We are currently at the tail end of the "deletion and renaming debates" (see second major section below). If you want to chime in on that debate, please add your comments to the end of that major section; not at the very end of the page.

If you are discussing the content of the article, and productive ways to add to it, or posing questions about specific criteria or content items, add to the end of the page. +sj + 08:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, Jan 2005 - Jan 2006[edit]

Transcription of Å[edit]

At some point, all occurences of 'Å' in the article was replaced by 'AA'. This is wrong. In Norwegian, this would be extremely archaic (as in before 1917, and then it should have been 'Aa' anyway). In Swedish, there is no such thing as a transcription, anyway. With regards to alphabetization in an English speaking context, I have no opinion. Egil 12:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein[edit]

Have removed the above name from this article as it apparently does not exist. I am sorry, but all above names, however strange and unusual, are meant to be geographical names, not literary or rhetorical devices or idioms that illustrate a particular aspect of a language of imaginary places however useful and beautiful in their usage.
Much as I have my doubts about lists such as the above, although I agree it being a fun-site, if we are going to have them, let's play it straight. Dieter Simon 21:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not the only fictional name in the list; so long as it's clearly described, I don't see the problem. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mel, I see your point, but then someone had better change the preliminary explanation of the page, as there is no indication that we might be talking about geopgraphically non-existing names. Dieter Simon 23:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the fictional place names and nicknames should be removed. When I visited the page, I was under the impression that these would be real place names that people actually live in or around. That's the reason they're funny! discospinster 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Removal of part of list 'A' without explanation[edit]

If part of the list has been removed as has been done to a number of geographical names in letter A, surely we are entitled to know why? Have reverted until anon contributor can let us know why (s)he has done so. Dieter Simon 23:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some people manage to make a mess of editing pages on Wikipedia. Maybe by some slip of the mouse (or of the browser) they inadvertently had something selected when they started on editing the page. -- Smjg 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ding Dong[edit]

What has this to do with sex, food or drink? The only meaning of "ding dong" I know is an onomatopoeic representation of the sound of a bell. Though a quick search on OneLook also reveals the meaning of "a fierce argument or fight". -- Smjg 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A favourite expression of Leslie Phillips Jooler 22:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, what did Leslie Phillips use it to mean exactly? None of the sources I can find clarify. -- Smjg 20:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was meant to suggest that the sight of an attractive woman had rung his bell. Very weakly related to sex, I'd say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least in certain parts of the US, "ding dong" (or "ding ding") can be yet another euphemism for penis (presumably in analogy to the clapper of a bell). But the food part is easier to explain -- "Ding Dong" is the brand name of a ubiquitous US snack cake sold by Hostess: basically a chocolate hockey puck with a white cream filling, wrapped in thin tin foil and packed into lunches by non-health-conscious mothers for decades. (see a picture at http://www.hostesscakes.com/faq.html). Hm, guess I'll go write an article about it now. — Catherine\^talk 04:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Interesting"[edit]

Is it neccessary to have some places listed a number of times? For instance, Reading is listed three times, is it really all that interesting the third time? I think it's best to list a place once, choosing to link to either a disambiguation page, the original place with that name, or else the most popular.

Also, are places that have been named after other places, or places with the same name as popular places really interesting? I think it's quite predictable that there are a number of Miami's around, or that Amsterdam is also a place in the USA. I can understand it can be interesting if it appears to go the other way, ie, the New York's in England, that's more interesting.

-- Joolz 10:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the first point.
On the whole I also agree with the second point — but who should be the arbiter? If one person thinks a place name interesting, and another doesn't how do we make an objective decision? We could formulate rules, but then the same would be true of the rules (one person thinks it interesting that there be a town called Lincolnshire in the U.S., another doesn't — so one person opposes a rule against New World versions of Old World places, and the other supports it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a problem inherent with this article though. -- Joolz 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might it be easier with the second point to list them all in one line, rather than after each other, so that instead of getting:

we get:

Paris (in Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, USA, and Ontario, Canada) ⁹

I also note that New Zealand's longest placename is listed twice with two variants of its spelling ("Taumatawhaka..." is generally used rather than "Tetaumatawhaka..."). Grutness|^hello? 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Archaic names, no longer used[edit]

I've been having a somewhat unsatisfactory discussion about the addition of "Gropecunt Lane"; my view is that we shouldn't include names that are no longer in use, especially given the purge of names that are in use but that don't actually name places (see above). A huge number of archaic names are amusing to modern ears, and we're in danger of overburdening (and overbalancing) this list if we include them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no rational argument there. A place name is a place name. Even if it is no longer in use. Jooler 09:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you see no rational argument, then I can understand why you don't respond to it. Perhaps others will understand it, and explain why they agree or disagree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather belatedly, I agree, including archaic names of places which now have a different name, or do not exist any more, does indeed make the list too long.

In the instance of Gropecunt Lane (London) it can't even be ascertained which modern street is meant. Unless someone can substandtiate the connection between the new and the old, it would berather useless including it in the list in first place. Dieter Simon 23:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. It can be ascertained if someone finds the right map and compares it to a modern one. But no-one appears to have done that and put the info on the web. In any case if the former road was now occupied entirely by buildings and there was no modern road, what difference would it make? A place name is atill a place name even if the place itself has been renamed. This list isn't called "List of interesting or unusual extant place names" I see no reason to leave an interesting place name out because it is archaic. If you feel that including archaic names in the list would make the list too long, then the solution is to split the list, not throw away information. Jooler 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)

Calm down.
If you want to create a list of interesting archaic place names, why not do so? Given that a vast number of archaic place names are interesting or unusual to modern eyes, it's going to be pretty big, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Yes, it is all well and good to say "if someone finds the right map and compares it to a modern one", but until then we won't know one way or the other, will we? We should hang fire until such time someone does indeed find the substantiation to the location and/or new name of an archaic place, and then enter it in the list, or better still, as Mel says, create a new list for archaic names. But I do think we should have proof, otherwise anything can be included just for the hell of it. How do we know that it isn't just a bit of vandalism, especially with respect of scurrilous names such as 'Gropecunt Lane', it would be just too easy, wouldn't it? Well, some of the national papers in the UK have been hunting for its real location and haven't come to any conclusion, have they? Dieter Simon 28 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

I didn't know that; which newspapaers? Actually, I can probably guess. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 11:25 (UTC)

You might actually be surprised. It's not any of the ones I think you meant. One of them is: [1] the other is:

[2]. Doesn't seem to be definitive though, and didn't we say Grape Street was in the wrong area of London? See what you think. Dieter Simon 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Try the following reference: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=5045 It seems that the Centre of Metropolitan History has quite a few references to Gropecunt Lane.

"Well, some of the national papers in the UK have been hunting for its real location and haven't come to any conclusion, have they?" - What we have are a couple of columnists writing two articles that allude to the street formerly known as Gropecunt Lane. This is not the newspaper taking the trouble to do some proper research. It is beside the point anyway. It is known that the "place name" did exist and not just in London. If the people of Fucking, Austria voted to change the name of their town, should be deleted from this list? I think not. Jooler 09:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been said before; yes, if the name changes, then it should be removed from the list. I've said a number of times that it's perfectly acceptable for you to start an article called something like List of interesting or unusual place names (no longer used). Why don't you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the name of this page to "List of interesting or unusual extant place names". Jooler 22:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a constructive suggestion; I'm not interested in bargaining — especially not over something that isn't my sole responsibility. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in bargaining either. I was merely pointing out the deficiency in your suggestion. Your suggestion isn't constructive. How long would it be before a short list of "places... (no longer used)" was merged into this one. Jooler 06:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how long it takes for hell to freeze over. And why do you think that the list would small? As I've said before, a vast number of archaic names are interesting or unusual to modern ears and eyes; that's one of the main reasons for not allowing them in this list in the first place. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying - "a vast number of archaic names are interesting or unusual ... one of the main reasons for not allowing them in this list" - i.e. a list called "interesting or unusual place names" - your logic is perverse. Jooler 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're getting so emotional over a list of place names, but it's not helping your case. My position is that, while archaic and unused names for places are often interesting and unusual to moderrn eyes, there are far too many to be included in this list, which should be limited to current, still-used names.

