Also, I don't think there is a way to customise them further than naming them and adding images to them, except creating new tracks for categories. A parody, I feel, would be impossible to make. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 06:40, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
I haven't got a clue how they actually work (I'll read the entire help later), or how much they're customisable, but if a parody is possible, I think it could be funny, but I really wouldn't like the "normal" badges and think Yowuza was right with his "lol u win a shiny". --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:39, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
It might be one of the few sites that would work. I don't like the system, it encourages people to spam RC to rack up points, but on UnAnswers - where we parody it, it might work. On wikis that have it enabled, it looks like the badges go below the userpage (because Wikia likes doing that, instead of making a special page...) - as SD says, if you can't change the amounts, then there's not much point -- RandomTime 10:10, August 11, 2010 (UTC)
(1) to be funny, it doesn't have to work at all, let alone properly (i.e. it could be static or based on random numbers) and (2) if we wanted something that worked, we could develop a template (that ppl could add manually to their sigs or user page).  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:29, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
A "make your own badge" template that could be copied to other wikis to add badges to your own. Hmmmm, now that's got potential! --◄mendel► 10:38, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
It is possible; it requires additions to the site's .css and .js if it doesn't yet have badges, and a modified .js if it already has. Adding this in teh right place would also create Monobook support, which badges don't currently have. --◄mendel► 12:12, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

No offense to the persons who made it...Edit

...but the white skin has got to go. We need UnAnswers back in teh black. Who is with me? Yallow 16:17, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I like the black skin but if no one else really doesn, perhaps another dark colour? ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 16:21, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Same. I'm not sure why the black one was removed anyway. Also, I heard mendelbook was gonna be black or at least dark too, but I don't know when that one will be finished and ready to implement.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 16:30, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Mendelbook can be applied to any skin - changed the skin back to custom -- RandomTime 16:33, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
So what exactly is mendelbook then? --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 16:35, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Mendelbook rearranges the elements that the page is made up of into a more pleasant configuration. It is written to be mostly neutral to theme, i.e. it is supposed to work with any skin theme. See User:M.mendel/mendelbook2 for additional info. --◄mendel► 21:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
While we switch skind back and forth willy-nilly and without reflection, could somebody please count how many new editors (IPs and accounts) we've had while the light skin was up? So that we can compare what happens now we're back to black? And maybe have a poll announced on teh sitenotice?
Or do you want to continue to stake the popularity of the site on the personal taste of a few people who joined when it was black and thus prefer it that way? --◄mendel► 21:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

I've had a look at , and the vistor numbers picked up not with the AFK demotion (and thus the end of the drama), but rather from the point on where RT changed the theme to "sky" as a response to the renewed Uncyclopedia interest; so the increase could have been due to either the skin or the Uncyc campaign, but if the black skin turns the Uncyc people away again, it won't really matter which of the two is dominant. --◄mendel► 21:13, August 15, 2010 (UTC)

Well, even so, I can't stand the white skin. One look at it and I had to turn away. The glare from my screen on the white screen hurt my eyes. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 21:19, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
Rather than checking all fancy graphs, I prefer to check RC, and as far as RC is concerned, there's hardly been any rise at all. Perhaps even the opposite. The black was part of the initial parody of wikianswers, and it just looks a lot better.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 22:18, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
The initial skin wasn't flat black, but rather had two shades so that the "frame" (sidebar etc.) could be visually distinguished from the page. That's pretty much how both of the dark themes that Wikia provides work, too. Can you provide numbers for RC? --◄mendel► 03:56, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


I've checked the numbers for "mainspace edits per day", discounting AFK and his bot because of their special role and their tendency to spam questions, and by that measure there's nothing unusual, so I can confirm your impression. Discounting numbers as "fancy graphs" is unscientific, please don't do that, it doesn't help rational discussion. My feeling is that we've gotten more unique contributors per day or per week, but the analysis for that is more difficult, and I haven't done it yet. (It would help if we had a more recent database dump, so go to Special:Statistics and click to request one, please.) Special:WikiaStats is out of date, too, sadly. --◄mendel► 05:43, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Sorry if I came across a bit hostile. And what matters to me personally here is the activity of the wiki. We might have had several IPs doing a single edit and then never editing again, but I myself have been a bit hesitant to edit, UA didn't feel right with the white skin. You're correct about it not being black in the first place, but it was dark. We could experiment a bit looking for colours that please both sides in this. Personally I like dark blue, although some colours might have trouble with readability. We could also try something like the towel again from the beginning, using an image as backgroud, rather neutral dark one, and only take the actual space of the question and answers as black/dark colour. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:46, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I don't like 90% of the darker skins I've seen on website; I find them hard to look at for more than 20 seconds. On the other hand, I often change computer settings to use darker rather than lighter backgrounds. (But usually: black/dark text.)
That said, I agree with The Naz that it's about readership. But: people don't stay for a cool skin, they leave for a bad one, so all we can really measure if if we have a really tragic combination of colors/images.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 09:58, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
You don't agree with Naz, because he says it's about the contributors, not the readers. Have y'all clicked the "request database dump" button yet? --◄mendel► 19:52, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any button.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 20:16, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I do agree with him in the sense that "readers" to me meant contribs and readers. It's easier to see contributors than readership.
Anyhow, my more important point is that I very much doubt whether more than 0.5% of the population cares enough about cool skins to spend more time at cool-looking wikis. However, 99.5% will not read/contribute if the skin sux. So, while I don't think the white version I'm looking at is too bright, but I'm perfectly willing to see it toned down so it doesn't bother SD et al. If ppls really want a dark-tone, then I could live with that, althugh the extremes there probably bug me as much as SD is bugged by the what he's seeing now.
PS: those who don't like current versions: have you posted a screenshot of what you see (along with your skin options in Prefs)? With wikia, I'm not sure how much I really control from Prefs sometimes.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 21:43, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
@Naz: The button is gone now; it's still there on other wikis. Let's hope that means the request is being processed. --◄mendel► 22:09, August 16, 2010 (UTC)
I find white on dark very glaring (even with my nighttime monitor settings). I'm therefore using a light skin, which doesn't hurt my eyes. Mendelbook is very good in this regard. I like this skin (which is what I'm using currently) the best. -- RandomTime 00:07, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
Looks to me you're seeing double - maybe you should clear your answers.js ? --◄mendel► 06:00, August 17, 2010 (UTC)

Template:WoW Answers widget Edit

I want one! --◄mendel► 22:46, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

RuneScape Wiki: Defining Administrators Edit

The project is not quite finished yet, but I enjoyed having a look at w:c:runescape:User:Azaz129/Defining administrators, and especially (old hands will recognize this as my pet issue) w:c:runescape:User:Azaz129/Defining administrators/Role of dispute resolution, which, as a bonus, is also funny. --◄mendel► 11:53, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Too many answers? New suggestion Edit

The problem: with so many unanswered unquestions, how does the casual reader (or even the frequent contributor) find the good ones?

Recently suggested solutions: These included...well, read above. They didn't go anywhere.

New suggestion: Implement Editor's Picks or Contributor Kudos or some such name that would allow each of us to organize/display/choose the unanswers we like best.

This has the following benefits:

  • Can be implemented almost immediately.
  • Allows everyone to recommend, no matter how many edits (as long as they are registered).
  • Allows each individual to manage their own recommendations (and, therefore, decide if they want to list 100 or just 2).
  • Would allow us to use the home page to highlight a different set of recommendations e.g. monthly, etc

 —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:21, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Same idea, simpler implementation: tag questions you like with the tag "pleases TEF". I could tag with "pleases mendel". If everyone uses this, we can see by the categories with "pleases" what users have made recommendations; lists can be made from them with DPL: put on your userpage a list of the UnAnswers that most recently pleased you, find the ones that please both mendel and TEF, follow the category with RecentChangesrelated (or some such, I'd have to look it up) to catch changes to your favorite UnAnswers etc.
If you want the two thumbs variant, tag with "pleases TEF greatly" - or a better wording. (You tend to be better with words than I am, suggest something!) --◄mendel► 17:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
I'm a mess with coding and stuff, so I personally lean more towards mendel's suggestion, which is easy even for a wiki-newb: just adding the category "pleases Mr. X", putting all the "pleases someone" cats in "pleases" cat, and put a link at the top of the main page. (although the constant use of pleasing makes me get weird and dirty mental images, perhaps another word is needed).--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 20:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
Both methods end up tagging with cats. The differences are:
  • A template offers an additional visual clue, whereas the tag method might get lost b/c it's only one of many possible tags.
  • (There's a small, but greater, risk of typos using tags alone.)
  • Template method also allows more linkage possibilities (to the user, to their overall recommendations, etc).
  • Template forces a standard cat name; tagging leaves room the possibility that the tags vary greatly in naming convention (partially defeating the purpose).
Given the right tag/cat names, I don't see any reason why {{Recommendation|<El Solar>}} can't be implemented and people can choose which they prefer. After a couple of months, we can look at how people actually expressed their prefs and determine which method people use more often.
As far as tag names go, suggestions are:
  1. Pleases Mendel; Pleases Mendel greatly
  2. TEF Two Thumbs Up; TEF One Thumb Up
  3. Recommended by El Nazgir
  4. I am Solar Dragon and I approve of this unanswer (US meme from political ads)
  5. Yallow sez check out this unAnswer
  6. Unparalleled UnAnswer sez The Woodburniantor
  7. Lineriderfan‎ would Tweet this (if we linked to Twitter)
  8. Dexter111344 digs this
 —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Recommended seems best imo. But yeah, if the template can be made, it would be nice, if the usage just stays at adding the {{Recommendation|<El nazzger>}} thing.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 17:02, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
More arguments:
  • category names should be short to make short tags (the shortest would be "+ mendel" and "++ mendel")
  • tags can be used to "like" questions that haven't yet been answered
  • tags have autocomplete; template parameters don't (-> typos)
  • tags take little room to display
  • templates could get sandwiched between two UnAnswers
  • templates are a pain for the Rich Text Editor (do we have it?)
  • tags can be clicked, the cat page can have links galore without cluttering up the UnAnswer
  • is this a WoT yet?
--◄mendel► 21:12, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
Point by point (short story: I actually prefer the template solution in answer to some of these, some are issues for both proposals).
  • category names should be short to make short tags (the shortest would be "+ mendel" and "++ mendel")
    • Sure. That's independent of tags vs template. (Can wiki pages begin with a non-alpha char?) (Is ++Mendel better than Mendel++ or Mendel ++?)
  • tags can be used to "like" questions that haven't yet been answered
    • Erm, I guess, but the proposal is to recommend unanswers. Those questions that people like will get answered.
  • tags have autocomplete; template parameters don't (-> typos)
    • You don't think some people aren't going to type Auron++ or Auron + + or etc? If all you have to do is type your own userID, I think the chance of template-related issues is lower. (Probably not going to be that big a deal for either.)
  • tags take little room to display
    • Yes, I think that's a bad thing. Don't we want recommendations to be distinct?
  • templates could get sandwiched between two UnAnswers
    • Do you mean that someone would forget to put ---- between two answers and no one would think to fix it? (Otherwise, not sure what the issue is.)
  • templates are a pain for the Rich Text Editor (do we have it?)
    • Sure, but how many registered contributors use RTE?
  • tags can be clicked, the cat page can have links galore without cluttering up the UnAnswer
    • (a) cats galore hides recommendations; (b) why wouldn't the recommendation image be clickable?
  • is this a WoT yet?
    • If it wasn't, it is now.
On reflection, I don't feel so strongly about using a template that I want to keep talking about it rather than implement something. It's not as if there's an actual rush to do something <sarcasm> right now (dangnammit!) </sarcasm>, but then again, how many great answers have we seen...and already forgotten b/c there's no obvious way to find them? In other words, let's agree on a standard (Mendel ++ or ++ Mendel or a template) and start saving the good stuff for posterity.  —Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 10:50, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
Some remarks:
  • Don't we want recommendations to be distinct? -- you stated the problem as, how do we find the good ones? When the reader is on the UnAnswer page, he's already found it.
  • why wouldn't the recommendation image be clickable -- you proposed that Template method also allows more linkage possibilities, not just a single image (unless you want to put a dropdown on it) (and that could be done on tags that start or end with +, distinguishing them visually as well, maybe a thumbs up next to each one?). The really important link would be a way to browse through the good images, and having a prev/next system seems very hard to do (I think RandomInCategory would work in a way): utilizing Monaco's sidebar flyout navigation (or Oasis' topbar) seems the better bet.
I feel the favorite categories would best be promoted via the sidebar, main page, community page; how to add "favorite" tags will not escape our regular contributors, they're all aware of tags. --◄mendel► 16:21, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Move from wikia? Edit

Due to Solar Dragon being blocked, and the probability of some Oasis stuff being forced upon Q&A wikis as well within the next year, I would propose to leave wikia and go to another wiki farm. I don't know anything about the technical business, so if we move, I hope to be able to depend on some of the more technically gifted users. I've been following the debate on some other wikis, mainly on guildwiki, and from it, I have seen some alternatives to wikia:

The first would be Wikkii, and the second alternative I know of is ShoutWiki.

