Uncyclopedia:VFH/Big Brother (UK television series)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Big Brother (UK television series) (history, logs)

Article: Big Brother (UK television series)

Score: -2.5 votes 2 win!!!

Nominated by: A miserable failure at PLS, but I've since tried to address the main issue there. I want to give this a go while Big Brother is still on the telly. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
For: 3
  1. Self-nom & for. -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  2. For two reasons: I sympathize with other PLS failures, and call me crazy, but we need another one of these article types featured. Captures and perfects the essence of text speak. --Littleboyonly TKFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK Oldmanonly 14:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Dig I've never seen the show, and I'm not from the country, but yet I still feel as if I know these people personally. Rather entertaining. --THINKER 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Against: 5.5
  1. This page made me barf. In my ass. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us
  2. Against. 21:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  3. Weak Against -RAHB 04:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  4. Against -- bad mannered Ape (adhere) (Riot Porn) 19:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  5. No, sorry. It's interesting, but a bit difficult to understand. --vyvyan 03:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  6. No and sorry You put a lot of work into it, but it doesn't work. Pieface 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Are the againsts just because of the use of text speak? Is it such a bad thing to use when writing in character? -- 15Mickey20 (talk to Mickey)  21:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mine isn't because of the text speak. I didn't find it particularly funny, and rather tasking to read through. -RAHB 22:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Mine is because of the text-speak. It makes the article very annoying. -- bad mannered Ape (adhere) (Riot Porn) 19:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of unconventional spelling and/or grammar is always problematic. As I see it the difficulty is with readability: the unconventional is mentally difficult to read and therefore people who expect to very quickly perceive the meaning of sentences and paragraphs become frustrated. It's not even a conscious thing, necessarily. Most successful literary works which use unconventional prose use it very judiciously -- for instance, "Jabberwocky" uses English for connecting words and the crucial "was-were" verbs, and the grammar follows conventional patterns of standard English. This piece has a tough row to hoe. ----OEJ 00:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Text-speak was invented to put a lot of information in a small space in a short time. You respected neither restriction, and that is why it does not work. Also, I agree with the remarkabout "unconventional" above. The reader just has to work so hard at "understanding" that there is no processing power left for humour. Read "A Clockwork Orange" for a master class in introducing unconventional language. Pieface 06:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


← Back to summary VFH
← Back to full VFH

Personal tools