Talk:Place names considered unusual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 17/02/2006. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

This article was nominated for deletion on 10/2/2006. The result of the discussion was "delete".

This article was nominated for deletion on 10/2/2006. The result of the discussion was "has already been deleted".

Archives
Archive 1: 2003-2004 Archive 2: Feb 2006 Archive 3: 2005-2006

1 Edit warring
2 Poll for restoration of listed place names
3 Change to intro
4 Removal of the list of names
5 Merger of "Place names considered unusual" into "Toponymy"
6 My reversion

[edit] Edit warring

I have protected this article from editing. Please discuss the issue here. Thanks/wangi 23:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Dieter Simon has destroyed this page. Jooler 23:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It is highly inappropriate to delete the list of place names from this article. People researching the subject will expect to find just such a list present, and its removal significantly degrades the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia - which, as we all know, is designed to be a repository of all human knowledge - not just the bits that some people think are important. Geographical place names are easily verifiable. Unreferenced inclusions on the list can and should be properly referenced. Those who consider the lack of references a problem should take it upon themselves to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia by adding them - rather than simply dismissively blanking the valuable contributions of hundreds of other editors. --Gene_poole 23:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well said. Jooler 00:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen, there are pages and pages of debate on this subject and it all boils down to one thing: there are no reliable sources indicating that any of these places are considered unusual (with about 2 or 3 exceptions). You may think that they are unusual or interesing, but what you think, if it cannot be backed up with indpenedent reliable sources, is utterly irrelevent. Wikipedia does not allow original research. We've been down this road so many times that I have no interest in rehashing old debates for the sake of a few misguided users. If you can find the name of a place that has reliable sources indicating that it is genuinely unusual, then feel free to add them with he source. Throwing a list of hundreds of random names onto the page and then telling other people to go find references isn't going to wash. Read the old debates. I'll try to find the ones that weren't archived and provide links. -R. fiend 00:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For further reading check out this page, near the bottom, as well as the old AFDs and DRVs linked at the top of this page. -R. fiend 00:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting "[Swastika, Ontario]]: for one, a book by Alan Rayburn (a prior executive secretary of the Canadian Permanent Committee on Geographical Names) called Naming Canada: stories about Canadian place names, 2nd ed. (ISBN 0-8020-8293-9)." - Culled along with so many others. Jooler 01:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen yourself. A 3-second Amazon search on "unusual place names" reveals a wealth of independent, reliable, published sources. Your argument is spurious, your tone uncivil, and your mischaracterisation of other editors as "misguided" for failing to share your POV is provocative, disrespectful and wrong. I suggest that you reassess your position, and adjust your attitude accordingly. --Gene_poole 01:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Jooler saying I "destroyed this page", I am repeating the section I composed on 17 June to give the reason why I thought then and still think it most inadvisable to bring back into the main name space the full list:

Quote: 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) Unquote

Nothing has changed, the period involved is January to February, 2006, and it may be perused in the history. Read this first, it's not "fun", it's pathetic how people carried on. Then see if you still want it back. Dieter Simon 01:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Jooler & Gene Poole, I sympathise with your viewpoint, but this is one of those debates where positions have ended up becoming so entrenched that you're not going to get very far by simply adding a list of names back into the article. I was a strong advocate of keeping the list in the previous debates, but the arguments for keeping it out carried the day, and so any admin is just going to side with that point of view. If you want to include a list in Wikipedia, then you're going to have to try a different approach. You either have to accept that you have to find a reliable source for the unusualness of each name you want to include, or you have to find a way of not doing that which gets community buy-in. SP-KP 18:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Any such list is going to be challenged as "point of view". I suppose some think that a city name of "Springfield" is funny-sounding, but it's certainly not unusual. However, anyone who argues that cities with names like Truth or Consequences, NM, or Intercourse, PA, are not unusual is a few fries short of a happy meal. Wahkeenah 19:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

This list survived a deletion poll. But deletion has been circumvented by removing the actual list. How does that work? Jooler 21:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the "dog in the manger" approach to editing. Someone doesn't like it, so they keep deleting until the other editors get tired of trying... or turn the editor in for vandalism. Wahkeenah 21:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For some reason or other I seem to have destroyed this article, according to Jooler. Can you actually point me to the spot where I have done this? All I have done was, to revert the article to what had already been done. All you need to do is to do "Find" against my name in the History section of the article and you will see all my actions.

