Uncyclopedia:VFH/Fahrenheit 451

VFH overview

All nominations

Feature queue

Recently featured

Recently failed

Archive

Rules

Fahrenheit 451 (history, logs) (feature) (remove)

Vote	Score: -0.5
Nominated by:	Makefolkslaugh ([[User [The user FORMERLY known as ]:Makefolkslaugh|talk]]) 22:38, November 8, 2015 (UTC)
For: 3.5	For.Fahrenheit 451 For. I remember having to read this book back in high school. I liked the critique's perspective of it, as if some dumb student completely missed the point of Bradbury's story. My favorite touches were the mentioning of which pages had all the action (advising to skip the rest) and the mention of "The Pedestrian" by the same author and another short work I read. Maybe the only thing I didn't like was how abruptly the article stops. Chunkles ☎ talk ✏️ contribs 06:22, November 10, 2015 (UTC) For. 67.189.150.39 01:30, November 11, 2015 (UTC) While I agree with Spike's rationale, I found this funny, and funny trumps guidelines. The previous edit was signed by PuppyOnTheRadio, but he is too lazy to create a signature yet. 08:39 pm 22 Nov 2015
Against: 4	Against. We have a style guide that warns that — as funny as it may seem to open up an "encyclopedia" to a page and read an article by a writer who doesn't really know anything definitive and doesn't think he should have to — this trite comedy strategy should be avoided. It's an okay placeholder but definitely shouldn't be featured, if only because that will keep anyone from adding an actual clever take on the novel, or increasing it to the length of a legitimate article. Spıke 🎙️22:18 10-Nov-15 In this case, I think it works because it's ironic. Fahrenheit 451 warned of what would happen if a book-fearing society banned them and the societal/intellectual repercussions that would follow; the writer is a perfect example of the book's point even as he criticizes it. Chunkles ☎ talk ✏️ contribs 04:23, November 11, 2015 (UTC) Despite the recent improvements, the Intro (which is the part that would go to our main page) still fails to convince the reader that what follows isn't a page of crap by a bad Uncyclopedian who thinks it's funny to be non-encyclopedic. The assumption behind it is complex: that the article is itself the result of a campaign of book-burning, that it led to widespread ignorance (and that that would be differentiable from our current widespread ignorance) (in fact, it might not matter at all if the texts were online...). It's as hard to do this in an Intro as it is to do "written in an alternate voice." Spıke 🎙️14:40 22-Nov-15 Against. Been on the fence on this for a while, as I see both sides. Some sentences seem too ranty, making parts read like the author is complaining from his desk in the English Lit class, not from the book's perspective. This is part of a wider issue, in that Chunkles had to point the angle out (which is a good one). Vote against for now as it is good for the mainspace but hope to flip if edits continue.  EStop ⚓ 12:20, November 22, 2015 (UTC) Against. Cg097 (talk) 19:41, November 22, 2015 (UTC) Against. At the end of the day, nothing but a long first-person rant that could be summarized as "the book sucks, I hate English class." Not clever, not funny. Sorry. Vinylrecordprotectress (talk) 12:42, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
Comments:	I'm actually going to edit this one a bit more. I think it just needs some expansion and the irony of the comedy strategy made more salient. Chunkles ☎ talk ✏️ contribs 05:03, November 11, 2015 (UTC) As the article is in the Uncyclopedia:At A Glance set, the set's cascading protections extend to the article, and to this ballot. Am looking for a good solution. Spıke 🎙️16:04 22-Nov-15 If someone improves the Adaptations section, I'll change my vote to For. Cg097 (talk) 04:29, January 19, 2016 (UTC)

VFH

← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH