From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on March 12, 2011.
The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is a disgrace to the movie, which pwned so badly.

FOR SHAME --Enemy 17:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to say that without looking at the other articles on this site. It's supposed to make fun of what it's talking about. Same with the Firefly article. Just about every article on this site is a disgrace to what it talks about. I happen to be a diehard Browncoat myself, and I think this article on Serenity is pretty funny. Meh, I guess it all depends on your sense of humor. ^^;;


edit No adult diapers?

I thought Tena/Serenity was also the maker of adult diapers and pads. Why aren't those mentioned? --Tepples 04:10, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. Spıke Ѧ 11:42 14-Mar-11

edit Rewrite by TheSlyFox

I contributed a subsection that might be a new direction you can take this in.

Separately, I minced words regarding the North Korean firing squad. They do not use shotguns (which spray particles or "shot" to try to hit a fast-moving animal) but rifles (which shoot bullets).

Huffed kittens, COMMIES, and maybe Glenn Beck, are unfortunate moves in the direction of meme-cruft. Spıke Ѧ 10:42 13-Mar-11

Thanks for the additions, Spike. I've never really attempted to write a full article before, so any and all suggestions are certainly welcome. I thought maybe tossing in a couple memes would add to a building sense of insanity. The goal is at the end for the "author" to achieve not serenity, but total insanity ("I'm going to die, I'm going to die, I'm going to DIE!!!"), and finish with a simple sentence: "This author did not achieve serenity."
I was also planning to insert a photo of people running frantically from an incoming tidal wave (thus not achieving serenity), and a Photoshop of someone sitting on a beach chair, getting a suntan right in front of an approaching apocalyptic wave and stormy sky (he did achieve serenity). Overall, does this sound like a good idea? -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 04:34, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

The ingredients are good, having examples is good, but I don't like your proposed strategy. Do you want to be an actor or a writer? To me, good writing delivers benefit to the reader and keeps you, the medium, in the wings. Tolkien said it, dismissing in the Foreword to Lord of the Rings some people's claims that the books were allegory to real events (World War 2): it is the difference between offering up a story for the reader to digest, and trying to dominate the reader. There is a lot of "performance art" in Uncyclopedia articles, but I don't do it; if the reader ever has to wonder what is happening to me, then my writing has failed. The fundamental question: Are you trying to amuse the reader, or yourself?! Spıke Ѧ 05:25 14-Mar-11

PS--Am reconsidering some of this. It wouldn't hurt to suggest, from time to time, that the author is something less than serene, especially when he is stressing the extreme nature of serenity. For example, in the intro--

There is no going back from serenity. Are you listening, meat-stick?

But asking the reader to sense a transition of moods in the course of the story is, again, asking him to focus on you rather than what you are writing. Spıke Ѧ 11:51 14-Mar-11

I agree that a bit of performance acting here would be appropriate. Maybe we can use the new diaper section for some healthy insanity.
Aside from that, I've been doing final exams this week, so I've been tuning out the world for a while; I just now read about the earthquake in Japan. I think using the image examples I mentioned earlier might be a bit tasteless, considering the timing (or high in shock-irony, if we're into that sort of thing). Still, I hate capitalizing on disasters for humor, so I'll be considering something else to use as an example. Meanwhile, I'll still be adding text to it. -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 19:21, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

It won't be tasteless in a couple months. And it could be worse--you could have a job for AFLAC. (You probably haven't heard about that either.) Spıke Ѧ 19:26 15-Mar-11

That's what I was thinking. After a few months, everyone was joking about New Orleans (in fact, I think the shock barrier only lasted a week or two in that case). I just read about what happened to Gottfried... though I didn't see what was so extreme about his jokes--I've seen far more shocking ones, some of them from here! -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 00:18, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and a year after Katrina, wasn't there a sitcom starring Bob Crane and Werner Klemperer? On Gottfried, a couple months ago, Joe Biden complained about his treatment in The Onion and I demanded in the UnNews:Newsroom that our writers get Biden to complain about his treatment by us! Regarding "if we're into...tasteless humor," no one here is going to tell you what type of humor is correct. Spıke Ѧ 00:30 16-Mar-11