I don't know if either of those support the Q&A stuff, but if someone could provide me with some of the technical stuff a wiki farm has to support in order to run a Q&A feature, I can e-mail them about it. I'm open to other alternatives, so suggest away! Also, all imput from both lurkers and active users, or even just occasional passers-by are welcome, and even wanted. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 13:37, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Also, check out the Anti-Wikia Alliance. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 13:56, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
I have been very active with the AWA and have persuaded a couple of users that a move would be good and turned a user from opposing the move to neutral, leaning towards oppose. I have been blocked by Wikia for two weeks. I didn't deserve that long although I may have deserved a short block for my insults.
We should definitely move if we can find a host that will support answers wikis. It would be a good idea, especially if we get some Oasis answers skin crap. Solar Dragon 14:35, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
It is technologically possible to use MediaWiki as a Q&A site. Other than that I support to the maximum extent of the law. I-20the highway 21:19, October 10, 2010 (UTC)
Technologically possible, but after doing some research I found out that the Q&A source code hasn't been released. So far I don't think any other wiki farm has a Q&A format/whatever.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 07:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)
You neva looked? I-20the highway 01:14, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
My knowledge of coding and stuff is non-existant. Plus, I've read Jack Phoenix blog about it.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 07:26, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
I do have a hacky solution. I'll be on IRC. I-20the highway 20:03, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

new black skin text Edit

white is pretty unreadable... could i suggest a nice grainsboro or even an ivory instead of pitch white? White will get painful after a while, and grays are a more professional color (ie: adobe uses them for a reason). My two cents... — Scythe 20:03, 14 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Ditto, but then I want sky back -- RandomTime 20:04, October 14, 2010 (UTC)
I was never around for sky to see it in use, but i've seen the wikia / mediawiki screenshots of it... I quite liked it. But can we please get off this godawful black? — Scythe 0:22, 19 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Sky? was that the white one that was forced upon us for a month or something? Tbh, I hated it. I like this skin, but it's always open for discussion. Last time it was brought up the discussion dried up iirc. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 14:53, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
we could keep the new skin, i have no problems with it staying. I just don't want to use it because its not very reader-friendly. Would it be possible to introduce another skin to the wiki that uses a different color? — Scythe 19:46, 19 Oct 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can always adapt your personal skin view in the "preferences" under "skin".--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:09, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
You haven't actually checked that. How do I know? Because the only two options are "answers" (this, black) and "New Look", which is currently light, but does not allow me to ask questions, nor has it been set up for UnAnswers in any way (navigation etc.). --◄mendel► 21:48, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
I checked, but apparently I didn't check what actual choices there were. You can pick this or the new wikia look, but I clearly remember that it was once possible to check a box there with "let admins override my skin choice", along with a lot more possibilities of skins :S --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 12:31, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Wikia changed it. It was obvious to those of us who used the themes when that happened (because everything turned black), but I realize you wouldn't have noticed. --◄mendel► 12:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
So wikia forced us to either pick Oasis or the custom theme. That makes things difficult, as we have some people who greatly support black and dislike the light skins, and the exact opposite.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 13:02, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
I've an idea. May be implemented after the great departure. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 15:54, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
at this point black is actually painful (WoT). Can we please change something or allow another option? — Scythe 14:43, 23 Oct 2010 (UTC)

Less than 10% now Edit

For the first time in months, we have managed to UnAnswer more than 90% of all questions here. Over the past two months, the number of open questions has been decreased from 1136 to 736.

Personally, I'd like to see us get near 95% unanswered; to hold that target percentage, we would then encourage people to ask more questions; and given the current rate of "consumption", that would still give us a few weeks "reserve".

Another way to open up more questions for answering (well, that's misleading, because you can add an answer to any question, even if one already exists) is to start removing lame answers from existing questions. To do that, we'd need some consensus what a lame answer is, though. Would it be worthwhile to find out? --◄mendel► 08:46, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Once in a while, I do re,ove lame answers. thing I remove include stuff like "yes", "no", "42", and other (usually very short) things like it. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 16:03, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been wondering whether we should do it more, considering how little gets through moderation on sites like fml or --◄mendel► 17:05, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Skin darkness poll Edit

<poll> What do you think about the skin color on this wiki? I prefer black, keep it the way it is. I'd prefer a lighter color, please change it. </poll> --◄mendel► 08:54, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

This site's current skin is black and therefore fucking horrible. Please change it. --Electrified mocha chinchilla 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
It is not horrible because its black, it is horrible because it is high contrast and just black - less contrast and more subtle variance can actually work quite well sometimes. This, however, is indeed somewhat horrible, not that anyone cares what I think. I just followed a link here because emc mentioned horror and I was expecting him to be wrong. Huh, guess not. And then I log in and suddenly it goes all default and my eyes stop bleeding... Lyrithya 00:01, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
"Default" being monobook, then? It's amazing how the poll numbers changed with some more participation. I think I've come up with a compromise: make the background lighter, but leave the black color in for the letters. --◄mendel► 11:47, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind that. As I said before (iirc), I am not opposed to changing the skin, just that I like the dark theme. There has been quite some "hating" against the skin, but no alternatives have been mentioned up until now, I think.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 13:09, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Black, the colour of my soul. It's okay, I suppose. No colour is "ugly" especially for skins.

Move from wikia redux Edit

So now we got the buggy and horrible Oasis skin forced upon us, and can't even change it for some reason. I'd like to revive the discussion about moving. Since Wikia holds the monopoly over the answers type-skin (which they themselves just fucked up), I'd propose to move to shoutwiki (or another wiki farm, if anyone has suggestions) and continue using things like they are now, meaning that pages are questions (we'll need to find a way to get a "?" behind every page title), and we just write the answers as the article itself.

I know most contributors here are anons, and because of the skin we lost the sitenotice, but I'd still like to move (most likely only with the "core" members).--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 21:28, November 15, 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I want to move out of Wikia too. But anons come here because of the link in Uncyclopedia. DP 21:44, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
well, I am sure Uncyclopedia could change their link. Most users didn't want to come to Wikia after all. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 22:01, November 15, 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, Sannse said they're fixing it. DP 19:21, November 16, 2010 (UTC)
Ah good, they fixed it. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 15:20, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Oasis is back - for better or worse now? --◄mendel► 10:46, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

What makes UnAnswers great? Edit

w:User blog:Sarah Manley/Celebrating the Wikis of 2010 - A Community Contest asks us:

What made your wiki great in 2010?
Please tell us below, in 250 words or less, why during the year 2010 your wiki was great.

