Forum:Is this a children's site?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Is this a children's site?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6290 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Ok how can I put this a lot of uncyclopedia's "content" is.......silly at best. I don't even mean that it's random (in a good way I just think it's silly and not funny 60% of the time. Honestly urging all editors be more in your face, take the atheistic view do whatever just as long as it's funny.

--Wanna touch my scrotum? WITE BOI!!! 20:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, this is a children's site. We aim towards the 4 year old demographic, but sometimes go so low as to appeal to 6 year olds. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Uncle Zombi, cana tawk with diz stranger? He scari! -- herr doktor needsAcorpse  [scream!] 20:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Did someone call me? --Señor DiZtheGreat  CUN AOTM ( Worship me!) (Praise me!) (Join me!) AMEN! 23:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aw, dang! Someone totally stole my Pokemon! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course this is a children's site. How can you go wrong with family-friendly articles such as Fisher Price? --General Insineratehymn 22:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I say this user is right - we should stop pandering to the kids and be a real site for adults. To that end, I propose we all start saying "Penis" in articles at every available opportunity. That'll show 'em. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 22:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We should also start writing ASCII penises as well. --General Insineratehymn 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC) PS. 8===============================D

What we need is to restrict IPs from editing and force them to register. 90.0172% of our crap comes from IPs. Just a thought. Registration intimidates a lot of people. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 22:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No. That's what ED does. We are NOT like ED. --General Insineratehymn 22:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

mehhhhhh ED's alright even so how would forcing users to register be so bad. --68.38.69.72 22:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

No, ED is NOT alright. How can you say that ED is alright?! --General Insineratehymn 23:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL, it is quite amusing how y'all invariably bring up ED in every discussion like this. I don't know why Uncyclopedians care so much about what ED does or does not do, or how they roll or whatever-144.131.8.202 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

woops --Wanna touch my scrotum? WITE BOI!!! 22:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd put 60%-not-very-funny as a bit low. Back in 1958 Ted Sturgeon claimed that 90% of everything is crap, and he was specifically speaking of published writing -- there was no Intarweb community of amateur writers because there was no Intarweb at the time. Uncyc is written by amateurs without the help of professional editors. What are the odds that it beats Sturgeon's Revelation? Slim to none. If Uncyc is producing 40% funny material and only 60% crap then it is beating Hollywood, standup comedians, and Tony Snow too. I just don't think that's the case. For a Wiki humor site Uncyc is excellent; what I've read on ED is much worse. But as far as parody websites go Landover Baptist is better and The Onion has better consistency. But those sites are semi-pro; they followeth not the Wiki paradigm. For what it is Uncyc is pretty good. ----OEJ 23:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

