From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Well a certain Fag and myself have recently given this page a bit of an overhaul. Hopefully we took the best ideas of the article as it stood previously and improved on it it a little. In my view before we started messing with it, this article was obviously written by a gay person. Not that this was a bad thing, but it was rather a magnet for vandals, and did not really represent an accurate reflection of the word Gay as used in society...
Fag and me have tried to rewrite this in such a way that the reader can not tell if it's taking the piss out of gays people, or gay haters. It is (we hope) also a rather searing attack on organised religion and the pomposity of people who believe that being gay is wrong.
Part of the idea is to confuse vandals when they come to this page. Do they blank the page or do they add to it because it's attacking gays? Hopefully it's somewhat funny because it's making fun of the vandals themselves.
I (MrN) hope that this article can be VFH one day, but I do feel that it lacks humour, it's more factual really, perhaps too much so, but I'm not sure how the message can be transmitted without so much fact. Obviously any ideas to help with the giggle factor would be greatly appreciated...
Also. Check out the box at the top, and the link to the sub page from this box. I hope you can tell what the idea is here. Any comments about this are very welcome.
If anyone is particularly religiously inclined and is offended by this article I apologise. The intention is more to poke fun, rather than to directly insult.
is being reviewed by
Your Source for Fine Scented Pee
And Whatever Else Comes Out Of Him
FINE! I GET IT ALREADY! WWHHHOOOOOOREE • <-> (Dec 20 / 00:15)
|Humour:||6.4||Avg of each... oh dear god.
Ooh thanks for that hideous template at the top! Trim that down, for one thing. Oh great, this is going to be a list of gay jokes? I like the quotes. Believe it or not, when you posted this on my talk page, I was too distracted to look at it. Minus a point for the ugly ass template.
Nice! I was bordering on 8, but it's basically just a list!
It's fine, probably necessary.
I don't know if this is necessary. No LOLZ here.
Yeah, cool. Condoms are lame.
It's just a list, and not a very interesting one, either.
an even shorter list! Aren't you the co-author of UN:PRG?
What the F is Brixton? / I... don't get it?
Lemons? What the hell are you talking about? Oh, I remember the heyday of this article, back in section 2.1, when you discussed the history of gayness.
|Concept:||7||This concept is both okay and necessary for Uncyc. Here's the problem with this article: It's just about... gayness. As far as making fun of gay people goes, it did okay. It was way more tame than I thought it would be, however. Where's the section on famous gay people? Common gay occupations? What the world would be like if it was gay? The future of gayness? Come on guys, there's a million of them that you haven't tried yet.|
|Prose and formatting:||9||Way above average.|
|Images:||6||They're okay. I didn't get the "gay religion" or the "lemons" one at all, though.|
|Miscellaneous:||7.1||I threw a totally random number up here.|
|Final Score:||35.5||very slightly above average. I agree with this score very much so. This article isn't nearly in depth enough (see Concept score), and it goes too deep in other places (and makes them lists or British Humooouuuuuuuuuuur). The most important part of this review is the concept score. You need to look for more inspiration if you want VFH. I come from a town where a lesbian couple was suspended for kissing in public. You guys could be way more insulting! :D|
|Reviewer:||• <-> (Dec 20 / 01:17)|
Well I will let Fag chip in his comments latter... Did you follow the Gay People & Current Sexual Status cajek? You get the idea with it I'm sure, we are trying to confuse the hell out of the vandals really. The template can be improved? Shortened? How? Any suggestions? Get rid of any unnecessary bits on that template at the top. Don't worry about vandals: they will find this article. You have to protect it from them by watching it. They won't read that damn template! - Some do! I have had quite a few people vandalise the sub page, and leave the main page intact! Obviously, this choice is up to you: are you gonna focus on the vandals or the readers? Either one makes sense, really. It would be best if worked for both I guess.
You don't like the Hippies bit eh? Hmm, will see what can be done about that...
Can I bum a Fag off you Mate? That's legacy stuff from previous versions... You should have seen what it was like before if you don't like it now! I didn't go through the history of the article. I never bothered to look at it until now!
Brixton Well, you will have to talk to Fag about that. It's a place in the UK which has had some troubles lately. Yeah, well, nobody cares. Or at least, I don't. And I reviewed it... so I should know...
Oh, I remember the heyday of this article - You mean it used to be better? When? Guess I will have to look through the history... This page has been hacked to pieces loads of times. The heyday of this article was that quote about the dinosaurs.
You guys don't know what lemons are? A lemon is a lesbian. Dam, what do you use for insults over there... And calling people lemons is a good insult? Pffft.
Some of the "lists" are legacy stuff left over from previous versions, I/we did not want to remove them cos they are kinda 'traditional' for this page I/we thought. Nothing is traditional when it comes to non-featured pages. Get rid of it or make it a paragraph!
The "gay religion" picture is legacy. I will scrub it if Fag has no objections...
I think we were trying to make this article more about the actual word Gay, rather than making this a general discussion on homosexuality, but I guess it's going in that direction. You think this should go in that direction cajek? Maybe it needs a "What it's like to be gay" section, I wonder who could write that... As well as a "How to be a queer basher section" :) This really should be a discussion of gay-ness, not just the word. It's more interesting that way. The Speculation about gays that seems to Be True: Again basically another legacy thing left over from a previous version.
Obviously we need to work on the images... Come on FAG! Help out!
Actually, I'm formally asking permission from Mr Fag to write a "taking the piss a bit more out of gays" section. We need it. There has to be some mention of the things which straight people don't like about gay people, and cajek is right. We are missing that. Maybe you need to do a really pro gay section fag, and I can do a "why gays are nasty" section? Whatdoya think? MrN 02:12, Dec 20 The article might be best done as sarcastically anti-gay. SARCASTICALLY anti-gay.
- Sorry, just showed up and had to comment. P-Town's that way! *points, then sighs at his own MAisms* - 02:44, Dec 20