Talk:Harry Potter

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The quotes aren't that funny. I would remove them according to the policy of the less quotes the better. Sir ScottPat (talk) White Ensign Scotland Flag 1 Compassrose VFH UnS NotM WotM WotY 18:36, July 14, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, they're not terribly hilarious, but I think one thing saves them from the too-many-quotes argument: They all belong together and are not independent of each other, which is why I had mercy on them. Another example of this are the first two quotes in Odin (yes, they're better than the quotes in the Harry Potter article, I just wanted to illustrate my point). Of course, if you don't find them funny, then you'd want to delete them, but then, this applies to any joke within an article. I think they're not too bad, so I kept them. Schamschi, 19:13, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
The "policy" (as recently articulated by Simsilikesims/Mnbvcxz/me) is that initial quotations exist solely to make an Uncyclopedia article look like an article, and to be good enough to induce the reader to dig in. The fact that all the quotes hang together (that they are "bickering quotations") is actually a negative. In this case, what we have is one hilarious rape joke (That was irony) followed by the greatest complaint that HTBFANJS has about lists: that they are usually attempts to tell the same joke over and over again (here: three times), followed by a quotation so vague that it can only be attributed to Oscar Wilde (using him as a meme). I agree, rip them all out. The comedy subplot that Harry Potter has a thing for redheads is best told as prose. The article could stand one really good initial quotation, with enough real-world tie-in to be attributed to someone real. It is none of these five. Spıke Ѧ 19:21 14-Jul-13
I see. I didn't really see the rape-thing as the main joke here, but rather as a build-up to the Oscar-Wilde-Quote, which is why I wouldn't say that the purpose of these quotes is to retell the joke several times. Also, I found the idea of Harry Potter raping Basil Brush funny. But yeah, the quotes are not essential to the article, and considering your rather strict view regarding quotes, I can see why you want them deleted. The reason I wasn't so harsh (apart from nostalgia maybe – the article is from 2007 after all) is probably the fact that the rest of the article is more or less consistent (at least for the most part, there are some small things that don't entirely make sense), as opposed to one LOL joke after another, which resulted in the random garbage that ultimately led to the article's VFD-deletion. Schamschi, 20:32, July 14, 2013 (UTC)
To be clear, my "rather strict view regarding quotes" is not obligatory on other creative writers (though it does tell you exactly what I would do if on patrol and if Anon added a fourth attempted-rape victim to the list), nor is it "policy" in the sense that there is any active effort to bring all Uncyclopedia pages into compliance. You are the one resurrecting this article. Scott gave you his opinion, and I gave you mine and the reason why, which you should at least consider. Spıke Ѧ 03:22 15-Jul-13
OK, then I'll leave the quotes, at least for now, on the grounds that, even though they don't serve the purpose of making the article look like an article, I don't think that they are intended to tell one joke over and over again, either. I would just say that their purpose is to tell a joke, and why not tell a joke in the form of a few quotes. But I do agree that the use of Oscar Wilde as a quotation source is somewhat meme-ic and could be replaced with something better, maybe J. K. Rowling. Perhaps this will also help make the quotes not look like their purpose is to retell a joke several times. Schamschi, 10:54, July 15, 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've thought about it and come to the conclusion that the problem is the last quote, and not the fact that it is by Oscar Wilde, but in general. It only serves the purpose to make the connection between the four rape victims clear, but as a quote, it is completely pointless. If I can think of something better, perhaps Dumbledore saying something along the lines of "had I known earlier ...", I'll replace the quote, but until then, I will indeed remove the quotes. Schamschi, 07:49, July 16, 2013 (UTC)

edit From the VFD archive

  • Keep. Links off to a lot of other articles. Perhaps just needs extensive plastic surgery to remove the pile of juvenile rubbish. It won't be a classic but might do for now. --LaurelsRomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 09:18, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • potter the great wizard has a funny article.dumbleweeeeeeeeeddjupiterfox
  • Symbol delete vote Delete. This is some pretty bad fancruft. —Paizuri MUN (Talk Contribs Poll!) 01:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote Delete. Too many AnonIPs spoiled this soup. Spıke Ѧ  01:57 5-Jan-10
  • Delete. --Bald dude Roman Dog Bird!!!!! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D Bald dude 02:02, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Oh god, it's full of puerility, random rubbish, the worst kind of fancruft and everything you'd expect. Links are no reason at all to keep this pile of suck --UU - natter UU Manhole 11:08, Jan 5
  • Delete Don't care what articles it links to and it's not a bridge or a kettle so we don't need something that 'might do for now'. mAttlobster. (hello) 20:19, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not a cookie, mother. It is a rancid fucking mess. Tinymasaru.gifpillow talk 23:07, January 5, 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote Delete. I actually want to punch this article. --Count of Monkey Crisco 01:13, January 6, 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Per the Count. -OptyC Sucks! Icons-flag-us CUN18:12, 6 Jan
  • Delete. Per Optimus per the Count. --Matfen 18:43, January 6, 2010 (UTC)

