![]() | This page 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. |
This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 12 September 2006. The result was keep. Xoloz 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I was serious with that article.(Although that is a freaky title) I wanted to write about a flash series I saw. It actually was an epirement to see when the humor region of adult's brains stopped developing. Cfive 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
...for pages like this. Nudity and gore are limited to the computer screen, at the very least, so others might not notice them if walking by or outside the right line of sight.
Uncontrollable laughter, on the other hand, is a lot harder to hide.
I guess the author of "No One Writes to the Colonel" tried to write about the book from Gabriel Garcia Marquez "El coronel no tiene quien le escriba" which might be incorrectly translated to "No one writes to the Colonel".
If so, then that should have been a valid post.
Regards,
-- Hlasso 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I know there's no point in linking to a deleted article's title, but how about linking to its entry in the deletion log? As proof that these articles did exist and were not just made up. -- Stratadrake 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of these articles don't even have deletion logs... I looked for the deletion log of "Your worst nightmare" and couldn't find it. SupaStarGirl 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's them all source, I think... There seems to be a gap of about a month (November 2004) between the end of the old deletion log and the start of the new one - items from that month are either sourced via BJAODN (ref name= WP:BJAODN) or with a note that the deleted pages can still be read by admins but that no deletion log entry exists (ref name= admin). Everything else either has an AfD entry, a Deletion log entry, or is listed in the old deletion log (ref name= WP:ODL). Grutness... wha? 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't really have any criteria for what constitues a "freaky" title, do we? Some of the titles in this list sound strange, but not freaky. -- Stratadrake 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Er? A genuine subject with a genuine article. Shouldn't be on the list, I think. Tevildo 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
New question -- do we add titles which (themselves) could be considered attack pagess? This seems like the reason why the older Wikipedia:Deletion log is blanked -- concerns over libel. For example, this: [1]
It's certainly a freaky title, but also a CSD G10. -- Stratadrake 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of the above article (now a redirect) making it onto here? Totnesmartin 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only unencyclopaedic, but ungrammatical to boot. :-) The title should of course have been "How the prequels should of gone".
The relevant AFD discussion says it was speedily deleted as a broken redirect, but if someone attempted to create that page as a full article, the result would likely be deletion as a non-attributable Internet phenomenon. Being non-notable is not really related to having a freaky title, even if some Wikipedians might be unfamiliar with that Internet phenomenon. Should we consider removing that entry? 131.215.159.216 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY. Pages like this just encourage and glorify vandalism, driving people to create nonsense articles, which is a waste of helpful users' time in deleting them.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that BJAODN has been deleted there are several redlinks in the article, I'm not sure where they should be redirected to. Darrenhusted 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this really belong here? It turns out to redirect to the legit vibrating string article.
Also, I'm quite amused by the title about that notice posted in some random Finnish building. Very Library of Babel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.191.39 ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Was this article really deleted? The reference goes to an unrelated footnote at the bottom of the page and this group did exist as a genuine, notable black gospel group as this page from CBS News shows. B1atv 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Give_me_your_bank_account_details The page content was a picture of a fruit pudding. 82.133.95.239 ( talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I no longer have proof of this, but I remember a while ago someone who had been vandalizing pages created a User Category with the title "Wikipedia vandals." I wonder if that would qualify for this? Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.238.140 ( talk) 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If I could vote for the one most worthy of being restored, I would vote for things that are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly. (Of course, it could be merged into the BO'R article but that would violate NPOV, I suppose.) -- WickerGuy ( talk) 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "shoop da whoop" (A internet meme in which a Object with a face (faced?) Fires a lazer out of its mouth with bright red lips and bulging eyes) and "kitler" (A image of a cat that resembes Adolf Hitler) are not on the list, Should they be added? 14:48 21 Janruary 2009 fulizer —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
Wasn't this one deleted off this page? For being reported by its creator? And now someone put it back? What's going on? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro communications accomplishments 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If'n this page is ever *gulp* deleted, due to some stupid folks who want attention, I wouldn't let the page be in vain. I would save it on my computer, in a word file if need be. Like A. Parrot said, it's the funniest of the humor pages, simply because of the randomosity hits you like a machine gun, over and over, until you practically wet yourself with laughter. I must confess, it is the greatest of temptations I have resisted to create a DAFT article. That would be truly hypocritical. *steps down from soapbox* We need to save this page. It'd be a cryin' shame to see this page die in the fires of Wiki policy. Maybe, if there's an admin willing to put down humorous stuff, I'd like them to stand up. Give this page special protection. Make it so vandals can't submit their own content. Only the primo DAFTness can shine through. Deliberate vandalism is different than someone who was just random enough to make something funny. If only we could keep this out of the eyes of vandals. Behind closed doors, so to speak. Vandals won't ever know, so they won't try. The list is funny right now. Sorry for typing your eyes out. I happen to be rather prolix. Maybe I should write novels. IDK. The first L4L fan ever, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro stuff more stuff 04:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
Another user recently added a page to the list that I discovered that they made. Should it be deleted? 2D Backfire Master fast food 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, should we maybe have a page for pages with freaky titles that still remain?
