Talk:Hydrogen is being impersonated!!

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on 9 February 2011.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
link to pee Jackofspades (talk) 22:48, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

edit Rewrite

So who is impersonating hydrogen? Is it another element or is it a person? I think that needs to be answered before we finish the article (although probably not in the article officially.) Jackofspades (talk) 07:47, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

Aren't we Mr. Organised! My past collabs with Aleister generally just involved the two of us sitting around reverting each other for a few weeks. I quite like the idea of never revealing who is impersonating hydrogen (if anyone). There is also the notion that the scientist who's saying all this is simply nuts. What are your thoughts on that? --Black Flamingo 21:19, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
My thoughts are very sporadic so if I don't hammer them out in writing for another person I usually get lost, which makes the other person angry and blah, blah, blah. We could definitely have the narrator just be crazy. It would lead into some humor naturally there as we could escalate the insanity in the article. Jackofspades (talk) 05:56, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

edit Intro

I think the main thing that we need to consider for this part is that Helium is also stable with 2 electrons. No idea what to do with that, dismiss it? Maybe suggest that no one would impersonate it because it's inert? Jackofspades (talk) 22:55, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, I know nothing about chemistry so it's hard to comment, but if we stick a throwaway remark about Helium being inert that should silence the naysayers. --Black Flamingo 21:19, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
Wait a second...I just realized we don't have a joke in the intro. What's up with that? Jackofspades (talk) 21:31, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

edit Umm, What?

In this section I think it needs to be decided whether hydrogen acts like hydrogen because it is being impersonated or if it acted like that before and the impersonator is just keeping with the properties it had before. My opinion is that the impersonator kept the properties, but started to add some after a period of time which is why these things were "discovered" later. Jackofspades (talk) 23:51, March 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. --Black Flamingo 21:19, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

edit So who is impersonating hydrogen?

Mainly need to expand this. Nothing specific I guess. Jackofspades (talk) 00:01, March 9, 2011 (UTC)

James Watson and Francis Crick

saving from deletion. Watson and Crick.

Yeah, another "failed attempt" would be good, although this subsection doesn't fit here in my view, we should move it up as part of the scientist's rant, before the guy he's talking to gets fed up and asks "so who is impersonating hydrogen?" Perhaps more conspiracy theories on who the impersonator is too... I will be having a stab at all of this over the weekend. --Black Flamingo 21:19, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
We might have to make the Watson and Crick one the second failed attempt. I don't want to as it fits really well where it is, but I can't think of any super important discoveries since 1950 (at least not in the scale of discovering DNA.) Jackofspades (talk) 06:45, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
I also changed "Einstein's beard!!" to "Boyle's law!!" but if we include a badly photochopped image of Einstein with a beard and a caption like "Einstein had a beard. He totally did" it could work. Jackofspades (talk) 22:46, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy with "Boyle's law", I didn't really like the Einstein line anyway, mainly because (like you said) he was a physicist. It would be nice to have one more image at the end there though. --Black Flamingo 22:58, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Another failed attempt. I also added sort of a joke into the intro. Jackofspades (talk) 05:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

edit Title

Can we move this article to Hydrogen is being impersonated! ? The article's progressed a lot since it was put on VFD, and I don't think this particular awkward piece of emphatic punctuation should be allowed to stay. Coronium's signature 22:20, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

I personally disagree, though I'd like to hear what others think, particularly Jack. The reason it's funny because it's such a weird and unprofessional-looking bit of punctuation that is totally against any naming conventions. The title is what sold me when I voted keep. If only the rest of the article could be as funny as that superfluous exclamation mark!! --Black Flamingo 22:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
I don't find it very funny, but if others do, it doesn't bother me that much. --Coronium's signature 08:28, March 12, 2011 (UTC)
I feel that we could incorporate some kind of joke of that. The extra capitals do bug me a little though. (That's a Symbol keep vote Keep. on the !! btw.) Jackofspades (talk) 05:41, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
The capitals don't bother me, and I believe our naming conventions allow it to go either way it that one. Your call. --Black Flamingo 11:20, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Let's keep the double exclamation mark then, and normalize the caps. Coronium's signature 17:27, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

edit Hydrogen bombs

That's what's missing. If hydrogen can have that much power who wouldn't want to impersonate it? I mean have you ever heard of a helium bomb? Jackofspades (talk) 06:40, March 13, 2011 (UTC)

Perfect!! So shall we use that instead of the inert line? --Black Flamingo 11:20, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
I attempted to add it in, but it may be a bit awkward as I'm about to leave to go back to school (bleh.) Jackofspades (talk) 21:46, March 13, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools