Forum:Does Uncyclopedia do satire?

Forums: Index > Village Dump > Does Uncyclopedia do satire?

Note: This topic has been unedited for 6207 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.

Does Uncyclopedia do satire? I think the answer's yes, but I would appreciate your comments on the request for a new "Anticyclopedia". The requester claims that Uncyclopedia is not satirical and that a separate wiki is needed. Do you agree? Angela 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We do satire like its never been done before. We cover a wide spectrum of comedic tastes, but a quick glance through our UnNews section will reveal a lot of satire aimed at current events. -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

The guy sounds bitter. Probably because I'm not a member of his cadre. If I didn't know myself I would be jealous of myself too. Or I wouldn't be... Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've looked into this person a bit - it was good that you flagged them actually because they've been vandalising some of the featured image templates to attribute images to themselves: Special:Contributions/Madmonkey24 -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 21:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

OMG. That's a ban, then. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, Uncyc does satire. Uncyc does what Madmonkey24don't. —rc (t) 20:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it too late to say "Yes, Uncyclopedia does satire"? It is? Oh. Carry on, then. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 20:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, different subject matters. Anticyclopedia would focus on history and literature. I would also browse the Uncyclopedia articles, there are a few very good examples, but most are simply inside Uncyclopedian jokes or randomness. I'm not dissing Uncyclopedia, I'm saying we need a different wiki for a different topic. --Madmonkey24 21:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hang on wait. Did I totally misinterpret "take a good look at Uncyclopedia. It is neither funny nor satirical, and Anticyclopedia is both." to be "dissing" Uncyclopedia? Cause to me that's what it looks like :/ —Braydie 21:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was dissing Uncyclopedia. It was me lashing out for no reason, and without any factual base. I was angry and acted stupidly. I think Uncyclopedia is funny, but different than the kind of satire I propose. --Madmonkey24 21:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, just to be on point, we have a lot of satire on literature and history, some of it very good, some of it, admittedly, very bad. But you're surely welcome to contribute here; God knows we'd appreciate funny historical/literary satire. Sir ENeGMA (talk) GUN WotM PLS 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What Braydie said. But with a *pout* at the end. Like this. *pout*. We have funny, and we have satire. You're pissing in our yard. It's gonna take a big bowl of candy for you to get on our good side. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Alright. You win. But you're gonna get flooded with historical satire, and I mean it! STARTING WITH THE WAR OF 1812!!!!! --Madmonkey24 21:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have historical satire, case in point, Byzantine Empire. --General Insineratehymn 22:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey! No whoring! You'll get Mhaille started, then STM will chime in, then I'll push whatever malodorous piece of trash I wrote recently. Madness! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 22:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Biggles? -- Sir Mhaille  (talk to me)

Three words. Video game wars. --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 05:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I'll think of something else. --Madmonkey24 21:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you think our site is like "LOL OSCAR WILDE, Jesus attacked Chuck NorriS! /b/ lol! LAZORZ LAZORZ LAZORZ!1!! Pieeeee!!!!1", then you're thinking of Encyclopedia Dramatica; except replace 'Oscar Wilde' with 'Goatse', and 'Lazorz' with 'Lulz'. --AAA! (AAAA) 22:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia's original mission was satire, and although it's veered a bit off course, it's my opinion that we are still the authoritative satire wiki.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If Anticyclopedia gets created - good luck keeping it on course. The only way to do that is to block all users who aren't literary masters. Which would probably leave you with about 0 users. Sir Cs1987 UOTM. t. c 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's only because you took the steering wheel. Which I still don't understand.. who gave tompkins the steering wheel!? —Braydie 06:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought it was one of those kiddy steering wheels at the time, and he just looked so adorable hitting at the horn with his chubby little fist. -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 07:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

...never could figure out why its cellphone had a cord. --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 13:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It connects me to the wall-socket network.   t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 23:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you do have chubby little fists. Adorable! --Sir Modusoperandi ^Boinc! 23:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I agree with Tompkins, kind of. Uncyc generally values non-satirical comedy more than non-comic satire (as we recall from previous discussions satire focuses on exposing human folly, and it is not required to be funny). That said, Uncyc does a pretty good job of allowing many kinds of writing to flourish. Given the nature of Wiki participation, I doubt it can be done much better. ----OEJ 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'm strongly opposed to satire and all things funny; such things should not be allowed on Uncyclopedia. After all, that's why we have VFD. --Sir gwax (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

ARE YOU FREAKIN SERIOUS

Uncyclopedia - whether this is satirical enough towards Wikipedia shouldn't be questioned. That's the joke, right? The joke is its the exact opposite of Wikipedia, and that satire enough, don't you think? --Deviousdan 23:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)