Just as with List of misleading place names, your list should be separate; note that, because of the exustence of the "misleading" list, we don't have to rename this one List of place names that are interesting and unusual but not because they refer to more than one place. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no more "emotional" about it than you. You say "there are far too many to be included in this list" - where are they? I see but one. Jooler 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one has been suggested; a moment's thought will suggest many, many more (but you have to think beyond mere vulgarity). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One item does not a list make. when there are more, then it might become an issue, but not before. Jooler 06:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dondangadale, Victoria, Australia (historic township - not a current place) has been removed from the list on the grounds that it is a "non-existent place". I beg to differ. It exists see Geoscience Australia reference. However, it is a former locality and was annotated as such on the list. From what I know of other former towns in Australia, there is probably a sign there and one or two houses, evidence of former buildings and streets, no post box, ... I think many of the place names on the list are neither unusual nor interesting and this one is not much of an exception. However, it was placed here in good faith (by another editor), is verified as existing, annotated correctly - why remove it? Regards--AYArktos 22:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I should have said "a name no longer used". I was trying to be consistent. It's another one to go in List of interesting archaic place names. (Your message reminded me irresistably of the dead-parrot sketch; this place is non-existent, it has ceased to be, it is a former locality...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List too long?[edit]

I think the list is becomming too long and it seems that it can only get longer unless we start removing some items (more names are getting added to the list every week) it will be too long to be of any practical use to anyone, but I'm not sure how to go about shortening it, because we need to re-assess the criteria on which place names are added? -- Joolz 15:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting off a separate page called something like List of places with the same name as more famous places - or something less clunky - to remove all the London, Ontarios and Paris, Texases? Grutness...wha? 08:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misleading place-names? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One could take the list of national capitals and just add " (disambiguation)" to every name and named it Lists of places named after capital cities (and remove entries on those lists from here). -- User:Docu

Well, yes, but that would only apply to capital cities, and most of the entries in question relate to non-capital but well-known countries and cities. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could break it down by continent instead. -- Joolz 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about List of interesting or unusual place names in North America, List of interesting or unusual place names in Asia, List of interesting or unusual place names in the Europe... etc. By contitinent (sp), that way we dont have a hundred country lists. <>Who ?¿? 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd make separate lists by some of the "recognisable categories", e.g. all places with the same name as a famous place, but for a list 48k isn't really that long. -- User:Docu

I've made a List of misleading place names, which gathers all the <sup>9</sup> place names. There may be others that I've missed, but I'll go through again tomorrow. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Difficult and Dismal Tennessee[edit]

Re-add

See maps: [3] and [4] They're on the map, not everything can be found on google. <>Who ?¿? 28 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Thank you - and now I have learned also how to search for obscure place names. I did try many permutations including written sources. I am sceptical of contributions of red links that are not verifiable by a Google search and it would be of course too easy to insert an imaginary place into this list.--AYArktos 28 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Not a prob, I dont like the redlinks as much either, but I tend to leave them, hoping for future expansion. I'm really adiment about google searches though, as there are quite a few obscure items not easily found anywhere. Too many wikipedians depend completely on google. <>Who ?¿? 28 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)

A newbie weighs in[edit]

OK. I'm new here, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, pls let me know…

1. Why not create a category (Unusual or amusing place names) with different lists in it:

Place names that with vulgar or sexual references (Dildo, Titicaca, Fucking)
Really long , short, or numerical place names (A, 5, etc)

Etc etc. You get my drift; I assume the more erudite among us can come up with more elegant and concise titles. It would also be inferred from the title just why the term is unusual.

2. Perhaps a brief reason could be added after the entry, to explain why it is included:

Dildo, Canada - an artificial penis
Ding Dong - Euphemism for penis
Titicaca - Combination of "Titty" (breast) and "Ca-ca" (feces)

This would have helped me see why some names would be considered unusual (like the explanation "Noone" = "No one", above).

3. Also, do we need to add the state/province/subnational administrative division to each entry? For instance, for brevity's sake, why not just say "Dildo, Canada"? It will become apparent where it is when you hit the link.

4. If there's no separate page for non-extant placenames, then why not just -- for now -- add an asterisk or dagger or such to indicate "place name is archaic"?

5. I realize there seems to be a debate over whether this article should stay. Although it may seem frivolous, I think it is as encyclopedic as any list of eponyms. Coming from Newfoundland, I have grown up around placenames ranging from the idyllic (Little Heart's Ease, Paradise, Heart's Content) to the strange (Old Shop, Jerry's Nose) to the rude (Blow-Me-Down, Come-By-Chance, and the ever-popular Dildo). So I actually went looking for such a list of odd or unusual placenames, and was gratified to find it here on Wikipedia. I was able to go through the list, and decide also which on the list were interesting to me in particular. Basically, there is information here that people may want to know, and they can find it here without having to vet every state, provincial or national gazetteer until something catches their eye. And I have found articles relating to this topic from sources as varied as The Book of Lists to Reader's Digest to Maclean's magazine. Just my opinion; that and four quarters will get you a loony. SigPig 17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that we need to split the article up, and some of your suggestions seem on target (where, though, is "Ding Dong" slang for "penis"?). The sub-national terms are useful when there's more than one place with the same name in the same country, and when there's no article yet (so no article to go to for the information); also, many, if not most, place-name articles have the state, county, etc., as part of the title.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Street names[edit]

Would it be acceptable to create a List of interesting and unusual names of thoroughfares (or something similar)? Strictly speaking these aren't place names, and there are probably enough of them to constitute a decent list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are streets and thoroughfares not places then? or are they only places if you speak laxly? surely some streets are larger than some towns or bluffs or buttes or... well you get my drift. DavidP 04:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butte[edit]

Why are places with the word "Butte" listed here? Is it because people think it looks or sounds like "butt"? That's kind of a stretch. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No more than many other supposedly comic names here, I'd have thought. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Weare, New Hampshire[edit]

I changed the parenthesized claim that this was actually pronounced "weer," and only as "where" by non-locals. It happens to be my hometown and is in fact correctly pronounced the same as "where."

Cleanup[edit]

A lot of these are redlinks or have silly comments (eg. "it really exists!"), suggesting that they indeed may not exist. I would suggest all those which are not linked from anything else unless they are verified. Alphax ^τεχ 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the problem exists (and I couldn't find a single instance of "it really exists!" or anything like it), it surely doesn't warrant a cleanup tag. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wallish Walls and co.[edit]

Is this page already repeating information elsewhere? Is there a link to http://www.thenortheast.fsnet.co.uk/Place%20Name%20Meanings%20A%20to%20D.htm ? Should there be one as it lists many names already mentioned in this list. Some of which, to me, are far more amusing than ones in the list.

Wikipedia only repeats information found elsewhere. If you think that there are genuine place names that should be on this list, please add them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

This page should be replaced by a series of categories (Calendar- related unusual place names; number- derived unusual place names, and so on), I feel. What do others think? Andy Mabbett 19:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paradise, Washington[edit]

I deleted this. It was a redlink and how many Paradises need to be listed? It's a stretch anyways, it's just a small recreation area on Mount Rainier. The inn there is a historical landmark and would be a notable article... If this is a town please make it point to a page and not a redlink if it's added back. SchmuckyTheCat 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 1/2 Street[edit]

I deleted this. What's unusual about it? There are a couple of "half" streets in Washington DC too, and I'm sure it's not the only place. 207.59.86.5 22:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America, Limburg[edit]

I fear there has been a bit of misinformation here. If, as has been stated the name comes from the German "Erica" then there must have been a strange shift in the genderization of the name. Modern "Erika" in German is a feminine word, I can't imagine a late-Latin/Germanic word having changed gender like this. If it had meant "near the erica (heather)" it would have been something such as "an der Erika" or "bei der Erika".

Anyway, what's so strange about having places named after places in other countries? There is a Kalifornien in Germany, another Amerika in Saxony, a Brasilien in Schleswig-Holstein, and an England in Bavaria. Well, there is a Dresden in the former Potteries of Staffordshire in the UK. Why this outlandish definition?

