Talk:A wizard did it: A Retrospective

So... What now? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 20:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Now we bask in our glory! —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been used up. Sorry guys, you just don't have much of me, unfortunately. Your Glory 20:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, maybe we shouldn't have the Cajek thing linked. It seems like we're attacking him just because he doesn't like A wizard did it. Thoughts? MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 13:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I put that in there. You can delete if you want. (my one contribution to this article. *sniff*) Woody On Fire! Talking Woody Stalking Woody 14:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really bother me either way. At least it's not as much baloney as The "No BENSON Allowed"'s of Giratinaton. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, on second I thought I don't mind it, either. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 15:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

MrN is here

So anyway... The trouble with this article is... Some parts of it are written in a clear, cool almost deadpan semi-serious voice. That's funny. Some of it is not. That's not. It's suffering from having a number of authors. Probably cos it's got a number of authors. I think it's cool currently, but if this has any hope at VFH it needs to loose the parts which do not fit the rest of the article, or they need to be made more consistent. WTF and I talking about? Socky and Dexter need to fix the tone of voice in a few of the sections! That's what I'm saying! MrN 08:52, Jul 31

I was thinking about letting the apparent seriousness break apart somewhere at the conspiracy theory or the random interpretation. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll let you handle that. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Off-screen references

Are they appearing correctly for everyone? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 11:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are suppose to appear under Still Waters' and Chron's blogs, then yes. MegaPleb • Dexter111344 • Complain here 12:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Yup. That's where I want 'em. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As an admin, that gets hella in the way of my maintenance linkbox. Also, I forgot that that's an admin-only box until you mentioned that you could see them right under the blogs, and I thought "but the maintenance box its there!" then I was like "ohhhhhhh." -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I moved it further down. Does it look better now? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 20:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Shooting my comedy load down your throat

OK, so I said I'd take a look at this and give some advice. Feel free to ignore all of this stupid crap.

Suggestions

1. Consistent Voice - Ok, the number one thing this article needs is to develop a consistent tone. I would suggest that in order to fit with the Retrospective model, it needs to be highbrow/academic.
2. No memes - A Retrospective is supposed to treat a stupid piece of crap as a serious literary work. As such, it should display no awareness of the fact that its subject is a meme, or of the existence of any other memes.

That's the best I can think of right now. I have a lot of ways of reinterpreting the phrase, if you want to hear them, but some other time. -- clumsy Ape (delay) (Riot Porn) 16:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

So you are saying... Some parts of it are written in a clear, cool almost deadpan semi-serious voice. That's funny. Some of it is not. That's not. It's suffering from having a number of authors. Probably cos it's got a number of authors. I think it's cool currently, but if this has any hope at VFH it needs to loose the parts which do not fit the rest of the article, or they need to be made more consistent. If that is what you are saying? MrN 16:50, Aug 3

Something like that. -- clumsy Ape (delay) (Riot Porn) 17:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Do you think we should loose the Mr Winkler section? Hea, I'm not that attached to it. Personally I think the Sux Balls perspective is on shaky ground also... MrN 17:15, Aug 3

Tell me about it. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

You want me to tell you about sucking balls? I'm sure you need no guidance there. MrN 17:20, Aug 3

Why is everybody against me all of the sudden? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Those two sections are the worst offenders. -- clumsy Ape (delay) (Riot Porn) 17:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

But I got nothing to do with those. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 17:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahem

I <3 this article =) ~Formerly Annoying Crap 05:22, 19 August 2009