Talk:Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within Another Fish

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within Another Fish article. This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that. For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Uncyclopedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be Civil Assume Bad Faith Don't Be A Dick No Cyberbullying	Article policies How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid Satirical point of view Verifiability vs. Complete Bollocks

		This article was nominated for deletion on July 8, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Everything should be changed to Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish, that's how I read it.. Jdude 22:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WTF did I nominate it? I was cracking up the first two times I read it but now it's just not funny anymore.. Jdude 22:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From Pee Review

This page is a candidate for deletion, so I would appreciate any tips on how it can possibly be made better. It's my first ever real article that's up for deletion, so I know something is wrong with it. Help? --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 20:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

bit repetitive, perhaps you could give it a generic name as well to lighten the repetition. Just a suggestion.--Sir Silent Penguin "your site makes no sence" The illusion is complete 21:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I felt like giving up a third of the way through, because it read like one joke pulled over a long article. The conept is ok, but there's just too much of it. Move into something else funny a third to half way through, and you might be on. --DrObvious 07:11, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

---

You must write confusing articles with perfect clarity. You can't expect a reader to slog through 5-fold redundancy in every sentence. He will, like the good DrObvious, want to give up, move to Belize, and never ever visit Uncyclopedia again.

Use organization and typography to your advantage:

A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within A Fish Within Another Fish is...

• A fish,

• with a second fish inside it,

• and a third fish inside that fish,

• and a fourth fish inside that,

• and, at last, a fifth and smallest fish inside the fourth one.

Use short sentences and short paragraphs.

Henceforth we will simply call this creature of amazing redundancy an F⁵.

All the fish may be the same species: an homogeneous F⁵.

Or they may be of different species; the first a carp, the second a bass, the third Meryl Streep, the fourth a catfish, and the fifth a blind goby. Ickylogists call this an heterogenous F⁵.

Fishermen call it worthless.

Think about it: if you have difficult-to-read word sequences like "Mexican Within A Russian Within A Norwegian Within An Australian Within a Samoan" and you put them in long sentences tucked inside long paragraphs with similarly hard-to-digest word sequences, then......the reader is SCREWED.

He doesn't know whether to shit or go blind.

He DOES know, however, how to click the "random page" link and get the hell away from an unrewarding article.

So rearrange the article to be as readable as possible. Make lists. Pare down sentences to perfect, sparkling clarity. Allow no confusion. Good luck... ----OEJ 01:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Re-visited

Well, I think it has some good content. Just something about it that people don't like though, it would seem. -- Hindleyite 20:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)