![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Straw poll discussed / run through January 2007 with no concensus
|
---|
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)
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)
|
Here we go again, after all that has been said in the past about creating a list of unusual names, someone is creating it again, and with it all the friction which was the characteristics of the old list. After so many changes, not only of what was or was not unusual about individual place names but also the actual changes of the article title at times it created so much aggravation.
Can you not be bothered to read the old talk pages, granted now archived but nevertheless still available to be read. But of course we can't be bothered, can we? Wait for the avalanche of claim and counter claim, that this is wrong and that ought eo be changed. The time waisted over this list was unbelievable. Just look at the old history when the list was up and running. You can see it all. See the period of January and February 2006, among others. Dieter Simon ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Dieter Simon ( talk)
Read even above talk pages, if you you want to see what went on. Dieter Simon ( talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The best way is to look at the history of this article of the period January and February 2006. You will get an impression of what was going on during that time. Dieter Simon ( talk) 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
List of extraordinary diseases and conditions has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as what was the case for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer deletion, but it is also likely that certain place names will have solid references indication that they are considered unusual. the problem is that this article has no references. the previous references, which i deleted or moved, were to external links, most of which were unreliable sources. This article cant be just a link farm for every goofy list of names. Really, we would need an article going into why there are so many names which seem unusual to so many people (not just cross language puns, which cant be helped). I would actually support a sourced list of places, but ONLY if they had articles on WP, and ONLY if the articles had clear sources saying that many people thought the names were "unusual". Unusual is such an undefinable term, i cant believe people like using it in article names. This is my best attempt to fix this article up. Please note, i am NOT trying to gut it so it can be deleted. i accept that its staying, but it just needs to BE...AN...ARTICLE. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
We're not really discussing bringing back the old list, are we? Really, the list is a great idea, just not for an encyclopedia. There's really nothing encyclopedic about it, and it has verifiability issues up the wazoo. Even if we tried to keep a high level of verifiability on this (which is very difficult to do, but entirely essential), is it really worth the vast effort it wold take just for a "yeah, that's a funny name...heh heh..."? Perhaps there is a scholarly work that could be written on the subject of weird-ass place names, but a list of things that make certain people chuckle is not it. We need to give it a rest. Even the link at the top seems problematical to me, as it's not a useful tool for finding important elements of Wikipedia, but a circuitous redirect to a page questionably kept in the WP namespace as a playground for things that were deleted for unencyclopedic content. It's a mess, and it really doesn't belong in this project in any namespace. - R. fiend ( talk) 03:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a place called 1770 which is unusual in having actual digits in its name (not just spelled-out numbers). Is there a place in this or another article for places who's names are unusual for reasons other than those mentioned in the article already? (note: the talk page there suggests that 1770 may have been officially renamed to "Seventeen Seventy", but even if that is the case, "1770" was once its official name.) -- Mark Whybird ( talk) 05:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me be the first to say I am pleased with this article's recent improvement. However, there seems to be too much emphasis on profanity, when there are many examples of unusual or colorful place names which are not vulgar. Could we start by placing a different image at the top, other than Fucking? That way, folks who are clicking on this article from their hometown won't be in for such a shock. Thanks- Gilliam ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Place_names_considesred_unusual -> considered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.201.166 ( talk) 06:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Magic! Issue resolved, I swear it was there. Thank you, Magic. (I had copied the mistyped link from /info/en/?search=Penistone#Etymology)
This article should be merged with Wikipedia:Unusual place names. [1] I’m thinking that an optimal merge would remove the facetious/cutesy entries there before they were migrated here. Thoughts? — LLarson ( said & done) 03:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
merge}}
or I’d have tagged the articles. There is
a message on the other article’s talk page alerting them to this conversation.
The statement that condom has no humourous connotation in French is simply not true. The word Condom means the same thing in French as it does in english, as seen (here) [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.226.63 ( talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Y is very often a vowel in English (e.g., in "cynic," "Evelyn," "lynx," most words ending in "y"). Kostaki mou ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned under 'Road sign theft'. It's probably just me, but I don't understand the joke with 'Fochriw 2' or why 'Fochriw 1 3/4' would be better.