I suggest picking as many awesome UnAnswers as fit in 250 words that were unasked or unanswered this year, list them here so we can decide upon them, and then post them as a response; and do it soon. The exposure should get us more viewers even if we don't win, and hopefully be good for a laugh. Everyone, please suggest awesome UnAnswers below! --◄mendel► 17:32, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Gonna check through the featured ones on the main page history. Brb. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:58, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
And those featured are:
I'd link to some of my own personal favourites, but I don't really keep track of those.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:07, December 4, 2010 (UTC)
How do you do interwiki links again? and do they work in blog posts? --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:12, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
w:c:unanswers:How do you do interwiki links again? and do they work in blog posts? Yes, they do. --◄mendel► 15:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
K, thnx. I'll sumbit these then. Perhaps also the donations page? I'm thinking of describing us (non-seriously) while linking to the questions in turn. Good idea? --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:13, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
An all-blue description? Which questions do you need answered to make that work? ;) --◄mendel► 06:18, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
Not necessarily ALL blue... Just... Most of it.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:16, December 15, 2010 (UTC)
We at Unanswers have lot of rules about advertisements, we have a dictator, several scary (ex-)admins, some stock market analysts, and many, many (oxy)morons, which often results in pages like this. We also have some nice theological discussions, and often get very philosophical . We can be very helpful, and often write essays.
We entered! (good thing you made that edit though mendel, I almost forgot about it :S )--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:17, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
AAAAAH. Just noticed I made a big oopsie in the "govenor of unanswers" question link. :S Blargh for not being able to edit blog posts...--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:50, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you can edit them. Mouse over the link at the bottom right of your post. --◄mendel► 05:26, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
I noticed yesterday, but in monobook, it isn't there 90% of the time for some reason. I'll go check Oasis now, but I was quite ill yesterday and couldn't think straight so it didn't cross my mind then.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:01, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, won't show up in oasis either... perhaps their opera support is aweful again (and if reported sannse would reply "I can't seem to reproduce this" anyway...)--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:06, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Can't do it on IE either... It's just wikia bork then...--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:07, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Well, comments are closed, so that may be why. Try this. --◄mendel► 00:22, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
Why don't y'all submit me, because I make UnAnswers supah grate Yallow 00:54, January 4, 2011 (UTC)
"You are not allowed to execute the action you have requested. You can view and copy the source of this page" :/ Also: Yallow, contest ended 4 days ago...--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:45, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

New hosting, bitches. Edit

I'm offering hosting to a moved UnAnswers... free without any bullshit attached. Hell yeah. Frozen Wind 13:40, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, details? (like, location, etc.)--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 14:47, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
You're basically sharing a spot on a DreamHost plan. (You know, I can't make another plan for UnAnswers.) Frozen Wind 21:09, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Link please, bitch? Yallow 01:37, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm not sure about this anymore... The times I've tried to get the community to get involved with the whole "move" thing, hardly anyone participated, and I think if we moved, this wiki would just go on without us, ran by anons and users that only ask/answer questions and don't bother to get involved in the community portal, especially with that link we have on the uncyclopedia main page... --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:21, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
It is actually ok for "users" to ask and answer questions; but the times someone's tried to get the adminship involved with some suggestions (see above) and hardly anything happened ... have you looked at the site notice lately?
The Uncyclopedia link is really great for UnAnswers, but Wikia policy being what it is, it wouldn't be changed to a new site. Making a new site would be really worth it if it was set up with a re-thought concept (and TEF, who refuses to visit Wikia) that allows for the moderation that all other "short content" Web 2.0 sites employ (, fml, , cheezburger, what have you). --◄mendel► 10:05, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
I know the uncyclopedia link is great, but if we would move, I'd doubt wikia'd let them link to the new site, as you said. And really, I haven't got a clue what you mean by what comes after that.
And I never became an admin for technical stuff, and have always stressed that I can not do a thing with wikicode and other things, in fact, the only reason in became bureaucrat was to mediate between AFK and Yallow, and when AFK left/was semi-kicked out, I was expected to hold this thing together and take over everything he did, which I can not, and tbh, will not do. The only admin with a reasonable amount of coding/etc. knowledge is RT iirc, and he's only active on the IRC channel nowadays (along with most admins, mind you). If you want to change things, make unanswers better for everyone, go ahead, feel free to make an RFA, I'll throw you a cookie and an adminship for free, but don't expect me to be able to "run" this site by myself, I have exams coming up and even if I didn't I'd still have other things to do.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 15:58, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
To clarify, I wasn't criticizing the way you fulfil your admin/bcrat duties, I meant to criticize the way you complained about the "community". --◄mendel► 16:54, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I replied pretty harshly... I've been on the edge a bit recently. The community (by that I mean the majority of editiors) isn't interested in Wikia politics, and as long as nothing changes for answers wikis (besides the usual wikia retardedness), I doubt an actual move could happen, and it'd actually be a "fork" (Sannse's pet word), with most of the senior members leaving, and most of the (relatively) newer ones staying.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:57, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
Plus, I could return to the wiki if we move. Something I would like to do. Solar Dragon 18:51, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
I still don't know what sites we have open. It seems the skin looks pretty much as it did before, so why leave? Here is how it is: We can either discuss moving and do something based on everyone's input, we can not discuss moving and stay here. What I absolutely refuse to do is discuss moving and not act. Fruitless discussion has never been good for unanswers, if you ask me. Yallow 00:20, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Well, moving or now then? SimpsonsFanatic1994 19:28, January 28, 2011 (UTC)

Less than 300 questions UnAsked Edit

Our reserve is less than 300 UnAsked questions, that is 3.7% of everything. Good job!

It's time to think not only about good answers, but also about good questions, so the supply is kept up. Also, to find questions to answer, use not only Random Question, but also Random Answer - we have many questions that deserve a better UnAnswer than they already have.

