Category talk:Things that don't exist

Protecting tha page has made it impossible to see what is in the category. -Some Guy 11:47 26 Nov (PST)

try the blue link below "View Source" --FortMax 20:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a song. -Derik 04:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

KILL --Suki Brits 04:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

http://www.qwantz.com/fanart/Things_That_Dont_Exist.mp3

(redirect to where?) -Derik 05:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I just want to comment on how awesome it is that this article doesn't actually exist. --Andrusi 21:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone made it exist a while back, but we had them killed. --ItsWalky 21:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyone else think this cateogory is actually important enough that we should set it up? Just because something deosn't exist doesn't mean it won't have an impact. --Nemesis Primal 17:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a joke category. It really only "exists" to be on the Decepticon Matrix page. I'd rather ditch all mention of it than make it a real category. --ItsWalky 17:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I dunno... we seem to have a pretty decent collection of them now. Even if you ignore the redirect and the candidate for deletion, there's the Decepticon Matrix, the Ultimate Weapon, and Planet X. There are probably some other things somewhere that would fit in nicely. --Andrusi 20:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Even so, no reason to create the link. The category still works. --ItsWalky 20:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And as much as I'm filled with HATRED at the mere mention of the idea of this category... Andrusi's first point is right. It IS pretty funny that the category doesn't exist. --Suki Brits 01:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I used to think this category existing was a bad idea, but I'm kinda starting to rethink that, just a bit. There's actually a fair amount of TF stuff that would fit under "Things that don't exist." Transtech. Dark Glass. Unreleased toys could be a subcategory. I dunno, it may have some merit after all. Or not. --KilMichaelMcC 02:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly... And some of the things in this category, while not real, have been major players in an episode, or, in the case of Planet X, an ongoing storyline. If everyone's dead set on the category not technicly being here, I'll back down as long as it's still functional... Just keep an eye out for peple who remove things from the category just because it isn't there. You know someone's gonna show up and do that without loking to see why the category isn't there. --Nemesis Primal 18:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, Planet X shouldn't even be in the category. It did exist at one time. The original entry (and the category) was based off of packaging writeup, which gave an incomplete story. We shouldn't have things in the category that existed at some point in time, or we're gonna hafta start piling it full of dead people. --ItsWalky 19:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that sooner or later this should either be made into an actual category, or just gotten rid of altogether. --KilMichaelMcC 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I think as long as there ARE things that don't exist (like Transtech and Dark Glass) that are worthy of getting entries, the category should stay. The category not existing itself is like The weather in London. -hx 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

But... they DO exist. There are existing Transtech prototypes and hardcopies, there's a Dark Glass early draft. I really don't see why we need this category. --M Sipher 04:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I liked it better when this category was non-existent. - Dark T Zeratul 12:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to either actually have this category, or just get rid of it altogether. Dead category links at the bottom of a bunch of articles as part of the joke will inevitably result in the category being created, over and over. Plus, they look ugly. We should either keep the category around this time, or ditch the joke. --KilMichaelMcC 13:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the "get rid of it altogether" option, particularly since the whole idea behind this category was "borrowed" from Uncyclopedia to begin with. --TVsGrady 19:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. One of the main points of the having categories is allow for people to move between related topics more easily. As M stated above, some things got to a certain point, but inevitably failed to see the light of day. Personally when I first saw the category, I started looking at the items within it. The fact that it exists is a joke in itself, without it having to be an empty, red link. The first time I saw it was probably the funniest thing I've ever seen in this entire wiki; a category for Scale. The joke in itself is that there are pages in it at all, and making it not exist, while amusing at first, only leads to more and more people making it. I say, consider keeping it as a joke on certain pages that don't have any other categories, or are appropriate for the category. It helps organize the wiki just a little bit and helps nerds like myself navigate better when we get curious about similar subject. King Starscream 12:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was added on a whim when I was writing the Decepticon Matrix article, and it's a reference to a song title. (See the top of the article.) Walky corrected my grammar on the title's proper spelling, and it's been around ever since, slowly accumulating more reasons to exist. I've never heard of unencyclopedia.

