To-do list is empty: remove {{To do}} tag or click on edit to add an item.
OK, so, the baroque toilet paper holder, well... The original stub about Palladio and Blenheim Palace has experienced rapid growth, and the timeline of this article now stretches from ancient Egypt to the turn of the 20th century. More images needed, btw, share 'em if you've got 'em! A few more trips to the library, and I fully expect to include the silver toilet paper holders of the Aztecs, and also the technological improvements of the 20th century, perhaps with a separate section on digital paper holders. What do you think, fellow editors, as attached as we all are to the old name, isn't it time for a page move? Please share your ideas here. How about Art toilet paper holders through the ages? --Bishonen | Talk 22:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bogus article? Note: Thomas Crapper no joke![edit]
To me, this reads like a hoax - not least the claim to the referenced Crapper book which provides "authority" for the dubious Prince Albert / Gladstone / Disraeli section. "her ambition was taken up by others, however, including Emmeline Pankhurst". Uh huh. I'd like to see more verification. --Tagishsimon(talk)
I think you may be right that one of the last edits contained sneaky vandalism. I was hoping to keep this article on the level of art and culture, but there are always people who will think objets d'art are funny just becuse they're to do with personal hygiene. However, contrary to what people tend to assume, Thomas Crapper (1836-1910), the sanitary pioneer, is no joke! Try Google, you'll see. I have a book about Crapper right here on my desk, that I was just about to add to References: Reyburn, W. (1969). Flushed with Pride: The Story of Thomas Crapper. London. See Library of Congress! See Amazon.com!Bishonen | Talk 23:10, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding anonymous edits in "Victorian era": I too was a little suspicious and have attempted to check the claims out.: Neville William's book "Royal Homes" (1971) London, Lutterworth Press ISBN0 7188 0803 7, makes it quite clear that Prince Albert took a very special interest in the design inside and out of both Balmoral and Osborne, especially the sanitation. Albert also seems to have designed many fixtures and fitting personally. Including items made of deer horn at both houses. He doe not mention toilet paper holders by name, but this could be because of a delicacy on the subject when concerned with the Royal family.
Gladstone and Disraeli wrote extensively in journals and letters, it would be surprising if they never touched on sanitary conditions, bearing in mind these would have been a comparative marvel at the time in these modern palaces, but did they talk about bathroom fitments generally, or specifically to the toilet paper holder? - I can't find out.
Even today few British stately homes open to the public display the lavatories, one that does in Waddesden Manor and surprisingly another is Osborne House. Here Prince Albert's bathroom is displayed. I have checked English Heritage's " Osborne House" ISBN1 85074 2499, which shows photographs of both Victoria and Albert's bathrooms, though these are both amazingly luxurious the toilets are not visible, so no conclusions can be reached.
I think unless the editor concerned returns with references within 24 hours this section should be removed until it is verified. There is no evidence that Emmiline Pankhurst was involved with sanatory improvements, although it should be remembered that she was a great social reformer before and during her suffrage campaign. My private view is that this was added by a well intentioned editor, and is partially correct.
It should be remembered: this subject by its very nature will attract a lavatorial humour, and scepticism, especially as it is not one discussed until recent times. History is now taught in British schools relating to the common man, rather than historic battles, Kings and aristocrats, so subjects such as this are often a first, and facts accordingly hard to check Giano 08:56, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Bishonen is correct the page does need to be moved. but not to Bishonen's suggestion, this is far too long winded, and unlikely to be typed in by any information seeker, I suggest - well I can't think of anything right now - personally I think the word "toilet" is ambiguous and downmarket and would prefer "lavatory" or at least "WC" Giano 09:00, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Mmm. I see what you mean. How about "Heritage lavatory tissue dispenser"?--Bishonen | Talk 16:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more of "Bottom cleansing facilitator" Giano 16:29, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Let's save that one for the Ye Olde Bidet page.--Bishonen | Talk 17:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes. Why wasn't I informed? --Wetman 17:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My apologies, Wetman, I agree you should have been. But, well, there was no plan or anything, this page has been growing organically. I mean, we've both been doing a lot of research, obviously. Come to think of it, I might also ask: why didn't you find it? (Especially when it was in the article namespace, at Baroque toilet paper holder, now a redirect, but one with a delightful History tab.) Do please contribute, I know how well-informed you are in these artistic matters. Bishonen | Talk 18:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Substituting "abolitions" for "ablutions" is clearly part of a Judeo-Christian/Islamic Right-wing communist POV platform pushed by those who find natural bodily functions distasteful. To be truly encyclopaedic, this article needs a video clip of toilet paper actually being used. Filiocht 10:31, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Look I'm foreign OK, I confuse words! I'll take the video camera down into the Gent's in Hyde Park and see what happens!Giano 10:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
We'll have a collection for your legal expenses! We can call it the George Michael appeal fund. Filiocht 10:40, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the new early history material you've unearthed, Filiocht! Excellent point from Harold Bloom, you are clever. (Is that The Anxiety of Influence, or what? References, references, references!) I like the Sparta factoid especially, it really illustrates the topic's multiplicity of cultural aspects. As soon as I save here, I'm planning to move your beautiful Byzantine image to the lead, hope you don't mind (please just move it back if you object). I think it would make a fine keynote visual for the whole article, whereas the Fabergé egg was always too speculative for the purpose—it was only there because images have been such an overall problem.
I'm frankly a little worried about your Chinese angle, though. Note that, although the article name doesn't indicate it (it's going to need to be moved anyway), we are really doing European tph's only. Cf. lead: "facet of European bathroom design". The geographical limitation is admittedly already fuzzy around the edges, with ancient Egypt and Tsarist Russia getting a look-in, but still, with those areas an argument can be made for overlapping cultural spheres. It's not quite the same as aspiring to global coverage, which would be a daunting task. The Chinese material is nice and all, but perhaps you could formulate it in a more throwaway manner, like in the form of an acknowledgement that rich tph traditions did and do exist outside of Europe? (Such an acknowledgement is anyways appropriate, now I think of it, and would need to come as early as possible, naturally. Put in the silver Aztec holders, if you like, I've got sources for that.) As for the Terracotta Army queuing to use the camp latrine, uh, well, a very arresting notion and a handsome image, but it frankly sounds a little non-mainstream to me. I thought they were parading or whatever. Non-mainstream isn't necessarily bad, but you need to source it—attribute it to someone—preferably with an inline reference, we are grooming this for FAC, you know. Anyway, thanks very much, you've certainly enriched the early history! Bishonen | Talk 12:10, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Prince Albert and the tph: Little known fact that Prince Albert spent a great deal of time designing and redesigning the fixtures. That's the origin of the British and American joke, "Do you have Prince Albert in a can? Well, you'd better let him out." Prince Albert was "in the can" in life, and the tobacco named after him was meant to honor his predilections by putting the tobacco in a can.
Also, I think the terra cotta warriors lining up for the bathroom is an excellent speculation, although I cannot agree with it. Had there been rock concerts in ancient China, then it would make sense for the warriors to be queuing for the bog, but in an age before amplifiers and rock show promoters, I can only assume that the warriors are totems of constipation: a religious signifier warning the populace to use the bathroom, so that they might not petrify as the warriors did. Geogre 12:28, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good one, Giano (sigh) but I'm assuming you don't mean to leave the poster-size image of your mother-in-law's "Palladian" tph in the 18th c section for when we go live? Our mission is to get an often-belittled topic taken seriously, you know, and, with respect, there are plenty of your relatives in there already. Sheesh, guys, sometimes is like you're inviting that patriarchal scepticism. And proper sources, please, everyone! If it's for a detail that's not easy to find through the index, inline page references are appreciated. (I'm kind of starting to hope that the references we already have may suffice to source a few more claims—the References section is getting almost provocatively long, by no means a desired effect.) Let's all keep in mind that we're going for an encyclopedic tone here. A little problematization, a few cautious reservations, can only enhance your brilliant aperçus! Filiocht, I applaud your European-Chinese connection through Marco Polo, that's a great way of keeping the European focus. Racial purity, hmmm... dunno. Are you going past "antique" with the tph history itself, or is this a fascist theorising of tph's throough the ages that you're talking about? Because if so, I gotta say I got nothing. Bishonen | Talk 14:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Having just unearthed a nugget on the Grail, I feel that Hitler is only a heartbeat away. If only I could dig up the research behind Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade I might be able to pull it all together. After all, the notion that a key indicator of personal hygiene, and, by extension, of racial purity, seemed to have originated from the Golden Crescent would surely have sent any good Aryan into a tailspin. 15:07, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC) Filiocht
Oh, sure, I do see the significance of the hygiene-purity connection, most certainly. (Though, again, my still unrealized favorite project of a "Ye Olde bidet" page might be an even better place for it—even greater "purity", you know?) The Holy Grail a tph...? Fascinating. Admittedly they come in many surprising shapes, but... well, I thought the HG was basically a bowl. Like, a possible potty rather than a tph? We mustn't shirk indelicate questions like, what exactly would it hold, as a tph? Balled-up bits of patterned parchment... ? It just seems too luxurious a material to be treated so cavalierly. Bishonen | Talk 15:32, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I imagine it holding some of the lost books of the New Testament. Hence the fact that they are lost... Filiocht 15:37, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
There are times Bishonen when I suspect you have no appreciation of the finer things in life, that priceless object d'art is a family heirloom, it is the first ever photograph of such an item, the only one even slightly similar is in the Vatican, but if you don't want it on the page that's fine, generations of the Chiaramonte have reached for that object in their hour of need, anyway no matter if its not good enough for you OK! Giano 19:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
No, no, I realize there's not a lot of genuine brass-plated tin around any more, keep it, keep it, if you value it. Bishonen | Talk 19:38, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I tried to straighten out the chronology a bit, hope I got it right, and in the process noticed a bit of a lacuna around the year 1000. Geogre, I know you've been reading Icelandic sagas recently, anything in there? "These sharp-edged toilet paper holders are becoming fashionable, I see [dies]"? "No, Gunnar, this is for the time you hit me: I will not hand you the toilet paper?" Any indication that the Stonehenge holders found their way along the whale-road? Bishonen | Talk 06:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And welcome, Pete! Bishonen | Talk 06:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Ah, I did not see this request. Of course there is matter there, which has been hidden by time. Before it is all flushed away entirely, I will see what I can add to the subject. The problem was that futharc was an inscribed language, and so the bone tph's they had were often too large for easy use. Thus it is that the longest piece of fecal matter (now a coprolith) in existence was from a "Viking" settlement. This piece of feces measured over 18 cm long. Why is that? The absence of abundant paper? Of course not! We know that the Icelanders and Norwegians were trading as far away as Kiev. It was because the tph was rather large, so the sheets of paper were folio! One needed to be expansive, as it were, to use the bathroom in those days, among those people. Geogre 20:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, there's been a lot of wonderful new information added in the past 24 hours, thank you Filiocht and Giano! So I expanded the lead. Could you all review it, please? I'm anything but happy about the crude way I summarize the Grail material there, need I say. I kind of ran out of steam, and with the bald way I put that particular thing, I'm afraid of again putting into people's heads the idea of the whole thing being a joke (compare the "Bogus article?" entry above), obviously the last thing we want. We're trying to educate people here, not raise a cheap laugh. It would be great if somebody could do a more convincing-sounding Grail sentence, and maybe other sentences, too, do feel free. Bishonen | Talk 08:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC) P. S. Got an edit conflict—oh, Filiocht! [reproachfully]. Just as I'm calling for seriousness, you insert a trivia section? You do recollect a trivia section is a pet peeve of many FAC voters, right? OK, I'll save and go check it out, it better be good!Bishonen | Talk 08:38, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
BTW, thanks for clarifying my gender bit for the layman; I hang my head in shame when I think of how my sense of mission caused me to lose sight of the gentle reader. Filiocht 08:43, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Well... OK. The haiku is quite tasteful, I suppose. Would you consider taking it in lieu of your threatened video clip of toilet paper actually being used? Mind you, I would very much like to see an animated .gif of Giano's astoundingly graphic cave paintings apparently representing that same thing. That's what I call cultural. (Yes, I do appreciate the finer things in life!) Bishonen | Talk 08:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seems like a fair swap. I have two more general additions in mind; a section on the Celtic dimension and a brief reference to the theory that the Liberty Bell was cracked by an over-vigorous yank (pardon the pun) on the roll of paper it was holding at the time. This latter gets in on the basis that the US is a fringe part of Greater Europe. Care to lend a hand? Filiocht 08:59, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I think we can put the whole world, including the Liberty Bell, into trivia, fine: but I have some objections to putting the US into Europe. 1) They have a very rich—or, well, that may not be the way to put it—a very ample toilet paper holder history of their own. Not in years—native American toilet paper holders appear to have been of a utilitaraian nature—but in regional variation. And as with Palladian arachitecture, the Americans consider themselves the true keepers of the flame of the Palladian toilet paper holder, and, not to put too fine a point on it, Pete is here, you know—you want to encourage him to make claims for the pre-eminence of his native tph's? I just see the article becoming twice as long, if that kind of thing starts, and acrimony of patriotism breaking out on the Talk page. (Sorry, Pete, I know it wouldn't be your fault if it did.) 2) I'm loath to abandon the original conception of this as a kind of celebration of the EU—a companion piece, if you will, for PGreenfinch's EU Olympic medal count pages, which were such an ornament to VfD, back in the times when I still frequented VfD. Something of a counterweight to Wikipedia Americentrism. But for a Celtic dimension, what could be more marvellous, absolutely! I noted with great satisfaction, summarizing stuff for the Lead, that mere personal hygiene no longer rules unchallenged in this article—a strong religious dimension is creeping in! That should appeal to a whole new audience section. A bit of Celtic mystery and moonshine for the New Agers would be the perfect complement. Has King Arthur even been mentioned yet? I think not! An omission indeed. Bishonen | Talk 10:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Hinted at in the Grail material, but not actually mentioned. I'll chase up what I can on this. Filiocht 10:16, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have added a section on Celtic material, but it is, of course, entirely inadequate. Please improve it for me. Filiocht 11:19, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
A ha! The Grail a tph --> excrement --> improved farming practices --> Celtic vegetation cult --> abandonment of hunter-gatherer culture --> death of the Round Table! Filiocht, I salute you, that's awesome, I'm humbled. It makes my Grail mention in the Lead look even worse, couldn't you please expand it to do justice to your new Celtic twilight bit? Meanwhile, I go do a little chronology/TOC tweaking again, please just revert if you don't like how it comes out. Bishonen | Talk 11:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. While we're in the business of recognising excellence, can I just congratulate you on the accuity of your recent edit summaries. I almost feel I no longer need to read the article itself. Filiocht 13:23, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Three further points: 1)The key to the authority of the Arthur passage is the manner in which I attempt to replicate the style of the 1911 EB. 2) As for the Lead; just a minor point, but don't you think it's already a tad too long for FAC already? 3) Are we due a revert war yet? and 4) Isn't text formatting FUN!!!! Filiocht 13:33, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
I do think the lead is too detailed, I was bunging everything in with the idea that the people who provided the summarized material could shorten their own bits in it conservatively. But I might as well have a shot, then anybody can go back to the exhaustive version and pluck the plums from it, if they think their special baby has ended up bowdlerized. On the edit summaries: thank you, it is indeed my ultimate goal to make the article itself redundant. I'm very proud of the History altogether, as a record of a fine collaboration, and am sorry I left part of it behind at Baroque toilet paper holder, now a mere redirect to the stub Toilet roll holder, especially as it records some of Giano's most inimitable contributions. Fil, you're an admin, do you know how to merge the histories? I asked on IRC yesterday, and was told it's pretty easy in a case like this, where the original article stopped being edited as soon as the new one came into existence. Are you up for it? I have a description, of a sort (courtesy of none other than Raul on IRC...!), but I don't have the "undelete" powers that you do, so I can't do it myself. Alternatively, I have somebody in mind I think is both technical-minded and discreet, my good friend User:DBachmann.Bishonen | Talk 15:00, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, that was a first, but I did it. Now I think I need to lie down in a dark room. The sheer stress of realising that I held the history of this masterpiece in my humble hands (well, you know what I mean). Still, I seem to have managed not to mess it up. I'm going to add a to do list now. Maybe you'd move it to the top of the page next time you're here? Filiocht 16:18, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)
Honestly, how slow can this server get? You're brilliant, Fil, how is that ulcer? It's a true pleasure to see it all properly lined up. I guess I forgot to mention that Raul and Sannse, who both jumped in with a lot of fine advice last night, did use the words "careful" and "stress" a good deal, and altogether I, well, received an impression of unspecified psychic horrors. True fact, and sorry about that. Thank you very much, do recover! (And when you have, would you consider, uh, also merging the Talk page histories...?) Bishonen | Talk 16:43, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Restored by a good night's sleep and a mighty movement, I have now merged the talk histories as well. Is there any other way in which I can be of service? Filiocht 08:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Wonderful! Pete, you've lifted the page visually by about 100% right there, I can't believe what a lovely, artistic piece you've managed to photograph. And it shows a beautiful sentiment of reverence too, for the tph image that gave birth to the original stub from which this page has blossomed. I can still see those great restrained flutings of Vanbrugh's—you've made me very happy! Bishonen | Talk 16:55, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, I've always felt it was a very elegiac piece. I'm pleased you detected Vanbrugh's influence--you must be trained in art history. PRiis 18:11, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't realized, but I suppose I must. The scope and penetration of Vanbrugh's influence is truly amazing—just look here! Bishonen | Talk 18:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's a steal at $27.48! But is that faux mahagony I detect? Fauxhagony? PRiis 23:28, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and Filiocht, now you're talkin'! I can't tell you what a pedant's delight it is to see an unassailable, truly specific inline reference like "Gibbon passim". --Bishonen | Talk 23:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well spotted, indeed. IMHO, my finest contribution to the article to date. Filiocht 08:25, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I agonised for hours over the hyphenation of 'now-lost' in the sentence on Layamon's possible sources. Can anyone else please clarify and/or fix? Filiocht 08:46, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
Like a gent caught short only to find that tph is empty, we've been nominated on WP:FAC. Go vote, everybody. Filiocht 10:15, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
On the other hand, if an FAC listing results in contributions of the quality of Wetman's addition to the Trivia section, it can only be a good thing. Filiocht 10:39, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
I notice with regret that some people are referring to this page as a joke. Even in a recent edit summary..! It's a scholarly page about, granted, a marginal subject, but a subject that admits a grand, illustrative, often eye-opening, sweep through European art history, design history, and political history. The page even has a religious dimension. If you think the personal hygiene angle makes all this funny, with all due respect, might you be reproducing the masculine domination strategy of toilet humour? Please see section "Gender perspective: 'invisible' toilet paper holders" for an analysis of that knee-jerk reaction! Out of a highly educational page, I consider that section to be the most educational. Bishonen | Talk 18:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I strongly suspect it is the analy retentive British contingent of editors who find this serious subject amusing, this can probably be traced to British public school education, where I am reliably informed TPHs, often empty or loaded with a hard scratchy type of paper, were seen as instruments of torture; a brave soul who found an empty TPH and (usually pointlessly) called to his peers for assistance often became a figure of negative ridicule. There is probably also a hint of ethnic jealousy, as many of the finer and more superior examples, (excluding the Germano-Celtic antler variety) both antique and modern, are of an Italianate style, if not actually Italian therefore demonstrating and compunding the superiority of Italian design and chic for which its people are so well known and admired throughout the world. Giano 08:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As an Irishman, I'd also like to point up the element of imperialism inhenent in the English attitude. After 700 years of ramming their toilet paper down our throats, the Brits find it impossible to believe or accept that we had personal hygiene while they were still daubing themselves with wattle! Filiocht 08:23, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
I know I'm the local commie and all, but I had to add something to the 21st c. section. Notice how Americans and Brits don't get bidets? Notice how Japanese super toilets aren't in use? What is that except the desire to retain class distinctions? What of the increasing popularity of scented hubs for toilet paper rolls? What is that except an attempt by the upper bourgeoise to say that their sh*t don't stink? Isn't it obvious that the whole issue is inextricably bound up in class and gender identity? Plus, why has no one pointed out the psychology of it, the fear of feces, the body-consciousness, the way that toilet paper holders are part of the social neurosis that leads to anorexia and bulimia among young women? One's body must be covered up in decoration, in scents, for one is always at war with the smelly parts of the anatomy! Obvious, obvious, obvious! Geogre 20:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
You know, I really must object. It's little known that it was an Irishman who, in 1575, originally invented the toilet. 20 years later it was improved by John Harington who, in 1596, put a hole in the seat. I really feel that this has been a neglected fact about toilets, one that should be resolved - and soon! - Ta bu shi da yu 14:48, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I must protest this latest addition, and even more these alarming suggestions of more to come. The worm must turn. Oh, what is happening to the page of spectacular opulence, of Palladio, of Fabergé, of an unbroken line of splendid bathroom fitments from Villa Franca to Balmoral, of royal gifts, even, I never thought I'd say this, of Giano's aunts? Aren't we wandering a bit far from the subject? First actual toilet paper entered the scene—that was gross enough, but I couldn't deny it was tenuously relevant—now the bidets are taking over and the shit is waiting to hit the fan. Geogre, dear, wouldn't you like to go create Ye Olde bidet, Ye Olde smelly parts, and Ye Olde fecal matter (I see above that you have excellent Icelandic material for that one), link them from "European toilet paper holder", and do some nice historical/antique prospectuses in them? Filiocht would pitch in, I'm sure. Bishonen | Talk 21:02, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
P. S. Geogre, I hope you don't take me to imply any lack of appreciation for your tph contributions! You know I love them, please keep them coming, you've been too rare a visitor at this article. It needs you. I'm just saying, you know, that it might be nice for you to have some, uh, special outlets? For your, hmm. Special interests.. ? Proclivities. Bishonen | Talk 00:21, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, if you're afraid to face the end of the process, then I suggest you take heart, show your fiber, and realize that the holder is only significant as a signifier for the signified of feces. To consider the holder without the paper, and the paper without the thing it covers (the ink of ordure is covered by the white of the paper, rather than being inscribed by it?) is to consider the breath mint without admitting that there is halitosis. Only the "problem" of fecal contamination makes the "cure" of the toilet paper roll, and only the portability of the toilet paper roll makes it necessary to fasten and root and therefore to contain the mobility of the toilet paper with a holder. The holder prevents the contamination of domestic space by the paper, which is so inextricably linked to the signified of evacuation that its mere presence defiles a room. The lady coming from the toilet with paper stuck to her Prada high heel shoes is humorous only to the class conscious and only because she is ritually defiled by the admission of bowel movements. Geogre 03:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not so much afraid to face it (though I'm not so bendy as I was), as suggesting we don't need any complementary logorrhea process about it. What's wrong with a simple "Oh! Celia, Celia, Celia shits!"? Bishonen | Talk 07:20, 12 Feb
2005 (UTC)
As the scion of one of the great TPH pioneering families, the factory in Urbino is still in production (mail order from User talk:Giano, large discounts to registered editors) I feel the page is digressing (yes you Geogre!) if it was a page on Vases would you feel the nedd to discuss every type of flower? - No you would not. So please confine yourself to the artefacts in hand (by that I mean TPHs nothing else!). This page needs to maintain style and panache Giano 10:06, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS I am offering the Palladian at 50% discount, and accept all major credit cards
