From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the ECHELON article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about what you did last night. We have the Village Dump for things like that.
For a listing of unused images related to this topic, please see the image subpage.

Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on April 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was 'Keep'.

Brief Explanation[edit]

Attempt to explain joke: Echelon is a defense network designed to intercept terrorist messages in phones calls. The author is messing up this system by inserting words that would indicate a security threat (e.g. bomb) into ordinary conversation. This is very, very humourous. -- - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 23:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I can't vote on pages -- I assume I am too new -- so I'm voicing my opinion here. Keep. Also, maybe placing it into the "Things That Look Like What They're Talking About" category would help clarify and bring topic understanding. (See improvement heading for a couple of suggestions.) --Aredvark 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Improvement[edit]

This is amusing, but I think to save it from deletion, a few things can be done.

  • Put the template that explains that if you don't know what it's talking about, you won't get it. (I'll find the template link upon request).
  • Put it in the "Things that Look Like What They're Talking About" category to further garner understanding.
  • Put See Also links. You could make it interesting, like links to puppies, kittens, ponies, candy, and then include a couple of links to pages like Bin Laden and terrorist efforts.

As a last resort, you could try explaining it in the article, but it would lose a lot of the humour with that method (unless, of course, someone can EXECUTE it well.) If this were to be done, I think that including an EXPLOSION! of VICIOUS synonyms to otherwise proper words could still have the wanted effect. Achieving that would be da BOMB!

Those are my suggestions. I'd like to hear others. --Aredvark 00:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

We could escalate it by making the trigger words less and less related to the conversation toward the end. Might make it clearer what's going on. - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 08:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the delayed response. Anyway, I like that idea a lot. The stuff you added to the top is great, so I think we can completely rewrite this and make it much better. I suggest posting rewrites in the talk page, though, until we've got a complete do-over. That way, the history page of the main article is less messy.

What do you think? --Aredvark 02:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No, we should work on it in the article. Editing it on the talk page needlessly circumvents attribution of edits, which is what the history page is designed to do. I'm kind of out of bad puns though. :-) -- - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 03:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The history is useless, though, if it's overrun with incomplete editations. That's what these are. They hold no bearing to the big paragraph below (aka the original article), but removing the paragraph below would just make a short and incomplete article. So it gets stuck.

I might reformat the original article to match, but it doesn't flow with the regular article, either. Thus my suggestion to work on the article elsewhere. I'll do what I can, though. Just after this week (exams). --Aredvark 18:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Bold to Link?[edit]

Perhaps the bolding should be changed to links? I'm too lazy to do it now.