We don't have a clear policy about deleting answers, but I've been deleting particularly bad ones now and then, replacing them with my own UnAnswers. --◄mendel► 21:54, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Such as Who is the king? Understandable Mendelly. There are time like these where I wish UA would only have registered users ;) Yallow 05:27, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Eh, some of the anons can give some pretty damn good answers, but the majority goes "42" on everything and stuff (42 spamming gets reverted if I see it). But overall, it's hard to decide when an answer is bad. I support the removal of sub-par answers, but some might disagree with certain removals.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:58, January 29, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, such as these. I removed it. The nice thing about wikis is that removals can be reverted if there is a disagreement - all is not lost! Some of the anons have become pretty good registered users. --◄mendel► 13:45, January 29, 2011 (UTC)

Mirthipedia: The New Frontier Edit

I created a Joke Wiki a year ago named w:c:mirth and even though it had a great idea, it never got much contribution. Now that Yallow is semi-here, I decided to reintroduce you guys to it because so many forgot it/have never heard of it. What do you guys say about adopting this wiki as a project? It is a bit like UnAnswers, just without the questions ;) Yallow 02:35, February 2, 2011 (UTC)

I, personally, don't mind putting this on the main page as a kind of sister-project. It already has a great deal of content, the main problem is that it has very few contributors, which would partially be solved if we add a link on the main page or something. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:18, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good. Could we also do something with the sitenotice, like we did before? Yallow 16:50, February 2, 2011 (UTC)
Since it's been 5 days and nobody responded, I'm going ahead with this. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:53, February 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oasis Edit

What's the word?

Inevitable? Will never happen? What are we to expect? A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 17:11, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Definitions Edit

Since wiki-answers does definitions as well as answer questions, I was thinking that unanswers could do something similar where we make funny definitions for real and made up words. It would be sort of like urban dictionary except it would actually be funny. I'd like to hear what everyone else thinks. CANADA 17:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC)CANADA

Sounds like a good idea! Could you link me to the definitions, I don't think I've ever seen them? Is it more than a "what is a ..." type question? --◄mendel► 21:57, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

No. You see, if you are on wiki-answers, instead of typing in a question in the search bar you put the name of a noun or verb (ex: “cheese”) and it will give you a description of the thing you searched for. It’s sort of like a Wikipedia article.

Now, what I was thinking was to do something like this, only the definitions would be shorter and funny. I’m not really sure how to go about doing this and was hoping that you and some of the other admins (if any are still any who are active) would help me start this. The Q&A portion of this site hasn’t been as active lately, and I think that adding another element to unanswers would possibly increase traffic a bit. I was thinking we could either

A) Use the same engine that wiki-answers uses

B) Create an entirely new portion of the website that uses a dictionary format.

Still interested? CANADA 22:35, March 20, 2011 (UTC)CANADA

Ok, what I see is that if I search for "cheese" on , by default I get am "all sources" search that directs me to . Is that what you mean?
We can't use another engine, because Wikia isn't likely to invest the development resources for this, unless you can make a case that it would be good for . That would be an option only if we set up our own server.
The second problem we have with the present engine is that single-word "questions" do not allow a question to be created, but rather lead to a search page. It is of course possible to create wiki page titles with just one word, but it's not straightforward. There may be a chance to get Wikia to deal with these one-word queries by converting them: WORD would become "What is WORD?", and as that's fairly straightforward, they might spare some dev-hours to deploy this.
The easiest way to arrive at a database of definitions quickly would be to utilize our partner site, uncyclopedia, and transclude content from there. For example, the first paragraph of w:c:uncyclopedia:Cheese is this:
Cheese, while considered a food source extracted from the udders of the cheese plant by most people, is in fact a highly intelligent and evolved form of mold that when introduced into the human bloodstream moves towards the brain at an alarmingly quick rate. It destroys large portions of its victims cranial mass and converts it into an extreme version of leptothirosis. This in turn attacks the users liver and pancreas turning the victim into a gibbering mass of diseased turnips. This process is called cheesemancy and can be mastered by cheesemancers Lvl 10 & Up(C.P.C.) as seen in Michael Moore's hit soap opera, Super-Size My Ass; The hilarious story of a man made of cheese who dies to feed his mother (who is terminally ill with some tropical disease you and I have never heard of).
Pretty in-depth, wouldn't you say? --◄mendel► 22:54, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm. Well, the uncyclopedia linkage system sounds like a possibility. Otherwise, I’ll put this idea away until I can work out how to implement it. In the mean time, if you or the other administrators decide that this would be a good idea, you can create a definition portion for unanswers on your own time. The Uncyclopedia article link sounds like a good temporary placement idea, so we could start there for now. CANADA 23:22, March 20, 2011 (UTC)CANADA
I used to be an admin here, but right now I'm not. And I'm going to have to ask Wikia for ideas on how to do interwiki transclusions with their system. --◄mendel► 00:50, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

New Look is here to stay Edit

See answers:User blog:Angela/New look for Wikianswers. Here's the older blog post announcing their beta test. Be sure to let Angela know on her blog what you think of this.

I would like to applaud Randomtime (?) for our new tasteful color scheme that I assume he set up back in November when we had the chance to preview this skin for two days. --◄mendel► 10:53, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

I want mendelbook back RandomTime 19:09, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

The current navbar setup sucks.

Also, do we want rich text editing? --◄mendel► 22:13, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Also, no RandomTime 22
41, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Is there a shoulder somewhere I can theatrically weep on? Also, I am not sure whether this will last so long. I hope...Yallow 23:19, March 31, 2011 (UTC)
Hey guys, just noticed I hadn't checked UA for a while and- OH MY GOD MY EYES AND TOOLBAR! >.> /me is not amused. Good job on making it slightly bearable, RT. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:41, April 1, 2011 (UTC)


a colour > millions of logos A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:56, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Adminning up! Edit

As users might have noticed, my activity here has been slipping for the past few months. The current admin team is a bit small, especially because most of us are only semi-active, so I believe the time is right to add 2 new admins, and perhaps a bureacrat. I've got a fairly good idea of who to admin, but I'm not entirely sure for bureaucrats, so any input on that is welcome. I'll be putting up the RFA's and a talk page notice perhaps later today, if not, tomorrow.--El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:47, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

Well, they don't call it bureacRaT for nothing, do they? Since he's with the VSTF now, he's going to stick around for awhile, and he's ok at making sysops, arbitration, and excellent at Wikia contacts. Also, how about editing the community corner (link is on WikiActivity) and drawing attention here? --◄mendel► 12:50, April 1, 2011 (UTC)
So, has some delay, weekend was busier than I thought it would be. Well, go check out the RFA's now! --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:38, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
But but but Should I post an RfR or something? Yallow 22:29, April 3, 2011 (UTC)
eh? I'm just expanding the team, no need for that. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 09:26, April 4, 2011 (UTC)
I'll "do the deed" this weekend. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 19:31, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Skin design take 2 Edit

We've got a poll up there ranking a lighter skin 2:1 in favor of this one. How about I go ahead and make this skin look more like Uncyclopedia? --◄mendel► 05:33, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Sure. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:50, April 12, 2011 (UTC)
Go ahead, I just put this one up to make it "usable and not completely ugly" RandomTime 10:41, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Fact of the week Edit

So, I've started using my profile page recently for a new thing called "fact of the week". Basically, I put up a very (un)true fact every week for people to read. However, most people are unaware of this because, unless you're stalking me or something, you're not going to be checking my userpage periodically. So I was hoping that this could be moved to the front page where people could see it more easily. Like, maybe under the "featured question" section. you guys can visit my userpage (user:CANADA/profile) and check it out, then decide if it's a good idea. I'd like to get some feedback on this because I think it might have some entertainment value to add to the website.