I may not be very good on the difference between Prada and Pravda (incidentally, Geogre, I believe I'm the local commie!) or whatever it was, but I do know a tasteful metaphor when I see it. You da man, Giano, and thank you for the lovely award on my page, too. Bishonen | Talk 13:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
What's this section doing in an article called "User: Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder" (my emphasis)? I suggest this section is moved to User:ALoan/Digital bathroom fitments instead, jguk 12:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Just as the digital, paperless office is so scarce as to have high rarity value, who are we to argue that these fittings will not be the antiques of the future? Filiocht 13:17, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Moved, nothing. Your technically right, jguk, but the chronology has been expanding irresistibly in both directions, with input from many editors, out from the original stub Baroque toilet paper holder, which was about Vanbrugh's famous "Blenheim holder." The article was moved to "Antique" to recognize that it had gone beyond baroque, and it's going to have to be moved again (into the article space, if I could convince myself it would be safe there—compare my recent comment on FAC), I'm thinking maybe to European toilet paper holder, with a note on Tutankhamun as an honorary European. Don't you go despoiling it of its beauties. We will by no means give up ALoan's "vestigial" tph, with its invaluable suggestion of an organic tph dimension.--Bishonen | Talk 13:19, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Seconded. Why not just do the move? I think we can cite the FAC nomination as a defense on VfD. Filiocht 13:31, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Indeed - I myself had second thoughts about the "antiqueness" of the 21st century digital tph, but I was merely (upon request) providing one of the items listed in the "todo" list above. The article has expanded well beyond its titles heretofore, but I don't think we should limit ourselves to European tph - neither Egypt nor Japan are in Europe. Look at Japanese toilet (itself a featured article, btw) for an example of a Meiji-era wooden tph, which may be an appropriate addition here. Unfortunately, the finer points of historic Japanese tph are outwith my knowledge. -- ALoan(Talk) 14:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
(Losing indent). Many pages have been on FAC and VfD simultaneously, it hasn't worked as a defence (American spelling, and from you, Fil!) so far. Consider the Ashlee Simpson case. At least, I wish somebody would take it to IRC first. I'd like to sound out Raul to see if he would consider it a provocation, and generally listen for if anybody there seems set to pounce, because for my money this page becomes silly vandalism the moment it's in the article namespace. As such, why wouldn't it be speedied, even? I can't go on IRC (I'm practically typing from in class), Geogre may be the only IRCer around (unless he's left). Bishonen | Talk 14:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Not so much US spelling as bloody awful typing! Filiocht 14:58, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Edit conflict: ALoan, for aspirations to global coverage, I'm totally against them, please see my posts at "Recent edits" and "Expanded lead" above! Bishonen | Talk 14:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Edit conflict again!! This is too recursive for me--I'm still trying to answer Filiocht's "Why not just do the move?", it's beginning to look impossible.--Bishonen | Talk 14:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I still like Toilet tissue bottom cleansing facilitator which has more of a transatlantic ring to it, allthough there should still be reference to the important Irish and Italian input. Giano 14:52, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
And now the integrety of our referencing is being questioned on the FAC page. Best to leave the page where it is. Filiocht 14:56, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
I do think it's safer, people have a delicacy about VfD'ing and otherwise messing with the userspace. I have replied haughtily to Taxman (and removed PRiis' Porter book... :-)). I'll only get another edit conflict, but I have to say to Giano: don't you mean output?--Bishonen | Talk 14:59, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree best leave it where it is, I just can't believe how unread some people are. And stop criticising my English! Giano 15:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
PS - Why can't I mention G W Bush?
Because he makes cheap jokes too easy. Filiocht 15:19, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Why is this missing? Fredrik | talk 14:30, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Because of authorial ignorance, if I can speak for myself alone. Please give us some guidance, or better still, add a section to the article. Filiocht 14:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
Announcing creation of hub article "Toilet paper holder"[edit]
Considering its quality, User:Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder is by no means too long, but I feel that it's in danger of becoming so, in view of some of the more enthusiastic proposals for expanding it to take in the whole world. There is optimal length, and then there is off-putting length. To keep this article optimal and at the same time to get the global contributions rolling in, rather than merely being proposed, I have tried to provide a more appropriate format, thus:
I have moved the article to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. I think the "Antique" name at the FAC nomination may be best left alone, since I've seen some signal complications arising when people have tried to change article names on FAC. The old page is now a redirect to the new, so the links should work just the same.
I've put a two-paragraph summary of User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder (in fact our lead section) into the global article, and invite the people who will no doubt soon be creating articles for the other continents to do the same for those. The global article will presumably need its own intro and some general sections, but I leave all that to abler pens.
I would be sorry to lose any of the great material in the present article, and have for now left the brief passages referring to Egypt, China, and Japan where they are, though I feel compelled in logic to invite whoever creates the relevant sibling articles to harvest not merely inspiration, but also these bits of actual text, from User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder.
P.S. Don't perpetrate any hoaxes when you create these new pages, please. And if you do, don't put 'em in the article namespace. --Bishonen | Talk 20:06, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Well, that didn't help, Asian edits are still being added to the European article. Those edits are great in themselves, I appreciate them, but IMHO the article is just getting too long to be funny. If it gets much more elaborate than this, I for one wouldn't read it. If others feel I have the wrong idea, please tell me on this page, I have no wish to try to dictate to other editors what they should or should not do. But this is my suggested policy for the article, submitted for your approval:
Can we keep all materials from the Golden Crescent and the Eastern Empire in the Europe article, as it is impossible to understand the evolution of Western tphs without this background. Ditto the Marco Polo stuff. Filiocht 12:01, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Hey, the blarney man is back, cool! (I've edited Blarney, it was woeful.) Please explain, draw a map if necessary, which bits of the map exactly these fancy roundabout terms of yours involve. The permafrost dame school that was my higher education had to follow the reindeer like everybody else, and between pitching and unpitching the tents and setting up the toilet paper holders for the night, the geography class never got much beyond the next glacier. Better still, please restore relevant bits yourself! Bishonen | Talk 12:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moorish open-air water closet with lion toilet paper holders[edit]
Excellence strikes again, thank you Filiocht! :-) Bishonen | Talk 17:28, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Please read, 12 Feb, the latest on where we stand: Raul on IRC[edit]
Raul654 will under no circumstances feature a faux article on the Main Page, April 1 or no April 1. (Well, I didn't really think he would.) He wants an article from Unusual articles brought up to Featured standard so he can use it on April 1, in case any of you feel like working on that. I asked if he thought User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder would be speedied if it was moved to the article namespace, and he said no, but of course it would be VfD'd. I said I didn't see how it would ever survive VfD, and he sort of agreed. He advised me to keep it in userspace. However, if you guys are hungry for some more limelight, we could always move it into the article space, wait for the VfD listing, and have ourselves a fun process and a bigger audience there. Don't see why anybody would need to actually hurt the page, if we moved it back into my space if/when the vote started to look bad, but I'm not sure how that would work—maybe it would provoke people into insisting this user subpage be deleted, too. Anyway, I'll leave that up to others to decide, especially the more recent contributors, who may still feel protective of the page, where I'm beginning to be a little jaded.--Bishonen | Talk 19:46, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
If serious and respected newspapers and media stations can run April fools jokes why can't Wikipedia, one always runs an explanation the following day (for those who were fooled) However if Wiki is to be totally devoid of a sense of humour, lets release it into the wild, it could be a laugh as some will take it seriously and edit and question, and the pompous reasons for its deletion could be amusing - lets have a final laugh with it - well that's my POV what say the rest? Probably a good idea to hide this talk page though Giano 20:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page should be the featured article on 1 April. I'm sure a discussion on Talk:Main page would get sufficient support to persuage Raul to change his mind.
Equally clear, this page should not be in the article namespace (except on 1 April!) jguk 20:24, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Limelight! What do you mean "limelight"? Close the door, for decency's sake! Now, if the Featured Article on the Front Page were paper it'd be of some use.--Wetman 20:50, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
On reflection it will be well and truly over the top by April 1st, it needs releasing now, its run its course and needs to take its chance Giano 20:58, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Giano, yes, this talk page could be archived, or simply cleaned of broad unseemly winks. Most of it is very serious and proper, after all. ;-) It does seem a little absurd for wikipedia to take itself more seriously than the BBC and the New York Times. And thank you, jguk, very clearly put, I guess I agree with you on both points. I won't move to initiate any Talk:Main page discussion myself, though, I think I've been making a spectacle of myself whipping this horse enough, and then some. Perhaps jguk, if you're in favour of having such a discussion...? If April 1 remains a non-starter, I'm with Giano that a VfD would be a fun way to go. But note that Filiocht is always away at weekends, and PRiis and Geogre both seem to be only tenuously around just now, so I wouldn't feeel right about moving to the article namespace in a hurry, whatever else happens. Bishonen | Talk 21:10, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC). Aha, edit conflict, hi, Wetman. I think you have provided us with a (suitably mysterious) clarion call: Wikipedia is not toilet paper!
'What would Ta bu shi da yu do?' The author of this comment has requested that you ask, WWTBSDYD? Please edit this article in any way to improve it.
Other editors' input is requested on whether Ta bu shi da yu's new caption for Rodin's "The Thinker" is indeed better than the original one. My own view is that the original caption goes with the trivia item in the text (and is needed as a translation of the lovely French phrase there), and the new one doesn't. Bishonen | Talk 14:01, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe we could integrate the two. Of much greater concern is the lapse in Poundian scholarship evident in the trivia section. Fancy not giving the actual canto number. Well, really! Filiocht 16:20, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
This is all becoming rather distasteful, it is a well known fact the one cannot sit on a bog, as a bog is something that Irish people fall into after drinking too much poteen (except for Filiocht, who is far to sensible), nor do I like the word toilet as in Bishonen's caption (Yes, I know I could have mentioned this aversion to the word toilet a month or so ago) to have a translation of the French at all is to patronise the reader by assuming they do not speak French, therefore I propose it is captioned in Irish Gaelic in its entirety as a salute to Rodin, who was not Irish, but probably would have liked to have been. Giano 17:28, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what sort of linkage there should be between this article and "Nihilartikel", but I hope this mention on the talk page is a start. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:30, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
28 February: Every culture article should have one: first reference to Plato's Republic! By Filiocht.
1 March: First footnote! By TheoClarke.
4 March: First use of the word "catalyst"! Another breakthrough by TheoClarke.
5 March: Latest historic update: precarious position of toilet paper holder during the French revolution! By ALoan.
--Bishonen | Talk 11:49, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I've noted a disturbing trend towards reversion on this page. As one who takes his admin responsibilities seriously, I feel I must warn the edit warriors that any breached of the 3RR will be taken to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR and dealt with through due process, after which reverters will be banned, have their bans revoked unilaterally, ask to be banned again because others were not unbanned as quickly as they were, and then return to their old ways as if nothing had happened. Filiocht | Talk 15:08, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
Nya na na na na! Admin schmadmin! --Bishonen|Talk 15:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Filiocht, there is no reason to engage in tacit threats that could easily be construed as personal attacks.
I feel this is part of a growing trend among administrators to simply ignore any attempt at good-faith dispute resolution, and liberally reinterpret policy instead to facilitate the kind of unilateral action they consider to best protect Wikipedia's interests. Please assume good faith and use your status as an administrator to enable and encourage goal-oriented discussion among contributors instead. This will benefit us all much more than indiscriminate blocks and bans.
Bishonen, I infer from your reply that you take personal offense at Filiocht's comments. Would you please elaborate the specific objections you have? Comments like "admin schmadmin" border on personal attacks and are not a productive means of resolving disputes. JRM 15:34, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)
Although I know that I am right and you are all wrong, I feel impelled to draw it to the intention of the elitist administrators that I am being attacked simply because my name starts with "T". Why you cannot simply admit your T-phobia instead of attacking the serious work that I am trying to do here is not clear to me. I expect that it is ineveitable since every other editor is a left-wing poltically-correct maniac. Yes, User:Squaorgle, that includes you! --Theo (Talk) 15:48, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you had read all my contribution history (84,521 edits including 7 in the mainspace), you would know that some of my best friends have names beginning with "T". --Squaorgle(Talk) 15:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The first of several threads starts with this message: [2]
Realising from a comment here that the possible presence of ETPH on the Main page for April 1 was currently the topic on the wikiEN mailing list, I joined the list, read up the archives where mav and Raul were asking Jimbo to weigh in, and, guess what, immediately got a post from Jimbo. He writes thusly:
"I'm torn. I think it's really fun, but we're also a very serious project. So I gave it some thought and I have this idea... Just for fun, why don't we have a game on Friday to create an alternative main page, linked from the main page? 'Click here to see our April Fool's Page.' And on that page, we have fun with ourselves... nothing mean spirited against each other, but gently having some fun with our quirks. So yes, the feature article can be the european toilet paper page. But we also could have an article about Gdansk."
To my way of thinking, "Click here to see our April Fool's Page" has to be the lamest April 1 "joke" ever, and in my impulsive way I have written to the mailing list to say so. I also asked pointedly if I get any say in whether or not ETPH is moved out of my userspace for April 1. Personally I would rather not it was used for such a poor jape, and I suppose that if anybody's going to protest, it had probably better be me, because of the space thing. But I want to emphasize that I don't feel I have any more moral authority over the page than other contributors. Well, maybe with the exception of Giano's mother-in-law. And I haven't protested as yet, I've only asked if a protest would be heeded (to which the answer will probably be a resounding "You're kidding"). So, people, what do you think? Even the lame version would be limelight and attention, which I know some of you poor saps... oh, never mind, forgot what I was gonna say. Anyway, please post your thoughts on the matter here, and we will surely be able to reach consensus as usual. (Filiocht, about that admin—schmadmin crack, you're over that now, aren't you?). --Bishonen|Talk 23:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not a contributor to this work of art, although I rub it up now and then by fixing some typos. Could you give a link to this mailing list conversation? Meanwhile, I fully concur with your comment; the 'click here to see what we would like to fool you with'-thing is really sad. — mark✎ 23:48, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo's 'plan' is a joke in itself. Filiocht | Talk 07:24, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
As we have by now established, Wikipedia doesn't celebrate April Fool's. Nice try, people. Now, let me think of a good prank to pull on Raul654... JRM 07:41, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
Bish, I'm well over it. Any protest you care to make will have my 100% support. This outcome is just depressing. Filiocht | Talk 08:46, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Same holds for me. — mark✎ 09:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My commiserations, friends. As you may alread be aware, the decision has been passed down from on high that the Featured Article tomorrow will be Nintendo Entertainment System. I wish this were a joke, and if I were posting this tomorrow rather than today then you might be well inclined to think so, but I assure you it is true [3]. I have just posted my profound disappointments about the outcome to WikiEN. I am afraid your singular talents are squandered here, pearls before the swine, etc etc etc. Yours in mourning, Viajero 11:11, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I find it sad that WP is intended to be more solemn than serious. The idea of pre-announcing foolery undermines the idea so fundamentally that I can only imagine that Jimbo has become confused by his desire to satisfy both parties. Personally, I have had/am having so much fun with this that the main page issue is irrelevant. The completely humorless choice of NES after opening a debate seems particularly autocratic but it is the indicator of solemnity as a core value that disappoints me. --Theo (Talk) 13:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That and the fact that some opinions are more highly regarded that others. Filiocht | Talk 14:09, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
Do you really have a problem with some opinions carrying more weight than others, Fil? (May I call you Fil?) It seems to me that Mark/Raul stated his opinion at the outset and stuck with it. I do not admire that, but it is his prerogative. Sigh ... --Theo (Talk) 14:20, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fil is fine. I do, when there is so clearly a consensus against that opinion. I agree wholeheartedly with what dab said on the subject, I'm afraid. Yes, it is prerogative to stick to his opinion, but is his responsibility to concede when his opinion does not carry the day, just like any other member of the community. Running to Jimbo when the other children did not want to play the game reflects very badly on him, and on mav, IMHO. Filiocht | Talk 14:54, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)
I think that we are of one accord. --Theo (Talk) 19:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry Geogre hasn't weighed in, and perforce not Giano, who is away, but we'll either have to take this as consensus or be left on the platform, since it's already April 1 in some parts of the world. I'm talking with a mediator who's trying to find a better alternative than Jimbo's special April fool's page, which I've literally only seen one person have a good word to say for (Mav, who called it a great idea). Oh, and Jimbo has asked me in a private mail to be a good sport and let people use ETPH for the special "fun" page, but I think we're agreed about saying no to that. (Politely. Calling his proposal "Lame-O-Rama" once is enough, I reckon. (I got carried away.)) OK, so I've just sent this reply to a question by MacGyverMagic on the mailing list. Iacta alea est.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote on 2005/03/31 11:37:
> Wasn't it originally written for April Fools Day? Why
> are you suddenly objecting against it being used?
Written for April Fool's day? Why, no, not at all. It was written as a joke between friends, for comedic bonding, it's basically a dialogue. That doesn't show in the product, but then it wasn't written for a product but for the writing process itself, the back-and-forth. Modestly, if we had been going for an April 1 hoax page, I think we could have made a funnier one. But the process has been hilarious, for my taste, and surely harmless to wikipedia, or even beneficial. The contributors are all committed and productive editors, and some of us were getting close to burning out on the project. The joking-around cheered us up. The userspace isn't paper.
When there began to *be* a product there, an imperect one, I thought I might nominate it on WP:FAC on April 1. That seemed quite daring--so limited were my horizons! TBSDY preempted the plan by stumbling on the page in February and FAC'ing it on the spot. Proposing it for the Main page for April 1was first done by several people on that FAC vote, not by any of the contributors. But we were quite happy to go along with the idea, and have been promoting it some. I would love to see it used tomorrow, just *not* for some alternative "Click here for how we might have April fool'd you" Main page. That's what I'm objecting to.
Please don't, for that purpose, move it, copy it, link to it, or use it.
Bishonen
Incidentally, I ask people to please hold off reverting sj's changes, even if the first edit doesn't look so great. He's got quite big plans, and I feel he should be left to make them more complete before we interfere (can always do that later). --Bishonen|Talk 18:38, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No linking? Oh. April Fool's Day 2005. Anyway, isn't it GFDL, so, subject to giving author attribution, they can do what the like with it. -- ALoan(Talk) 19:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed it is and they very much can. Legally, a userpage is just the same as any other wiki page. I was advised on the mailing list, though, that people would more likely choose to go with what has become established wiki courtesy, i. e. not move or otherwise use a page in my space against my wishes. I appreciate that freely extended courtesy very much. --Bishonen|Talk 11:46, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, the "right" result seems to have come about eventually, although I am rather worried by the proliferation of "jokes" everywhere. A few (ETPH on the front-page, Wikipaedia Britannica in the news, VfD on FAC) seem well targetted and pretty harmless, but there is going to be a lot of sorting out to be done over the next few days. -- ALoan(Talk) 12:29, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
*ahem* Well, you see, the point of the parody page is *NOT* to fool people, obviously. You don't fool people by saying "click here to see our April 1 parody page". So I plead completely innnocent to the charge of being so stupid as to not understand the concept of fooling people.
Now we find that the page wasn't written _for April 1_ after all. Ok, super! This makes it all the more perfect for a more general set of funny pages specifically designed _in honor of_ April 1 (which involves a lot more humor than just putting thumbtacks on people's chairs you know ;-)).
It's a great page, and I find it very ironic that the perpetrator of such a delicious thing is being so pissy about it being included on a general humor page. It's going to be great fun! --Jimbo Wales 19:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Fun, yes. Funny, no. Watch Wikipedians pull rabbits out of their hats? That trick never works...JRM 20:30, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
I am concerned about the lack of respect that most of us (and I include myself in that 'most') are showing here. We are bickering: questioning the intelligence of others; using words like 'lame' and 'pissy'. This started as a bit of fun; now it is turning sour. I have forged friendships through this 'project' so I have gained, whatever the outcome. I think it would be best, however, if we could let go of our grievances. We have had our fun and we have found it funny. Other people now want to have their own fun with what we built. We tried to reshape the article to address the concerns that it appeared to be raising in some quarters. Now the monster is walking and Dr Frankenstein might be wise to get out of its way. --Theo (Talk) 20:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC) (PS: Where are all the other T-namers? Oppressed! That's where!)
My problem is that it is somewhat lame to run yet another hobbyist article on April 1. I generally judge the seriousness and intelligence of a body by the parodies it creates. When the NYT has its spoof, it's usually great. I thought this would be more testimony to the powerful and intelligent writers at Wikipedia than a Ripley's Believe It Or Not article on Jackalope or the trivia hunter stuff like the Society for Prevention of Calling Sleeping Car Porters "George," but either of those would be better than the dreary hobbyist articles. The Nintendo Entertainment System is a good FA, and I don't mean to denigrate its particular qualities, but the type of article it is...the "Heya, Kids! Come write on Wikipedia! We love it when you write about games" type of article drives me nuts. I also did not enjoy the dogmatic, blind, and fevered lobbying that people were doing against the article. I was surprised and disappointed by that. As for an alternate page on the front, if that's the only way to show off our fun side, then so be it. Geogre 00:09, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd just like to agree with others that the really important things that happened for me here were that A) Wikipedia became more fun than it had been for a time and B) I made new friends here. The rest is small beer, really. Last night when I got home I found an e-mail telling me that an old friend had died. Now, that put things here into a different context, I can tell you. Filiocht | Talk 10:14, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
As we know, the Internet is not worth the paper it's written on, but I found a graphic representation [4] of the subject, relating to the musical reference, within the website of the Japanese Sam & Dave Club[5]. Curiously, the image has a discernible Celtic influence. --Zigger 09:05, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)
I think this article is totally ridiculous and needs to be removed if Wikipedia would ever like to take itself seriously.
It's ridiculous, but it isn't an article--look at the name. It's a userpage. --Bishonen|Talk 14:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It is reasonably amusing (even given the date) - and will make people aware of links they might not otherwise have considered.
Okay, seriously, I don't get it. Why is this supposed to be so great? -- Cyrius|✎ 15:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cyrius, if you're just bitching I can't help you, but if you're willing to invest a bit of boredom, I'll tell you the history, which explains how it's funny to me, though nothing else, I guess. It's a parody. Giano and I had collaborated to write John Vanbrugh, which turned into a big-ass undertaking, and we were pretty new and feeling our way. It took a lot of research. When it was done we needed to let our hair down. I stumbled over an image of a supposedly "baroque" toilet paper holder in a webstore, and did a silly stub about how Vanbrugh put special toilet paper holders into one of his famous baroque masterpieces, and challenged Giano to add something even dumber. And he did, and then I added more, and it grew. We were saturated in JV, and put in the same kinds of things as there, just, well, like the dark side of them. :-) For your enjoyment: Screenshot by Hedley, very kindly placed on my userpage by Viajero (ah, Spanish, language of onions, as Blarneyman would hauntingly have exclaimed here). Do let's all pretend that such tasty accolades are for me personally, not for all of us! That's the way I like 'em, so don't anybody be mean! Bishonen. There weren't any jokes, we more imitated each other's typical styles. Other people have added a lot of good stuff later, but they have basically followed the style that was already there, so without knowing it, they may have been parodying JV too. :-) Well, this is a theory I just thought of! I bet Filiocht would be surprised to be told that that was what he was doing. Anyway, I'm going a long way round to my suggestion, which is: maybe it'll come to you if you take look at John Vanbrugh. As for why some other people are laughing--people who surely have mostly not read JV--I'm pleased, I'm proud, I'm very grateful to them, and I have no idea why. --Bishonen|Talk 20:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC).