I admit, I don't see why the cat shouldn't exist (other than Walky finding it hilarious.) I think the 'cat should exist have a very good explanation, or it should not exist at all. -Derik 14:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll admit, there should be a good reason. And Uncyclopedia is a joke within itself, ranking at number one on a list of the worst jokes in it. Either way, I do see the song reference, too. I suppose the best thing to do is leave it in limbo until enough non-existant things are made to deem worth putting in. King Starscream 03:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to say I love love love love this category, whether it technically "exists" or not. But it's funnier if it self-referentially also doesn't exist. - Jackpot 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Man, I wish I could protect a nonexistent page. I hate deleting this thing every other week. --ItsWalky 17:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

And, uh.... crap, I'm sorry. I saw it appear on my watch list, so I went to it, and it looked all the world to me like it was existing again, so I pointed it out. And thus ended up accidentally re-creating it.

Here's my badge and gun, sir.

- Jackpot 05:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Awww, it's okay, it was an accident! I've made much stupider boo-boos than that, and Walky hasn't banned me yet!

...though I'm sure the temptation was there. -Derik 05:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

KuuuuphALLLLLDT! *shakes fist* --ItsWalky 11:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

SHIT. I confess... it was me!!! SORRY! --Starcrunch 18:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would like to reaffirm my previously stated support for removing all the redlinks to this non-category, thus ending an unoriginal botched joke once and for all.--TVsGrady 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I say it should stay non-existant. It's one of my favorite things on this wiki, and, dare I say it, it's the essence of this Wiki's attitude. EDIT: Adding my signature again, realized I wasn't signed in. Ronimus Prime 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The ongoing creation/deletion cycle has almost become a joke itself! (I'm not saying it's a "good" joke and I'm still sorry for accidentally re-creating it). --Starcrunch 20:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, I direct your attention here, and the potential light to our darkest hour. -- SFH 05:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And I confess I am responsible for the latest iteration of this continuing problem. Out of ignorance, I promise. The joke was so subtle it didn't penetrate my thick skull. Still, surely there must be another use for the picture from the Dead Parrot sketch somewhere in this wiki? ;) ----Borf the Dwarf 05:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-creation Warning

What's with the re-creation warning on this 'cat?

Did someone set it, or is it something new and annoying the Wikia software is doing? -Derik 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Derik repeats his inquiry about the ugly. -Derik 02:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that on deleted pages at Wookieepedia, so I'm guessing that it's a Wikia software thing. I think it's a good deterant. That, or we make it so it can't be recreated again. -- SFH 02:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it shows up when you click on the 'things that doesn't exist' category on the article and pushes the list of items completely below the fold, even on a large monitor.

(I find it phenomenally ugly. More importantly I think it goes a login way toward ruining the joke of the category not existing.) -Derik 05:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we'd be better served with a "THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK" notice floating in the middle of the page. It would more or less preserve the joke and also avoid all the problems we've had with it. --Steve-o 02:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this joke has long since died a death. Why don't we just create the page and be done with it... 78.32.44.57 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Because if those things don't exist, they should be categorised in a category that doesn't exist. --FFN 14:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have worked CSS-voodoo. The re-creation warning is now hidden... as is the save button, so even if some well-meaning person wants to re-create this category, they will have a hard time doing it. (You still can if determined-- disable styles. But this should dissuade most parties.) -Derik 04:06, 17 May 2009 (EDT)

Either it doesn't work IE 6 or, um, something went wrong because I still see the save button on my computer.212.74.27.55 07:07, 24 June 2009 (EDT)

Redirect Links

I understand that this page was protected to keep the joke from being ruined, but there are some redirect links that need to be fixed. -- Cylasbreakdown (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2018 (EST)

No other pages or redirects shoul be affected by this category being protected. If you're talking about the redirects that are in this category, they're there intentionally. --abates (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2018 (EST)