BUY A SHIRT!
The ED TShirt Shop is open for business! Use discount code ED2009 for 10% off! Click here to shop. ED5 Pollfest is going on now! Register a forums accounts and help us find the best article in the five year history of Encyclopedia Dramatica. Check out the three polls running today: [1] [2] [3]

From Encyclopedia Dramatica

I thought we could use an article on this... People who know me know the drill. I suck at EDiot humour, but the idea has potential for massive lulz, if re-written by someone who's better at it!--Black sonata 21:47, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

• It's actually a really good start and I wouldn't say it needs a rewrite. A little cleanup, maybe, but it's a good read so far. My only suggestion from skimming it is that you should try to get some images. Something dramatic like screencaps pasted together to show the difference in page size in the West Wing articles would get the point across. Red ☭ Mystery 22:05, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

• In fact, I would like to get this front page ready by July, if you're up for it. I'm happy to help you with whatever you need on site and I can see about getting those screencaps some time tomorrow. Material wise I can't think of anything the article is missing, unless you can find some more really good examples. It might be cool to get an entire gallery of comparison pictures. Red ☭ Mystery 22:13, 22 June 2008 (CDT)

I donno how much I can get on because of schedule conflicts... I put this up earlier than I wanted to because I ddn't know when I would have a chance again. I'll see what I can do, though. --Black sonata 00:54, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

• I corrected a few minor grammar mistakes (hopefully I clicked on the minor edit button, I'm in a hurry), and I'll start on the screen caps when I get home from work. I think that besides cleaning up the grammar mistakes and repetitions, all there really is is the screen caps, as well... and maybe a little more detail in the butt-hurt Wikipedia has over people laughing at this. That's my to-do list for this- anyone who wants to beat me to something, I won't cry. --Black sonata 13:00, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

• I built quite a few of comparison pictures and stuck 'em on the article itself as well as building a collapsable gallery. It's not huge yet, but this way any new pix can be added to the gallery. I'll keep making more but I'm awfully tired right now and I really need sleep. If you fine people have any more ideas but no time to make the pictures, molest my talk page and I'll fix 'em right up for you. They're only MSPaint jobs, but hey, as we say in my language, "you have to row with the oars you have". Also, this article has provided me with many lulz --ElStormo 20:33, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Contents 1 Yeah, I heard about this already 2 NO ONE CARES THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT ALREADY 3 Not to be annoying, but... 4 Awesome 5 So Hey 6 Funny because its true 7 wikipedia > god 8 "rule in play" pics

Yeah, I heard about this already

It's moderately interesting; nice work with the article.--OhLawdIsDatSum 04:32, 29 June 2008 (CDT)

• Thankies! Wikigroaning's pretty old news, but it was a big deal when it was new. --Black sonata 20:43, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

NO ONE CARES THAT YOU HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT ALREADY

There needs to be something to generate drama--something sacrilegious should suffice. Is there an article on one of the founders of Wikipedia that has more words than the article about Jesus; is there an article about Satanism that has more attention to detail than the Christianity article? SuperMonkeyMan 14:46, 30 June 2008 (CDT)

I don't think so, in those particular cases.--OhLawdIsDatSum 17:40, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

• So, the concept itself, the links of drama about it, a link to Jimbo Wales' butt-hurt response on Wikipedia's page for it's own critiques, the references to the instant banhammer for bringing it up, the pictured examples and one of the links saying they think KNUCKLES is relevant than GOD doesn't generate enough drama or lulz? Man, and I almost had it! --Black sonata 20:29, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

Christians are stupid and probably wouldn't care about Knuckles > God. However they piss their pants if anything related to Witchcraft, Satanism, or Devil worship outshines Christianity/Jesus. SuperMonkeyMan 20:41, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

If it matters so fucking much to you, add an example yourself- and be sure to make it better than God losing to lame cartoon/video game characters, or we'll just take it off as dead weight. But I'm personally sick of your whining that nothing seems to have enough Christian bashing for you on every talk page I see you on. No one gives a fuck that a priest molested you, get the hell over it. --Black sonata 21:54, 2 July 2008 (CDT)

Ha ha ha! Agendas. I did want to point out that Harry Potter (the fantasy series) has almost exactly the same amount of words, and possibly more attention to detail, than the article on the general concept of God. However, editing this article to point that out wouldn't really have much of a lulzy/dramatic impact, and the only way I can see for someone to make such things relevant would to first go out and troll fundamentalist Christians/point this out to them and then document the results. But that'd just be fucking stupid. Gryphosaur 11:15, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

Not to be annoying, but...