Actually, you are quite wrong, I used to be quite keen on taking part editing it, as you would also see if you only tried. I was against street names, and field names as those did not conform to the remit of the title of the article, yes, but the point of friction I incurred was the name Fucking in Austria, which in German has no etymological connection with its English connotations. At the time I pointed out that it may be a great laugh to English speakers assembling outside the village at the village sign and having their photos taken, but to say the least, it would be a source of great puzzlement and embarrassment (once they had been told) to the old farmers' wives passing by. Of course, it was part of the joke. The thing was that we weren't really on a level playing field, were we? Imagine Germans having a laugh at the village signs of Fickleshole or Vickerstown (real British placenames) which could almost certainly be interpreted in German in the same way. But those names never found their way into our precious list, did they?.

No, but they should have, and you could have added them. What you have inadvertently done is to help define a criterion for inclusion in the list: A word that means something innocuous in one language and is a vulgarity or otherwise funny-sounding in another language. Intercourse, PA, is English either way, yet it's funny now because the connotation of the word has changed; it's modern English vs. "old" English. FYI, I have known plenty of Germans who were fully aware of what the "F-word" means in English. But because a foreign vulgarity doesn't have the same connotation or impact as a "native" vulgarity does, it's simply amusing, not shocking. Wahkeenah 02:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Fucking, Austria - was included on the very first edit of this page- [1] - it is almost the page's raison d'etre Jooler 12:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The main point, however, that should never have been neglected if one really thought about it, was whether such a list was encyclopaedic at all. It was a great laugh, I give you that, but correct me if I am wrong, an encyclopaedia isn't a comic production, is it? Yes, by all means, give a number of samples to give the reader a flavour of the thing, but hang on, a never-ending list of (often disputed) names? The trouble was people could never make up their minds, whether the names were unusual, strange, or comical. The problems were forever going on, what to call the list, what to include and what not to include, the waste of efforts and time can only be appreciated if you now take the time and take a look at the history of around that time. But I suppose, it is time to learn the hard way, once again. So, bring it back and see! I for one reject it. Dieter Simon 01:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now unprotected the article as there seems to be consensus below for a list of referenced entries to be included. That's explicitly not a revert to the full list from way-back-when. Thanks/wangi 09:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Google book search is a place to start to find references.. there are several maps here which were published in All Over the Map Again: Extraordinary Atlas of the United States By David Jouris. It could be used as a cite at least for the welcomes. Also From Red Hot to Monkey's Eyebrow: Unusual Kentucky Place Names By Robert M. Rennick [2] gives a cite for Monkeys Eyebrow, I also see Rabbit Hash listed. It would be easy to make this article a half decent list if someone had one of these books, perhaps fork out the twelve cents and buy A Place Called Peculiar: Stories About Unusual American Place-Names from amazon --Astrokey44 11:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll for restoration of listed place names

Straw poll discussed / run through January 2007 with no concensus

The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.

I believe that a minority of editors have made their weight felt on this page and acted to destroy it by stealth by removing place names from this page. Please vote here to state whether you support or oppose the view that it is not a violation of NPOV or any other Wikipedia policy to have place names listed on this page; and that provided certain degree management of the names can be maintained, it is valid to have a list of noted "unusual" names on this page. See a previous version of this article here to see what this page used to be like. Jooler 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Support - as per above. Jooler 21:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Support in general. This could lead to lengthy discussion on what constitutes "unusual", and the example list is probably too long, but the current article is not only too short, it sits there with a section header with no contents. Wahkeenah 22:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Support I'll repeat the argument I made in previous discussions, which to date, I've not seen a convincing rebuttal of. Those who are arguing that inclusion of a list is in inherent breach of NPOV are misinterpreting NPOV. NPOV is basically about ensuring that the information we present is presented in a balanced way, as would be expected of a high-quality encyclopaedia. NPOV has nothing to say about decisions on how information is structured. That is governed by various other policies and editorial consensus. Whether a specific piece of information is regarded as relevant to an article or not is an information-structuring decision to be made by the editorial community - this is an activity that goes on all the time across hundreds of thousands of pages, and is an accepted part of the wiki process. How are editors going to make decisions about what to include in an article unless they exercise some kind of personal judgment? If we decreed that those judgments inherently represent breaches of POV, the whole process of creating Wikipedia would grind to a halt. A decision to present information in a POV way is a totally different matter from a decisions to include an item of information based on a belief in its relevance, and the latter is all that the majority of pro-list editors are arguing for, as far as I can tell. SP-KP 22:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I would urge everyone to first read through this articles talk archives and the previous AFD discussions - they are now clearly linked from the top of this talk page. Remember too that we work using consensus, not voting. Thanks/wangi 22:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I support including only place names which have a cited reliable source indicating that they are considered unusual in a widespread and meaningful way. This does NOT mean restoring the earlier version which had just about everything thrown in there. It also does not mean you can cite someone's blog listing names the author considers unusual. This is an encyclopedia (allegedly) not a smorgsabord of factoids, though I fear that is what it is becoming. If people would cite sources (that the names are unusual, not just that they exist) we wouldn't need to have this discussion. -R. fiend 22:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi R. fiend. Can you explain why you want to apply that standard to this article and (presumably) not to others. What you are saying, as I understand it, is that, in this situation, the wiki process, which is the normal mechanism by which it is decided whether a piece of information makes it into an article, should be secondary and that instead, we should abandon our judgments as editors and rely only on sources elsewhere to inform our editorial decisions. To illustrate my problem with that approach, let's pick the article Cher, within which can be found the piece of information "Cher first rose to prominence in 1965 as one half of the pop/rock duo Sonny & Cher". Sure, that piece of information needs to be sourced, and presented in a NPOV way. However, the decision to include that information in the Cher article has been made by the judgment of editors, based on their personal view as to whether it is relevant to the article - you are presumably not arguing that we have to find an independent source which states that this piece of information is relevant to the subject of Cher for it to be included? Yet that's what you're arguing about whether we mention, say, Bang Bang Jump Up or Idiotville in this article, isn't it? SP-KP 22:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  - The difference is that the comment on Cher is a fact, and one that can be verified by any number of sources. In fact, to pick just one source as a citation would be sort of silly. In this case, we have a whole slew of names which rely entirely on the opinions of users. If we take "unusal" to mean "unique" then we at least have an objective criterion, but a list that is difficult to verify and nearly endless. If Bang Bang Jump Up is such an interesting and unusual name (and it seems it is to me, but individual opinions here count for little) then we shouldn't have much trouble finding some sort of reference to it being such. The problem is most of these things are pretty damn subjective, and the encyclopedic value of the article is dubious, at best. The old list was a travesty; it contained whatever poped into the infantile mind of any given editor. We don't need lists of places with "Dix" or "Pu" in the title, we need verification. And yes, anything in the Cher article which cannot be verified needs to go, but that doesn't mean we need to little the article with "Cher is a female (citation needed) entertainer (citation needed)..." But by all means, people should feel free to put Truth or Consequences, NM in the article; I'm sure you can find a source for that. There's an interesting story behind why it got that name (though this doesn;t mean any place name with a story behind it is unusual, most placesget their names for a reason). -R. fiend 23:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- R. Fiend, I don't dispute that the piece of information in the Cher article is a fact, but the relationship between a piece of information and the subject of an article (and its relevance or importance in the context of that subject) are what govern whether it makes it into the article (otherwise