User blog comment:Susanolivia/Fixed Width, Sidebar, and the Removal of Monaco/@comment-75.71.39.16-20101001171603

One of the justifications you have for putting up Oasis and getting rid of monaco is that supporting two systems is too expensive. However, on Sannse's blog, I wrote a comment saying that Uncyclopedia is getting special treatment. She replied by telling me that, because it is a parody of Wikipedia, it is allowed to keep using Monobook.

It can keep using Monobook. Monobook is not monaco, and it is not Oasis, either. It is a separate system. One of the excuses for getting rid of monaco was that you can't afford to support two systems. Sannse's response shows that excuse up as a blatant lie. If you can't support two systems, then why are you doing it already?

As for your other reason–an inconsistent experience–that I cannot argue with. Oh, wait, I just remembered that every wiki does its best to look unique! You argue both sides of the aisle here, Susie. You argue that there will be even more opportunities to be creative with wikis but that they must all look the same. Here's an idea–monaco ain't broke, don't replace it.

I'm serious. If I wanted to to start a parody of YouTube, would you give me the tech to copy their pages? NO. It would be too expensive, as you can't keep two formats running simultainiously, never mind three. Yet, as I pointed out, somehow Uncyclopedia copies the Wikipedia family. How do they do this? I'll give you a hint: They don't use monaco.

I'm totally serious. You are embracing contradictions, and, as Ayn Rand wrote: "When you come to a contradiction, check your premises. At least one of them is wrong." I think we would all be happier with a blog that said "We're going through with this ill-fated program, and there's nothing you can do about, so shut up." At least then we wouldn't be thrown into confusion.