I can't get the font right (I don't have Photoshop), so I had to settle for this quick MSpaint job. Looks pretty silly pointing out Wikipedia's stupidity if you can't differentiate Juno from Hera ;) --ElStormo 04:28, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

• I swear that this looks the exact same to me. Maybe I should just change the image altogether? WM 10:14, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

• Looks a bit more bolded, but if it looks about the same, yeah, then I'll swap it. Because it looks a bit embarrassing this way :D --ElStormo 16:01, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

• oh I thought you changed the picture not the wording. That's what I get for paying attention. I just changed it to Titanic. WM 16:05, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

• I redid the entire image so it looks more uniform - I'll use that in place of the embarrassing Juno/Greek dumbassery ^_^ --ElStormo 16:07, 7 July 2008 (CDT)

Awesome

One of the funniest things I've read in a long time. - HitmanOfTheGods

Yes, I've been rolling on the floor for the past two hours laughing my head off after finding this page say that one Wikipedia entry is longer than another of the same name. I thought I was going to die at the twenty minute point, I could no longer gasp for air through my laughter! Really now, why has this God damn boring article been listed on the 'Good New Articles' for what feels like the past year now? I keep clicking it every second week or so and each time I find it's exactly the same. I can appreciate that some people find this page the most fascinating thing on Earth but I'm pretty sure for most - even those who really hate Wikipedia - it's something to skim over. --Williamfaulkner 03:12, 20 October 2008 (CDT)

So Hey

"To wikigroan, just take something important and relevant to the real world, and compare it to shit that no one cares about. 9 out of 10 times" I like the shit noone cares about alot more than stuff that is relevant to the real world (plus, the articles you give can't really be described as important). Also, my password is heygirlhey - User:Passwordisheygirlhey

• I would say that the Titanic is marginally important. Also, I hear those Romans were around for quite a while. WM 09:08, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Exactly. --Black sonata 14:10, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

• I thought the Total War-series invented them? --ElStormo 20:27, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

• Fine, maybe important, but really boring. Plus, the Romans might have been around for awhile, but can anyone really say they care about it? Honestly?

• I was going to write a witty reply to the above comment, but I'll just let the stupidity speak for itself. --ElStormo 22:30, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

• I should ban you for that. Rome was a great TV show. WM 22:33, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

• Never saw the show, but heard great things. I wonder if I can find a rip site that has it?--Black sonata 23:50, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

Funyy stuff wikipedia is...i refuse to count the number of words but Jaws(the part of your mouth)has a page like 30 times smaller than the film alone...someone else count de words plz —The preceding comment was added by Norlyyasrsly, who is too much of a fucking retard to sign his or her own posts. IT'S 4 TILDES (~), NOT ROCKET SCIENCE.

• If you refuse to count the words out of sheer laziness, then why should we? Lazy fucker. Also sign your comments. --ElStormo 06:05, 11 July 2008 (CDT)

Funny because its true

I find when the articles have a lot of truth in thenm to be most amusing on ED, half of the rest are mostly crap. Here's something funny, not sure if it counts but I thought I'd mention it if anyone thinks it should be in the article. Articles on Wikipedia from: Wikipedia: 8k words ED: 5k Based on the amount of flaming i've seen here it was quite surprising. CheersQwerty8 04:05, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

• You're surprised that TOW has a huge, masturbatory article about itself? ;) --ElStormo 05:23, 8 July 2008 (CDT)

I wouldn't put it that way but yes.

• Look at the drivel Wales put about Wikigroaning on the article link for response. If that's not proof Wikipedia faps to themselves, then no proof exists.

wikipedia > god

Wikipedia - 81,166 bytes - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia&action=history

God - 32,544 bytes - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God&action=history

ratso 13:05, 23 July 2008 (CDT)

"rule in play" pics

Let's add some pics of Rule #2 (two concepts being frequently vandalized, but only the shitty pop culture being protected) being applied. I did a quick one of Nirvana the Religious foundation vs. the shitty band Kurt Cobain was in. Feel free to re-do it if it's not lulz enough...