we'd just articles that are collections of unrelated facts). Ultimately its the opinions of editors which decided whether that fact should be included in the Cher article, not the NPOV policy. Do you see the point I'm making? I agree with you completely that the old list had an awful lot of chaff and relatively little wheat, but that's not the issue under discussion here, which is whether we can trust the collective judgment of the editor community to separate the two. I think we can, although I admit our past efforts aren't a good argument for that viewpoint. SP-KP 23:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I think that the old list was so furiously defended in its entirety by so many is strong evidence that we cannot trust the collective judgment of the community. There's an enormous grey area, and lists such as these in wikipedia have created huge problems as they've proved to be magnets for all sorts of ridiculous or questionable entries. Yes, there's probably a good number of places that we can get a general consensus to agree belong, as well as a good number that we can agree shouldn't be here. It's the many in between that are the problem. We don't want to have a consensus-seeking vote such as this every time a new entry is added, so we need some strict criteria. Referencing entries seems to be all that we can expect to work. I don't even think we need to have this consensus-seeking vote, as it's pretty clear everyone (even me) thinks including a list is fine, the question is deciding what gets included. If there are obvious exampes, then at least they should be the easiest to find sources for. I'm willing to unprotect this article and revert to it how it was a few days ago, if people will agree to stop reverting it to the hugely problematical version of last year. People should then feel free to add examples if they can find a reliable source for them. The old arguments that the old list is "interesting" or "many people's work went into it" are irrelevent. -R. fiend 00:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    - - "we cannot trust the collective judgment of the community" - funny of I thought collective judgment of the community was very much what Wikipedia was about. Are you saying that your opinion is above the collective judgement? Jooler 09:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
    - Entirely my sentiments, R. fiend. Dieter Simon 02:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Support having a list in here as long as the list contains a reference to why. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reject. Please read my paragraph in the "Edit warring" section above for my reasons of rejecting the full list once again. Dieter Simon 01:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. What we are seeing here is attempted deletion-by-stealth. I can see that, and I only really noticed this article for the first time 2 days ago. As I've pointed out above, there are plenty of reliable published sources about unusual place names, so verifiability is no real issue. --Gene_poole 02:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Of course verifiability is an issue. All you've done is supply a link to a small handful of books or articles showing that someone somewhere has published something about unusual place names in a few selected areas. That is not verification for the several hundred unrelated entries of the old list. Did anyone even bother looking at the old list before arguing for a reversion to it? Butte, MT? Because it's "butt" with an "E"? I'm sorry, I was under the impression wikipedia strived to be an encyclopedia, not a place for 4th graders to make jokes. Why don't you purchase the books from Amazon, and include select examples from them in the article, with appropriate citations and explanations? Then maybe we'd have the semblence of a half decent list (though still a pretty poor encyclopedia entry). I was really hoping not to have to rehash arguments from a year ago, but now I've been dragged into it, against my will. Is anyone willing to pledge that if I unprotect the article they will refrain from these reversions, so it can be edited and maybe have a few more examples that have been documented by a third party source? -R. fiend 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I think one of the Warner cartoons featured a geologic feature they called "Bear Butte". You're talking highbrow literature there, don'cha know. Wahkeenah 03:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Support. There should be a list of examples, but the examples should be taken from some source(s) - not just a free-for-all of whatever names individual Wikipedians consider to be unusual. PubliusFL 20:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. Any list of such names is inherently flawed by original research, because who are we to decide that a place name is considered unusual? If a list is included, citations are needed for each and every place on why they are considered unusual. NPOV is not the real issue here. Er rab ee 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Though I am rejecting the full original list, I know the consensus will be for "support", as things stand at the moment. However, let me look into the future a little bit. I know, there will be a goodly number of interesting examples included, but the greater number of editors will be forever using up their valuable time trying to keep a lid on things. A list such as this is totally subjective in its selection, you will get some almost infantile choices, neither funny, unusual, or interesting, because someone in their past have come across a particular place which has appealed to them due to some personal circumstances, of which an outside onlooker could not be aware, some funny choices rather than examples that are funny, some cranky, pranky and faddy choices. However, the alround value for Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia - an encyclopaedia, mind - will fall by the wayside. If you want to publish a list of names for a laugh why not just publish it as a book, I am sure it would be a great success, but an encyclopaedia it ain't. An encyclopaedia is meant to enlighten the reader(s), it's not meant to be a "comic", and as for unusual in all its connotations a much shorter list of types of unusualness with some samples given would be much more effective.

