Talk:Nineteen Eighty-Four

Clean up plot

Who wrote this crap for the plot? 71.82.60.179 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) The plot is a bit stupid - 211.30.230.28 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Not only is it not funny, it doesn't follow the book at all. The book has a plot that could easily be made funny but the author does not take advantage of it and instead uses a bunch of Animal Farm junk. I might work on this myself. -DeathBySnowman (talk)

Newspeak

If you have to write in Newspeak, at least make it comprehensible. You can't just slam togehter random Newspeak words hand rail banana before mousepad tomorrow opposite hello.

Suggested Re-writes

I'm happy to do either of these, but seeing as both would require a total re-write of the article, I'd like to ensure that atleast a few other people are behind me.

1) Write article (or translation thereof) in Newspeak. 2) Using wikipedia article as the basis, re-write the article substituting in current US-political words in.

Agreed. This is supposed to be funny, not idiocy. 66.91.122.30 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Pee Review

Humour:	9	Nicely done. Here's my point by point criticism of each section: Intro-Good with a hairline fracture: I would take out the second sentence "It was originally written..." as this is exceedingly random and stupid. Other than that: doubleplusgood. Plot-Well written synopsis that beautifully blurs the line between reality and BS as well as expertly fusing together something realistic with something that's... well... not. The conclusion is well (re)written: the obvious falsities help portray many of the rewrites as true (and this didn't even have to go through the Ministry of Truth!). BTW, apt placement for the spoiler alert. Comparison-Realistic Table-I might be compelled to add minipeace as flamewars or revertwars or something to that effect. 1984 in Modern Culture-I don't get the quote but perhaps I'm just an idiot (it isn't that I'm too lazy to look things up). -BB is watching-see images -References in modern music-I don't think that they're doubleplusgood, but they're not ungood. It is a question of taste and I ask for ketchup in Paris restaurants.
Concept:	10	Well done rewriting concept of book.
Prose and formatting:	9.198	I found a couple of minor instances of gramatical errors but only because I'm a Grammar Nazi. I don't see any other issues.
Images:	6.5	Appropriate logo reskin and opening picture. Others are great, but I am not a fan of the last four: they're neither ungood, nor good. Elephant Mediocre at best. Little Brother I feel a better "Little Brother" picture could and should be found. However I would also find it perfectly acceptable to give me the finger and be told "Nobody Cares." Bigfoot Has a creepy pedo-smile= certainly should stay. Justin Bieber
Miscellaneous:	8.7	Average of scores. Whoop-de-do
Final Score:	43.398	That was a very good article. Thank you for the read good sir- you deserve a gold star and maybe some ice cream.
Reviewer:	- Fe+3 AlFe+2 05:40, March 21, 2012 (UTC)

DaniPine3

In edition of 22:06 18 nov 2024‎ DaniPine3 says "okay, I was wrong, this is not factual. it just looked to me that it was for some reason. it still doesn't really match with the tone of the rest of the article, but I'll see what I can do with that...". But now, he had erased these sections. Why?

2.138.44.86 (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Could I make another version of the article? It could be called "1984 (dystopia)".

81.44.238.251 (talk) 19:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@81.44.238.251: are you Conspi? if you look at the revision history, you'll see that I later mention how those edits weirdly clashed with the original tone of the article and also repeated stuff from the plot that was already mentioned in the "summary" section... 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 19:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wrong year. I know that this wiki is a joke, but…

The book 1984 was actually written in 1948, not 1984. I know that this wiki is a joke, but make it more half-jokingly. --OfficialWatchOS7 (contacting, edits, free email) 10:12, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@OfficialWatchOS7: you shouldn't expect factual information from a satirical website like Uncyclopedia. if an (intentionally) erroneous date annoys you that much, you might have OCD. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 10:29, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@DaniPine3: Fine. Fine. Then what about “Trump still really, really wants Greenland” BEING PUT ON THE MAIN PAGE?! --OfficialWatchOS7 (contacting, edits, free email) 10:36, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

that is UnNews, which is literally just the actual news, but shitty. That's the entire point of it... Lucyna Kushinada 12:20, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

And there is plenty of outright fake news on UnNews too. OᑭöᔑᔑᙀᙏHAWK TUAH! (vandalize my talk page) 12:25, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@OfficialWatchOS7: it's not our fault that modern news have become so absurd you can't make a satire of them without eventually talking what's actually happening. 🎄🎄🎄DaniPine3 (talk)🎄🎄🎄 12:30, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Calm down! Calm down! Oops.– Preceding unsigned comment added by OfficialWatchOS7 (talk • contribs)

DaniPine, spot on lol 👍. And OfficialWatch yes sometimes our jokes are closer to the truth than others. This site has a good mix of truth, half-truth, nonsense, and everything in between. On this particular article I wouldn’t change anything, even tho the book offers so many ways to write a good Uncyc article. MrX blow me 20:31, 3 February 2026 (UTC)