Talk:Whale tail

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Whale tail article.
Article policies
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 19 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] The whale picture

It's not clear if the picture of a whale at sea was added as a joke or to illustrate the shape for comparative purposes. If it's the latter, then a better picture is needed. In this one, the tail is dark against a dark background and doesn't stand out clearly. Rodparkes 02:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Until a better image can be sourced, the one we have will probably do. It does serve as a good comparative illustration. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
  • So does this term define the rear spoiler of a car or a visible thong? Why do we need that picture to illustrate this? What is the significance of this word and where are the sources that say it's used how this article claims it is? This one's on life support and if it doesn't improve rapidly I'll nominate for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
It can be used to mean both, as the sources verify. Sure the article is a stub, but it does have sources which is a lot more than many articles that have survived AfD. While we don't NEED the picture, it is USEFUL to illustrate the first definition. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, which term is this article about? Is there a documented source that says this is actually a commonly used word and this article isn't trying to promote the spread of a protologism? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge to Cleavage (anatomy)

This term is not notable on its own and will likely fail another AfD. It should be merged into Cleavage (anatomy) if this information is to be retained. If there's no opposition, this will be done in 48 hours, otherwise I'll file another AfD. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose Winner of the American Dialect Society's Most Creative Word of the Year and other sources establish notability. I look forward to the much-threatened AfD. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The American Dialect Society isn't a notable organization and the award means next to nothing in terms of notability. I'm trying to avoid process here and I would really appreciate some flexibility that doesn't involve you opposing this merger in all its forms. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, the term was given their "most creative" award, not Word of the Year. So it's notability here is in great doubt. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I found 48 references to the American Dialect Society since 1981 in The New York Times. The several hundred found elsewhere in Google News / Archive would establish notability. If you see the article and my statement above, I agree 100% that the word won the organization's "most creative" award, which is a strong claim of notability. 20 sources exist in Google News Archive for the search of "American Dialect Society" "whale tail". Can I suggest that you submit the AfD for American Dialect Society first and then this article, so that your claim that the organization is not notable can be confirmed. I have shown tremendous flexibility on toe cleavage. You have proposed merger for every single one of these articles, including one that has passed three separate AfDs. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that you're not opposing the Toe cleavage merger. I don't intend to remove any significant amount of information from these articles in the merger, I only think they would be better together under one header. In addition, if we merged them we could avoid any prolonged debate about the deletion or inclusion of the material itself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pull Me Thongs

Some voyeur sites on the Internet call these "Pull Me Thongs" or PMTs. Is this usage widespread enough to be mentioned in the article? Rodparkes 09:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable source

Urban Dictionary may not be a reliable source but it's obviously better than adding a thousand links to all kinds of retailing sites and porn sites that refer to the term. Please, run a google test before you remove the word. Language develops bottom up, i.e. a coinage starts in the streets, creeping up to quasi-academia (like the Urban Dictionary) and eventually is recognized by the academia (like the ADS). While citing the coinage off the streets would amount to original research, it may very well be cited off sources like the Urban Legend. The coinage is notable, and, at that, should not be removed. If the source looks like unacceptable, replace the source. that obviously requires more initiative than simply pressing the undo button, but, I guess, it's worth it. Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This is an article that is prone to vandalism and as such any new addition really needs a reliable source which Urban Dictionary blatantly isn't. If you're saying that a Google test will find suitable sources, why not add them in the first place? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
No dear, I "never" said a google test will find a suitable source. That's not the task of a google test. What it would do for you wonderfully is that a google test will prove that the coinage is pretty widely used. This is something we do to establish notability. Wikipedia is a growing project, and articles and improvements are not supposed to be borne perfect. Not here. If there's clear notability, the addition may stay. What you are doing is destructive and reductive, and is a deterrent in developing the project. Insisting on academic standards for every single thing is not something we do here. Aditya(talk • contribs) 10:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you can't include unsourced statements on the "prenumbra" of notability as given by a Google search. That's a roundabout way of inserting original research on the basis of prior original research. JediLofty is right to want to remove the text, since it fails WP:RS. The reason we insist on having sources for statements, Aditya, is to prevent original research. Claiming that this requirement is somehow damaging to the project is absolutely baffling. And yes, we can and do insist on having sources for every single statement. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
The article just survived a deletion attempt that rested on the basis of not recognizing its potential. I guess the same is happening here. Explain a reliable source, please. And, also explain why a quote should not be supported by primary source, when it's perfectly acceptable by Wikipedia standard. Please, also cite a policy or guideline or, at least, an essay that warrants the removal. Aditya(talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I object to your insinuation that I lack foresight, Aditya. I also object to your immediate revert, since now two people have complained about the statement and you've yet to offer any valid reason for including it. As for your request for protocol: WP:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day specifically notes that "Many articles of this nature describe new words or terms coined by a small group of friends. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary, it's an encyclopedia. Meanings of words and phrases go in a dictionary, such as Wiktionary; however, adding your own new words and phrases to Wiktionary is also unacceptable. Wiktionary requires evidence that a word or phrase has been attested before it will accept it. A new word that one person or a small group of people have made up and are trying to make catch on is a neologism, and isn't acceptable at Wiktionary. Take a look at Urban Dictionary instead." The "Pull Me Thongs" reference is pointless and honestly isn't worth fighting for. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
(reduced indent) I am really sorry if you feel that way. At the same time I object to your insinuation that you have perfect foresight, and pointing to one or two mistakes is unacceptable. I am not perfect, and neither are you. Repeating "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not reason enough to remove alternative coinage for a concept. Many things, including whole countries and people, have different names, and if those names are notable by Wikipedia standards they can be incorporated into articles perfectly. And, you may haven't noticed, but "that one person or a small group of people" (i.e. Urban Dictionary) is not a school-boy website. It has been covered and acknowledged by Time Magazine, the Guardian and other mainstream authority (it also is a mainstream publication). And, finally, if you're looking for a fight worth fighting, please, remember Wikipedia is not a battleground. Thanks. Aditya(talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that Urban Dictionary is a wiki - a wiki, I might add, that requires NO sources and is full of original research (and blatant slander in some cases - look at the second definition for Fred Astaire). Wikis and blogs are not acceptable as sources (see WP:SPS). -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you guys real? Are you saying that I can't say X said this and provide a link to X saying that, because I didn't said Y said that X said that? What part of a direct quotation is unclear here? Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
The issue is that the only sources you've provided for the phrase "pull me thong" are Urban Dictionary. It doesn't matter that The Guardian and other papers have used UD as a source; it is not allowable as a source on Wikipedia. If you can find a source for the phrase that is not an open wiki or blog, feel free to cite it. As it is the only sources you're providing are not suitable, per WP:SPS. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] www.whale-tail.com

