For. Kinda looks like it belongs in UnScripts, but still funny. -- Meta 500 02:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Against: 1
Sorry Man Hate to be the only Against voter, and I do think it's an excellently written article, but for some reason, it just doesn't make me laugh. It just seems too... ehh...--Smokin'Cheddar BBQ: TheKing of theTriangularSnackfoods 22:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Comments
Abstain. Reluctant abstain but I think it needs a few illustrations .--Romartus 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Part of the satire of the article is that it's written in the form of a raw script, which is purely text and descriptions of visualizations. -RAHB 16:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes I can see that - my abstention on the grounds of 'Format interpretation' only.--Romartus 06:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
In relation to Romartus' comment, it may be possible to add a few 'hidden images' (animations which appear blank most of the time) in the background. It would conserve the present state of the article. Though it'd take a hell of a job to make such images. —SirSocky(talk)(stalk)GUNSotMUotMPMotMUotYPotMWotM 12:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
There are "hidden images" there already. -RAHB 05:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Featured. ~ 07:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC) This article has passed VFH and was featured on 15 April 2009. This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.
Note: the queue slot won't be properly filled until the {{FA}} code (with correct date) is on the article. Just follow the instructions if you're unsure.