PS, You should probably look for at getting a new featured question. You've had the same one for two months now. CANADA 15:55, April 17, 2011 (UTC)CANADA

I've gotten rid of your random indentation (sorry - respond if you mind, we can talk about it and likely put it back).
Yes, we do need a new Featured Question, badly.
I think to "show it off while it's being considered", the Community Portal would be more appropriate. The Main Page when it's implemented, if it is.
I'd prefer a Featured Fact or perhaps a Featured Fact Of The Whenever. We've no way of knowing how many people will be donating facts to the project; I'd rather we avoid committing to something we may not be able to keep up with. We can update it every week, without promising to do so.
I like the concept a lot. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:01, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'm back because I'm like a relative no one likes who always outstays their welcome.
  • This would require next to no (if any) coding knowledge and zero intervention by Administrators; so anyone and everyone could maintain it.
    • As do Featured Questions -- you can update this yourself, if you want to (obviously it's not mandatory).
  • If we appointed Custodians - we could call them whatever, I just like saying Custodians. Say it with me: Custodians. If we could appoint Custodians Custodians Custodians to update Featured Facts and Questions; I think that would be a good idea. Other people could still do it, but we would be less likely to forget as a community, and leave stuff there for two months.
Custodians. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:05, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
Hi. I get lonely.
If we had a single Featured section that could take the form of a Question, Answer, Fact, Edit, Cat or what have you, we'd have more material and the main page would be less likely to look cluttered.
Custodians. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:09, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
Well, as a senior admin and the creator of this website, I do trust you to come up with the final product. As for the custodian idea, if you are going to implement it, I was going to place forth my own request for....custodianship?..since this was originally based on my idea (Plus, i'd have lots of time to come to the site and update). But we'd need some way for other users to qualify for custodianship. The obvious answer would be to use the same format as we use for evaluating admins and beureaucrats. But I dunno, Being a custodian probably wouldn't take as much responsibilty and time, So it's just an idea. What do you think?CANADA 16:31, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'm just a regular old user here currently. (I founded the Wiki but that was just under two years ago. Things change :-) I wouldn't mind helping, though.
Also please use the same number of colons +1 as the person before you, thanks! (Changed it again) A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 16:45, April 17, 2011 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the custodian idea, but we could implement the fact of the whenever. I've been doing something similar on guildwiki with my nazgir weekly (which I often forget to update on Monday, I admit), but if just a few people watch after it, it could be very nice. I'd keep the featured page too, but perhaps not full-time. Because I haven't been very active, I didn't really come across anything interesting to replace it with, so any suggestions are welcome. And Canada, I still check all the user-related edits, so yeah I did follow the facts, they're quite nice ;-) --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 16:54, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Facts action proposal (do it now!) Edit

I like CANADA's facts so far. If these were made into separate UnAnswers instead of hiding in the page history, and tagged with "featured facts" or similar, then I can put the latest fact on the mainpage automatically (though it often needs to be purged, but not edited, to "get" the update).
The code to do it lookes seomthing like this (formatting missing):
category=featured facts
I would create the existing fact pages myself, but then I'd get the credit for them, which you, CANADA, ought to have. Once you created these (title could be "featured fact number X" or whatever you like), I'll put up a preview, either directly on the mainpage or here, and we can polish it.
Any of the other matters in this section can be discussed in separately from that, but I think we ought to have something before we decide these other things. If you get bored doing those facts, we can simply take them off the mainpage; and you can copy the code I'm using on the mainpage if you still want to present these facts on your own page. --◄mendel► 19:28, April 17, 2011 (UTC)

Featured Unfact(s)

You probably like pizza. They like it too. If you don't like pizza, They probably like you (They want to eat you). This Unfact is brought to you by

Ok, that's the first UnFact, and everything's automatic. How does it look? --◄mendel► 01:50, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

DPL is mocking me, still working on getting teh page titles suppressed! --◄mendel► 01:51, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
My DPL was fine, but the category page I made got listed in its own category, and it was newer, so it was displayed. I fixed that, and everything's fine now. Please comment away! --◄mendel► 02:01, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
The problem resurgfaced, but I have it by its genitals now. It's going to give up one way or the other. --◄mendel► 16:40, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
This fact gains El_Nazgir's baby seal of approval! --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 08:55, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Click me A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 11:41, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
It's up on the mainpage, at the top of the right column because it is new and awesome; maybe later featured fact and featured UnAnswer can swap places. --◄mendel► 23:08, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
The new "fact of the week" section looks sweet.I like how you have put both the FOTW and and the featured question in a box, but i'm thinking that maybe the "notable events should also be in a box; It might look less awkward. Otherwise, we could put it above the featured question and fact of the week. I'm just thinking it might appear more organized.CANADA 23:49, April 18, 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! El Nazgir's usually the one organizing the mainpage, I'll leave that up to him. --◄mendel► 00:01, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Unanswers rapsody Edit

Is this a help page
is this just comedy
caught on a website
where we don't take stuff seriously......

CANADA 21:55, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Easy come, easy go. --◄mendel► 22:05, April 19, 2011 (UTC)
Goodbye, ev'rybody, I've got to go,
Gotta leave you all behind and face wikia staff
Mendel, ooh, I don't want to be banned,
I sometimes wish I'd never registered at all
A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 14:42, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
<3 you canada. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 07:58, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
"I see a little silhouetto of a spam"
"Scaramouch, Scaramouch, will you do the Bandango?" RandomTime 14:45, April 20, 2011 (UTC)
Our goal made us united:
To answer questions stupidly
We've all been much excited
To work on this wiki
Could all of this be real,
Or is is merely in my mind?
For all staffers to feel
We're detrimental to mankind
Obviously we epic win
Or Wikia wouldn't be a bother
To harass us with a fail skin.
At least we have each other!

