From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on October 19, 2014.
The result of the discussion was Replaced by this version.

edit From VFD ballot

Not a complete article but a position and its defense; Intro is full of encyclopedia clichés ("are commonly thought of as....all evidence suggests that...."); Section 1 is a list of possible comedy themes (from the balkiness of touchpads to the security threats of webcams) whose comedy not developed; remainder is trite themes (conspiracy, evil, form a protest group). Spıke Ѧ  10:47, 19 October 2014

Funny, I was kind of thinking that myself. I'm going to try to figure out how to make it not suck, but the trouble is that I'm not sure how. The encyclopedia cliches are there because it's presenting the contrast between what laptops are believed to be and what they really are; I suppose I could just state my conclusion without beating around the bush so much--would that be better? As to the ending, I could get rid of the conspiracy thing and replace it with... I'm not quite sure. I was trying to make it over-the-top so it wouldn't sound like a genuine rant (which it could easily have been), but it does seem rather trite somehow. As to the first section, are you saying that I should pick just one of those paragraphs and expand it, or expand all of them, maybe split them into separate sections...? I didn't want to just have it be about, say, touchpads--that seemed like it would be too thin a comedy strategy. (Maybe it needs more content? Maybe this entire comment is unadulterated rubbish?) -– Llwy-ar-lawr talkcontribs • 16:25 19 October 2014

You have it backwards. Start with a comedy theme for the article: What is your funny idea about laptops? Have every part of the article serve that theme. (It is a problem — though not insurmountable — that part of the article started out being an article on touchpads.) Laptops as instruments of obedience/surveillance is promising, but also too close to a serious point. On the encyclopedia clichés: If it's funny to say, "The laptop is Y," it is not much funnier to say, "You think the laptop is X, but it's really why" — unless you explain, perhaps, what good-faith mistake I made to think it is X. Even then, you risk this being a giant diversion from your comedy theme. Spıke Ѧ 17:04 19-Oct-14

edit Write tighter

Encountered during my visit:

  • Weasel words. Generally — effectively — is intended to — often — some. Your desire to explain that an effect is not universal, is attention to accuracy, not humor. A satire encyclopedia seeking to make a nonsense statement is no worse off making a universal nonsense statement — "All Americans belong to the Socialist Workers Party" — and thereby illustrates better the cluelessness of the "encyclopedia editor."
  • Mince words. Stickiness becomes "sticky"; potential becomes "can" or just the simple present tense.
  • As I often tell Anton199 and ScottPat: Avoid explaining in detail someone's mindset. We cannot know, and an encyclopedia wouldn't try. The detailed thought process in your version of the article's first paragraph almost makes it make sense. This isn't funny! Your thesis is that X is crazy/perverse. It is less funny to invent a way that the craziness is all a predictable result of a deliberate thought process.
  • Read CoW for other thoughts. Spıke Ѧ 23:18 23-Oct-14
Thanks for your help.
So you didn't like the idea that laptops were invented to get students to not goof off so much? I was rather fond of it. Oh well... I suppose it was a tricky one to juggle, though. -– Llwy-ar-lawr talkcontribs • 02:09 24 October 2014

I didn't preserve the clause where you said exactly that, but I preserved the sentence with that thought; removing alternatives to schoolwork precludes the less encyclopedic "goof off."

Now, you may claim your new stuff was only doing what I previously asked you to do. In fact, when you imply a conflict between the reader's preconceived notion and your reality, but don't explain it, the loose ends are a distraction; but using more than one sentence to explain how the conflict came to be, I thought was too far in the other direction and equally distracting. Spıke Ѧ 02:48 24-Oct-14

Personal tools