Call me dumb but for some reason I never made the explicit connection between ETPH and Vanbrugh... but now you've spelt it out for me I like the spooof more than ever - Blenheim is a very special place for me and my fiancee - so much so that we are getting married there later this year! Thanks for the award, will treasure it always. Pcb21|Pete 17:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Really, Blenheim is that special to you? That's great, a real piece of luck, because it was pure serendipity that I awarded you the Blenheim holder out of all others. Click here, btw, to see the image in its original context. ;-) I've handed out some seven or eight hand-crafted awards, I hope the victims feel very free to remove them promptly and embarrassedly—I don't really expect them to stay up very long. I hope you have a great wedding, Pete. --Bishonen|Talk 17:47, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Very glad you think so! :-) --Bishonen|Talk 20:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I was aware of the JV roots of the thing, but as it opened out, it also became a parody of the Wikipedia process itself; referencing, edit wars, edit summaries, and everything else pretty much got thrown into the pot; all the sacred cows. I expect that this is part of why some people who nothing of JV find it funny, and others have the extreme version of the opposite reaction. Filiocht | Serious fun 07:28, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
In the midst of the limelight that has played on ETPH the last few days ("What do you mean 'limelight'? Close the door, for decency's sake!" Wetman), don't forget to enjoy and cherish the additions and improvements that have been going on just as usual. They include some very delightful items from newcomers. Yet my personal nomination for most remarkable recent addition is from the King of Regulars: if you feel like being moved to tears, get a load of Filiocht's celebration of the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Yeah! Salute the Blarneyman! (And also, click on the screenshot above and feast your eyes!) --Bishonen|Talk 16:36, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I am both shocked and horrified that such a low life subject as "toilet paper holders" can even be discussed on such a worthy project as Wikipedia, such artefacts are disgusting and unworthy of debate and intercourse. Where I come from we don't talk about it - what we do behind closed doors, we keep behind closed doors and that's the way all right thinking people should regard the subject. I blame this whole filthy subject on Bishoperson who should be banned forever for filthy thoughts, and Filiocht who would probably have had filthy thoughts if he had not been writing such exceedingly long articles on poems good honest folk don't have the time to read. They have corrupted the thoughts of such worthy young people as Giano who has risen above them and is surely one of the saints indeed, but what about Theo that hapless boy is now making belated contributions to this filth, and as for Jimbo that such a fine upstanding member of society as been forced to pass comment on such literary corruption is just a further example of the worm that is eating away at our bowels. Join me now in the prayer of Torquemada to St. Raul - "Save us Oh Magnificent one, now and at the hour of our death from such vile and wicked influences and luxuries as the toilet paper holder, and may we always know the scourge of the Hemorrhoid and may Serious stay fast in his innocence and simplicity Amen" ........ Di Drakula (Mrs)
Sigh. I daresay we can expect the rest of Giano's aunts to weigh in shortly. I will just say this: Mrs DiDracula, this is not an article about intercourse, I don't know where you got that impression. Bishonen|Talk 21:57, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
this is not about TPHs per se, but somebody just turned up at Talk:Indus Valley Civilization claiming the Bronze Age IVC had flushing toilets. I thought the honorable editors of this article may be interested in that ground-breaking theory. dab(ᛏ) 10:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(Patiently) it's not about intercourse and it's not about toilets. It's a grand historical sweep through European politics, culture, religion, and, yes, beauty. What is this obsession with intimate bodily functions anyway? It's like being on IRC or something! But I'm quite resigned, I know that references to toilets, fertilizer, and the unusual sex life of Giano's extended family will forever come creeping in, so why don't you put it in yourself, dab? --Bishonen|Talk 12:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry Bishonen, I think you misunderstand. I was trying to say, if indeed the IVC had flushable toilets, it is highly likely that they also had sophisticated toilet paper holders. Hitherto undefined excavated IVC objects should be re-evaluated whether they could not, in fact, be Bronze Age toilet paper holders, that may have influenced Ancient Near Eastern forms through the hypothetized trade route from Meluhha to Sumer, and ultimately may have evolved into early European designs! I am being serious here! dab(ᛏ) 12:29, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course you are, sorry for the misunderstanding—the idea of sophisticated tph's is very lovely, with its hint (to the cognoscenti) that it might have been a major challenge to extract the inserted paper from the objets d'art you describe. That would be a bit of a setback for the unattractive utilitarian dimension of the article! You're saying it's time we branched into original research? Yeah, maybe so. Wikipedia doesn't want that, but it's time we moved on to a scientific journal anyway.--Bishonen|Talk 13:13, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
With, of course, multiple footnotes every fourth word. Filiocht | King of Regulars 13:27, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
Your Majesty! And may they all say "Gibbon, passim"! --Bishonen|Talk 13:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wearing my archaeologist's hat (it is dark green with a broad brim), I must say that flushing toilets in the Indus Valley seem unlikely. Current theory has it that this civilization was not literate: that its 'writing' was reserved for economic and ritual purposes. With no reading material, the use of a toilet would be a rapid process and the elimination of odour would be of no great concern. I now sympathise with the Chaldeans: with clay tablets instead of paper. --Theo (Talk) 19:10, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Nice hat, but more pertinently, I suspect we may be dealing with a kind of Ur-TPH here, perhaps a vessel filled with broken clay fragments, somewhat on the Spartan nettle model? Filiocht | King of Regulars 13:33, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I like this theory, but most likely the sanitary clay vessel was the prerogative of the literate (and hence, "anal-retentive"?) upper class. Your average field worker would have had to do without such distinguished comforts, and was probably content with the odd palm leaf. In the IVC, we may even be looking at an early paperless (or rather leafless, since paper was not even invented!) toilet, and the mythical Saraswati so lauded in the Vedic hymns may have had the main function of powering these proto-Japanese models. dab(ᛏ) 15:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
So Ur-IT? However, has it not always been the case that innovation in product development and marketing tends to start witht he rich and (unfortunate image in the present context) trickle down? Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:35, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I am difficulty visualising an archetypal TPH. Where is a Plato when you need him? Or a Jung. Also, wearing my marketing hat (an ultramarine fedora by Christie's), product innovation starts at the level determined by the target segment. The needs of your average field worker differ from those of your average patrician, for example. --Theo (Talk) 00:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ah, that is what is missing - a section on philosophy of the TPH, including the Platonic ideal TPH and its instantiations (hmm - that last is very unsatisfatory: "object lifetime" indeed). -- ALoan(Talk) 10:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I made a quick dab page. Now who says this article has no function in improving WP! The ideal TPH would look a lot like Leonardo's sketch I imagine. In a Darwinistic framework, however, it would look more like palm tree, providing conveniently sized leaves hanging down to a height comfortably reached from a squatting position. dab(ᛏ) 11:19, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I leave this place for a sunkissed pyramid for five minutes and return to find mayhem, the lavatorial habits of field workers being openly discussed, Filiocht seems to have promoted himself above his station (no not Heuston or Conolly Filiocht) and Bishonen orchestrating as Master of Ceremonies (Please stop referring to the sex life of my relations Bishonen). At least we have Dab who seems to be attempting to life the tone of the page. Well I am back, and displeased to note that while everyone has been fooling around here no one has thought to buy or even photograph for the page the "Royal Wedding Souvenir Toilet Paper Holder" a limited edition of 470,000,000 by Franklin Mint known as "The Camilla". I suppose you have all been waiting for me to come back and stump up the 36 easy monthly instalments! Well so be it in the interests of art, taste and refinement. Giano | Talk 11:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Congratulations to Giano for some excellent research. Google yields 87 hits for 'Camilla "toilet paper holder"' so it must be true. --Theo (Talk) 14:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
