Forum:On HTBFANJS and at least one possible improvement
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > On HTBFANJS and at least one possible improvement
Note: This topic has been unedited for 5472 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.
I think a section on concepts and what a concept actually is wouldn't go a miss. Because we always send people there to start off with and then they tend to come up with things that incorporate some of the main techniques (repition, repitition, repition and poorly executed misdirection) but their article lacks a central idea behind it, meaning it's often pretty bad. Also I think that changing some of the given examples to more recent articles could be good, possibly. Anyway my main point is that I think there should be something explaining concepts in some depth. Discuss. Orian57 Talk 
10:42 30 June 2009
- Agreed. Perhaps a few examples could help and also writers should perhaps also not learn to be too ambitious in writing to start with. Keep it simple and at least internally logical if possible. It is easy to get discouraged but some humour/humor ideas don't often fly. However all writers should encourage others to add ideas as well though they are no obliged to use them. Perhaps a few choice articles could be selected ranging from narrative parody , fake biography or an example of absurd reasoning. Perhaps admins could do this and put them up for a vote . Not VFH and therefore should perhaps be a bit timeless unless they are examples of Unnews. --
RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 12:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- We should just kill HTBFANJS altogether. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well yeah obviously. But, on the off chance that it's the most benificial article on the site, do you you have any suggestions for improving it? Orian57 Talk
12:59 30 June 2009
- I actually just gave it a look-over, and I agree with your above idea. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 13:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well yeah obviously. But, on the off chance that it's the most benificial article on the site, do you you have any suggestions for improving it? Orian57 Talk
- We should just kill HTBFANJS altogether. —Unführer Guildy Ritter von Guildensternenstein 12:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Perhaps a few examples could help and also writers should perhaps also not learn to be too ambitious in writing to start with. Keep it simple and at least internally logical if possible. It is easy to get discouraged but some humour/humor ideas don't often fly. However all writers should encourage others to add ideas as well though they are no obliged to use them. Perhaps a few choice articles could be selected ranging from narrative parody , fake biography or an example of absurd reasoning. Perhaps admins could do this and put them up for a vote . Not VFH and therefore should perhaps be a bit timeless unless they are examples of Unnews. --
- I think it just needs two more sentences. "Do not set your article in a universe where all pop culture icons are real and have sex with each other. If you do, you will be banned." If I had a dollar for every time I've done a Pee Review on an article about Luigi making love to Tom Cruise, I'd have, like, eleven dollars.
pillow talk 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- I have read that comedians, especially the popular ones, rarely laugh at each other's material, because it is largely rehashed crap told in a marginally unique funny voice with a screwy expression. But people laugh their heads off at Dane Cook anyways, one because they are drunk at comedy clubs and shit jokes are always funny when you are drunk, and two because shockingly they honestly don't think they have heard the one about getting your ass stuck on the airplane toilet seat before. They truly don't. So here, similarly, new user IWishICouldThinkOfAGoodUserName224 sits down to write, and he says to himself, "What could be funnier than Luigi fucking Tom Cruise? I did a whole routine about it at lunch last week and Scott Beasley and Tiffany Jordan were rolling!" What we really need is a "Move to Illogicopedia" button, so that any stubborn user who doesn't wish to fall in with our elitist standards can be directed to a place where they will be much happier. Or, OK, a brief section on Concept might do the trick, too. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- The guide probably needs updating. It is getting a bit dated. --Mn-z 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have read that comedians, especially the popular ones, rarely laugh at each other's material, because it is largely rehashed crap told in a marginally unique funny voice with a screwy expression. But people laugh their heads off at Dane Cook anyways, one because they are drunk at comedy clubs and shit jokes are always funny when you are drunk, and two because shockingly they honestly don't think they have heard the one about getting your ass stuck on the airplane toilet seat before. They truly don't. So here, similarly, new user IWishICouldThinkOfAGoodUserName224 sits down to write, and he says to himself, "What could be funnier than Luigi fucking Tom Cruise? I did a whole routine about it at lunch last week and Scott Beasley and Tiffany Jordan were rolling!" What we really need is a "Move to Illogicopedia" button, so that any stubborn user who doesn't wish to fall in with our elitist standards can be directed to a place where they will be much happier. Or, OK, a brief section on Concept might do the trick, too. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 20:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Lemme get this straight. We want people to have a unifying concept and avoid rehashed jokes about celebrities fucking or something. Perhaps we could add something like this?: "Write in a Consistent Style. Uncyclopedia uses a lot of different styles. Some articles read as if they're been written by a college professor, many sound like they're written by a mentally challenged 13-year-old, and most of the... well, it's not entirely clear that these were written by something with opposable thumbs and no fingers. However it usually works best to write a single article in a single style. That is, you would read it and assume a single person wrote it. It should not read like paragraph 1 is the work of a five year old girl, paragraph 2 is the work of a crotchety old man, and paragraph 3 resulted from a collaboration by a epileptic goat, a squid with Alzheimer's, and an emo kid. There are exceptions (say, writing on multiple personality disorder) but quality articles usually follow this rule. Even AAAAAAAAA!, which lacks sentences, rudiments of grammar, words, and 25 of the 26 letters of the alphabet, follows this rule." ...or something like this?: "Celebrities: Really now, did celebrities do everything? If you feel the need to insert a famous person into an unrelated article, make it one that is applicable to the topic - for example, saying "Eminem was the daughter of Pat Sajak and Mickey Mouse" is pointless drivel; however, "Eminem is the son of Dr. Dre and Queen Latifa" is much better, as while Eminem is obviously not their child, it parodies his adoption of black culture. Always remember to have a specific point for your words; if you don't have a point (except to write randomness), the reader's not going to see one, and they're going to tune your article out." Is that the kind of thing we're looking to add to HTBFANJS? Because I would totally support those things. - T.L.B.
WotM, UotM, FPrize, AotM, ANotM, PLS, UN:HS, GUN 21:13, Jun 30 - No, that won't work. It's too wordy. People would gloss over it, then up andstart a forum post about how the article should clearly state the principle you have described. And then we'd just get caught in one of those Star-Trek time loops in which nothing gets resolved until an Android notices the subtle differences between iterations and develops a means to clue our way out of it. --Globaltourniquet - (was TPLN) 21:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Adding something which specifically mentions Consider your concept well before you start writing your article. Because some concepts are simply too unfunny or random to begin with. or something like that might be appropriate. —Sir Socky
(talk) (stalk)
GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- We might have to explain what a concept is to start to some contributors. Perhaps keep them short and sweet like Lady GaGa..--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 22:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- We might have to explain what a concept is to start to some contributors. Perhaps keep them short and sweet like Lady GaGa..--
- Like the Queen song, Lady O'Gaga? Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 20:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
How about, we direct them to a new page: How To Tell If Your Idea Sucks? (That's not a joke (That is (So is that.)).) -- unnatural Ape (navigate) (Riot Porn) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- So <pause for effect> to your userpage? (*Badoom-chish!*) On a side note, take my wife! Please! (*Badoom-chish!*) Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 21:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, your Mom! PWNT -- unnatural Ape (navigate) (Riot Porn) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good one. I'm quite sure you just killed Karl Malden (and also caused someone named Hilary Duff to join something called Gossip Girl). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can't be bothered trying to get that reference. -- unnatural Ape (navigate) (Riot Porn) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Neither could I. Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 01:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- I can't be bothered trying to get that reference. -- unnatural Ape (navigate) (Riot Porn) 00:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good one. I'm quite sure you just killed Karl Malden (and also caused someone named Hilary Duff to join something called Gossip Girl). Sir Modusoperandi Boinc! 23:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, well, your Mom! PWNT -- unnatural Ape (navigate) (Riot Porn) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)