Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Blowingrock
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Delete - The entire reference to Airplane! is untrue (the autopilot's name is "Otto", not "Rock" [1], and the line of dialogue mentioned isn't in the film [2]). Plus, a Google search for this slang term doesn't turn up any legitimate instances that I can see [3]. --Arteitle 07:15, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Agreed with Artleitle on all counts. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. As above. DJ Clayworth 17:53, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Del.This was created when a newbie (the undersigned) assumed good intent and accepted the word of a vandal (1) that the expression had currency (presumably in more sophisticated circles) and (2) that the quote was a quote. I've turned the page into an orphan. --Jerzy(t) 18:20, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)- Delete -- Cyrius | Talk 18:54, Apr 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Just one second! First off, the "word of a vandal" was my word, and I'm no vandal. Second, Jerzy has for some reason constantly objected to this, as if it insults him personally, so his motivation is unclear. Thirdly, like it or not, it IS in the Airplane film (or maybe one of the sequels, I forget) and it IS in a term in use, though whether common or not I couldn't say. True a google search is inconclusive but then google doesn't know everything. Anecdotally, if I used the phrase among my friends, it would be clearly understood to mean the act of fellatio; in fact the term was common currency when I was a student - about 10 years ago. This doesn't mean it has to have a place on WP, but dismissing it as untrue just on the say-so of someone who obviously doesn't actually know whether it is valid or not is equally hasty. Graham 23:55, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I have not constantly objected, but have shifted back and forth with the best evidence i was aware of. The related edits i did after replying to User:Arteitle at 06:28, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC), thru 18:19, 2004 Apr 1, are all reversals of edits i made in '03 Dec., based on accepting GrahamUK's arguments, some of them giving his usage more place than he asked for; i think those Dec. edits contradict my "constantly object[ing]".
-
- Some hours ago, i described the source (whose name and whose name's familiarity here i had forgotten) as "a vandal" based on Arteitle's description of his own evidence; accepting his description of it at face value cast the earlier evidence (which turns out to have been GrahamUK's) into a new perspective and led me
- - to conclude that the film dialogue (IIRC offered w/o offering means of confirming it) was a fabrication with ill intent, and
- - to assume that the motivation was to avoid the deletion of a private joke, played on our readership at WP's expense.
- I'm not sure that was overly hasty under the circumstances, but GrahamUK's bringing forth references
- - changes the situation yet again,
- - invalidates the opinion i held for something like 10 hours, and
- - leaves me with neither an opinion nor the inclination to arrive at one.
- I apologize for the sarcastic expression "more sophisticated circles". It might have been a little funny if it had been true that GrahamUK's usage was introduced here by a passing troll. It was unfair (even if that were the case) and makes me an object lesson in what "bad manners" means -- especially in light of the target turning out to be a colleague here.
- I do acknowedge something close to it "insult[ing me] personally": i paid my admission in Blowing Rock, N.C., and found the tourist trap impressive, worthwhile, and reason to temper my skepticism toward tourist traps. And the low priority that i assign the project of documenting sexual slang (and especially possibly obscure and regional sexual slang, comparable to, say, "gobble my shorts", which i don't think we've documented previously) makes me feel that an article on Blowing Rock is worth 10 on blowing rock. But that's just a personal feeling, and absolutely not an argument for deletion, even in light of GrahamUK's usge's distracting role vis a vis the landform and town articles. That prioritization probably made it easier for me to respond to Arteitle's evidence as i did, but i think my conclusion would have been the same if i were rational enough to have suppressed its influence on me. --Jerzy(t) 03:17, 2004 Apr 2 (UTC)
- As I mention below, I'm really not all that bothered whether the term is documented or not. The reason it got added at all was that the article for Blowing Rock, N.C. didn't mention the slang usage, something which I felt at the time was common slang, and so added it simply for completion's sake. I don't have much interest in documenting sexual slang either - frankly the many such similar pages on WP are a bit childish. Having added it, the veracity of it was questioned, so the Airplane reference was brought in to provide some evidence. Now it seems the Airplane reference itself is in question, and it's that that I'm really defending here - since for me to accept that that's wrong is to accept that I'm losing my mind and I'm starting to fabricate entire memories of bad movies I watched 20 years ago. Since I'm not prepared to accept that explanation, I'm trying to ensure that whatever the debate about deleting the slang term concludes, it isn't for the stated reason.Graham 04:42, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Some hours ago, i described the source (whose name and whose name's familiarity here i had forgotten) as "a vandal" based on Arteitle's description of his own evidence; accepting his description of it at face value cast the earlier evidence (which turns out to have been GrahamUK's) into a new perspective and led me
- To back up my claim, here's one reference: Channel 4 film review. I think the word of Channel 4 can be trusted - it at least proves I'm not imagining it, and therefore the assertion by Arteitle is false. Graham 00:09, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I stand by my facts above and dispute the Channel 4 review, but now I understand the source of the confusion. In Airplane II: The Sequel the shipboard computer (a spoof of HAL 9000) is called "ROC" . When the crew realizes it's locked them on course for the sun and that they have to use a seized terrorist bomb to destroy it, this exchange occurs: "We're going to have to blow up the computer." "Blow ROC?" I still support deletion, however, as this article doesn't have the potential to be much more than a dictionary definition. --Arteitle 02:56, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm afraid you're mistaken! The Channel 4 review not only mentions the dialogue in the exact context that I recall it (the inflatable co-pilot) but even includes a picture of that exact scene! The best way to settle it is to watch the film again and see for yourself. The dialogue you mention from the sequel sounds to me like it's alluding to the original dialogue - it did repeat many of the same jokes actually. To me, the fact they used the same joke twice seems to support the idea that the phrase is a known double entendre. It can still be debated as to whether it belongs in WP - frankly I'm really rather indifferent about that - I just want to make sure that it's for the right reason, and not because somebody erroneously assumes that the film reference is false. Graham 04:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- The event described does take place in the first film, but that's not relevant to the article. As can be seen in the transcript, the line of dialogue about "blowing rock" doesn't occur then (and wouldn't make sense, since the autopilot is named "Otto", not "Rock"). As I mentioned above, I found that this line is in the second film. The article could be corrected to reflect this if it isn't deleted. --Arteitle 05:08, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
