Talk:Red Dwarf

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit For your reference

The old version resides here, where it is cared for very well, and eats hot meals every day, and is currently learning to tap dance. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[07:56 12 Oct 2009]

edit This article needs a re-write

This whole page needs a re-write. It looks like a Red Dwarf fan who didn't get the chance to write the real article on Wikipedia has made it here instead. Everything is too true to the show, and all of it is too serious. It needs to be funny, a joke, something comedic... not a serious fan page. --Maniac1075 07:36, January 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm rewriting it into an article that looks like a Red Dwarf fan who didn't get the chance to write the real article on Wikipedia made it here instead, except all of it is completely stark raving bonkers. Hope that helps. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN[17:10 22 Jul 2010]

edit The Re-Write

It's looking promising, but still not quit there. There are some good things, but the intro needs work, less references to things only a POM will understand (think universal understanding), and the line "much to the annoyance of the crew" is used too often. Other then that, it's gaining potential.--ManiacJaSg-Maniac1075Complain Here 22:21, September 25, 2010 (UTC)


edit The Re-writer

Thanks Maniac1075 - only problem is that someone keeps putting the old page back on- im not sure why as it looks like wikipedia's and is clearly not deviating from actual fact. (I didnt think it was funny as most of the other pages here are abstract where this one isn't).

Can anyone tell me why the old version is in the best interests of funnydome and this site?? --Cockneygit 20:00, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

The idea of you discussing it is to talk with the person who is reverting you and try to find some common ground so the edit warring can stop, if you can't get hold of them here try their talk page, you can also speak to the original author and see what he has to say about your edits. --ChiefjusticeGameCube 20:14, September 26, 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects