Talk:Fisher Price

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 00:39, August 5, 2007 by Kip the Dip (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fisher Price 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
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on January 16, 2006.
The result of the discussion was Keep.
Bloink1 solid
This article was nominated for deletion on July 2, 2007.
The result of the discussion was Keep.

Wishful thinking ...

God, I wish I had thought of this. --JerryLewisOverdrive 00:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Feature. For reals.--Emmzee 14:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions: who added "penispenispenis," and is there some comedic reason behind it that I don't see or is it just vandalism? I don't remember it being mentioned on the retrospective page. --Wehpudicabok 05:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

VFD attempt 1

  • Delete --Nytrospawn 00:12, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, for obvious reasons. --Algorithm (talk) 00:14, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, but keep it on the down low. --KATIE!! 00:15, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Expand or Delete.--Rataube 00:16, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC) Keep, couse of Volte's retrospective. --Rataube 04:03, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, it's not hurting anything and the grammatical complexity of the sentence will make for a good article eventually. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 00:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Vapourize, or enlighten me.--Suresh 00:26, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Fisher Price: A Retrospective Expanded and kept at the same time. Brilliant! I rule this page kept. --KATIE!! 02:37, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Three for and three against is not sufficient to mark something kept. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 03:46, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete: Even after having the joke explained to me, I still think it's crap. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 03:47, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