108.171.128.180 ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that in the article, it says the word condom ″has no humourous connotations in French″. It's false; the word is also used in French (see article on Wiktionary). Would it be possible to change the article so it would say it also has a connotation in French? Thanks. PoutineIsAwesome2017 ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Place names considered unusual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Place names considered unusual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Rather than outright rude there are places that might be considered euphemisms, for example /info/en/?search=Wetwang which is a common feature of news articles/features on the very subject of funny or unusual place names. Its notability includes the Yorkshire, the UK at large and further afield for notability.
Place names like "Fucking" or "Hell" are only unusual in English. This is no different than words spelled the same meaning something else, possibly offensive, in other languages. There are countless examples, so what is the purpose of this article? -- 94.134.89.163 ( talk) 12:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's the English-language Wikipedia, that's why! If there were a village called Merde, Utah, that might merit a place in the French Wikipedia. 72.106.150.196 ( talk) 10:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is all right to change a place name temporarily for publicity and money, like "Half.com" and get mentioned here, how about the place in Montana that (temporarily) changed it's name to "Joe"? Why is that not here? 72.106.150.196 ( talk) 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the reader of this article supposed to know what "Špičkovina" and "Gnojnice" mean in Croatian? (But not "Babina Guzica", apparently). Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 17:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Surprised the city of Batman in Turkey hasn't made it to the list. Any reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:CA00:F00:FC7F:A440:CFEA:7252 ( talk) 18:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could add section about places named after fictional characters ect. For example: Obi-Wan Kenobi Street ect. TheEditMate ( talk) 12:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Straw poll discussed / run through January 2007 with no concensus
|
---|
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)
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)
|
Here we go again, after all that has been said in the past about creating a list of unusual names, someone is creating it again, and with it all the friction which was the characteristics of the old list. After so many changes, not only of what was or was not unusual about individual place names but also the actual changes of the article title at times it created so much aggravation.
Can you not be bothered to read the old talk pages, granted now archived but nevertheless still available to be read. But of course we can't be bothered, can we? Wait for the avalanche of claim and counter claim, that this is wrong and that ought eo be changed. The time waisted over this list was unbelievable. Just look at the old history when the list was up and running. You can see it all. See the period of January and February 2006, among others. Dieter Simon ( talk) 22:13, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Dieter Simon ( talk)
Read even above talk pages, if you you want to see what went on. Dieter Simon ( talk) 22:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The best way is to look at the history of this article of the period January and February 2006. You will get an impression of what was going on during that time. Dieter Simon ( talk) 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
List of extraordinary diseases and conditions has been tagged for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions). Feel welcome to give comments and suggestions, because the main reason is basically the same as what was the case for this article: Lack of proper definition of what really is unusual, and therefore what to include or not, as well as making inclusions verifiable and without original research. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 18:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I would prefer deletion, but it is also likely that certain place names will have solid references indication that they are considered unusual. the problem is that this article has no references. the previous references, which i deleted or moved, were to external links, most of which were unreliable sources. This article cant be just a link farm for every goofy list of names. Really, we would need an article going into why there are so many names which seem unusual to so many people (not just cross language puns, which cant be helped). I would actually support a sourced list of places, but ONLY if they had articles on WP, and ONLY if the articles had clear sources saying that many people thought the names were "unusual". Unusual is such an undefinable term, i cant believe people like using it in article names. This is my best attempt to fix this article up. Please note, i am NOT trying to gut it so it can be deleted. i accept that its staying, but it just needs to BE...AN...ARTICLE. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
We're not really discussing bringing back the old list, are we? Really, the list is a great idea, just not for an encyclopedia. There's really nothing encyclopedic about it, and it has verifiability issues up the wazoo. Even if we tried to keep a high level of verifiability on this (which is very difficult to do, but entirely essential), is it really worth the vast effort it wold take just for a "yeah, that's a funny name...heh heh..."? Perhaps there is a scholarly work that could be written on the subject of weird-ass place names, but a list of things that make certain people chuckle is not it. We need to give it a rest. Even the link at the top seems problematical to me, as it's not a useful tool for finding important elements of Wikipedia, but a circuitous redirect to a page questionably kept in the WP namespace as a playground for things that were deleted for unencyclopedic content. It's a mess, and it really doesn't belong in this project in any namespace. - R. fiend ( talk) 03:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
There is a place called 1770 which is unusual in having actual digits in its name (not just spelled-out numbers). Is there a place in this or another article for places who's names are unusual for reasons other than those mentioned in the article already? (note: the talk page there suggests that 1770 may have been officially renamed to "Seventeen Seventy", but even if that is the case, "1770" was once its official name.) -- Mark Whybird ( talk) 05:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Let me be the first to say I am pleased with this article's recent improvement. However, there seems to be too much emphasis on profanity, when there are many examples of unusual or colorful place names which are not vulgar. Could we start by placing a different image at the top, other than Fucking? That way, folks who are clicking on this article from their hometown won't be in for such a shock. Thanks- Gilliam ( talk) 20:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Place_names_considesred_unusual -> considered — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.83.201.166 ( talk) 06:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Magic! Issue resolved, I swear it was there. Thank you, Magic. (I had copied the mistyped link from /info/en/?search=Penistone#Etymology)
This article should be merged with Wikipedia:Unusual place names. [1] I’m thinking that an optimal merge would remove the facetious/cutesy entries there before they were migrated here. Thoughts? — LLarson ( said & done) 03:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
merge}}
or I’d have tagged the articles. There is
a message on the other article’s talk page alerting them to this conversation.
The statement that condom has no humourous connotation in French is simply not true. The word Condom means the same thing in French as it does in english, as seen (here) [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.226.63 ( talk) 21:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Y is very often a vowel in English (e.g., in "cynic," "Evelyn," "lynx," most words ending in "y"). Kostaki mou ( talk) 18:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Mentioned under 'Road sign theft'. It's probably just me, but I don't understand the joke with 'Fochriw 2' or why 'Fochriw 1 3/4' would be better.
108.171.128.180 ( talk) 11:05, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed that in the article, it says the word condom ″has no humourous connotations in French″. It's false; the word is also used in French (see article on Wiktionary). Would it be possible to change the article so it would say it also has a connotation in French? Thanks. PoutineIsAwesome2017 ( talk) 14:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Place names considered unusual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:49, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Place names considered unusual. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Rather than outright rude there are places that might be considered euphemisms, for example /info/en/?search=Wetwang which is a common feature of news articles/features on the very subject of funny or unusual place names. Its notability includes the Yorkshire, the UK at large and further afield for notability.
Place names like "Fucking" or "Hell" are only unusual in English. This is no different than words spelled the same meaning something else, possibly offensive, in other languages. There are countless examples, so what is the purpose of this article? -- 94.134.89.163 ( talk) 12:25, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
It's the English-language Wikipedia, that's why! If there were a village called Merde, Utah, that might merit a place in the French Wikipedia. 72.106.150.196 ( talk) 10:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If it is all right to change a place name temporarily for publicity and money, like "Half.com" and get mentioned here, how about the place in Montana that (temporarily) changed it's name to "Joe"? Why is that not here? 72.106.150.196 ( talk) 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the reader of this article supposed to know what "Špičkovina" and "Gnojnice" mean in Croatian? (But not "Babina Guzica", apparently). Kumagoro-42 ( talk) 17:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Surprised the city of Batman in Turkey hasn't made it to the list. Any reason? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:CA00:F00:FC7F:A440:CFEA:7252 ( talk) 18:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Maybe we could add section about places named after fictional characters ect. For example: Obi-Wan Kenobi Street ect. TheEditMate ( talk) 12:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)