Uncyclopedia talk:VFH/UnScripts:Pixar: An Introduction for Uncyclopedians

From Romartus' Vote

• HHhhhhhyhhhhhhhnnnnnnngngngngggggghhuuuuuuuguggghhhhh -- 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 17:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry to sound like an absolute inconsiderate twit, but just to clarify: your complaint, then, is that the article refers at all to Uncyc? In that case, if I:

1. moved the article to something like UnScripts:Pixar: A General Introduction;
2. tweaked the GIF sequence so that the potato was replaced with, say, that yellow ball with the red star and blue stripe that Pixar uses ever so often;
3. removed the references to "any Uncyclopedian" in the Appendix;
4. and changed the logo that says "PIXAR: AN INTRODUCTION FOR UNCYCLOPEDIANS" just before the TOC;

would you have any further objections? Sir MacMania GUN—[18:07 21 Aug 2009]

But the potato is what makes it good! There's no I in RAPE (lol contribs) 18:25 Aug 21, 2009

Just considering possible alternatives, if it's too referential. I'm trying to see if I can get it to work with the Pixar ball. Sir MacMania GUN—[18:29 21 Aug 2009]

Also, unless there is a huge consensus towards these changes, I would wait for the article to fail VFH and undergo another review until I make any changes at all. Sir MacMania GUN—[19:06 21 Aug 2009]

This barely references Uncyclopedia outside the title, and the .gif is funny. You shouldn't try to pander to switch a vote with absolutely no reasonable, factual reason behind it. -- 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 19:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Partly that was precisely the point I ended up making, I guess. Looking at the four points, I think your point is quite obvious. Sir MacMania GUN—[19:56 21 Aug 2009]

If I may...

Ahem... According to HTBFANJS, one of the suggested elements of humour is self-reference. By the same token, it also suggests using Meta-humour sparingly. So what is the difference? By mentioning Uncyclopedia in this context it helps the reader identify, because in this they are considered Uncyclopedeans. If it were to exclude them by - for arguments sake - consistently referring to joke bans, QVFD, VFH, then your point would be valid, as it would become and an article purely for the Uncyclopedean elite. I'm not going to say to vote in any way other than what your conscience dictates, but it may be worth considering what led you to the automatic rejection of self-reference and consider if it is truly valid in this instance. Pup t 21:13, 21/08/2009

I just say not to be a feature..it can go anywhere else on the page. Featured picture or graphic would be fine. Otherwise uncyclopedia becomes in my view a self regarding club of in jokes and humour which really could be off putting to new contributors. Just a cursory look at other humour wikis suggest that in-jokery is an abiding problem everywhere..So as I said in the comment ..anywhere but as a VFH.--RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate). 11:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

???

I really don't get the point Romartus is trying to make. Does he object to articles being featured when they mention the name "Uncyclopedia", even when this is merely limited to regular readers of Uncyclopedia articles being referred to as Uncyclopedians? —Sir Socky (talk) (stalk) GUN SotM UotM PMotM UotY PotM WotM 18:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)