From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Article: How To:Write An Article That Stands No Chance Of Featuring On Uncyclopedia
|
Score: 13 Inertia fueled writers
|
| Nominated by:
|
— Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
|
For: 20
|
- Nom and For - great stuff— Sir Sycamore (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 For. - P.M., WotM, & GUN, Sir Led Balloon  (Tick Tock) (Contribs) 20:44, Aug 11- for the irony if nothing else Also FU edit conflicts -- foul Ape (deport) (Riot Porn) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- For. - "OHHH, GROSS!" Step 1: Gross-Out Reader. Step 2: Explain To Reader Why Gross-Out Was Necessary. Step 3: Pray That Gross-Out Did Not Induce Sudden Blindness. Step 4: Hope For Vote!--Sir Shandon
 (Talk) (Trophy Room) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- For. Dame
 GUN PotY WotM 2xPotM 17xVFH VFP Poo PMS •YAP• 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- For. Very nice. --Mr. Monkey
 Pant-hoot here. 23:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
- These good people have persuaded me to vote in the affirmative. For following the herd! -- Sir Mhaille
 (talk to me)
- For -- The Zombiebaron 09:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- F♥r. sir
 sysrq @ 17:31 Aug 12
- Shitfucks, it seems I've gone against my very own policy of "it's funny, so vote for it if it's funny, not if it's an injoke". Which is a rather long name for a policy, I know. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 19:19 Aug 12, 2008
- For I read, I laugh, I vote. MrN
 01:23, Aug 13
- Weak for Per Hex, but more leaning to For. It could probably be made a bit better really, but it's the best take on this idea I've seen so far. -RAHB 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- weak for. clever enough. SirGerrycheeversGunTalk 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Door.
 TKFU UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK  22:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- For. Made me laugh. • • • Necropaxx (T) {~} 21:18, Aug 18
- For.. Tickled my funnybone
r -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 19:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- For - Funny. --AAA! (AAAA) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- For. Funny enough to balance out the in-jokeyness. –—Hv (talk) 30/08 13:24
- For. Ironically, my most recent three articles conform to some or all of these guidelines.Yes, in-joke, but well-explained and witty, likely to actually draw newbies into the Uncycl fold rather than baffle them. (IMHO, other opinions are certainly valid.) ----OEJ 14:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
- For? Not bad, enough to get a vote.--Greyweasel 12:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Against: 7
|
- Against Injoke. --Cap'n Sir Ben GUN WotM VFH VFP 00:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 Against. I just... not only was it an injoke, but hasn't this been done 18 times before?? Le Cejak • <2:10, 12 Aug 2008>- In jokel --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent
    13:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Against - Yeah, I can't help but feel not only that this is very obvious, but also that I have seen it many times before. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 14:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- ...actually you've seen it twice, once from me and once from LJ. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)
Against. In-joke. Seriously. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • critchat) 18:26 Aug 12, 2008
- Against. I really don't like self-referential stuff being on the front page.
 pillow talk 23:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- IN JOKE INTERNAL ERROR 90210 Sire Methamphetamine SMOKE METH! 15:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Against I can has injoke --Moneke 07:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
|
| Comments
|
Self referential and injokey stuff works when it's subtle like here Schindler's Listcruft... lets just say if this was like that then someone would be getting a blowjob tonight --Sir DJ ~ Irreverent 07:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
|
VFH
← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH
| Click to feature this article
|
| Always check the feature queue first.
|
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article.
Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.
|
For. - 
Against. I just... not only was it an injoke, but hasn't this been done 18 times before?? 