but why place it at the end of the article? It becomes painfully clear that the postwar 20th century is woefully neglected, and the 21st century is only present in the form of science-fictiony technocratic triumphalism. What about postmodernism? What about the dedication to kitsch in the 1980s? It seems that we went from Imperial Russia to Space Age in one giant step, and only the Camilla betrays that there are ordinary people using ordinary, or at least non-digital, tphs still. dab(ᛏ) 14:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, one Google result linking to the Tiara Collection Toilet Paper Holder. Almost good enough for a reference on its own, although it is missing the imitation cubic zirconia adornments. -- ALoan(Talk) 15:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you Aloan! I hope you Dab are not suggesting that the object d'art which I have researched on behalf of Wikipedia is kitsch. Well, let me tell you it is an heirloom of the future to be prized and cherished by forthcoming generations and connoisseurs of the arts. I have placed it at the end of the page because unlike some: the "King of the Regulars" (he's never been the same since he finished "that page" - don't mention The Cantos it only encourages him) springs to mind, I am a modest person, but please feel free to place it where you wish. Giano | Talk 15:38, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
not at all! you will note that I was referring to the 1980s, where 'kitsch', far from being a derogatory term, amounted to the sought-after apex of artistic achievment. The Camilla has the hallmark of the true post-postmodernist tph in that, while making oblique allusions to the kitsch culture, it harks back to an era of quality workmanship yet untainted by the faint sarcasm of mass-produced luxury goods. dab(ᛏ) 16:13, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All right...all right... hiccoughing weakly after reading The Camilla... I give up, I am covered in gold plate effect lacquer! Support me with caryatids, for I am helpless! Hail the new king, the Mafioso is back! (Hmmm? Yes, holding on to my self-proclaimed importance by nominating new royalty every so often and sowing strife between 'em is precisely my plan, any further questions?) Incidentally, Giano, I suppose the inspiration for the gold plate effect lacquer comes from your mother-in-law's tin tph which, unaccountably, still "illustrates" the Ancient Astronaut Theory section?--Bish|Bosh 19:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have repeatedly asked you not to mention my family in public. By ridiculing my mother in law's exquisite bathroom fitments you merely display your own shortcomings, we do not boast of our Palladian bathroom fittings we merely accept them as the every day adornments and comfort to our lives that they are. Is it my fault that when your ancestors were out doing, one wonders what with the local elk, mine were commissioning the great architects of the world to design bathroom fitments? No, it is not! - So please cast aside your socialistic views in favour of the greater betterment of the world, in doing so you will find contentment and lasting satisfaction. Civil regards: Giano | Talk 20:41, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I abdicate. I abase myself before the new king. Perhaps Giano, you could,from personal knowledge, confirm or deny the rumour that all Camilla's family were unable to attend the rearranged wedding as they were running in the Grand National that day? I know you were there, and suspect I may have spotted you supporting the groom's elbow as he curry-combed his bride outside the hall? Filiocht | Blarneyman 07:41, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
When will you move this to the main article namespace?[edit]
I'm just curious. Thanks, nyenyec☎ 05:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That'll be on the day we want to see it go up in flames—which would be a tragic but also resplendent sight—because it can't live in the bracing air of the article namespace. A grand death-scene might be the most dignified way to go, and the VFD debate ought to be a comic classic.
In other words, this piece would be immediately VFD'd and deleted if it left the protected userspace zone. It's "patent nonsense" and "sneaky vandalism" and "might make its readers distrust Wikipedia" for ever more. (These arguments from the Great April Fool's Day Hoax War of 2005). It would get put on VFD like that if it ventured into the article namespace. Some day we'll move it and sit back and watch the fireworks, I suppose. But not just yet.--Bishonen | talk 06:00, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It's patent nonsense" !!! You speak for your own contributions, let me tell you my contributions are all verifiable in proper written books, on real paper, by very famous people indeed. How dare you imply otherwise. Just because you're an administrator (ostentatious amount of votes) doesn't mean you can go about ridiculing other people's hard work - No it does not! Caesar
Very well, if the idea of citing arguments (even ludicruous arguments) without necessarily endorsing them goes over the head of Giano's ghost-writer (hello there, Mrs DiDracula, top of the morning to you), in spite of being referenced and everything, I'll add quote marks round the worst allegations. There, is that better? Can I go back to polishing my trophies and tributes now? It's just about time for a little commemorative toast. --Bishonen | talk 10:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Fil, would you agree that your notion of cause and effect could use a little deconstruction? Don't you mean "the impact on the fall of the British empire"? --Bishonen | talk 10:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both, Bish. Clearly the more ornate Victorian tphs are a symbol of the kind of decadence that contributed to the decline. However, we must not neglect the link between the post-WWII rush to ugly functionalism and the post-decline crisis of confidence. I'm looking for figures on tph production before, during and after the Suez crisis to try to back this up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 11:42, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
It's too late now to start adding quote marks, and being nice to people; and don't mention my name in a public place, it's Signora Nora di Drakula to you, its all your fault this wasn't on the main page on April 1st, if poor dear hard working Giano had not had to go to Cairo to sort out that little unpleasantness with the family business "Palermo Protection" he would have sorted things out here, and you would all be really famous like Giano - who has the record for the least ever number of votes ever for an article on FAC, and don't think I don't know who to blame for that, yes you Bishoperson, fancy not knowing "both is for two" thank goodness for that hapless boy Theo who spotted it his reward will be with the Lord. Now you come here and start to insult poor Giano's hard efforts. And don't bring the Suez crisis into all this, that poor President Nasser and that lovely water feature in Aswan, and as for the British Empire it was all stolen from the Sicilian people who got there first; and stop trying to influence the thoughts and work of that poor Irish boy, if he wants to write another ten million words (like he normally does) on a subject then let him. I've no more to say to you, your no better than that Tony Blair. Nora di Drakula (Mrs.
I'm touched, really touched, by your concern, and while poor and Irish are thrown at me all the time, it's nice to be called a boy again after such a long time. <POV alert>But nobody, not even Bish, deserves to be described as "no better than that Tony Blair", do they? </POV alert> Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:26, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Dear Mrs di Drakula, how could you be so insensitive as to mention Giano's Palace debacle under the pretence of defending him? We have been courteously ignoring the FAC result, just as we ignored the FAC. Ooops! --CunningTroll | talk 17:32, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear , oh dear what can one say, my poor dear late lamented sister (she died of apoplexy shortly after her last Wiki contribution) I can only apologise for any ill feeling she has caused here, she was very protective of our nephew Giano but then most people are, for protection is his business. And you dear Theo what a charming face you have on your user page, of what trumped up crime had the evil British Secret Police accused you for them to take such a photo? However to console you all, in the loss of my dear sister Nora di Dracula, I shall be soon adding my personal memoirs of the bathroom fitments at Villa Torlonia of which I personally availed myself when I took tea with you know who? Oh Theo, you remind me of him - a man with such presence, have you thought of shaving your head? - You should Signora Monferrato 20:13, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming to ask you the same question as the orginal poster, but now have decided to point something out: The article WAS on the mainpage on April 1st.
By the way, has anybody ever told you that you have WAY too much time on your hands.
I still think you should post this in regular namespace, without destroying the original (not that you could, with edit histories and all). *Kat* 07:36, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
(Slashdot humour isn't usually exactly typical of ETPH, but ever since I saw that heading once on Talk:Main Page, I've longed to recycle it.) Greetings, nutjobs! User:*Kat* (commenting immediately above) has very kindly placed the attached Oddball barnstar on my talk page, and I'm moving it here, to its natural home. It honours us all, not just me, and make sure you enjoy the animation, people. The star may seem quiescent at first glance, but stare at it for long enough, and ... AAAIIEEEEEEEEEE!! Thank you very much, *Kat*, and, well, time we may have, but above all we have dedication. Please contribute! --Bishonen | talk 22:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Unquestionably, it is time to sleep ... this page just winked at me! --Theo (Talk) 22:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, it's quite interesting that the art of bookbinding was a variation on the idea of a toilet paper holder, and that, before toilet paper, string was the holder of the primary personal hygiene device – the corncob. [6]violet/riga(t) 08:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
![[4]](http://www.samanddave.jp/fukuoka/english/events/images/0503/main.jpg){kind=link}