Can someone in the Dutch community of the town of America throw light on this? Dieter Simon 02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Verify[edit]

Can someone verify that La-Mort-aux-Juifs is a real place? I couldn't find any references to it outside Wikipedia. Dave (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so, though these pages seem less than great authority.

http://www.ville-infos.com/45320-courtemaux-013Z-culture-et-elevage-associes.html
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/marcel.maire/La_Chapelle.htm read this section: L'Ancien Régime (1660-1789)
http://perso.wanadoo.fr/monument/Ville/C/Courtemaux.htm

SchmuckyTheCat 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose being able to read French helps with that sort of thing! Thanks, Dave (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barrow-in-Furness[edit]

Is intersting or unusual because...? Robdurbar 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wideopen[edit]

Wideopen is in North Tyneside in the Northeast of England.

Cockfield[edit]

Cockfield is in Teesdale near County Durham in the Northeast of England.

Å (AA) - meaning of the Scandinavian word[edit]

I Changed it from 'river' to 'small river', since we only use the word in Denmark about quite small rivers. if someone has a dictionary :) they might want to see what the official translation is.

Deletion and renaming debates, Jan-Feb 2006[edit]

Don't move the article to a different namespace in the middle of an AfD debate[edit]

k thx bye. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

record of deletion and move[edit]

This article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names. It was then undeleted at the request of User:Mwalcoff and placed in his user space. He then moved it here into the wikipedia space. --Doc ^ask? 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links and other things[edit]

I added the following instruction in the article:
"Any new place names must link to an existing article on that place."

Feel free to move it or improve the wording. I just believe that since this is a page in the wikipedia namespace, the existence of the place names should also be able to be verified using wikipedia. Also, I don't believe that we should have links from main namespace articles to this page. It violates wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and makes mirroring and forking more difficult. I had to use a wikipedia mirror before coming here, so I try to enforce the guideline. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't mind the red links. It should be possibe to supply other references than existing Wikipedia articles. Besides, we don't want stubs just to complete this list. --- User:Docu

I support the use of redlinks.Certainly the places must be verifiable. For Australian places this means they should be able to be found on www.ga.gov.au - the Australian Government gazeteer. The links should also be formatted according to any place naming conventions, which for Australia means automatic disambiguation with the state - eg not Woolloomooloo but Woolloomooloo, New South Wales.--A Y Arktos 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the red links on this page brought me to write some articles, I would not have otherwise considered - I learnt something along the way and hopefully contributed usefully to the Wikipedia also--A Y Arktos 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your points. I still think the entries should eventually warrant a wikipedia article if they are redlinked. For example, I don't think we should link an entry on Kelly's Knob as it is just a lookout (see [5].) Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, every red link should be capable of being turned into an article. Places are verifiable and should be able to create an article. A lookout seems to me to be unlikely to create an article. There are actually two Kellys Knobs in Australia [6] :-) I doubt whether anybody is going to write the article on either of them. Perhaps one challenge is, if the lister is not prepared to write the article (or at least a stub) themselves, and no-one else thinks it should be there, then it goes. So whoever wants to list Kellys Knob or such places will eventually have to put up or shut up. (We could say that, when queried, a red link needs to be turned into a stub within 7 days or it is delisted. If the lister isn't prepared to do the work and no-one else is prepared to jump in, it goes. Perhaps to leave a record of it going, the entry might get commented out with a note to the effect that while verifiable, as no article or stub ahs been written it doesn't appear on this list. This would save relisting by another humorist.--A Y Arktos 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've put a note there saying that the place should be able to have a wikipedia article, (i.e. a town or suburb is acceptable, but minor streets, streams, ETC) are not. If any entry gets added frequently enough without justifying a wikipedia article, I agree it should be commented out. However, it might be difficult to track the original lister of a place down, because many ppl who edit this list are anons. However, I think we can keep this list manageable. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be mentioned in another Wikipedia article? BTW coordinates for each place would be great. -- User:Docu

There are some entries for this list that were removed in this edit. -- User:Docu

Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names[edit]

I missed the AfD debate - I appreciate the rationale of PoV, but this list in its former incarnation brought me to create a couple of articles based on red links. I have just been alerted to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names--A Y Arktos 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination) and add your opinion there--A Y Arktos 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability questions[edit]

Much of the debate at the undeletion reveiw focusses on verifiability and neutrality. The neutrality issue is probably covered by the criteria we have for inclusion. However, are the criteria exhaustive or do we need to develop further?

Some of the issues are that it it is not a "fact" as to whether something is unusual or interesting. This appears to be notwithstanding that the name could be measured against the criteria. The particular eitor is looking for an extrnal source. I am not sure to what extent his view is widely supported. I owuld have thought that if a name describes a place and the name has no apparent sense as to a geographical location - for example "Why" - then that would be sufficient - the place exists and the name matches the criterion.

However, there are some sources external to the Wikipedia (possibly derived from the earlier iteration of this article) that could be used to provide external sources. These include (and I have deliberately shown their full URLs)

Any more? These are really US centric. Not sure how one manages to get Batman Turkey in the list with the constraint that somewhere outside the wikipedia somebody must have said it was interesting? I think it is taking Wikipedia:Reliable sources too far. The guidleine states "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." At Wikipedia:No_original_research#Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view there is astatement "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" - I am not sure that we don't have an exception to this. Can werely on Wikipedia:Common_knowledge? Would an editor who deleted an entry here be within the bounds of this guidleline, or would they be in breach of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?--A Y Arktos 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I think wikipedia is a one-of-a-kind resource in this regard, and it'd be hard to find an independently created list on the internet like this one. Entries have been deleted before for not being unusual or interesting enough, like Christchurch. A problem with this list is that one needs to be well-versed in English culture (especially sexual slang) to understand many of the entries. Perhaps there should be some kind of explanation ... I'm just thinking aloud ... Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than one specific source, we should quote several. -- User:Docu

Leave this in WP space?[edit]

The verfiability debate could be avoided by leaving the article in Wikipedia space. What do people think? Septentrionalis 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be interested in doing any work on such a list in the wikipedia space - it would be pointless to me. I have never added a name to this list. I have however verified a number of names, ensured they were linked correctly and written a number of articles for places that were red links on the list.--A Y Arktos 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list clearly should be in the article namespace. Not only is it article content, and about neither Wikipedia as a project, community activity, or meta-article content, but almost all of the comparable lists -- and there are many! -- are in the article namespace. List of misleading place names, List of city listings by country, &c. +sj + 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

citations needed[edit]

I added a tag to every entry to note that they were listed without a corresponding reference/citation. User:Peruvianllama noted:

rm {{fact}} tag from nearly every single item in list - is there any reason that these need to be cited, aside from having their own Wikipedia articles?

I beleive the tags should be removed from an entry once it can be verified as per WP:V and WP:CITE. If it cannot be then remove it from the list. This list cannot simply be a list of places that Wikipedia editors find unusual or interesting (as it is just now) - that would be original research. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting some entries and asking for citations for others, wouldn't this be a really POV approach?

BTW I agree with the general idea that the lists needs sources and should specify why a given name is listed. {{unreferenced}} on top of this page should be sufficient. BTW many articles about a place with a given name already explain how it's unusual. -- User:Docu

Is it POV, well yes... But for a lack of sources and given we seem to be ignoring WP:NPOV in this list (in the current version at least) then so be it. Of couse the entries I removed can be added back in if someone really does find them unusual, but so long as they give a reference to shown that they are widely (externally) thought to be unusual.

At the very least we need to provide evidence as good as List of city nicknames#Cities in the United Kingdom does. Thanks/wangi 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the {{fact}} tags were asking that each city's very existence be verified; it wasn't clear to me that you meant the weirdness of the city's name, which makes much more sense. I agree that were this article to remain in the main namespace, then using a single instance of the unreferenced tag should suffice - but since it has been recently moved into the WP namespace, a more POV approach is permissible, so the point is a bit moot. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as an immediate followup to my above comment: now that the article exists only in the Wikipedia namespace, is there really any reason to have the "citation needed" tags at all? I'd concede to using {{unreferenced}} if there is a real desire to mark the lack of sources provided. But really, with the opening paragraph basically stating that the whole list is subjective by nature, I don't think there's much need. --P e ruvianLlama^(spit) 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave them just now... There seems to be a certain amount of "wheel war" going on with this article. By this time tomorrow it'll be somewhere else! Given I was the one who originally AFD'd the article I think we're better off without it, but if we're going to have it then lets do it by the book (and lets be honest, more than we'd normally do since it's hard to justify the list otherwise).

And Docu, I too noticed you too only sent msgs to folk who voted to keep the article in the original AFD and review telling them about the new AFD - not a bit underhand? Thanks/wangi 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're rather stupid -- what citation or reference do we need for the fact that "Adios" means "Goodbye" in Spanish???? The existence of most of the placenames in the U.S. and U.K. (other than those like "Alphabet City" which are strictly informal nicknames) could be easily verified from on-line gazetteer databases, i9f necessary. AnonMoos 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what are the citations supposed to prove? Seems pretty silly. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with the beginning of the list. 1770 is a verified place name. It meets the criterion fr inclusion - "Some calendar-related names are marked 4". Why is a citation refernce placed there? Seems to me to be in violation of WP:POINT and in bad faith. --A Y Arktos 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The bad faith edits are pathetic--A Y Arktos 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, by why does that make it unusual or interesting? Who, other than the editor that added it thinks it is unusual? That's why you're needing a ref... T/wangi 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wangi, are you being serious? I'll assume that you don't find a string of numbers to be an obviously unusual placename. But most other readers, without communicating with one another beforehand, would find it unusual. This is not 'original research', even if it is not published anywhere else. And the number of people who enjoy and use this list should be clear from the influx of edits over the past few days; there is no conspiracy to raise up the unusual-place-name troops.

So we have an interesting and useful list. Reasonable editors can argue about the addition of a particular name to the list, but the 'unusualness' will rarely be something citable. In contrast to your examples above, such as lists of city nicknames, the existance of the cities in question is almost always demonstrated by their wikipedia article. Those with redlinks deserve a "fact" tag; the others probably don't. +sj + 23:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of standout places[edit]

from User talk:Wangi#Unusual names

Hi. I've looked through your list of "standout" ununusual deletions. By & large, well done - in general terms, the list was in need of weeding. However, I wondered if you could explain your reasons for some of your decisions? I wondered specifically why you felt the article shouldn't contain (a) very short names (e.g. Ae, Bo, Ed), (b) rude names (e.g. Twatt, Fister, Beaver City), (c) "duplicate names" e.g. the Bagdads, Baths etc. Were you planning to amend the inclusion criteria to reflect your changes? With best wishes SP-KP 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually just done this on a adhoc basis - without any predecided bias. I didn't remove the twatt entries, I actually corrected the links to point to the real articles, rather than disambig pages. "Fisting" and "Beaver" really is school-boy base humour. Regarding the dupes, the top of the list says "Names that match or resemble the name of another much better known place, giving opportunity for confusion (for example New York, Lincolnshire, England, or Boston (also, coincidentally, in Lincolnshire)) can be found in the List of misleading place names.". Thanks/wangi 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would keep all the short names, which are indeed interesting and certainly (objectively, by %) unusual. +sj +

removal of "fact" templates[edit]

These templates do nothing to help improve the list when they are everywhere. They apply to those cities that have no articles; the template was never meant to be used to confuse the issue of what is 'common sense' and what is 'original research'. I hope we can remove these templates almost everywhere, and carry out a discussion about common sense and selecting entries for this list on a suitable WP: or talk page. +sj + 23:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unreferenced}} on talk should be sufficient. Let's not place them in the list. -- User:Docu

Move back to main namespace[edit]

This should be moved back to its original title. The content is clearly article content, and not about meta-article data, community projects or information, or policies. See the second DRV listing under 12 February 2006. +sj + 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno — I second your contention that it doesn't belong in Wikipedia space, but I also don't think it belongs anywhere. There's no way this will ever be well-sourced or have any encyclopedic value at all. Why don't we have an article like "List of great people"? It's just as subjective and completely unverifiable. —Cleared as filed. 04:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly neither as subjective nor completely unverifiable. The article is already clearly segmented into a number of 'categories' numbered at the beginning. Most of these can be turned into clear criteria for inclusion. The only question is tracking down all of the placenames which satisfy one of those criteria. Anything which satisfies the "otherwise unusual" category should have some sort of justification or external reference, I agree; but that is a minority of the entries. +sj + 04:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How strange to place texts in Wikipedia namespace. I suppose it's an idea one might get after continously editing pages in Wikipedia namespace. BTW as we got "List of people known as The Great", User:Cleared as filed should be ok with having this in article namespace? -- User:Docu

New article[edit]

Following a link from the deletion review discussion, Unusual place names has been created which lists only only only those place names which have reliable references (currently 5 of them). Instructions for inclusion on Talk:Unusual place names -- Astrokey44|talk 04:25, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or better, "List of unusual place names"? We should start with this list, which has been worked on for years, not a new and empty one. +sj + 05:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list has close to zero sourcing, so no, we shouldn't start with it. We should start from scratch, and move over only those entries which can be verifiably and reliably sourced. FCYTravis 05:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this is list is a good start. -- User:Docu

Clarify the criteria[edit]

Names should be unusual in the native/local language. So "ougadougou" should be on the list because it is considered unusual within Burkina Faso, not b/c I find it unusual sitting here in Boston.
Positive example : "Te Urewera National Park" is on the list because of what it means in Maori, not because it 'sounds funny' to an English speaker.

Negative examples: ?
rm classes of names (confusing, &c) rpeated elsewhere.
... more

68.163.164.194 13:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this the English language version of the list? Listings in local language would need an explanation. -- User:Docu

source of citations[edit]

I'll see if I can't find this book, and add appropriate references to mentioned places. [7] SchmuckyTheCat 01:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format of references[edit]

Someone mentioned List_of_city_nicknames#Cities_in_the_United_Kingdom as a sample on how to provide references for entries. That list uses WP:CITE#Embedded_HTML_links. As that form doesn't easily show the article being reference and as this list is likely to include several times the same source (if it's not the article on the place itself), we should choose another format. WP:CITE#Harvard_referencing seems more suitable for this list. -- User:Docu

Once again this whole article is bound to be absolutely POV[edit]

Just imagine the people of Fucking in Austria having lived their lives probably for many centuries, quite happily with their name - whatever the etymology of it is - and proud of their name. Suddenly they are getting a lot of Brits and Amis standing longside of the sign outside the town, taking photographs and having a bloody good laugh. Suddenly they have been made aware what it means in English and it is being spread around the globe. Are you trying to tell me that the Fuckingers are enjoying the thought of it? The name of their little town is their name, so suddenly they are in everybody's mouth, not because of the beauty of their place but for an obscene usage of the name. This is only one example out of the many that could, no doubt be cited. The people from Fucking certainly don't find their town unusual or even remotely amusing, but we do, we the English and the Americans. And we in Wikipedia are helping it along. Come on, who are you kidding. This whole concept is as POV as it comes. Dieter Simon 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this reason I think it is wrong to place the article back into name space. It is not an encyclopaedic article. Dieter Simon 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whose POV is it then, when thousands of tourists show up to the place? Wikipedia's POV, or the tourists? When Wikipedia documents this fact, that tourists consider the place to have an unusual name, Wikipedia isn't expressing a POV, it is documenting a fact and POV of the real world. As to "helping it along", well, too bad, Wikipedia isn't censored. SchmuckyTheCat 15:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really a matter of whose POV, but we are looking at it because it is alluding to an obscene expression, which was the last thing the locals had in mind when they put up their town sign outside their place. Now they know, and now they also know that their town is causing a snigger all round the world, maybe because of our self-indulgence in Wikipedia. It's not factual, it's not stated in terms of "the etymology of Fucking is.... However, to the unsuspecting traveller it may cause a mild shock...". I am talking about an encyclopaedic description of a fact, I am not talking about something we shouldn't be laughing about in the right place. In its right place, a book of humorous expressions or names or terms, yes, it is a laugh but that is not in an encyclopaedia. And what is more there are obviously going to be thousands of other names, about which outsiders are falling about laughing, which however causes bemused looks on the part of the people who live there. An encyclopaedia is about facts, a book of humour is about laughs. Dieter Simon 17:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factualness in an encyclopaedia is everything, a laugh in an encyclopaedia is POV. Dieter Simon 17:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More from Talk:Place names considered unusual before history merge[edit]

For the exact talk page from just before the history merge, see archive 2

Note on the list[edit]

Note: For inclusion in this list, a reference to a reliable source where the placename has been seen as an unusual name must be provided and this must be where the name has some content about why it is unusual not merely a list of "funny names". A comedy site which has a large list of unusual names is not a reliable source. Un-referenced names will be removed from the list regardless of how "unusual" or funny the name may seem to be.

Please reference what wikipediapolicy you are referring to when excluding some sources and not others.--A Y Arktos 00:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources excludes sources which arent reliable -- Astrokey44|talk 15:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is are place names verifiable - if they have their own article the answer has to be yes. The next issue was Wikipedia:No original research - if it is outside the wikipedia - then it is not original - unless it was derived from the wikipedia - ie the many mirrors. The web site I was referencing - a reference added to the external links by another editor was quite clearly not derived from the list that this article is replacing..--A Y Arktos 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether place names are verifiable. This is not a "List of place names", this is a list of place names that meet specific criteria. Whether those names meet that criteria needs to be verified. If you read Wikipedia:No original research you'll see this clearly stated: "Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source". Someone's blog is not a reputable source. There's really no way around that. -R. fiend 19:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move[edit]

I have boldly moved this to "Place names considered unusual". I don't see what the reason to objecting to that would be. These are not places that have objectively unusual names, there is no such thing. These may be widely considered unusual, and that's fine, but the title of the page needs to reflect that that is what they are. Anything else implies bias (Well, we think this place name is unusual, so it's objectively unusual!) --W.marsh 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both names are nonstandard. If you are going to have a page about a set of things, it should be titled "List of [things]", not just "things". +sj + 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has had an extremely hard time with this particular style guideline... Films considered the worst ever is an example of an article that only lost its "list of" prefix once it became much more than just a list. At any rate, the article could well be moved to "List of place names considered unusual" -- the 'interesting' in the title was always a bit vague -- and the existing long article should really be moved to whatever title is chosen and worked on in place... perhaps with subpages for sections that can't be / haven't yet been verified. +sj + 04:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

This is redundant with the long-standing existing list of unusual place names... which has been edited regularly over the past many days. Please add references to and improve the set of categories on that page rather than recreating part of it (with lots of muddy qualifiers like "considered" in the title) to highlight its neutrality here, on a page with a non-standard title. +sj + 04:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That list has many unreferenced examples. Individual examples can be moved here when references are found -- Astrokey44|talk 05:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The list in the WP space is a good place to fine tune the prototype. -R. fiend 05:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recreates an article that was deleted (even if it shouldn't have had), so I suppose it should redirect to the other or be deleted as well. -- User:Docu

The whole point was that the whole article consists and has to consist necessarily of a POV attitude, as no two people could ever agree as to what is unusual. What strikes one person as unusual, another finds totally commonplace and normal. It doesn't belong into an encyclopaedia. As a laugh in Wikipedia:name-space it's perfectly alright but up front in the 'pedia, no. Dieter Simon 18:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is going to happen that this list will become US centric as to date references on the web foussed on either US names or obscenities. I note also that the names objected to by one editor featured prominently in at least one list I found - all US - didn't include Richmond though.--A Y Arktos 18:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement of this problem contains the solution. Places should be noted as 'unusual' if a) they receive notoriety in a globally notable publication for their name [criteria for global notability can be discussed; and would be useful for more articles than this one], b) they are noted within their own region (local papers and folklore) for their unusual name. Then there is c) they satisfy one of a small set of objective criteria for being 'unusual' ['1- or 2-letter' and 'numerical' names, for instance]. +sj + 07:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links and other things[edit]

I added the following instruction in the article:
"Any new place names must link to an existing article on that place."

Feel free to move it or improve the wording. I just believe that since this is a page in the wikipedia namespace, the existence of the place names should also be able to be verified using wikipedia. Also, I don't believe that we should have links from main namespace articles to this page. It violates wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and makes mirroring and forking more difficult. I had to use a wikipedia mirror before coming here, so I try to enforce the guideline. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[..]

I support the use of redlinks.Certainly the places must be verifiable. For Australian places this means they should be able to be found on www.ga.gov.au - the Australian Government gazeteer. The links should also be formatted according to any place naming conventions, which for Australia means automatic disambiguation with the state - eg not Woolloomooloo but Woolloomooloo, New South Wales.--A Y Arktos 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the red links on this page brought me to write some articles, I would not have otherwise considered - I learnt something along the way and hopefully contributed usefully to the Wikipedia also--A Y Arktos 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your points. I still think the entries should eventually warrant a wikipedia article if they are redlinked. For example, I don't think we should link an entry on Kelly's Knob as it is just a lookout (see [8].) Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, every red link should be capable of being turned into an article. Places are verifiable and should be able to create an article. A lookout seems to me to be unlikely to create an article. There are actually two Kellys Knobs in Australia [9] :-) I doubt whether anybody is going to write the article on either of them. Perhaps one challenge is, if the lister is not prepared to write the article (or at least a stub) themselves, and no-one else thinks it should be there, then it goes. So whoever wants to list Kellys Knob or such places will eventually have to put up or shut up. (We could say that, when queried, a red link needs to be turned into a stub within 7 days or it is delisted. If the lister isn't prepared to do the work and no-one else is prepared to jump in, it goes. Perhaps to leave a record of it going, the entry might get commented out with a note to the effect that while verifiable, as no article or stub ahs been written it doesn't appear on this list. This would save relisting by another humorist.--A Y Arktos 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've put a note there saying that the place should be able to have a wikipedia article, (i.e. a town or suburb is acceptable, but minor streets, streams, ETC) are not. If any entry gets added frequently enough without justifying a wikipedia article, I agree it should be commented out. However, it might be difficult to track the original lister of a place down, because many ppl who edit this list are anons. However, I think we can keep this list manageable. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=Keep and start over with original list[edit]

My two cents after trying to plow through preceding--I was surprised to discover that the original list (as I last knew it) had vanished, although there appears to be an archive version here User talk:SP-KP/ToDo/salvage2 for discussion's sake. I thought it was an interesting article. I could agree that:

There should be at least some indication of what category of "interesting" a name falls into (e.g., "sexual innuendo in English" or some such, or "Names taken out of context" e.g., Boring, Oregon). But I don't agree that links should be non-red to be included. WP has lots of articles with lots of links that have yet to be created. I agree that they ought to be verifiable, but an external link if the article doesn't exist here yet should be sufficient. I understand that "unusual" is inherently POV, but in fact when I first encountered the article I ended up reading about a lot of places that I wouldn't have otherwise because I wanted to know more about the names. I think that's a good goal. As the article stands right now, with about 2 names (ok i exaggerate) it's pretty silly. Elf | Talk 22:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria, place discussions, and later talk[edit]

What is a place for the purposes of this list[edit]

When working on the other list, the concensus had developed that a place had to be not only verifiable but either the subject of an article or capable of being turned into an article (ie a redlink). Roads, streams, intersections would usually not be included. See previous discussion below. On this basis I have removed the Beaver intersection from the list.--A Y Arktos 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual road signs[edit]

I removed the link to Metropolitan Parkway (Detroit area) which was where Beaver intersection, road whatever redirected. It is not a place for the purposes of this list.--A Y Arktos 08:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Big Beaver Road. Exactly how does this not fit the guidelines? --Sertraline 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC

We don't have an article on Big Beaver Road, we have a redirect from Big Beaver Road to Metropolitan Parkway (Detroit area) - no article, or potential article, no listing--A Y Arktos 20:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metropolitan Parkway is an article that includes Big Beaver Road, thus Big Beaver has an article. Otherwise you can say we have no article about New York County, New York because it's a redirect to Manhattan. --Sertraline 23:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While streets are "places" in the most general sense of the word, I think this article is looking at real geographical locations, the sort of stuff you'd find in an atlas. There are literally hundreds of millions of streets in the world. If we want to define "place" in the msot general terms, then buildings, or even rooms, would also count, and I don't think we want to go there. -R. fiend 00:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the main way people would know about these places is through passing signs for them. There are several big overhead signs on I-75 saying "exit 69 - Big Beaver Road". --Sertraline 04:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so there's a sign. I never doubted that; there are all sorts of signs in the world. Nevertheless, I don't think we want to start including streets in such a list. They're practically infinite. -R. fiend 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not when it's not just a street, but the combination of a street and an exit number announced on a big overhead sign. --Sertraline 05:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems ok to me to include any verifiable place. To avoid the red link, just dont link the place name. -- User:Docu

