| Comments:
|
- Comment. I'll vote for if the formatting is professionally done to standard Funnybony
   15:27, May 28 15:27, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
- This is meant to be formatted as a sketch, not a screenplay. --
 TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  15:30, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
- The real difference between sketch and screenplay is same as between amateur and professional, or ordinary or feature worthy. Lazy or hard working. To be FA the material at least has to be feature worthy. And there is no excuse, really, except laziness. A sketch is hardly FA even if the material is great. Good formatting holds true on any platform of Feature Worthiness. If you format it right then I'll vote FOR, because I like the material. It's just a lame format now - which can all be fixed in a couple hours of sweat and love. You can even copy the coding style from Socky like THIS - Please--Funnybony 18:03, May 28
- If you are truly going to judge an article on such a trifling superficial difference (that didn't even exist until a week ago, actually) then your vote isn't something anyone should lose sleep over. You could call it lazy, but I prefer to format it the way it's currently formatted. Sometimes the difference between an amateur and a professional is that too much polish looks boring. I'd listen to Nujabes over the Black Eyed Peas any day. -- TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK 21:23, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Hey Funnybony, I totally understand what you're saying about sketch comedy being unprofessional, but I was wondering if you could add a bit more cowbell to your comment. I have a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. -- Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 21:47, May 28, 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, the distinction is more than a week old. Sometimes things do benefit from not being professional (like the Star Trek one, that would have just seemed so utterly wrong), though, and sometimes they're... other things. If there's a reason for what they are, it shouldn't matter, I guess is how I see it. Although all them spindly lines sure are annoying to read. Is that what folks really do, for that?
1234 ~  22:24, 28 May 2011
- It's what Shakespeare intended.
 (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2011
- And here I was trying to leave your mum out of this... *shakes head sadly*
1234 ~ 23:28, 28 May 2011
- Comment. Dear Froggy, I understand your frustration and feelings, but trust my experience that the way its being done here is what marks the difference between the success or failure of a script writing project. Experts think formatting is supremely important, as proof of both expertise and also for having potential for being actually read by an agent/professional. Even the best screen or script writers on Earth do it right, and they only respect it when its formatted right. I'm just hoping to raise the quality-bar a bit higher by presenting what I know over long years of knowledge after a youth of looking amateur. Socky studied the established format and did the script on Lunar Launch exactly right. And he learned from an Industry link which I'm going to put on this talk page to avoid any more discussion here. Please raise the standard and Uncyclopedia will surely become higher class. And you'll feel better writing your scripts correctly. It's better and more fun. I'm on your side, Froggy! Sincerely Funnybony 05:41, May 29 05:41, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- We are not professionals.
- We are volunteers on a website amusing ourselves, and hopefully others, with writing. For fun.
- We are not trying to prove ourselves to experts, nor to anyone. We write to entertain, not to prove.
- You are judging a piece of content based on its formatting rather than the content itself. If this were an amateur scriptwriting site, fine. Legitimate complaints. But it isn't. It's goddamn Uncyclopedia. Sure, formatting matters, no one wants to read an article covered in broken images and redlinks, but we are not presenting ourselves to a board of experts, here. Except for you, who is apparently an expert on everything.
- When you vote on VFH, you vote based on whether you had a laugh or not (and whether others are likely to, in your opinion), not based on whether or not the article would be accepted or rejected by an imaginary group of experts. Experts have different standards than audiences. Experts usually have something to prove; namely, that they're experts, an elite governing class of people who pledge to be a stickler about rules that no one other than themselves actually give a shit about.
- tl;dr version, content, not the supposed standard dictated by your apparent expertise in every subject. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 05:54 May 29, 2011
- Screenplays which are done as on discussion page are correct, and better. This is simple improvement for UnScripts - which is ABOUT SCRIPTS, no asseys. I know very little to nothing about zillions of subjects. But I do enjoy reading a nice screenplay when it's done properly. How can that be anything but positive? If there is room on UnScripts for improvement then why insist on acting like children? Aren't we proud when we do things well? Improvement is both educational as well as better. That's all there is to this matter. Improvement. Not because I say, but because its just correct and better, and also more rewarding and feature worthy. I'm on Uncyclopedia's side. I'm on your side. No kidding. Cheers!--Funnybony 06:06, May 29
- Comment. Ref. Discussion page. Funnybony 06:07, May 29 06:07, May 29, 2011 (UTC)
- Abstain. It's too ugly.
1234 ~ 06:12, 29 May 2011
- Comment. It's good to see you followed some suggestions, I think the article has improved, and it was already good. Cheers!
 Mattsnow 16:23, May 30, 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. Per the conversation between Funnybony and The Good Doctor above: Have had a similar discussion about the formatting of UnScripts in the past with a number of users. If we are a parody site, then doesn't it make more sense that what we do looks like the real deal. We parody Wikipedia in main space by making it look like a Wikipedia entry. We parody iTunes by making UnTunes look similar. I have long disliked UnScripts because it doesn't look like a script. Funnybony has every right to vote against something based upon an element which is crucial to a successful parody, and makes up a fifth of a pee review. Wouldn't you vote against something that you felt fell short on humour or concept? That lacked images? That missed the indefinable mark of quality? It is an important factor. If it changes that way I still wouldn't vote for, as I actually got bored by it within the first few lines, and then outright hated it as soon as the meme kicked in, but I'd appreciate it actually looking like a script as well. Pup 09:22 12 Jun '11 09:22, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
|
For. 
