Forum:Should we list towncruft as vanity?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Should we list towncruft as vanity?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 4492 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Cuz no one cares about your stupid town, amrite?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 09:39, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, but isn't towncruft punishable anyway? I don't know, I can think of a lot of problems that would come up. EpicAwesomeness (talk) 09:41, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

They aren't. It's time for a great purge.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 09:43, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

If an article's content sucks, then fix it or get rid of it. If it doesn't, then keep it. The actual topic is meaningless. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 09:45, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

People like looking up their own towns. As long as it's not slagging individuals off then what's the problem? mAttlobster. (hello) 09:48, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Because nobody knows (or cares) about them and it's obscure. It's the closest thing to vanity.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 10:41, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't vanity so end of conversation I guess. mAttlobster. (hello) 13:34, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

But what if I am a town, and I'm awesome? Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 06:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

That's vanity. If it is famous it's not vanity. it doesen't care if you are awesome or not.--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 06:30, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

But it isn't vanity. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 06:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

And I am famous. I mean, everybody I know has heard of me. I'm Snooki and Paris Hilton and that nice girl from Mean Girls who gets drunk all the time combined. My full-length mirrors have their own full-length mirrors, just so that they can see the looks on their faces as they look at me looking at me. I've been on the frontpage of boingboing, which is like here, except that people know what it is when you mention it to them. If that isn't the kind of non-fleeting, permanent fame that lasts forever and never dies no matter how few people know about it or how quickly it's forgotten by them, even as I try to drag them back, pulling and tugging on the frayed and ephemeral thread of fame, to the faded light of my misremembered and idealized past, in desperation shouting hoarsely and wearily at them "Damn you for looking away! I'm somebody!", I don't know what is. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:09, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yes we should. Nobody gives a fuck. And it attracts IPs to go "HURR, JOSH IS A MASSIVE FAGGOT THAT LIVES IN X, FAG FAG FAG" ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:32, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, Josh is a massive faggot that lives in X. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 08:06, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Who is Josh? You?--WELCOME TO UNCYCLOPEDIA HELL!!!! 08:08, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

VOAT BELOW

should we huff all articles about obscure towns?

Score: -5

•  For. Nobody gives a shit. plus, they are excellent vandal magnets. – Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr-ex777 (talk • contribs)
•  Only if it is obscure towns, and they fail ~Sir Frosty (Talk to me!) 07:53, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Obvious no. First, this isn't a rampant problem. It isn't even a problem. Second, people who will spam and call people faggots will do that anyway without even needing to talk about their town. Third, we just ban those people and move on. Fourth, no. -- T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​UU​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 08:13, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Against Mr=ex77777 is taking part in the Uncyclopedic tradition of tackling a problem that doesn't exist. mAttlobster. (hello) 10:17, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Very Against. Our encyclopedic (Wikipedia) tone means we should have as much towncruft as possible. Also no way to demarcate actual vanity and just someting that someone here has not heard of...--Sycamore (Talk) 10:20, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN NEIN! |Si Plebius Dato' Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:04, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. The obsession with deleting the wiki is limitless! Mattsnow 11:08, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
• Probably not. They are either real or imagined things, and we report on everything real or imagined. I know someone who lives in Whoville. Would you huff that article? Aleister 12:44 4-1-'12
• Against. Uncyclopedia should be nothing but towncruft. Towncruft is the future of comedy. Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 19:07, January 4, 2012 (UTC)
•  Against. No. We only report on everything that's real. DJ Mixerr 22:33, January 4, 2012 (UTC) User:DJ Mixerr/sig
• WHAT THE HELL? FOR THE LOVE OF GOD NO!!!!!!!!!!!! Only delete them if they are stupid/not funny/ugly. This policy will just give people who like deleting stuff more opportunities to get stuff deleted. Just imagine if no one could write an article about themselves, their science teachers AND their shitty smelly trashy boring village? You gotta give the mass something to hope for. --ShabiDOO 07:10, January 6, 2012 (UTC)