Forum:Rewriting a feature

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Index > Village Dump > Rewriting a feature
Note: This topic has been unedited for 1537 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

What is the criteria for completely rewriting an article that was featured? A little background, I came up with the idea to write an article on Fracking two years ago, but became stuck after only writing a small amount. Today I decided to restart my efforts, but noticed since then, not only was such an article already written, but it was featured as well. No offense to the author of the current version, but I think my ideas for it would be better. Since the name itself presents an obvious innuendo, I had planned to write it so that it almost sounded legitimate, but would be crammed with so many innuendos, it would read more like erotic literature. My problem is that while I can make it sound legitimate, I am less adept at innuendos as I don't have a sufficiently dirty mind. Normally, I would just say 'oh well' as someone beat me to it, but I had even made two images for the article too that would be a shame to discard. I have created a sandbox where I dumped what I wrote two years ago.
◄► Tephra ◄► 02:02, March 10, 2014 (UTC)

The criterion as I understand it is that it simply isn't done. We could discuss that, but Romartus's recent article is pretty good (I contributed some of the America-centric pieces) and probably better than an article whose basis is simply the fact that the word almost sounds like a swear. Nevertheless, there are a googolplex available article names, and your new one can certainly be linked from the feature article. If you are going to play with double entendres, why not set it down at Frack? Spıke Ѧ 02:15 10-Mar-14
Saying "whose basis is simply the fact that the word almost sounds like a swear" is a bit of an over simplification. Nevertheless, I'm not going to debate the merits of our articles. I suppose I could use a different name, though I've generally disliked that aspect of redundancy on Uncyclopedia.
◄► Tephra ◄► 02:24, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
The page title Hydrofracking is also available. The utility of our "redundancy" has been described for years at How To Be Funny And Not Just Stupid — That we welcome multiple, incompatible renditions treating the same topic (as with George W. Bush) has led to creative freedom, as opposed to eternal drama on what our single consistent comedy take on a subject should be. Spıke Ѧ 14:16 10-Mar-14
How about those who do the Fracking? Are they called 'Frackers'?? --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ITRA (Orate) ® 14:31, March 10, 2014 (UTC)
UnScripts:Meet the Frackers Spıke Ѧ 14:40 10-Mar-14
In fact, I came to Uncyclopedia to increase oil and gas production by writing nonsense; and during the vote on oppage, told you you would look back on the moment when the world's ocean levels went back to rising after an inexplicable decade of no global warming. So in fact I had the idea to write Fracking five years ago, back when all those black churches were buring in the South, and would have done so, with many more illustrations, if it were not for bad weather, tsunamis, the invention of airport kiosks, annoying geopolitical twists-and-turns, and votes that denied me everything I wanted to achieve. —Sorry; I am kidding. Keep writing it and don't worry about a specific piece of page-title real estate. Spıke Ѧ 14:51 10-Mar-14
Personal tools