Yallow opens her arms up for a group hug. Yallow 18:18, April 20, 2011 (UTC)

Buddy you're a new user,abuser
going through the forums, gonna make a big vandal some day
you got spam on your page
act your age
before you send Randomtime into a rage
we will we will BLOCK YOU
we will we will BLOCK YOU

CANADA 21:54, April 20, 2011 (UTC)CANADA

Theme Changes Edit

I put the drafts for the new (current) wordmark and background up at File talk:Wiki-background‎ and File talk:Wiki-wordmark.png‎‎, respectively; they're just regular wikicode, using our logo. The Wordmark was zoomed in my browser, screenshotted, then resized, because my setup doesn't do font aliasing. If you think you can do better, please post your suggestions there! --◄mendel► 12:02, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

April Fools Edit

See . Over adozen? --◄mendel► 10:06, April 29, 2011 (UTC)

That made me smile. Thanks for the link!
It's harmless and adds to the page count... I see no issue with it, personally. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 14:32, April 29, 2011 (UTC)



Questions and Answers are great. Both can be great fun to contribute, and there have been some truly fantastic answers; Have the lambs stopped screaming yet? is an example of a great addition by RT (his is the top one). However, the problem is, while people ask something and others answer it - this is all done as individuals. It doesn't notably bring the community together; so I consider anything which does to be fantastic.

I'm also greatly fond of UnAnswers:Donate; I think it's an example of something that's fun to read, which the wiki could potentially do together (does it deserve a namespace?). Last night I envisaged something along the lines of UnAnswers:Cookie. It could fulfil a number of roles; people could work on it together, it could become something of an in-joke for the community, and it could be a test to see if similar pages would work in the future, and potentially help answer whether a namespace such as UnParody is appropriate.

The idea of UnAnswers:Cookie would be a parody of the terms and conditions for winning a contest. A small introduction telling you how amazing the cookie is, the body of the text telling you that you can't accept the cookie if _______, and at the end a conclusion along the lines of Warning: Cookie may not be delivered in corporeal form, The Cookie is a lie, or whatever. Perhaps a reference, perhaps not; but something which completely invalidates all of the above by saying in no uncertain terms that you'll never obtain said cookie.

It's something that, as an in-joke, could be referenced to in a number of situations. Awarding someone a cookie for a fantastic question / answer / picking their nose in a pleasing manner, sarcastically answering someone if they want a medal cookie (jokingly, of course), etc.

It's just an idea I thought I'd throw out there. Sometimes it's the little day-to-day things that bring people together. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 13:46, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, where's the first draft?
Sidenote: We've had "community" answers before in mainspace, e.g. What is the most poetic nonsense you can write with five minutes of effort, Can UnAnswers cooperatively write a story one line at a time, and of course Why is the handle of a mug always on the right side. (Maybe they need a category? It's hard to hunt them down, and i'm sure we've got more.) --◄mendel► 16:44, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
I like it. If I gather the time between studying and ... well, just gaming thb... Then I might start it myself this evening. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 18:02, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Question Duck Edit

Here's a site we ought to partner with:! Webcomics with a question each! --◄mendel► 21:24, May 6, 2011 (UTC)

LOLgasms Edit

If you're reading this, you should check out It's got some hilarious cartoons making fun of Lord of the Rings,The Matrix and even Halo! they've got other junk too. So check it out!CANADA 01:41, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

The ultimate in LotR has already been done, it's called DM of the Rings and is actually an epic photocomic. --◄mendel► 12:02, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, DM of the rings is a great read RandomTime 14:03, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
DM of the rings was awesome. And now we got Darths and Droids by Morgan-mar (irregular webcomic) to do the same (but so much further) with star wars. He's at about 3/4th of episode 3 now, with about 800 comics done. :-) --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 15:55, May 7, 2011 (UTC)
Darths and Droids is one of the webcomics I read regularly - I think mendel recommended it on #gwiki a while back, not sure RandomTime 19:30, May 7, 2011 (UTC)


I really wish we had a like button for our unanswers. Like on Facebook.CANADA 20:22, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the old skin had a simple rating system. Retrofitting anything like this to the new skin would be a kludge, unless Wikia's got an extension for Oasis that does this. --◄mendel► 21:30, May 7, 2011 (UTC)

Open Unfacts Edit

For the past couple of weeks I have just been periodically updating the Unfacts on my own. Today, an anonymous user posted an edit on my Unfacts. At first this seemed to me like vandalism, after i thought about it though, I decided that it might be benificial to have an open Unfact system to allow anyone to post an Unfact at any time. This would require some moderation to make sure nobody is intentionally vandalizing the Unfacts section, however I think if we could get it to work it would be a great new addition to Unanswers. What i'm saying is this: The Unfacts are part of the website and I think that anybody on this website should be able to contribute to them. Having the open Unfacts system would allow users to show their creativity whithout having to answer a question. Also, we should remove the little thing that says "Brought to you by CANADA".CANADA

Well, I think there's enough Recent changes patrolling to prevent (undo) actual vandalism. That being said, I'd like it to be open. I'm not terribly active here anymore, but I always read up on the latest fact and they always get me laughing. Making it an "open" system will only improve it, as long as we got some people (actively) weeding out lame edits. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 20:03, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
YAY :D. We'll need to get Mendel (my Unfacts "Sensei") to change some of the mechanics a bit.
PS: probably about time for a new archiveCANADA 22:53, May 23, 2011 (UTC)
Unfacts are already technically open in the sense that anyone can create a new unfact. If El Nazgir created next week's unfact, his name would be shown on the mainpage automatically. I made it like this so that if the "unfacts editor" changes, someone else can take right over. (Isn't there an unfinished discussion about this someplace higher on this page here?)
That said, we only have one spot on the mainpage, and one opportunity per week to post to it. I feel that once the unfact is published, it should not be substantially changed. Clearly, I've extended unfacts in the past, rewording or adding pictures, but I haven't added unrelated facts to them.
If there's more than one editor who wishes to contribute to these weekly facts, they need to come up with a way to coordinate these edits. It strikes me that editing the "live" fact is not really the best way to go about it. Maybe we should just make a page, like Do you have a suggestion for the weekly Unfacts, and CANADA could then process that when creating the new weekly publication, possibly crediting the contributors on the published unfact page itself. --◄mendel► 00:08, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
see, what I think is that we don't really need a set time period between new posts, but instead just have anyone who wants to show off a new idea be able to contact me (or you, mendel) in order to verify it's LOL value. Of course, anything more than once a day would be a little bit ridiculous, so we should have some way of getting that across to new users of the Unfacts system.CANADA 00:34, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
My idea would be something like the Gwiki editcopy page for the main page. People add their facts, and when the next unfact goes up, we take the first one(s) on the list. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 07:18, May 24, 2011 (UTC)
CANADA, you are currently editing that feature. Make a page that explains how you want it to work (how to "contact" you for this, as you wrote, and whatever other guidance you want to provide), either as a question or in UnAnswers: space, and you or I can link to it from the mainpage to make it known, and also post a community corner announcement about it. I don't know whether it was obvious from my previous post, but I believe it is a very good idea that you want to give others an opportunity to contribute. --◄mendel► 07:29, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mendel, anyway way you could change the "brought to you by CANADA" to instead have the name of the person who made the UnFact? I really don't want to steal the credit for UnFacts I didn't make!CANADA 21:43, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

