Talk:International Talk Like A Landlubber Day

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is really smart, but I think it would be genius if the whole thing was written in pirate-speak as if its intended audience was pirates. --Ignignot 19:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant. Thank you. --epynephrin 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, maybe we could put in a "spoken version" if the pirate speak gets good? Does uncyclopedia have that capability, like that other encyclopedia? --Ignignot 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You mean audio recordings of the page? I don't know. That's an admin question, although I don't think so.
Also, is it me, or is the literal translation of "Run out the sweeps" not as funny as a fake one? Landlubbers don't have oars... --epynephrin 22:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it isn't too funny when it is literal. A few very stilted and proper translations might be good but I think most of them should be a misinterpretation. Also, maybe instead of the "Arr!" has no translation, we could put in a whole slew of different translations for it. Or we could make up a chart like in wikipedia's language pages. (for example, "Portuguese language") They have this weird phonetics chart, but I'm not sure how to use it. There is some comedy to be found there though. --Ignignot 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
That sounds a bit like Quangle, and personally, I like the fact that "Arr" is a fundamental building block with no translations. Although that could just be me. I do think I'll change the "Put out the oars" thing back to something related to cars, because that seems appropriately non-sequitor. --epynephrin 21:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

edit MP3's, mateys?

A mighty fine sea shanty, m'ladsMP3's, anyone? (landlubbers want to be pirates too!)
feel free to add stuff. Just with the translations, please keep in mind that we want it to not be too literal. EG, Landlubbers don't often sail boats, so they wouldn't need oars; Landlubbers do drive, though. --epynephrin 19:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

edit Latte

Aww. I personally really like the "My what an envigorating latte" line. That was one of the funniest to me. Especially because the pirate version is simply a line in that song... --epynephrin 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

edit Davey Jones

One of the funniest things on all uncyclopedia is the Davey Jones joke here. Kudos to its writer.

edit Reverted major change

Sonic80's complete rewrite of the page (Sept. 21 2008) left it without humor, so I reverted it. Sorry, but it had to be done. The whole thing that's funny about this page is that it's written by a bunch of pirates who have trouble speaking normal English. Removing that left a shorter article that didn't have anything to laugh about. User:mypalmike

Hmm, pay attention to what was in the article? the whole table was moved to another page that was linked in the article to make it look a lot less ugly. the revert has no pictures and the only thing funny is the table (which is still in the new version). Everyone else seems to like my version better, and your supposed "longer article' is in fact much shorter than the rewrite, because the majority of the page is made up of the table, which isn't included in the base of my article, but in another page. Lets do some quick calculations please? the table is 2,267 bytes long, and the article I rewrote was 2,906 bytes long. 2,906-2,267=639 bytes. That is how long the original article was. My current rewritten version is 3,181 bytes without the table. So which one is shorter I ask you? With that I leave you with this Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 19:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Fine, ignore me when I say that it was funnier when the page was written by pirates. Ignore the 6.8 out of 10 (also known as a "D+" grade) review you cited which said it would be funnier if the pirates who wrote the page had trouble speaking regular English. Ignore this discussion page where it was suggested quite a while back, "I think it would be genius if the whole thing was written in pirate-speak as if its intended audience was pirates". We're all wrong. You alone are right. It's funnier when it's just standard uncyclopedia non-sequitur humor rather than written by pirates. User:mypalmike
Oh, it appears I already ignored you, and as you have shown me, you ignored my post. I was actually pointing to the sentence in my review: "I like this, and you've done a good job of the rewrite. From a loose jumble of related ideas to a coherent article. But a bit more polish and work could elevate this a bit further, so I hope you spend a little more time with it. " Which you have not let me do yet, because I am now going through all of the articles I have rewritten for Conservation week, to make better, but have yet to reach this one. Also, I still don't understand what you are talking about with the funny level? Did you actually read the prior version? The only funny part was, as I have mentioned already was the table which, as I have also already mentioned IS STILL IN THE ARTICLE!. However as it was, once again, already mentioned, it has been moved to its own separate page to appease the aesthetic view of the page. Please thoroughly read responses before you go ahead and draw conclusions. Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 21:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Nobody will ever click the link to see the table. And nobody will ever laugh at this page again, which was, in my opinion, one of the best uncyclopedia pages. I'd fix it, but you seem to think you own it now. Congrats, and good luck. User:mypalmike
Well that is good for you, but as I have already proven, the community disagrees with you and agrees with me. Good day. Icons-flag-pi Pirate Lord__Sonic80 (Yell  •  Latest literary excretion) __ 00:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
One guy gives you a 7/10 for humor and this "proves" that "the community" has spoken in your favor? And am I somehow magically NOT part of the community? Get a clue and learn to deal with criticism. User:mypalmike
Humour = Subjective. That's how it is. And here's another subjective opinion from the guy who gave the "D+ grade" review (I tend to work on the revolutionary idea that 25/50 = average, so 33.8 is above average and a good article, but there you go, subjectivity again). Both of your arguments have a certain amount of merit, sappy as that sounds. Mike, I agree there's more room for the stereotypical pirate-speak in the main article; however the old version was probably too much of that - it became a bit of a chore to read. Meanwhile, Sonic's rewrite is a much easier read, and well laid out and a good read, but as I mentioned, maybe lacks a bit of the salty sea-dog vernacular. So: that old cop-out of the happy medium would seem to present itself as a reasonable option.
And as to the comment about no-one ever clicking on the link to see the table - you'd be fucking stunned what people click on, and what they read. I'd say the sub-page is a decent place for the table, although it wouldn't hurt to flag it up a bit more. So maybe you could both chill a little, and see if there's some friendly middle ground you could meet on? Just an opinion, of course, but that's all you can ever get around here - let's not forget that, eh? (Or you could ignore me entirely and carry on arguing, whatever turns you on). --UU - natter UU Manhole 22:04, Nov 10

edit Heh

I created this page two and a half years ago. Then other people made it funnier. Then other people again came along and made it much, much less funny than it was in the first place. Such are the perils of open source humour, I suppose. - Conniption 18:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. I tried, really I did, to preserve the spirit of the page. - Mypalmike 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools