Talk:Penis

I don't think we should have either "Penis" or "PENISPENISPENIS". Please explain to me how repeating the word for the male reproductive organ over and over again is 1. nonsensical, 2. interesting, 3. worth looking at or possibly even reading 4. in line with the "keep it clean" policy, when the pages are quite likely to have pornographic links and other no-nos added to them quite often by annonys to no good purpose. --Nerd42 13:52, 24 Aym 2007 (UTC)

despite contributing to penis penis penis long ago, I agree, it is the sort of crude humour that we at illogicopedia should be above. Testostereich • (ballsack)

Hmm, 5 votes to keep so far. Is this a case for democracy, or shall we start a drive to 'clean up' the ?pedia? On the other hand, the penis is nothing to be ashamed of. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 15:01, 24 Aym 2007 (UTC)

This article really isn't that dirty, and we need an article on penis. I haven't seen PENISPENISPENIS yet. 71.203.244.64 11:32, 25 Aym 2007 (UTC) Eh?

As long as articles like these - a bit immature, but hardly nasty in my opinion - remain the exception rather than the norm, I see no issue. I'd also like Illogicopedia to remain as open as is possible without issues. (as for point 4. in the original comment, for example, such has yet to happen, and were it to, the page could be (semi)protected)

What could be done to limit the extent of articles like these is to choose and keep certain ones around and merge similar content into them. For example, the PENISPENISPENIS one could be moved here and the current content edited into it. Similar things could be done on other subjects, should something a bit controversial be written.

This matter being tied to the larger course of Illogicopedia, how about a vote on it? --Fluffalizer 16:18, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Well, Im all for a vote, do you wanna stick a vote onto the logical forum or whatnot.--<css>

span.seppysig{

color:orange;
text-decoration:underline;
font-family:monospace;
font-size:14px;

}

span.seppysig:hover .visible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig .invisible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig:hover .invisible {

display:inline;

} </css>Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 16:31, 26 Aym 2007 (UTC)

I've said it and I'll say it again. Do you honestly believe that ?pedia is for mature people? The combining of various nouns proves otherwise.

I don't know what all y'all are talkin' about. Is it just the existence of an article called Penis? This doesn't really have anything to do with penises.--Mandaliet 06:54, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Wikipedia wouldn't delete an article just because it was named 'penis'. -- Hindleyak  Converse • ?blog • Click here! 13:32, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

Well I admit its hardly porn, but myself and DF are more talking in genral terms rather than specifics, we are considering the ways to tackle stuff further beyond this. Also Penis was much more blunt than this.--<css>

span.seppysig{

color:orange;
text-decoration:underline;
font-family:monospace;
font-size:14px;

}

span.seppysig:hover .visible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig .invisible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig:hover .invisible {

display:inline;

} </css>Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 14:10, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

And that we shouldn't; what matters is the content. I however don't see the kind of stuff in this article (before it was censored) as being something to strictly forbid. Not all see it as something especially well-wanted, though, and it wouldn't be particularly great if the wiki came to revolve around it, so a quantity-limiting approach seems a good compromise to go by. --Fluffalizer 14:37, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

My main concern is that this sort of content becomes a widespead thing, crudeness isnt everything, the whole wiki shouldnt be made from this content, then we would be no better than Encyclopaedia Dramatica.--<css>

span.seppysig{

color:orange;
text-decoration:underline;
font-family:monospace;
font-size:14px;

}

span.seppysig:hover .visible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig .invisible{

display:none;

}

span.seppysig:hover .invisible {

display:inline;

} </css>Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 14:58, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

It won't! Articles like penis (or more to the point, PENISPENISPENIS) aren't common, and definitely aren't crude enough to overwhelm the overall cleanliness of the pedia. Toilet humor is not that bad, and is even good on a site dedicated to randomness. Not to mention that "Penis" isn't crude, it's probably the least crude approach to the subject one could take! 71.203.244.64 15:43, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC) Eh?

How about sodomy?--Mandaliet 20:47, 27 Aym 2007 (UTC)

well, I think a site that collects nonsense like this is immature by definition. so its likely to attract immature people, and so, my moral compass tells me that we shouldn't be exposing immature (probably young) people to sexual content. That's the whole basis of my objection. --Nerd42 16:53, 4 Yoon 2007 (UTC)

Well, the whole point is that PENISPENISPENIS is a "vandal joke", here being that the vandalism is the content. It's more in the context of reading a Wikipedia article: "The acetylcolinesterase inhibitor can be remedied by atropine, pralidoxime, and...PENISPENISPENIS? Who the hell put that there?"

So really, it's not to be copied. I agree, any other puerile thing would just be stupid, kind of like BBBBBBBBB! on Uncyclopedia; there is only one PENISPENISPENIS. Flameviper 16:28, 6 Yoon 2007 (UTC)

I don't want that to be what our site is known for. it makes us look stpuid --Nerd42 17:24, 6 Yoon 2007 (UTC)