Talk:Edit history
Here are the rules, guys. You CAN'T add another real user to the page unless it's you, even if it's funny. If it's you, make sure that it fits the "storyline". Remember that your edits HAVE TO get reverted in the next bullet.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edit history article.
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
Article policies | |
| This article was nominated for deletion on October 15, 2007.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
|
|||
Pee Review[edit]
| link | score /50 | user | lowest score | date | comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Edit history | 44 | Boomer | Humor/Misc: 7 | 10/15 | "I was torn between crying and going insane" |
| Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Edit history | 41.5 | Necropaxx | Humor: 6.5 | 10/16 | |
| Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Edit history | 45 | Crazee Boy | Humor/Formatting: 8 | 10/22 | |
| avg = 43.5 --- lowest = 7.2 | |||||
| Humour: | 7 | I... really don't know what put here. The entire time I was torn between crying and going insane. |
| Concept: | 10 | This article is about concept. It's complete lunacy. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | All spelling errors were intentional (I hope) |
| Images: | 10 | Even though there is only one image that recurrs multiple times, the recreation of a history page is enough to qualify the page as an image in itself. |
| Miscellaneous: | 7 | Uh... misc? |
| Final Score: | 44 | This is probably the most insane article that I've seen that actually had effort put into it. I commend you on hyperlinking almost everyting, since it must've taken forever. I like the article itself, but I think the concept itself is a way too in-jokey for VFH. Still, it's definately one of the most original articles I've ever read (though the link to nintendorulez's farewell was kinda weird). I can't really reccommend anything for improvement since this project is really all yours, but good job. |
| Reviewer: | Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC) | |
Oh, and most people don't like reviewers saying this, but you really should show this to other users to see their input. I think this article may be a lot like Fisher Price and Euroipods in that people will either hate it, love it, or not know what the hell's going on. I think I'm the third one. From what I've heard, advertising on the Uncyclopedia IRC chat channel is a good way to get people to read your articles. You might wanna try there to get input from more sources. Unsolicited conversation Extravagant beauty PEEING 20:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
| Humour: | 6.5 | I smiled at a few parts, but there was a lot of "bleh." No offense, though. |
| Concept: | 10 | Anything in the "Pages that look like things they're about" category gets a ten with me. |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | It did look like an edit history, but... |
| Images: | 10 | Not Applicable |
| Miscellaneous: | 8 | Not a fan of genital jokes. Can't help that, though. |
| Final Score: | 41.5 | Not VFH worthy, but an all-around good article. |
| Reviewer: | • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 22:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC) | |
| Humour: | 8 | Not bad. This is what I'd expect from a randomly-vandalized edit history, but with good exaggerations. |
| Concept: | 9 | This is a great idea. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Well, it looks just like an edit history. Congratulations. |
| Images: | 10 | N/A |
| Miscellaneous: | 10 | N/A |
| Final Score: | 45 | You did good. Great concept, and you pulled it off well. |
| Reviewer: | Crazee Boy the inept reviewer and furry | |
Suggestions[edit]
I'm a code-minimizer, and it occurs to me that each "edit" can be replaced with a template inclusion. Just pass the name of the user and the edit summary to the template... Makes the wikicode a LOT smaller than 34kb... Of course, I'm too lazy to do it right now. Maybe later. EugeneKay wuz here (whine thank) 13:20, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Why's it backwards?[edit]
Title says it all. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 20:05 Nov 05, 2007
SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHH! unless YOU want to fix it! :D -- • <-> 20:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
The colors[edit]
I'm not going to revert your edit as you are the author, but the present color (pure blue) is messed up. I really think your edit should be reverted-- 14:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)