Symbol for vote Twittererrific! This would be a great article for the latest wiki to pander appear on the market: Teen Uncyclopedia.  Avast Matey!!! Happytimes are here!* Happytimes.gif (talk) (stalk) Π   ~ Xkey280 ~  05 Jan 2010 ~ 03:39 (UTC)

edit Section intro of "Harry's Inadequacies"

Nooo, I loved that section. Yes, it's talking about itself, but it's not redundant, it's just saying that the list in the article is not complete, and it states a solid reason why. And seeing as Harry doesn't come off very well in the article, it fit the general tone of the article quite well. Also, the list of diseases is so over the top (while still managing not to be ridiculous) that it goes together with the likewise over the top idea that the original list is 1 million times as long. Yes, that sentence breaks the fourth wall, but it wouldn't be the first time that happens in an Uncyclopedia article, and in this case, it is done in a non-disruptive manner (in my opinion). Maybe what bothers you is the addition in parentheses about War and Peace, which really is redundant, because the length of the original list has already been made clear as 1 million times as long as the list in the article (although it doesn't really bother me). Come to think of it, technically, the intro doesn't talk about itself, it talks about the rest of the section, but not about the intro … Schamschi, 11:12, May 23, 2014 (UTC)

Not much to love. It was listy and the only joke was to say, "We could have written more," that is, Potter has more inadequacies except the authors didn't care enough to write funny stuff about them. It is indeed the article talking about the article, which is navelism, even if merely one part talking about another part; not unprecedented here, but no, several wrongs don't make a right. Spıke Ѧ 11:20 23-May-14
But the point is that it doesn't say "we could have written more" (this article, by the way, does at the end, and, like with the Harry Potter article, it serves the concept of the article). If you think that an article shouldn't talk about itself in general, then I see your problem with the section, but I don't see why you think that an article shouldn't talk about itself, if it is done with style. Yes, maybe in a real encyclopedia a section like this one would be inappropriate, but then, this is Uncyclopedia, not Wikipedia. Yes, Uncyclopedia is supposed to be a parody of Wikipedia, but as I understand it, the concept of Uncyclopedia as a parody of Wikipedia is to mimic Wikipedia's style, not its content. And the style of the section in question is totally encyclopedic (unless the equivalent in Nobody Cares, which switches to a first-person perspective), and what's more, the whole article is written in an encyclopedic stlye, so it doesn't disturb the article at all. So apart from the content itself, this section is perfectly encyclopedic, and the content doesn't need to be encyclopedic.
Now, about your list argument. In the top section on this talk page you said that the problem with lists is that their purpose is to tell the same joke several times. This isn't the case here. As I already pointed out, the over-the-top nature of this list goes perfectly together with the ridiculous length the original list supposedly has, so the fact that it's a list actually supports the joke. Lists aren't bad per se, for instance the list in Doping_in_sports#Bodybuilding is good because the usual format of a recipe is a list of ingredients, so a list would be the appropriate format here.
You correctly observed that the whole joke of the section is that Harry has more inadequacies than listed here. But as I also already pointed out, this fits in with the concept of the whole article, since the article is rather demeaning about Harry, so that's actually a reason for telling the joke. If the joke were that Harry is gay (which someone tried to insert on October 15, 2013), then it would have absolutely no place in the article. But this is not the case, so it's just a matter of how the joke is told, and since it fits in with the article also stylistically, I don't see a reason why not to keep this joke. Schamschi, 21:59, May 23, 2014 (UTC)
I've given it a try with less (=no) emphasis on the Author's Travails. Meanwhile, please don't cite Nobody cares as a literary example that should set the pace. Spıke Ѧ 23:03 23-May-14
My apologies, it wasn't my intention to cite Nobody cares as a model article that justifies the old section intro in this Harry Potter article. If it had been, I would have pointed out that "Nobody Cares" is featured. It just came to my mind because it almost literally says what you accused the Harry Potter article of saying, and since it served the concept of the article, I didn't see it as a problem there.