- Here's the scene from Airplane!, in a DivX 5/MP3 AVI (2 MB, 1:23): [4] --Arteitle 05:48, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
- I won't be downloading that, it's too big for my budget. But I'm convinced that the dialogue is real. Is it possible that there are different edits of the film? I've certainly seen others where there are alternative dialogues (the bowdlerised version of Bridget Jones Diary shown on flights differs considerably from the realease I saw in the UK for example). A quick straw poll round here also confirms that the copilot is recognised as Rock, not Otto. Why do Channel 4 think he's called Rock? Perhaps the UK version was different? There has to be a rational explanation for the wide discrepancy between your version and mine. Graham 07:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Otto is the autopilot in Airplane, and ROC is the computer in Airplane 2. There is a scene in Airplane! in which Julie Hagerty has to inflate the autopilot, whose airhole is right near his lap, so it looks like she's performing fellatio on him. However, perhaps because of the common element of fellatio, both you and Channel 4 are conflating that with the "blowing ROC" dialogue, which is in the sequel. The computer even smiles in response to the prospect of getting blown, remember? Bearcat 03:09, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I won't be downloading that, it's too big for my budget. But I'm convinced that the dialogue is real. Is it possible that there are different edits of the film? I've certainly seen others where there are alternative dialogues (the bowdlerised version of Bridget Jones Diary shown on flights differs considerably from the realease I saw in the UK for example). A quick straw poll round here also confirms that the copilot is recognised as Rock, not Otto. Why do Channel 4 think he's called Rock? Perhaps the UK version was different? There has to be a rational explanation for the wide discrepancy between your version and mine. Graham 07:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm afraid you're mistaken! The Channel 4 review not only mentions the dialogue in the exact context that I recall it (the inflatable co-pilot) but even includes a picture of that exact scene! The best way to settle it is to watch the film again and see for yourself. The dialogue you mention from the sequel sounds to me like it's alluding to the original dialogue - it did repeat many of the same jokes actually. To me, the fact they used the same joke twice seems to support the idea that the phrase is a known double entendre. It can still be debated as to whether it belongs in WP - frankly I'm really rather indifferent about that - I just want to make sure that it's for the right reason, and not because somebody erroneously assumes that the film reference is false. Graham 04:31, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- I stand by my facts above and dispute the Channel 4 review, but now I understand the source of the confusion. In Airplane II: The Sequel the shipboard computer (a spoof of HAL 9000) is called "ROC" . When the crew realizes it's locked them on course for the sun and that they have to use a seized terrorist bomb to destroy it, this exchange occurs: "We're going to have to blow up the computer." "Blow ROC?" I still support deletion, however, as this article doesn't have the potential to be much more than a dictionary definition. --Arteitle 02:56, Apr 2, 2004 (UTC)
I think we have strayed far enough from the point. The point is, is the slang term "blowing rock" genuine? Yes it is. Does it have a place on WP? Debatable. Whether or not the airplane scene backs it up or not is irrelevant really. Originally, I added the term as a mere footnote to the disambiguation page, consisting of one short line. Then the airplane ref got dragged in, blowing it up (ahem, no pun intended!) into something apparently more important than it really is. Jerzy (or whoever) decided to move it to its own page. The reason for this move appears to be so that cherished place names are not "sullied" by association with a childish euphemism, but like it or not the phrase exists. Personally, I think the original short disambiguation was perfectly sufficient and didn't go over the top, giving excessive prominence to what is after all a very minor footnote. I suggest it should be put back exactly in that way, where it will serve the USERS of wikipedia. Since the Airplane ref is contentious, it can be omitted altogether. The only reason I ever looked at the article in the first place was that when I saw it go up on recent changes, I thought someone had made a page for the slang term. It was a surprise to find that there is a place of that name. Presumably others will find the same, or vice versa (i.e. be surprised to find it's a slang term). This gaining of new knowledge is what WP is for, so in that light, trivial as it is, I think the slang term should remain, and the best place for it is one short line on the disambiguation page. Graham 08:13, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Let's step back a bit here; I think you all are losing sight of something. If it's a term for fellatio, move it to that page, and delete. If it isn't a term for fellatio, delete (and don't move it). Either way, delete. I don't think keeping it as is makes much sense at all. Jeeves 20:25, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Not very helpful if somebody is looking to find out what the phrase "blowing rock" might mean. If it's on the fellatio page then that assumes they already know the answer. Anyway, my proposal isn't to leave it as it is - it's to put it back how it was originally - a single, minor footnote on the disambiguation page. Graham 10:37, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Move to fellatio and delete or redirect. If it really is a "popular" term, keep the redirect to fellatio. If it's not that common, typing in "blowing rock" in the search box on Wikipedia pages will still give you a Google or Yahoo-powered search, which should turn up the fellatio page. --zandperl 03:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Jeez. Just make it a line or two as an example of the dialog in the movie article. Then a Google search will pick it up. Kd4ttc 03:05, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 21:20, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. A non-notable, slang, sexual term does not deserve an article of its own! 80.255 14:31, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- No it doesn't! But it does deserve a one-line footnote on the disambiguation page - which is what I'm suggesting, and HOW IT WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!! Graham 02:41, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