Various users seem intent on adding a link to www.whale-tail.com - is such a link really necesary in the article? Does it provide any useful information, other than access to a gallery of whaletail pictures? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The site, dedicated to the phenomenon, has been quoted by mainstream media like the NY Times, and is suspected as a catalyst to make the term popular (though, I haven't been able to find a reliable verification for that fact, yet). It is notable, and is significant enough to be included. I have put the link in piped form into the article where is it mentioned. There shouldn't be much confusion anymore. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
If a verifiable citation is found, feel free to re-add the link. As it is the link adds nothing to the article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
It is already verifiably cited. The citation is the 13th one of the references, and is linked at the end of the sentence. And, what exactly are you referring to in WP:LINKS#Important points to remember? "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"? If so, then explain how the diligence in removing the link, where edit summaries like [1] and [2], and talk page discussions failed to show the point, represents a normal situation. If it is something else, then please, say what it is. I piped the link to make life easier for people who failed to see why the link is there, not remotely to ignite a bout of lawyering. I have also crossed out the part of my explanation that leads to misquoting arguments like "find a verifiable source". Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
In referring to WP:LINKS#Important points to remember I did, indeed mean the part that states that External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. However I think this misses the point. What purpose does linking to the site serve? WP:LINKS has a section headed What should be linked. www.whale-tail.com meets NONE of those guidelines and I am yet to be persuaded that there is ANY reason to link to it. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

www.whale-tail.com was the website that created the term, without it this page would not exist. A history of the term and the creation of the website was listed here http://www.whale-tail.com/index-history.html as well as documentation of the fight for getting www.whaletail.com can be seen here: http://www.greenguyandjim.com/board/showthread.php?t=13478 I will try and get Garv aka Gavin Hamilton over here to discus this as last I heard he's been trying to get it Trade Marked for the past 3 years.

Maybe have a section saying, "The creator Gavin Hamilton started it on October 19th 2003 when he released the website www.whale-tail.com to the world" google listing has "Google began in January 1996, as a research project by Larry Page, who was soon joined by Sergey Brin" so why does a creation by another person in the online community not get credit? Maybe just have a page for Garv as he also created Fripples http://www.fripples.net/

It's redundant not to have it as part of the history! User ¦ Talk 08:51, 11 April 2008 (GMT)

Thanks. But, it'd require stronger cites. Forums, promotional sites, self published sources or user contributed content sites are generally not accepted as reliable sites, like the IMDb citation on Radiator (band), the modeling agency citation for one of representations on Athelston Williams or the company website used as a source on Serverware Group plc.
In the meantime it may be noted that there can't be a relevant policy for every possible situation on the Wikiepdia (otherwise there would be more policy pages here than actual content) and that is why polcies and guidelines are painted with a broad-brush. They are supposed to be used in conjunction with spirit of increasing knowledge, not petty lawyering. And, that is why the link, which actually leads directly from a NYT quote, putting it in perspective should stay. If someone is interested in the policies, there is the WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which has nothing against this link. Cheers. Aditya(talk • contribs) 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any third party links that say that Gavin Hamilton created the phrase? If we can find that, then a section on Origin of the term would be an excellent addition to the article. As it is a couple of forum posts and a comment on the guy's own website aren't really enough. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
the second website to list it was http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whale+tail but that was written by garv. This is listed here as reference 1: http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/whale_tail/ which takes it's reference that it was taken from a blog by garv. That was the 3rd listing by date after the original site. User ¦ Talk 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary can't be used as a source. WP:SOURCE clearly states that "open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable". I think the jury is still out on Double-Tongued Dictionary! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)