Uncyclopedia:VFH/1989

Article: 1989	Score: 3 things that didn't happen in Canada in 1989
Nominated by:	TKFU 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 06:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC)
For: 4	I've long thought I put some of my funniest jokes into this piece of the long-abandoned timeline upgrade, but I've never brought it to VFH in fear that its jokes-on-jokes stream might scare a few. Then again, we've featured weirder for sure, so why not? -- TKFU 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 06:49, June 18, 2012 (UTC) Sure. —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 12:22, 20 June 2012 For. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC) For. ChiefjusticePSX 12:32, June 23, 2012 (UTC)
Against: 1	Against. As good as the jokes are, a list that style is a totally unforgiveable crime. The formatting turns one off in an instant. Nikau (talk) 13:16, June 20, 2012 (UTC)
Comments	~~Abstain.~~ The article is funny but as Nikau said, the format is an instant turn-off. Perhaps a big picture in the beginning like most other articles would make it better. Also, there are way too many redlinks. If the formatting was cleaned up, it would be a definite "For" from me. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 16:40, June 20, 2012 (UTC) In defense of the list format, there really isn't a clearer or better way to present these jokes. Of course I was aware of its foibles, and still tried to build some sort of a narrative through it with running jokes, and broke it up with that mini-play at the intermission. I'll gladly clean up the red links, but I'm not going to compress the lists into false paragraphs. Solid one-liners deserve one line. Take a look at Inbox, which wasn't just featured, but also the top article of the year; the only thing really different is the slickness of the presentation thanks to the combined forces of 2 or 3 code wizards. -- TKFU 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 18:25, June 20, 2012 (UTC) I had nothing against the lists, it just seemed sort of sloppy. It looks better now so I changed my vote. -- Sir Xam Ralco the Mediocre 19:51, June 20, 2012 (UTC) Comment. Inbox worked - kind of - because it has a single, easy concept. This had a massive list of unrelated one liners, many of which were too obscure, or relied upon the idea that a direct reference is itself humour. Paragraph structure would make a reader continue because it is easy to read. A list is not easy to read like that. Nikau (talk) 02:56, June 21, 2012 (UTC) Paragraphs are easier to read than lists? Really? Because the article is mostly unrelated one-liners, smushing them into paragraphs would make undissectable word salad, or require fluffing out of the highest caliber. -- TKFU 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 05:43, June 21, 2012 (UTC)