No - my point and the point raised in the discussion on the other list and copied below, is that places must be verifiable and sufficiently notable to have an article - a red link for potential article, blue link for real article. I think piped links are a cheat and I would not include them unless there is good reason. There are road intersections that have an article, they are sufficiently notable - for example, Broxden Junction - not an exciting or titillating name though. A sign, even a big one over a real life intersection, does not mean notable. --A Y Arktos 07:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is that if the District of Columbia was the "District of Fucking" or something, it wouldn't be listed here because it redirects to Washington, D.C.? (or in this case, Washington, D.F.) You're just drawing an arbitrary line, one which depends on the status of other articles. These places are known for being unusual because of the signs. People take pictures of the signs and pass them around, and these places become well-known. If there was a place named "Fucking Shit Penis, Texas", but there were no signs for it, it wouldn't be known as an unusual place name. The Big Beaver Road exit has two Google News links (both of which specifically mention it as an unusual place), as opposed to none for Fucking, Austria, but the latter isn't in question. The cutoff should not be some arbitrary value of has_own_article, but how well-known it is. The Big Beaver Road exit is well-known enough. --Sertraline 08:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that the place is not a place for the purposes of wikipedia. You could not write an article on it, or have chosen not to do so. You are in breach of the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule and I have reported the breach at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Sertraline--A Y Arktos 10:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Beaver Rd info would fit in an article called Unusual road signs. Road signs are not the same as Toponymy, of which this article is a subset.--A Y Arktos 11:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unusual road signs article has now been created with Big Beaver on it.--A Y Arktos 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, I think that article is a very bad idea. -R. fiend 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

referenced though and verifiable!--A Y Arktos 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in an encyclopedia needs to be verifiable, but that doesn't mean that everything verifiable belongs in an encyclopedia. I think this is a case in point. We have an article created for a single example, and that's just because some online guide happened to mention that the sign gets a chuckle. This is the sort of thin gthat belongs in one of those National Lampoon books. -R. fiend 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual road signs has the potential to grow into something other than a single example of sexual innuendo; see the external references. I remember from my childhood a great warning sign that "Falling stones" "Do not stop" - two signs together on Clyde Mountain on the Kings Highway to the coast. Sadly it is now gone. See the external links for a clue as to where the article might go. Fot the moment - I would like to build up this article of place names and I hope the road signs will content the orally administered antidepressant user.--A Y Arktos 21:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I recall seeing a Stop sign and a No Stopping sign right next to each other. Yeah, it was sort of amusing, and if this were Jay Leno's "Headlines" I'd think of submitting a picture. But this is an encyclopedia. such an example is exactly the sort of thing I meant with my National Lampoon comment. -R. fiend 21:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least as interesting as Whynot, Mississippi perhaps--A Y Arktos 21:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar and Juliana[edit]

I'm glad we're getting some sources here, but I have to wonder about at least one of them. "Oscar and Juliana"? Who are they? I looked at the site a bit and couldn't tell if it was basically just two random people's blogs. If so, I'd be a bit concerned about using it as a source. I could start a blog and say "here are some interesting place names" and then upload the index to my Times Atlas of the World. A few of those I don't think would even have made it on the old page. Van, Crum, Mutt, Bobo, all seem pretty boring to me. Some place names are interesting enough that they are the subject of legitimate journalism. Some random website doesn't gve us any more than the opinions of two people, which we have on our own. -R. fiend 23:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My work this morning has been reverted by Astrokey44 - even that which used sources which are more than lists. Since we don't like lists - and I actually think a source is a source is a source - I have taken out the external links which just seemed to be mainly referencing lists - that is where I got Oscar and Juliana. I have reverted back to work that referenced an article - pre the O and J. --A Y Arktos 00:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about getting the wrong revision but I still think that lists shouldnt be used as sources, I was about to do the same thing when I was looking for refs, but then realised that if you allow comedy lists of unusual place names as references than the list would become the same size as the one in the wikipedia name space as most of the lists on the web that list funny place names are hundreds of examples long. [10] [11] [12] Theyre not really a reliable source, it should be something like a newspaper article or book where it is mentioned as an unusual name. -- Astrokey44|talk 00:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it is a problem if the list becomes the same length as the previous iteration. The issue was verifiability - and I think we have that covered as to what constitutes a place. The second issue is no original research - OK so you and I cannot add Unnamed Conservation Park because we think it is unusual to have a place named unnamed - who then says it is an unusual name and with what qualifications. I am sure we do not need a source who has a PhD or a learned article. If you exclude lists, you are excluding too much. We should exclude lists that are derived from the wikipedia - ie from the former article or we will go around in circles - other than that demarcation, I cannot see where the line should be drawn. Why should not http://www.philbrodieband.com/jokes-jokes_town_names.htm be a source? http://www.thatsweird.net/facts9.shtml and http://www.thealmightyguru.com/Pointless/Cities.html etc from our current external links are just lists. We have an American who has written a book - reviewed at http://www.cnn.com/books/news/9803/02/town.names/index.html and also listed on Amazon - why because he has written a book and had it reviewed on a web page is that a better source than someone who comiled a list and published it on the internet?--A Y Arktos 00:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If all our criteria for what a source is becomes "someone said it somewhere online" then it is basically the same as using the old wikipedia list. "It's mentioned in a random blog" is tantamount to "a friend of mine said it was funny", which is tantamount to "I find it amusing", and we're back where we started. S "a friend said so" is a source, but only if that friend isn't a wikipedia contributor? No. Wikipedia has guidelines on what is and isn't a reliable source. The Fucking Austria article has a real source; I don't think two random people named Oscar and Juliana qualify. -R. fiend 05:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - See also Wikipedia:Verifiability, particularly the sections on citing sources, dubious sources, and self-published sources. -R. fiend 06:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Published books have permanence and selectivity. Anyone can start a blog and throw whatever they want up on it. JimGeorge and JoeBob can start a Blogspot with 1,000,000 different randomly selected place names and call them "unusual." Does that mean we list all those 1,000,000 names on this list? Because a book costs a nontrivial amount of money to publish and involves a certain amount of risk to publish, we can assume that the subject was vetted by editors and publishers, and the content of the book reviewed. We can assume that its author took time, effort and expense to research what he believed are the 501 most unusual town names. FCYTravis 06:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I give in - we have an abuse of process on the deletion of the previous article - we have an unworkable to my mind solution on this one - I have better things to write about.--A Y Arktos 07:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many topics in Wikipedia one is unlikely to find in Britannica, so one can't quote the usual {{1911}} as reference. References for such topics are also likely to be different from those in articles on Science. We would probably need to delete most articles if we only accepted academic journals in articles about Star Wars.
For this type of list, if we can quote two or several web-based sources, a wikipedia article explaining the name, one or several articles on the name, this should largely be sufficient. As we need to rebuild this list, a good start would be to take entries from the former list and find at least one source that can go with it. -- User:Docu

What you have described is more or less what I was trying to do. Verifiability of the place is covered by the blue link. If a red link, confirmation of the existence of a place would need to be checked. The AfD argument was that it was not NPOV for an editor to add a name to the list, even if it clearly met some criteria, eg the place name was a number which was defined as an unusual place name type. We now have a constraint about what source we are allowed to use for "unusual". We are talking about whether people view names as unusual - even blogs can represent people's views. However, somehow publication in a newspaper or book is deemed more authoratative. It is agreed that the principle of verifiability applies to place names (and did in the former list), but to exclude self-published sources in determining whether a name is unusual or otherwise, minimises our ability to add names to this list to the point of a farce - presumably the desired result - given the inappropriate processes around the AfDs and DRVs to date.A Y Arktos 10:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "even blogs can represent people's views", but a blog represents the view of a single person (or, I suppose, in the case of Oscar and Juliana, two people). Anyone can say anything once; that doesn't make it a worthy source for an encyclopedia. Or else all we would need is someone's blog to say so and the assertment that Seigenthaler "was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations" could be considered worthy of inclusion ("look! Someone's blog said so, so 'someone' thought it was true. It's a fact!"). It doesn't work that way. Or, for a more plausable example, we have a list of films considered the worst ever. They take into account widely held opnions by notable critics, as well as things that measure the feelings of many people, like rankings on IMDb. What it does not do is assert that Cookieman34 said on his myspace blog that Chicken Run is the worst movie ever. That is not a valid source. If you can find multiple independent referecnes on such things for unusual place names, we might be getting somewhere, but some random person's blog post is not satisfactory. -R. fiend 18:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful list, gone[edit]

This page sucks compared to what it was.

People aren't seriously suggesting that we only have placenames that we can find an authoritative (and that's pretty subjective) reference that suggests the placename is unusual. That's just pants.

zoney ♣ talk 01:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The list can exist like it used to, just not in the article namespace. Things like WP:NOR and WP:V apply to articles... that's just how it is. --W.marsh 01:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's not enough that the placename is verifiable -- we also have to find a reference saying that it is unusual? That's crazy. Kestenbaum 01:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it looks like the grinds have won on this one, at least for the time being. This was among the dumbest decisions I've witnessed here. older ≠ wiser 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Unusual" is such a subjective term, it is unmaintainable to have a list of every place anyone has ever found unusual. -- Astrokey44|talk 04:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the point whether the names are verifiable, the point as was discussed above with reference to the Austrian town of "Fucking", is whether such a list is encyclopaedic or not, and whether it lends itself to POV or not. More often than not the place names as originally conceived by its inhabitants has nothing to do with a translated meaning in a foreign language that is nevertheless being used for a laugh by just those foreigners who think it ever so funny to stand next to the town sign outside the town and have their photographs taken. By all means look it up in a book of jokes for a laugh and enjoy it there, but don't expect it to be in an encyclopaedia, that's all really. Dieter Simon 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One bit of good advice I should like to give everyone is to read previous talk sections and refer to what has been said in them rather than to trot out uninformed arguments all over again, as if it had never been discussed before. Dieter Simon 00:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some users think some entries are sophomoric humor is no reason for it not to exist. Like it or not, dirty words are exactly the kinds of things kid look up in encyclopedias and dictionaries. There's no reason we shouldn't give them something to find, as well as pointers to our educational articles about the places.

Matter of fact, that people stop at a place just to take a picture sounds like a notable place. SchmuckyTheCat 00:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the old list (history and all), so we can look through it to see what can be salvaged? Please don't tell me that it no longer exists. People worked on this list for over four years and while some of it may have been rubbish there were some gems. Jooler 00:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here. Its now also linked to at the top of this page (fixed the link that was there) -- Astrokey44|talk 03:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful list to be re-born[edit]

I had a lengthy discussion with JzG about this list on May 14 and since that time I've been thinking whether sorting information in a different way could be an alternative to losing all the information while adhering to Wikipedia principles, and I find what I proposed three weeks ago can still be a viable and suitable idea.

It implies specifying exact aspects within the vague range of "unusual", making lists (maybe five, maybe fifteen, maybe thirty-five) and sorting the items of the former, much more comprehensive list into these new lists. The examples I suggested for these lists were like

Place names referring to contradicting concepts
Place names with embarrassing content
Place names consisting of numbers
Place names longer than thirty letters
Place names recalling household items
etc. etc.

Although some people may not like this aspect of Wikipedia, already there are thousands of similar articles, for example List of places with fewer than ten residents, Extreme points of the world, lots of similar sub-lists among Lists of films, not mentioning all those listed among Unusual articles. As they say, "it's not a bug, it's a feature" (as opposed to the POV opinions of some). I think it would be a most effective way to save the information. I hope we can come up with aspects that are objective enough to be the basis for such lists and which could fully replace the original list in an improved form. Adam78 16:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the old list?[edit]

If I inadvertly deleted one or two items, I do unreservedly apologise. It was not meant to have been done and I must have got carried away, and certainly did not notice. As for the question where the old list is, well I am sorry that it needs reiterating. What do you normally do if you want to find out what has happened to an article over a period? You look it up in "History" or "Page history". However laborious it may turn out to be having to go back in time, it nonetheless is all there for all to see.

In this case the article, while having had its name changed several times, having been moved from the main name space to Wikipedia name space and back, having been placed in the "Article for deletion" columns, and having been voted on, it finally got reformatted in this new form. But it must be stressed that the consensus of opinions, and the vote determined that people believed the article was not really NPOV, wnd should be removed in its form at that time.

Just look at the period from 29. January to 15. February alone, you can see what convulsions the article went through, until it ultimately appeared in its present format. You can still see the full list if you go back to the History prior some time before 10 Feb. You can print it up or just look at your old favorite in the format that was. So, I do not think it was arbitrarily deleted by some people who seem to be accused of throwing their weight about and do whatever they like without consulting anyone else. Dieter Simon 01:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unusual articles[edit]

Why don't you move things over to Wikipedia:Unusual articles or create a subpage of that (Wikipedia:Unusual articles/Place names)? --Midnighttonight 08:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Highly subjective[edit]

This article is highly subjective and I feel it may violate WP:NPOV FunkyChicken! 05:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on that? Which viewpoint is being overrepresented? Which is being underrepresented? How could it be fixed? Stevage 07:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of opinion that a place name is considered unusual. I grew up one town over from Manitowoc, Wisconsin and non-locals thought it was an unusual name. Locals do not consider it unusual. So this would be an example of the subjectiveness. Perhaps just putting the article out of its misery will do? FunkyChicken! 23:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fun history[edit]

It's quite fun going to the earliest version of this list and then just clicking on Newer revision → - that is, until the list was destroyed by the saddos. Jooler 22:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This really needs reiterating, doesn't it? Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopaedia not a "fun history". I am afraid you can't have it both ways, either fun pages or objective elucidations of facts. A list of funny names will always be POV, however you dress it up. As soon as you are having a laugh at Fucking in Austria, you will have Brits and Americans lining up at the sign outside the little town having their photographs taken, and little old Austrian ladies passing by will be wondering what the "fun" is all about. Would you care to explain it to them, maybe in Austrian? I don't think so. I am sorry, if I am getting carried away here.

You are in many cases referring to people in one language thinking it fun talking about "funny" names in another language whose speakers are often not aware that their name is utterly hilarious in another language. While this is a fact and can't be helped, it should be discussed in as objective a manner as possible, such as the present article is doing it. What we should not have, a list of these names baldly presented, as "ha, look what I have found". This has absolutely nothing to do with "saddos". Please be reminded of the original purpose of Wikipedia. If this reminder is painful, so be it. Dieter Simon 23:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep you hair on. Worrying about whther people having their photos taken next to a sign will upset a little old Austrian woman is hardly objective either is it? The comment above was intended as an observation of the history page of this article. I apologise for adding the saddos comment but it's an opinion and I'm entitled to express it. Jooler 11:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A list of funny names will always be POV, however you dress it up." I oppose. A list of funny names can be a perfectly NPOV list, as long as there is a clear and objective common principle beyond the names, whatever it be. To take a silly example, there would be no POV about the "List of place names containing the word 'hamster'" but the contents of the list, the individual place names could be funny for some people (and uninteresting for others). The only POV thing will be whether they find it funny or not, but the definition of the list will remain to be NPOV.

See also my idea above about creating an NPOV version of the original, comprehensive list by specifying certain aspects (which aspects may make the names sound unusual, neutral or even unfunny for different people, depending on their own personality). Note that the aspects themselves are not supposed to contain any POV. Adam78 01:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that just ain't gonna work. The simple fact is that a good portion of the original list would qualify only under the "embarassing content" criterion, which is in itself POV. There's not much else there. -R. fiend 21:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to say, that was just an example. It can be clarified further into NPOV aspects, like "List of place names referring to sexual activities" etc. Do you think there would be any problem with it? Although "embarrassing content" doesn't have an article in Wikipedia, "sexual activity" can be exactly defined so it's hardly POV. Adam78 22:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. None of the place names, as far as I know, referenced sexual activity, only words that later became slang for sexual activity and the like, with words like "beaver", "intercourse" (hardly a sexual term without the word "sexual" in front of it), and the like. Since just about any word can have a sexual connotation if phrased accordingly ("Birkenstocks? I'd like to Birkenstock her, if you know what I mean!"), it's very open-ended. Are we to include Johnson, Nebraska, as "Johnson" is slang for penis? I'd like to think we're not that puerile, at least not yet. We're really going well beyond encyclopedic content here. -R. fiend 02:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler than you'd think. You can take a Merriam-Webster or an Oxford English Dictionary and you can check which words have objective reference to sexual activities in their definition and which words don't. Even "intercourse" can be decided by this criterion: either there is, or there isn't reference in the dictionaries to its sexual-related usage.

What we are discussing is, I think, whether there is anything valuable in the original collection if we exclude "puerile" things. I agree that they (or rather: things without objective semantic elements) should be excluded, but I think the earlier version of the list doesn't only contain subjective things.

This discussion makes me think as if you were trying to be overserious without being actually scientific, and I'm afraid it's not too good. Let me give an example: a kangaroo is, admittedly, unusual enough among mammals with its pouch but I hardly think there would be so many people wanting to prevent the creation of a list of marsupials. Yes, that would be a list of animals considered "unusual", but this "unusual" character would be exactly defined so no one would even think of deleting this list or preventing its creation. I don't really see why this issue is different, why linguistics is so different from biology. Perhaps because people feel somehow more involved in linguistics? But is that enough reason?... Adam78 23:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just take a look at the page history of the article[edit]

Hi Adam78, yes I know what you are saying but have you actually taken a look at the history/page history of the the article? It was renamed, the contents ws changed several times, people got confused what was and wasn't the way it should be edited time and time again. That was the main reason it was ultimately taken out of the ~~Wilipedia~~ name space, and because of what? Oh yes, there were many people well-disposed to the idea and tried to make a go of it, but there were an awful lot of who made a dog's dinner of it. It would pay you to go through the history and study this before you make any decision. Dieter Simon 23:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Start looking from about the 29.January onwards. Dieter Simon 23:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I run into this article just today. I was looking for names of places that have a remarkable syntactic property, like Woolloomooloo (containing four oos) and Glenelg (a palindrome). I would be interesting in other properties: shortest names containing all the vowels, names containing a certain letter a maximum number of times, and so on. I was disappointed in finding very little information on the article. But then I discovered that there used to be a very long list, but it was killed on 12 February. Was there a consensus reached about eliminating the list? A proper action would have been to eliminate the improper entries one by one giving reasons. Suppressing the whole list without justification looks like vandalism to me. Eubulide 18:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Eubulide, after all I said in the section headed: "Just take a look at the page history of the article", just prior to your own para, you are still asking why the article was changed to its present form. In fact, you are accusing everyone of "suppressing the whole list without justification (which) looks like vandalism to (you)". Well, do you never bother to read anything that has been written prior to making such accusations? Please read that section, I am not going to reiterate what I said there. Please, read it! And then check out the history/page history from 29.January onwards as I asked people to do, hopefully that will give you the explanation you are looking for. Dieter Simon 23:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not convincing for everyone, because it relates to a past version of this list, rather than to its variants or alternatives, which may be more feasible. If a list of marsupials can be a tenable idea for an article (which would be, in fact, a "list of animals considered unusual", see my comment above), then a list of place names can also be divided into sub-lists by specific criteria, which will become entirely suitable and regular articles of Wikipedia. People can argue about a list of marsupials, too, but it's no ground for avoiding to create such an article. This is what the criteria are for, so the arguments can be reduced. Adam78 01:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dieter Simon, I had indeed read the history and the discussion as you suggested before sending my previous message. It took a couple of hours and I was frustraded because I didn't find the answer to my questions there. I'm not accusing everybody of practicing vandalism: if everybody agrees in suppressing the list, then clearly it is not vandalism but good editorial policy. But from the discussion it is clear that there was strong disagreement and therefore it was not correct for one person to delete everything. My interpretation of the editorial rules is that when you want to delete content you should give reasons and delete only the offensive part, not the majority of an article. For example, nobody bothered to justify why Woolloomooloo was deleted. The criticism about place names that you and some others expressed, mainly that listing names that sound like American slang words without reference is unencyclopedic (and I agree with that), doesen't apply to it and to many other names that were in the list. In my opinion you should have deleted the names you disagreed with one by one, giving an explanation each time. Eubulide 14:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you went through the confusion, convulsions and convolutions of the article's last weeks in the main name space you must also have seen that there were great numbers of people iunvolved. It certainly wasn't just one person. The article had its name changed umpteen times, was moved hither and thither, was vandalised, no-one could make up their minds as to what should happen to it during the time when it was opened up for discussion , prompts and templates were entered and removed, POV was created, some wanted street names others didn't, field names were put in then removed, etc.

What ever makes you think this would ever be any different if it were brought back into the main name space? It is the type of list that lays itself wide open to the most atrocious POV and differences of opinions, as again you must have seen. You see, there were too many contrary opinions about this article, and people weren't reasonable. As for Adam's arming yourself with a Merriam-Webster is all very fine, but it's the one's which weren't in the M.-W. that caused the bother. Your taking them out of the list immediately afterwards wouldn't pacify tempers, in fact, they used to put them straight back in again.

You can argue till the cows come home, as lots of reasonable people did, bring in perfectly sensible guidelines, and then someone will argue and you will find yourself on the defensive trying to reason with them.

Anyway, good luck if ever you try to reintroduce it. Dieter Simon 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content[edit]

Huh... this article's gotten quite dumb. It's sad to see how a few people's lack of understanding of the concept of POV can destroy years of work by many contributors. I wouldn't complain if someone is bold and reintroduces the nice interesting list... --LimoWreck 12:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "considered" in an article title is a red flag for POV and OR, whether it's this or List of fast food restaurants considered really tasty. wikipediatrix 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh - what about

Jooler 00:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Limo, take a look at the last para just prior to your "Content" para, where I tried to explain why this type of list caused so many problems, I must say I am a bit surprised that you haven't read it, yet you go on about this "nice interesting list", as though it was the best thing since sliced bread. You really must also look at the history page of it. Dieter Simon 00:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag removal[edit]

I've removed the neutrality tag, as I can see no logical reason for it being there. The article in it's current state looks perfectly NPOV to me. --Gene_poole 06:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Westward Ho![edit]

What about the town of Westward Ho! in Devon, England? I think this is very unusual, as it was named after a novel and is the only town in the UK that uses an exclamation mark. What do you think? RSieradzki 22:23, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed the original list of names, which was a bone of contention from the word go. It was unmanageable, and was complained about. Please see the discussions and the history of the original article. Exactly the same will happen again, and we will see controversy after controversy because it lay itself wide open to POV. Dieter Simon 00:31, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a repeat of what I wrote[edit]

Please read this again, just in case you can't find the original of June 17, 2006:

Well, if you went through the confusion, convulsions and convolutions of the article's last weeks in the main name space you must also have seen that there were great numbers of people iunvolved. It certainly wasn't just one person. The article had its name changed umpteen times, was moved hither and thither, was vandalised, no-one could make up their minds as to what should happen to it during the time when it was opened up for discussion , prompts and templates were entered and removed, POV was created, some wanted street names others didn't, field names were put in then removed, etc.

What ever makes you think this would ever be any different if it were brought back into the main space? It is the type of list that lays itself wide open to the most atrocious POV and differences of opinions, as again you must have seen. You see, there were too many contrary opinions about this article, and people weren't reasonable. As for Adam's arming yourself with a Merriam-Webster is all very fine, but it's the one's which weren't in the M.-W. that caused the bother. Your taking them out of the list immediately afterwards wouldn't pacify tempers, in fact, they used to put them straight back in again.

You can argue till the cows come home, as lots of reasonable people did, bring in perfectly sensible guidelines, and then someone will argue and you will find yourself on the defensive trying to reason with them.

Anyway, good luck if ever you try to reintroduce it. Dieter Simon 01:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~::I shall also copy an excerpt of the history of the period involved, so you can see what the problem was.~~ I shall move the main space back to what it was. Dieter Simon 23:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to change my mind about copying the section of history mentioned above as it would be too great a chunk of copy to put on talk. All I can say is please, please, look at the history of the article from January 29 to February 15, and you will see what horrendous problems this article in the main space presented. Dieter Simon 00:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]