We kick Sturgeon's Revelation's ass! /me smashes beer can on forehead. Wooo! /me sets trailer home on fire. Rock 'n Roll! /me pops Ted Nugent into 8-track. Take that, Ted Sturgeon! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 00:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, being more "in your face," as this somewhat unpleasantly nicknamed IP suggests, is not nearly as funny as many people believe. It may provide laughs (or "lulz") to some of the internet community, but writing in a manner designed to offend or ruffle feathers is not actually amusing in and of itself. Writers like Maddox make some of us laugh because they say what they want to say in a blunt, unrestricted way; this makes us laugh at the thought of other people getting their knickers in a twist over something that is completely harmless. We think "Ha! It's true!" and then feel all superior because we "get it" without getting mad. ED users in particular get their chuckles from the interaction that occurs because of their abrupt, often offensive, style. If I'm not mistaken, the reason behind taking the "atheistic view," as this IP also suggests, is to offend some thin-skinned religious person so they will start ranting and then everyone gets together and laughs their asses off while flaming the person who got offended. The Great Aspie War of Ought Six and Talk:Euroipods are examples of what ED and its fans do all the time, while on Uncyclopedia these things are rare events. As you can see, the focus is no longer on the articles anymore, but on the activity that happens because of them. At Uncyclopedia (correct me if I am wrong) the whole point is to make the article itself funny. --»The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 01:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The original post is not very well-written. I am still unclear on what he meant to say. Certainly an argument could be made for admins to be more rigorous in enforcing aesthetic values...but atheistic? That might be appropriate for a religion-oriented site, but it seems a non sequitur when advocated for a general-parody site. It's humorous -- one who complains about poor writing should at least be able to write well. Otherwise his credibility goes glurk, glurk, glurk down the drain. ----OEJ 02:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I could have sworn he meant aesthetic the first time I read it, but it does indeed say atheistic. Just for shits and giggles, I pretended that he or she (okay, "he") actually meant something significant, and went into a rambling analysis of it; I assumed that he was a self-righteous "atheist" who gets kicks from making fun of religious people, especially Christians. Probably can't write worth beans, either. I propose that we ignore his proposal completely. --»The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 06:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a childrens. -- §. | WotM | PLS | T | C | A 02:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Somebody think of the childrens, why oh why did we choose to have Michael Jackson as a babysitter? Was it because he offered to watch the children for free? Was it because he wanted to take care of them in his multi-million dollar Neverland mansion which looks like a fun and safe environment? Was it because since he is the King (or Queen) of Pop that he could teach our childrens how to dance and sing? Maybe it was because mommy and daddy got tired of the little hellions and the only person on the planet who had an interest in watching them was Wacko Jacko? But Michael Jackson has that look, like a cute space alien, so how can you stay mad at him? If Uncyclopedia is written for childrens, then Michael Jackson is the best babysitter in the world, nay, the universe! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 03:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If this were a children's site, most of us here would have an erection right now. - Prof. Ahh(to the)Diddums^{[FUCK-A-DOODLE-DOO!]} 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying things like that on the forums? Good God, man! This is a children's site! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 02:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh noes! The damage have already been done to the childrens. Quick somebody get a child psychologist to help the childrens! --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 04:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Should we urge all editors to have a more "in your face, take the atheistic view do whatever just as long as it's funny" attitude?

Score: -2 +1(Y/N)

• No --General Insineratehymn 06:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Comment. Only if it's Xtreme!! and to the maXX!!.--Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, and if we ever do, I will eat my hat. --»The Acceptable Cainad (Fnord) 07:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Y/N, because I don't understand the question, but I like stuff that is in my face. --Brigadier General Sir Zombiebaron 07:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Penis. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 10:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yeah, but I can't think of how we could effectively get the message across. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 16:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• No, just because I've never met someone who took an atheistic view in order to get a few laughs. Love:M.D--Dr. Love 01:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• No The Atheistic view is not as funny as the Christian fundamentalist view, editors already have an in your face style as well as post anything as long as it is funny. Christian fundamentalists practically make their own jokes at themselves at their own expense by following the fundamental version of Christianity anyway so they basically write their own material. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• Negative Penis --Alksub - VFH CM WA RV {talk} 07:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• half-for. strike the in your face take the ateistic view, but the do whatever just as long as it's funny seems quite sound - jack mort | cunt | talk - 14:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• WTF. Man, if all of our anti-Islam, anti-Christianity, anti-Judaism, anti-Whatever jokes are not "atheistic" enough, what would be? Yelling: "MORONS!" with caps at the beginning of the article? Gross jokes are not synonym of "adult content". In fact, acting that way is more likely to pimple-rigged teenager attitude. Becoming an adult is learning the tortuous ways of subtleness and irony. Now you ladies and gentlemen please let this ED reject talk to the walls. -- herr doktor needsAcorpse  [scream!] 14:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
• I would like to see these morons with capes --Nytrospawn 21:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you can see these morons in capes.

I am always glad to meet the requests. Here are some Fundamentalist Christians in capes that often find offense to articles here written about them or their religion, and a lot of people think that they are morons. --Lt. Sir Orion Blastar (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)