For. We need some in-joke pages like this to draw in the good new writers, who will then see the flashing ads on their user pages and leave, but hey, at least we drew them in. Well written, well illustrated, and funny. What more is needed? Aleister 11:34 22 10
For. I'd love to know which genius came up with the original concept and had the initiative to place it on the Requested Articles list. --Matfen 19:27, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
For i dont need to no who these userz are itz funny vote for and wat do u mean romartus its 'injokery' its funny noob!18.104.22.168 00:36, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
For. I wasn't going to vote for the TAW winners since I was involved in organizing the competition. But since I didn't personally judge the articles, and two winners have already been featured, I thought it would probably be alright in this case. I've left a comment below for anyone who cares to read it. MadMax 02:03, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
Against. I just don't like it. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101021 - 19:21 (UTC) 19:21, October 21, 2010 (UTC)
Against. Amusing, but not featurable. pillow talk 21:21, October 28, 2010 (UTC)
HOLD ON A SECOND. Let me just pose this conundrum to you. The Article Whisperer competition was "intended for the creation of potential FA-level articles." So what was the point of having an Uncyclopedia-related category if anything submitted for it would automatically be shot down due to being "injokey". This I ask you. --Matfen 11:51, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
I just don't like it. It's mean and crude. I don't like mean and crude. EOF. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101024 - 14:29 (UTC)
Then I recommend you never watch Glengarry Glen Ross, of which the entire article monologue was ripped wholesale. --Matfen 16:23, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
Glengarry Glen Ross is a great movie. Users voting against things on the basis that they are in-jokes is a personal decision. There is no rule (or guideline) anywhere that says that we cannot featurein-jokes. Users are allowed to vote however they want. -- BrigadierGeneralSirZombiebaron 23:18, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
I have always voted against any article which to me says 'hey this is a private party, only members are invited'. Ok as a general article but not a front page feature. BTW Lyrithya, Glengarry Glen Ross is a great movie, at least I can agree with ZB on that. --RomArtus*Imperator ® (Orate) 07:07, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
Rommy, darling, plenty of things are great in some ways. Doesn't mean I have to like them. ~*shifty eyes* (talk) (stalk) -- 20101028 - 21:24 (UTC)
Just my two cents. Does Matfen's article really qualify as an in-joke? Afterall, it hasn't really been around enough to become established as one. Sure there's one or two names dropped in the beginning but, in my opinion, it's more of a self-reference than anything else. I think there's a distinction between in-jokes and self-referential humor, and in this case, there might be confusion between the two.
The article is in essence, as Matfen pointed out, a parody of Alec Baldwin's award-winning speech in Glengarry Glen Ross. I think it's a clever essay parodying the recent issues between Wikia and Uncyclopedia that appeals to editors and readers alike. I'm actually surprised more people haven't voted on this article. Maybe the profanity could be toned down a bit, and could turn off someone unfamiliar with the film (as Lyrithya pointed out), but that's more of a matter of taste.
I think it'd be a shame not to feature a page simply because its an in-joke or if it happens to be in the Uncyclopedia-namespace. Obviously featuring in-jokes shouldn't be a regular thing but if it's legitimately funny and appeals to a general audience, shouldn't it be given the same chance as a "regular" article? Of course, I don't think this particular article is an in-joke but that's just my opinion. MadMax 02:03, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
The nomination was not successful. rm low health, 27%ChiefjusticeGameCube This article did not pass VFH and was removed on 18:23, October 31, 2010 (UTC). This page is now archived; do not edit it, it will have no effect.