(comment) - redirect to infants?--Suresh 05:37, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and Speedy keep as same name --Splaka 04:11, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but leave the vfd template. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 05:02, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Why are we even voting on this? Decimate! Although I appreciate the irony, it is far too short, far too juvenile on its own, and far too simple. --His Royal Majesty, Simulacrum Caputosis the Great 05:26, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Or else. Yea... ELSE. Tompkinssig Smallturtle t o m p k i n s  blah. ﺞوﻦ וףה ՃՄ ண்ஸ ފއހ วอฏม +տ trade websites 05:29, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP. This is much better than anything I've done, that's for sure. — — 2nd Lt. Sir Edward, the Weasel of Wild KUN VFH FP 16:18, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep With the analysis, this goes from deletable crap/vandalism to comedy gold.--Bradaphraser 23:12, 16 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • If this is to be kept, then it most be moved to a new name space, as Fisher Price is something entirely different --Nytrospawn 00:11, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Vote Witheld until someone can explain to me why a four-word page is keepable, especially when said four words are "go eat shit fuckers." --King In Yellow 17:16, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Im with King In Yellow - Is this discussion some kind of joke, or has the page been vandalised somehow (the history suggests this article always read "go eat shit fuckers.")? --Hpesoj 17:46, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Basically, a few of the admins like this article for some inexplicable reason and a short delete/undelete war took place and it ended up here. I don't see it as any more than vandalism but there are people voting to keep it and I'm pretty sure they're serious. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:02, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already voted, but just to be clear here, one of the biggest reasons I like Uncyclopedia is because it tries to maintain some semblance of quality and if we start keeping articles like this because we think they're somehow ironic (which they aren't) we will be no better than any other 13 year old infested forum on the internet. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 18:07, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Nobody likes this article by itself. The entire reason that so many of us are trying to keep it is because without it, the analysis (which, the article itself was written by me, was more or less a collaborative effort, or at least collaborative inspiration) cannot exist. Without this absurdly terrible article to contrast the overly verbose and formal retrospective, it loses all trace of irony and it becomes just another piece of shallow pseudo-enyclopedic humour about something that is entirely made up. And before anyone suggests it, putting the sentence on the same page as the analysis will not have the same effect. I will grant that the analysis isn't that good, but I think it more than makes up for allowing this out-of-the-way one-liner to exist. If this is deleted, the retrospective will be removed as well, or at least remanded to my own user space. Oh, and, I hate to say it, but to say that allowing one ridiculous one-liner that acts only as a catalyst for another, better-written article lowers us to the level of any other 13-year-old infested site on the internet is being extremely melodramatic. We all care about the quality of the site, and to imply that I/we don't because of this is rather insulting. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 19:06, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
      • That doesn't quite make sense because the retrospective was written in response to the article's exisence so it implies a decision to keep before it was written or even conceived. The retrospective might be funny but it does not justify the preservation of an article that should be about a toy company and contains "go eat shit fuckers" instead. Furthermore, I don't see what's so bad about keeping the retrospective and huffing Fisher Price. Link to the retrospective from Anonymous and structure it as an analytical essay on the work. Don't require the article, act as though anyone can walk down to the bookstore and pick up a copy; plenty of other people do that all the time (Moby-Dick at wikipedia for example). --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 19:29, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • The retrospective was written as a response to the article, and the article was kept because we were planning to write a retrospective. It's not a chicken-and-the-egg situation. As for your other points about Moby Dick: as it is, keeping Fisher Price and its retrospective separate is very similar to going to the bookstore to read Moby Dick (i.e. going to a separate page to read it). What some people are suggesting is putting the entire text of Moby Dick either within an analysis of the book, or within a biographical page about Herman Melville. Neither of these things would ever happen in a real situation, and that is why the Fisher Price article should be kept separate. This type of comedy, however absurd, is more funny if it maintains a more or less direct parallel to reality. If you want the article Fisher Price to be about the toy company, move the article in question to Fisher Price (literary work) and that particular problem is solved; it should be noted that Fisher Price is retroactively implied to be the title of the work and so it would still fit. I would even be open to disussion of changing the title of both the article and the retrospective to something totally different, since that really has nothing to do with anything aside from being a small piece of non-sequitur humour. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 19:52, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • I've read some fantastically good works of fiction that referenced other works that don't exist and pulled it off quite well (House of Leaves for example). --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:17, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Ooh, you could quote different segments of one or two words (maybe three but probably not) and never actually include the entire text, that would make for a fantastically cryptic and obfuscated presentation method. (I'm thinking about this too much, aren't I?) --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:20, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
              • The problem is that the article doesn't have much content to reference (ok, it has no content) so doing that wouldn't really work. If it were an allusion it may work, but as a direct reference I don't see any way to do it (mind you, I've never read House of Leaves). --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 21:44, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
        • But without the original article there is no point to the retrospective, and without the retrospective there is no point to the original article. The retrospective isn't funny unless you know about the article that spawned it, it would just become a clever analysis of a random sentence, which wouldn't really belong on uncyclopedia. If there is a problem with it being under the title "Fisher Price", then change it, as Volte said to "Fisher Price: Literary Work" --Hpesoj 19:40, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
          • The problem is less about the location and more about the existence. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 21:17, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
            • Context is the key. This is a rather thin comparison, but I'm reminded of the countless discussions I have seen about racial epithets such as "nigger" - there are always two camps; one side says the word is always offensive and should never be used ever, and the other side says the word is not inherently offensive and the offensiveness is in how you use it. I feel that this article, although created as a mindless graffito, has been transformed into something which merits existence simply by its context and association. On the other hand, it seems you feel that such an article should never exist in any context simply because it is what it is -- four words long, much like the people who feel that "nigger" is never to be used even in a non-racial context. In my opinion, as long as the context of the article is made clear by whatever method is necessary, it stands apart from all other articles of the same quality. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 21:44, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Having now read the analysis, this is still pants. Maybe the analysis is quite clever, but the sentence is hardly. There are many sentences which could be interpreted in multiple ways, and certainly to have just those four words under a seemingly un-related title of "Fisher Price" is stupid (unless anyone wants to explain). The article could be regarded as clever, but not funny. I say either re-name it, or delete it and leave the retrospective. --Hpesoj 18:46, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC) SAVE - Volte, I get it now, at first I thought the writer of the Retrospective posted the "main" article. Vote changed.
  • Delete - It is with a heavy heart that I vote to delete this article. While I chuckled at the war it started, and a bit at the retrospective, the reality is that the article is crap and should be huffed mercilessly. Strong Rad 18:51, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Thank you all for your views and reasonings, which have been quite edifying. I believe that I now understand why this isn't on my QVFD list. Being an Literature scholar myself, I thought the analysis was an absolute scream. Kudos to Volte for this bit of genius. However, I feel that allowing the Fisher Price article to stand as is will only result in its repeated nomination for VFD or QVFD, as many readers who stumble across it will automatically assume that it's either been vandalized (which seems to be the case anyway,) or the work of a colossal Asshat, and won't bother clicking on the link to the real humor. I know I didn't, and I almost QVFD'd it until I saw the VFD template and ambled over here to see what the rumpus was. Therefore, I vote to Merge the "article" with the retrospective. While the Moby Dick analogy would indeed work with a longer "piece of narrative prose," in this case it's truly moot, as four words are easy enough to reprint and doing so would only add to the humor of the retrospective (provided they are implemented in the form of a literary preamble or introduction, in an appropriately worshipful, reverent tone.) Failing this, I see no alternative but to Euthanize it, and remember it fondly. --King In Yellow 20:28, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • I believe some sort of faux template at the bottom could solve the issue with people VFD'ing it (something somewhat funny that still indicates that the article, as it is, is an exception to a very important rule and should not be repeated or deleted). As for the Moby Dick analogy not applying because of the length, I think that adds to the absurdity of the whole thing. It treats the four-word sentence as though it is a novel. It is not an analysis of a four-word sentence, it is an analysis of a four-word epic. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 21:05, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Would not changing the article title be effective in preventing a re-occurance of this VFD? If that wouldn't do the job then somehow emphasising its link with the retrospective would surely work? Or failing that, actually add something to the page that says explicitly "Don't vote for deletion", or something that implies that fairly clearly anyway. Merging would not work, as the comedy value comes from the fact that the article was actually the work of some spammer, sure you could point out that the sentence previously had it's own article, but I don't think that would have the same effect. --Hpesoj 20:49, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think the fact that this article was User's only contribution to Uncyclopedia should hold some weight in the matter, because it changes the context of "go eat shit fuckers" slighty, but enough so that I think it merits deletion. The only thing that makes the article funny is the heading it's been put under, but the fact that "Fisher Price" could just as easily be substituted with a good number of other things (and the fact that this substitution would not change the hilarity/lack thereof of this article) suggests that the article is not substantive enough to defend itself and therefore earn preservation. Also it is teh suck. --Skyscraper 20:37, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)
    • Again, the article itself has no intrinsic comedy value. Not even the heading. The article itself has no reason within itself to remain. I only request it be kept as a catalyst to make the retrospective page a little deeper. See above for reasons why I feel it is necessary for it to remain in its current state. --Sir Volte KUN Talk (+S NS CM Bur. VFP VFH) 21:19, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

KEEP - Without it, the other artlicle doesn't have its funniness. Life needs ridiculous things that make no sense to laugh at, like the Detroit Lions, or Urkel. Jlove1982 22:20, 17 Jan 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment: Any article that arises such a long and intreting controversy should be kept. The controversy itself makes it worthy, almost as much as volte´s article does. Add this to its disscusion page. --Rataube 01:09, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Humor is highly subjective, and no matter how cleverly you argue your point, the current tally is (forgive my dubious counting skills) seven deletes to twelve keeps, which, unless there's some huge upset, means the page stays. Y'all can quit your bitchin' now. --Gay4Gay5S P I N N I EGay5Gay4 01:45, 18 Jan 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP THIS This is the most intelligently put-together article i have ever read. Uncyclopedia needs more articles like Fisher Price. A quadruple Plus. --User:Anidnmeno/sig 15:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. I was hitting random articles, reading, then "fisher price" shows up, My mind instantly thinks of childrens toys and young children...then I read the sentence and I laughed.
  • Keep. It's the articles like these that make Uncyclopedia like it is: a completely unpredicatable mess. --Gubby 23:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. We get about 100 of these kinds of articles every day, can't we keep just one? Mr. Briggs Inc. 00:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Eh?
  • Delete - The retrospective may be funny, but the article itself isn't. As long as the retrospective quotes the entire work (as it does) and talks about it in the past tense, then it can keep its humour. One of Uncylopedia's rules is to be funny and not just stupid. The retrospective achieves this, but this article does not. Psycho_11 15:22, 20 May 2007

MOVE to UnBooks. I mean, come on.