The list you are contemplating will be forever lengthening, innumerable examples piling on others, because every one will want to exercise his right to add his idea of an unusual placename, quite right too, why shouldn't they. However, the upshot is that ultimately we will have to come to an agreement, what a list such as this can sustain and what it can't. This is experience speaking, this is exactly what happened to the original list, in fact it was unsustainable, because as soon someone tried to curtail the excesses he/she would be shouted down. That is what happened, this is just to remind you. Don't say, this will be different, it won't. Before you know it, you will right in the middle of the controversies. Good luck to you all. Dieter Simon 01:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is a truly frightening possibility. Wahkeenah 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

However, not all is lost. We could make this a really great encyclopaedic list, if we set about it the right way, but we'd need to discipline ourselves and not just shove any old "unusual" name into it. It would need to have an etymology for each name, as well as be sourced as to its derivation of the etymological meaning. The trouble also is, I can see as stated before in this discussion, that some people would find unusual or comical placenames that other people cannot for the life of them see as being unusual or comical. So, we would need an explanation by the proposer of a more obscure name why they thought it unusual or comical and come to some agreement in those particular cases.

So, why not then agree on three main points which would have to govern our acceptance of each placename:

1. Does the name really exist? Any good motoring atlas would help us here or precedents in Wikipedia articles.
2. Is the name unusual or funny/comical. Most will be obvious in this respect, but an awful lot of them will need discussion and any majority decision will have to carry the day.
3. The most important thing is to supply the etymology of the word. It would give a name such as Fucking in Austria - the one which has been discussed ad infinitum so far - a much more linguistic amd scientific basis. That would mean, however, that no names could be accepted without a sourced etymology. Do your homework first and then enter your favourite name.

In cases then where a name would look distinctly facetious, to say the least, if not outright trolling, an etymology would thus supply a reason why the word is there - and the list on the whole exists. I know, it means a lot more work would be involved, but that would be the case any way, if we let the list go without the safeguards I suggested. We would be back-tracking forever in cases where real controverises existed, and they would probably cause a lot more work any way. What do you think? Dieter Simon 23:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Have put emphasis on 'no names without sourced etymology', names without would be rejected out of hand. Dieter Simon 10:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I reject that an etymology is a requirement. It should be encouraged, would be excellent research, and absolutely reader-helpful - but not a requirement. It would certainly be interesting and reader-helpful for us to point out the reason for naming something Fucking and that it isn't a swear word in Austria; but a requirement is a limitation we don't need. I am all for sourcing but we can't demand that a source give us etymology. In some cases a plain english name, nobody knows why, [3]. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If we haven't got a definite etymology we can say so, can't we? It is precisely for the reason of avoiding the problems we had with the original list that we should make it a much more encyclopaedic list with proper citation of the origins of the names, wherever we can. Dieter Simon 01:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

There are a bunch of links in the article. Maybe a dozen or so of the "most unusual" from those links could be posted as examples, and if readers care, they could visit the links. Wahkeenah 01:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Support Lists like this is things that make Wikipedia both valuable and fun. Fabben 17:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Support Lists like this are a primary advantage of Wikipedia over a traditional encyclopedia. As long as the article explains that the list might be seen as subjective, I want the list back. The real decision here is whether or not to have the list and I'm all for having such things on Wikipedia. Adambondy 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Support. As long as it doesn't get out of control like Place names with English meanings did, which ended up deleted. ~A H 1^(TCU) 18:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Support as I have in the past. Simply because some editors have an extremely narrow vision for what Wikipedia is doesn't mean they should be allowed to remove valuable content. older ≠ wiser 18:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I guess it would be OK to add a few examples, such as Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, with reliable sources that explain the name origins and support the contention that the names are widely regarded as unusual. However, I absolutely oppose recreating the list because it is a total waste of time to patrol continually for made-up names and inherently unexceptional names like "Bath," "Cumming," "Gaylord," and "Hooker" that some Wikipedia contributors consider to be hilarious because of the modern useage of similar words. --Orlady (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - I agree with Orlady that having a list here would only invite endless vandalism. There are other pages on the Web that have lists of funny place names. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Still opposefor reasons given. However, there is another section to be voted on, see "Merger of "Place names considered unusual" into "Topography". Dieter Simon (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Support - this list needs to be re-added. Without it, this article is pointless. However, I agree with a previous poster who says that only the very best places, like Truth Or Consequences, should be added. I can't see how, on the original list, things like Barrow-in-Furness and Bath are that unusual. This is not difficult! We just need to use the same kind of approach as Wikipedia:Unusual_articles. Davidbod (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

[edit] Change to intro

Here's something that's apparently been around since the very first incarnation of the intro (over four years ago) but which I've removed because it doesn't make any sense. The intro said "Many place names that appear odd to English-speakers are from other languages. Often they are either meaningless or innocuous in their own tongue." The subject of the second sentence ("they") is obviously the place names. I took out the "meaningless" bit because names practically always mean *something* in the language that the names come from ("their own tongue"). Even if that language is no longer the common tongue of the people who now live in that place (e.g. Old English place names). PubliusFL 22:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the list of names

I have removed the list once again as has been discussed time and time again. You really will have to look at what has been said before, as this was for ever a bone of contention. I am afraid, you should have talked about it first. See history and talk page. Dieter Simon 23:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Which poll are you referring to? -- User:Docu

I am not referring to any poll as such because there wasn't one, but to previous discussions in which I mentioned the history of the list and article from around the period of January/February 2006, when all the problems occurred. you really will have to refer to that in order to get an insight into the kind of things that went on. Do I really have to repeat this for the third and fourth time just to point to the article's woes at the time? Dieter Simon 23:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If List of unusual personal names is okay then why's there such a big fuss over this page? Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 11:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger of "Place names considered unusual" into "Toponymy"

This is a copy of what I said in the talk page of "Toponymy".

I don't quite understand the reasoning behind the merger. Are all toponyms equivalent to "place names considered unusual"? I don't think so, in fact, I am certain they are not. In fact, most of them are a pretty humdrum lot of names. Why would I be looking for unusual place names under "toponymy", especially if I as an uninitiated looker-up of Wikipedia facts, don't even know what the word toponymy might mean. You really will have to convince me of this one. Until such time I will have to respond with a resounding No to this one. Definitely not. Voting Against. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Place name already redirects there. By the way, since there doesnt seem to be any chance of restoring the old list of names, I'm gonna make a webpage called "Funny Place Names" and put it there. Or I'll ask a friend who hosts a Wiki if he'll take it. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 08:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Against, although both articles talk about place names, this one has nothing to do with an academic research on the matter, and viceversa. --Adriano (talk) 00:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a completely worthless article without a list. If there's consensus not to have a list, then this article should be merged somewhere or just disposed of. Right now it's somewhere between a dictionary definition and a joke... -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Against, especially if it means losing the article history. Kestenbaum (talk) 12:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Against, for the very same reasons I quoted my own words back in September 2006: "I am not referring to any poll as such because there wasn't one, but to previous discussions in which I mentioned the history of the list and article from around the period of January/February 2006, when all the problems occurred. you really will have to refer to that in order to get an insight into the kind of things that went on. Do I really have to repeat this for the third and fourth time just to point to the article's woes at the time?"

If you read this you would see how the heading was changed several times, how individual keywords and entries were removed and re-entered, how no-one could agree as to what actually should be included or not, and that this was going on for number of weeks until it was changed to the present format to stop this huge controversy. Please acquaint yourselves with the archives, it would help you to understand. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My reversion

Sorry, my first reversion was ill-conceived, have now reverted to what looks a lot better. Well done, last anon editor. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Place names considered unusual

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edit warring

[edit] Poll for restoration of listed place names

[edit] Change to intro

[edit] Removal of the list of names

[edit] Merger of "Place names considered unusual" into "Toponymy"

[edit] My reversion

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search