I have reconsidered the image idea. I thought of it before even knowing about the earthquake/tsunami thing. I can't think of anything else that would match the original idea, so I'm just going to go with the wave images. I'll put the first one on shortly, and the second one (with the person on the beach) has been submitted to photo requests because I'm a noob with transparencies. -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 03:44, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
Kudlow Sell Puts

Oh no! a Shoop virgin! There is nothing more offensive about that wall-of-water photo, even now, than writing articles on fatal diseases worrying that some reader will just have lost a loved one to it. You can't not do what we're here for! I can cut and paste photos, air-brush, and add captions, as shown here, but I'm not equipped to fiddle with transparency or merge overlays.

However, I had gotten accustomed to seeing that first photo at the top of the article, where first photos usually are; and nice and big. On your caption, first, only Aleister in Chains gets to do boldfaced captions, and some day I'm going to ask him why we need a second official style just for him. Also, it's like a cute kitten photo that some dope needs to add "thought balloons" to the kitten on, in order to make it cuter (which is "cutesy"), the rusted-out car photo stands on its own; I think it's "gilding the lily" to add interpretation. Spıke Ѧ 10:37 16-Mar-11

Okay, I think we can call this a finished rough draft. I moved the picture back where it was and tweaked the surrounding text a bit. There's just one problem with the last "meathead" part: I've been editing this on a computer with a rather small monitor. This isn't my usual machine, but it's convenient. At a resolution of 1024*768, the current formatting sends the word "encyclopedia" into what appears to be a completely new paragraph. Do you think there is possibly a better layout for this section? -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 00:34, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
PS, I'm going to make some changes for What Links Here so we don't have a bunch of people going "this isnt teh moovieeee" and making vandals out of themselves. Maybe we should make a disambiguation page in anticipation of a new article on the movie. -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 00:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I am uniquely unqualified to help you there, as all of my screens are 1024*768 (which, during the traumatic reskin of UnNews last August, may have biased me against the changes). I do not see what you are seeing, as in addition, my local style rules call for 12pt text, and most Uncyclopedians use 10pt. I suggest that the single word is not rendered as a "new paragraph" but is flush-left underneath the photo. This is a coincidence and nothing you should worry yourself with, as it will not line up identically on all users' screens.

I do, still, think that the initial photo stands on its own and you don't need to "present" it to the reader with special text.

(Bleepin' edit conflict! Don't add PSs when we are talking so closely in time!) Regarding disambiguation, right now I see only the two alternatives; it suffices if you add a disambiguator at the top of your page. I'll do a first pass (probably with a red-link) to show you what I mean. Spıke Ѧ 00:48 17-Mar-11

All right, sorry about the PS! I changed the picture back to the way it was. I just added a very slight segue into the text. About the disambig, yours is great! I'm going to hold off on changing the links until the movie one is written, lest we end up with loads of red links. I would help with that article, but I haven't seen the movie... >_> -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 02:07, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Waah! now it's doing it on my screen! as you see, there's no way to code it so it's completely prevented. One rule we usually follow that you happen to have broken, is to stagger illustrations between the right side and the left side but never have them on both sides at the same depth into the page. But don't worry about it, because it will only screw up for new on someone else's screen. Spıke Ѧ 02:55 17-Mar-11

Oh, I see... Hmm. Well, I won't worry about it, then. I suppose the article is finished now!! Or at least 99% done. I'll take the liberty of removing the construction tag. Is there anything we can do to make this article Feature-worthy? -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 03:11, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
May I just say you guys have done a great job with the page. Infinitely better than the version I VFD'd. Jackofspades (talk) 03:17, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Hey, thanks Jack! I couldn't have done it without Spike's help. I really hadn't ever tried to write a full article before, so I'm very glad this turned out well. -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 01:23, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the companion article on the film is now done too. Spıke Ѧ 01:32 18-Mar-11

Yahoo! Thanks Spike! -- Tinypony Sir "TheSlyPony" Invariably certifiable. 06:01, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Personal tools