Sorry to destroy this great discussion, but I find this hilarious for about a lot of reasons.

  1. The entire thing is "go eat shit fuckers", and that's just goofy.
  2. The retrospective is hilarious and/or awesome
  3. People actually find ways to vandalise "go eat shit fuckers"
  4. And finally, the Euroipods Factor. To read detailed and heartfelt arguments about "go eat shit fuckers" is just a riot...
I would've supported Euroipods if it had such a witty analysis and retrospective. --User:Nintendorulez 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I tough the entire thing being "go eat shit fuckers" was a vandal. I almost reverted it.--The4sword 02:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I find it hilarious that this page (at the time of this writing) has a score of 13. Undoubtably the only page on the site with a higher score than word count. User:Wehpudicabok/sig 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


Why exactly hasn't this been protected? Otherone 09:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that would go against one of Uncyclopedia's stated goals. --Sir Zombiebaron 23:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Which one, exactly? To be funny and not just stupid? Otherone 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a truly marvelous explanation of this article which this discussion is too narrow to contain. Format 23:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I did it.

I am --Lstarnes 23:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You are a literary genius! We all love you! --Crazyswordsman...With SAVINGS!!!! (T/C) 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm skeptical. Something gives me the feeling that he's lying. --General Insineratehymn 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Insineratehymn. If you read his page, he apparently spent 2 hours deciding how to vandalise the article he'd just created, and finally came up with "go eat shit fuckers." This doesn't sound realistic. --Ye Olde Luke 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


Why was this not deleted?This SHOULD have been routine QVFD fodder, and instead of being zapped within its first ten minutes, Uncyc starts worshipping it as if it were Oscar Wilde. Just my 2 cents. Jedibob5 18:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That very question has kept me up many nights. Believe me, I have given Fisher Price a lot of thought. If I may, let me just take a moment to answer your question by giving my thesis on my favorite Uncyclopedia In-joke.
Uncyclopedia probally gets newly made nonsensical articles everyday that are huffed right there on the spot. Examples would be creating the Pamela Anderson article saying "omg her boobs are HUGE!! I sooooo want to stick it to her!!!1", or creating This page does not exist saying "it does now you fags". Everyone of these vandalizms are very typical in nature.
However, there seems to be something unique about Fisher Price. Why would someone create an article named Fisher Price of all things and just write "go eat shit fuckers"? Was this person frustrated at the Fisher-Price company? Perhaps they just wanted to write flat-out slander and humorously give it the title of an innocent toy campany as a form of irony? One could also view this page as a parody of vandalism, that it was infact a legitamite article about Fisher-Price, but was vandalized the last time it was edited. As you can see, the possibilities are intriging. I believe that is why this wasn't huffed immediately.
(Note: Another amusing piece of irony was that this article itself had been vandalized numerous times. As someone above stated, it's very funny that people would vandalize "go eat shit fuckers")
Along with the original page came the spin-off article written shortly after: Fisher Price: A Retrospective. Written as an essay in an intellectual tone, it portrays Fisher Price as a grand peice of literature created by a genius anonymous author (IP User: It then uses plays on words and gives various ways that "go eat shit fuckers" could be interpretted. (Come on, how funny is that?) This well written piece of satire is what one would expect from Uncyclopedia. Like all truely great articles, this one became featured. It was probally written as an attempt to keep the original page from being deleted. Obviously, it worked. You can't delete a featured article, and if you keep it you have to keep Fisher Price. That is why to this day Fisher Price lives on in glory. -- Kip > Talk Works Puzzle Potato Dry Brush CUN Icons-flag-us
Personal tools