I still don't see your problem with what you (and others, probably) call "navelism", and what I mean is, I don't understand why you reject it on principle. Let's say the section intro had said something like "Harry Potter has more inadequacies than listed here, but the author was too lazy to list them all". I'd totally agree with you that this would be crap, because it would be disrespectful towards the reader. The reader might want to know about all the inadequacies, but is met with ignorance and arrogance. This has no place in an encyclopedic article. However, the intro stated that it would simply be physically impossible for a human (or possibly a group of humans) to list all the inadequacies. It was even implied that somebody tried to list them all, but found themselves incapable of doing so. This isn't disrespectful towards the reader, on the contrary: The author sacrificed their own health and well-being in order to deliver encyclopedic information to the reader. This wouldn't even be relevant if the information were complete in the end, but seeing as it isn't, an explanation for its incompleteness is provided.
This is probably also the reason why I think that the old intro was better than your intro (although I am not sure): There was a clear reason why not all the inadequacies are listed, but now there isn't one. It might even be that it is exactly what you consider to be an improvement that I find to be inferior to the old intro: By hinting at the author's travails, there was a correlation between an objective observation and an emotional impulse behind it, which made it "alive", so to speak, but now it is "dead". If you're so dead set against "navelism", then maybe it would be better to simply leave the section without an intro, or maybe add "(selection)" to the section title (although actually, democracy would dictate that the old "navelistic" intro be re-inserted, since up until now only you voiced disagreement with it, while there are at least two people who like it: myself, and the person who wrote it (probably). Yes, there's no democracy in art, but most of the arguments you have brought up until now rely on anti-navelism as a fundamental rule, not on artistic/comedic considerations). However, maybe the problem is simply the fact that the relevance of War and Peace (which is its length), respectively the connection with Harry's inadequacies, is not explicit. Since I don't really know how to solve this problem (since War and Peace in and of itself is, in fact, not relevant indeed), I've changed the intro a bit in an attempt to provide an alternative where this problem does not occur in the first place. I'm not sure if I like it better than the old intro, but I think it's at least a worthy non-navelistic replacement. What do you think? Schamschi, 11:25, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
I think it is an absurd amount of histrionics over a single sentence. I kept War and Peace to stick to your ingredients. The only questionable thing in your edit is "0.0001%" — Nonsense numbers are not thereby funny, nor funnier when Anon comes along later and adds twenty zeros. Spıke Ѧ 13:19 25-May-14
Well, the 0.0001% is not of my own invention, it's just a different phrasing of the old intro. Apparently we both share the preference to stick to original ingredients, if possible (by the way, War and Peace is not my ingredient, it was added by, the original author of the article). Of course, now that the list of diseases is gone, the present list might as well be 10%, 1%, or whatever, it wouldn't make a difference, since now there is no reason for the proportion to be ridiculously huge. And I will once again defend the old list of diseases, this time in more detail:
Every one of the diseases could reasonably result from writing a very long text on the computer. However, they are caused by different aspects of the process of typing on a computer, which is why, in my opinion, they are individual enough not be considered the repetition of a single joke all over again. Let's assume that the list would be "osteoporosis, arthritis, rheumatism, musculary dystrophy" and so on. Then all the diseases would relate to loss of mobility due to spending too much time sitting in front of a computer. Then you could say the point of the list is to repeat one joke all over again. But this is not the case. If I try to group them, I come up with the following categories (this is arbitrary, different groupings might be possible): Typing too much (repetitive strain injury, possibly exhaustion (in a physical sense)), lack of mobility/exercise (osteoporosis), staring too much at a computer screen (screen-eye disease), spending too much time inside a room (Vitamin D deficiency, lack of fresh air) and mental damage (also possibly exhaustion (in a psychological sense), and possibly dehydration as a consequence of neglecting nutrition due to being preoccupied with writing). So while the basic idea is the same, the individual entries differ slightly in their connection with the theme of the list. So rather than repeating a joke over and over again, the joke (which is that the original list is too long to type) is actually told through the use of a list. This is why I think the list was good. I admit, having done this analysis, I myself get the feeling that this is "an absurd amount of histrionics over a single sentence". However, if you think that the sentence is not worth this discourse, it seems to me that there is no reason not to restore the old intro, seeing as I still like it, and would probably still prefer it over the new intro. Schamschi, 15:00, May 25, 2014 (UTC)
Personal tools