That's how it currently works, so no change is needed. Like I wrote above, "If El Nazgir created next week's unfact, his name would be shown on the mainpage automatically." No need to thank me, I'm just awesome that way. --◄mendel► 21:55, May 24, 2011 (UTC)

Unarchy in the UA Edit

Seriously, what the heck happened to this wiki? It used to be somewhat orderly, now it's chaos. The admins don't moniter the wiki or answer questions anymore, and IanShouldGetALife37 has now cloned himself and spread ADHD all over the place. Among other things, there is a random anonymous user that keeps answering his own questions, and another stupid Hangover movie has been released. I am 12 years old and what is this? CANADA 22:13, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

El Nazgir, make CANADA an admin already, Me Again seems to have disappeared. --◄mendel► 23:02, June 2, 2011 (UTC)
You can just delete the self-answers when you see them. I put something like "answering your own questinos is lame" in my edit summary when I do that. --◄mendel► 23:04, June 2, 2011 (UTC)


I started a section here under A F K's request that he didn't like these discussions on his talk page. A F K is a critical thinker which is why I have a lot of respect for him even when he is opposing my arguments. I would like to say, though, that he has not yet put forth a reason as to why I personally should not become an admin. As far as my own opinions on this matter, I am not demanding the position but I think I do have quite a bit to offer to this site, and as a responsible user, promoting me will only be beneficial.

On a different note, RT seems to have passed by here on Friday and didn't bother to say anything on my RFA. If any of the admin team can get him to share his views, it would be much appreciated. I don't really care if he's for or against me, but getting his perspective will help bring this thing to a close. CANADA 17:33, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I've told RT via irc, and he's seen it, but says he's been very busy and would pop a support in when he had the chance. --◄mendel► 17:56, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
Success! :) --◄mendel► 18:00, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
"A F K's request that he didn't like these discussions on his talk page" -- This is not accurate. In fact, it couldn't be less accurate. When Mendel suggested the discussion be moved, I argued against it. When Mendel moved it despite my objection, I yelled at him for doing so.
"which is why I have a lot of respect for him" -- It's nice to know that somebody does... so tyvm! :-) A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 18:54, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for rating system Edit

I think this site would be a lot better with some kind of rating system. If I could offer up an idea, I was thinking we could create a category page "Unanswers hall of awesomeness" for outrageously funny answers. Otherwise we could justput the star system back up (if you know how to do that). I just think we need more recognition for really great answers. CANADA 19:42, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Knowledge isn't the problem. Wikia is. It's not "can we?", it's "are we allowed?" (the answer's probably no).
The category idea is good, but probably redundant. We have Category:Featured Question Candidates already. If you're particularly fond of a question / answer, stick it in that. (Please also mention it on the talk page of the question.) With any luck, it'll eventually join Category:Featured Questions, and occasionally appear on the main page in all it's glory. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 21:21, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
Oh, tbh, I totally forgot about those categories :P I've been slapping on something differently every now and then when I thought of it. --El Nazgir sigEl_Nazgir 21:32, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Attracting activity Edit

Lately i've been noticing that there has been less and less activity on this wiki every week. In the last 5 months, we've had about 7 or 8 new registries, only 2 of which who actually stayed (myself and Ian), and most of the admins aren't answering questions as much as they used to.

So let's get down to it, how do we grow the website, attract more users, and get more people to answer questions? I think there is definitely a lot of potential for this site to be bigger, I mean, it has a great unique concept and people could have a lot of fun with it. Now, I'm not suggesting we grow too fast, but if we could get at least 5 new permanent users by the end of this summer, I think that's pretty reasonable. I'm not sure how to go about doing this, though, so any ideas from other users are welcome. CANADA 17:21, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Way-back-when, in the old days that I was an Administrator / Bureaucrat, I dealt with this kind of thing on occasion. There's a few ways...
I started a discussion here, about stealing contributors from wikianswers, and bringing them over here. The concept being that UnAnswers would grow, and that the people we selected probably wouldn't be particularly welcome over on wikianswers in the first place. As it was a win-win for all concerned, I didn't meet many obstacles along the way. This basically stalled and died... feel free to pick up where we left off, if you're interested.
I created a page for us over at WikiIndex. The page probably needs a substantial rewrite. The page count statistic has fallen behind significantly.
I think they're the two most relevant projects started to date. Although I could be wrong; there have certainly been times during which I was absent from the wiki, and consequently fell out of the loop. One targets an audience already familiar with answer wikis who edit Wikia, the other one gets us attention from wiki editors who don't necessarily have any existing ties with Wikia.
Sometimes it's easier to simply go back to something already [at least partially] set-up, even if only to evaluate the past and what went wrong. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 18:18, June 19, 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think a major flaw in using th info page is that few people are actually going to stumble across it. We are going to need to take a different aproach. Unless Unanswers has received any large donations recently, or some of us are willing to pay from personal funds, making ads is probably not going to work either. I'd say the clearest way to promote Unanswers is by word of mouth. Firstly, I think Uncyclopedia might dig this sort of wiki considering they have quite an array of subprojects such as UnTunes, UnNews, UnPoetia etc.. If we could work cooperatively with administrators over there, we could spread the word around with simple messages like "Hey, there's a cool website called UnAnswers, you should check it out" or "If you like Uncyclopedia, you should check out UnAnswers wiki here". We should also continue our attempt to form a semi-partership with wiki-answers to bring so called "trolls" from there over to here, where their witty answers are more welcome.

Just a couple of ideas. CANADA 23:03, June 19, 2011 (UTC)

Do teh clickz A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 10:39, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

I think Uncyclopedia may have forgotten about this project. I'd get in contact with the admins there, but I don't really know my way around the site yet. Any ideas on how the best way to go about doing this? user:CANADA 9:23, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

One of their Administrators is generally in our IRC channel. A F K sig 2 A F K When Needed 17:14, June 20, 2011 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.