Talk:Actual Criminal (5e Background)

This is drop-dead hilarious. An excellent review of the criminal background. Are we allowed to nominate april fools pages for featured article status? --Kydo (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2018 (MST)

Absolutely! Quincy (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2018 (MST)

Somebody has a serious issue to grind...and not just against the Criminal background. (3:25 PM, 11/10/19, CDST)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article did not become a featured article. 20:42, 13 December 2018 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Ok, maybe I'm jumping the gun out of excitement, since it doesn't have a picture yet, but hear me out: I'll draw one for it within the next seven days.

As for the article itself, maybe I'm reading more into it than was intended, but this thing is an excellent work of deconstructionist satire. I had just finished going over the background design guide before reading this, and was floored by the juxtaposition. All that snobby prattling-on I did about how content should encourage cooperation and such, and then this guy goes and underlines how every single part of a core rules background can be corrupted by irresponsible play. Needless to say, I was on the floor in tears. This exemplifies the best of what the April fools tag has to offer. More than just funny, it's smart. --Kydo (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2018 (MST)

• Support: Hilarious, clever, and topical. Need I say more? Quincy (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2018 (MST)

• Oppose: I don't see the humor. The official Criminal background is a great background. This doesn't really give flavor but just asks a bunch of questions? and has an attempt at being comical with the characteristics. If it weren't April Fool's I'd prefer to stub it for being so lackluster. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:40, 18 December 2018 (MST)

• Oppose: I agree that this comes off as incomplete. The questions make the reader not want to engage with the page, and there are multiple parts which make me wonder "was this not finished, or is it trying to be funny?" April Fools pages should not make me have to think about the page's humor, and a featured article should not have to make me think about what the page should actually be. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2019 (MST)

• Neutral: This is definitely a tough call for me. I definitely agree with Green Dragon's points, but the humor is really smart and funny. I think I'm gonna be neutral on this one. --EpicBoss99 (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2019 (MST)

• Oppose: While I do find this page funny, I don't think it's of the quality one would usually expect from a featured article. I could maybe see this page becoming a QA at some point? — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:46, 19 February 2019 (MST)

• Oppose. This isn't the page I would want to see representing the wiki on its front page. Marasmusine (talk) 06:47, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Whack! You've been slapped around a bit with a large trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.