Examples:
Neutrality Patrol
Spain does not need wise people
Muhammadry
Me name's Brian, not Brain
Cod Wars
I know these names make sense when you read the articles, but out of context, they seem fairly 'freaky', and would warrant a place on this page if they were deleted.
Just wondering what people think
Kill me when i die ( talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that tears it. To the guy who used to be User:Bully25 and User:Kill me when i die: stop creating stupidly titled pages. That's vandalism. Obviously you like this little collection of silliness, so why are you risking it being deleted because it promotes vandalism? And don't think you've fooled anybody, User:Damn cookies!, showing up on an obscure project page just a week after User:Kill me when i die got blocked. You have two choices: you can quit editing, sit back, and watch this page grow naturally through the foolishness of other editors, or you can be foolish yourself and watch it disappear. A. Parrot ( talk) 04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A title which I recently added was removed because the article in question was speedy-deleted as a hoax. However, clicking through the citation links for various entries on this page shows that quite a few of them were also deleted as patent nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, or even attack pages. So do those get to stay under some kind of grandfather clause, or should they be culled out? 69.111.189.155 ( talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal, that entry was removed before but the removal was reverted as unexplained. Somebody really wants the entry removed for whatever reason, whether out of embarrassment or some other problem, and I don't think there are any good reasons to deny this request. It is not absolutely essential that *every* *single* entry remain on this list forever. Graham 87 03:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
This page was the subject of an MfD discussion closed on 12 September 2006. The result was keep. Xoloz 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I was serious with that article.(Although that is a freaky title) I wanted to write about a flash series I saw. It actually was an epirement to see when the humor region of adult's brains stopped developing. Cfive 00:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
...for pages like this. Nudity and gore are limited to the computer screen, at the very least, so others might not notice them if walking by or outside the right line of sight.
Uncontrollable laughter, on the other hand, is a lot harder to hide.
I guess the author of "No One Writes to the Colonel" tried to write about the book from Gabriel Garcia Marquez "El coronel no tiene quien le escriba" which might be incorrectly translated to "No one writes to the Colonel".
If so, then that should have been a valid post.
Regards,
-- Hlasso 20:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I know there's no point in linking to a deleted article's title, but how about linking to its entry in the deletion log? As proof that these articles did exist and were not just made up. -- Stratadrake 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Some of these articles don't even have deletion logs... I looked for the deletion log of "Your worst nightmare" and couldn't find it. SupaStarGirl 00:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's them all source, I think... There seems to be a gap of about a month (November 2004) between the end of the old deletion log and the start of the new one - items from that month are either sourced via BJAODN (ref name= WP:BJAODN) or with a note that the deleted pages can still be read by admins but that no deletion log entry exists (ref name= admin). Everything else either has an AfD entry, a Deletion log entry, or is listed in the old deletion log (ref name= WP:ODL). Grutness... wha? 11:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We don't really have any criteria for what constitues a "freaky" title, do we? Some of the titles in this list sound strange, but not freaky. -- Stratadrake 17:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Er? A genuine subject with a genuine article. Shouldn't be on the list, I think. Tevildo 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
New question -- do we add titles which (themselves) could be considered attack pagess? This seems like the reason why the older Wikipedia:Deletion log is blanked -- concerns over libel. For example, this: [1]
It's certainly a freaky title, but also a CSD G10. -- Stratadrake 20:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of the above article (now a redirect) making it onto here? Totnesmartin 18:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Not only unencyclopaedic, but ungrammatical to boot. :-) The title should of course have been "How the prequels should of gone".
The relevant AFD discussion says it was speedily deleted as a broken redirect, but if someone attempted to create that page as a full article, the result would likely be deletion as a non-attributable Internet phenomenon. Being non-notable is not really related to having a freaky title, even if some Wikipedians might be unfamiliar with that Internet phenomenon. Should we consider removing that entry? 131.215.159.216 09:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:DENY. Pages like this just encourage and glorify vandalism, driving people to create nonsense articles, which is a waste of helpful users' time in deleting them.- h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Now that BJAODN has been deleted there are several redlinks in the article, I'm not sure where they should be redirected to. Darrenhusted 14:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Does this really belong here? It turns out to redirect to the legit vibrating string article.
Also, I'm quite amused by the title about that notice posted in some random Finnish building. Very Library of Babel... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.191.39 ( talk) 01:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
Was this article really deleted? The reference goes to an unrelated footnote at the bottom of the page and this group did exist as a genuine, notable black gospel group as this page from CBS News shows. B1atv 18:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
This is a bit weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Give_me_your_bank_account_details The page content was a picture of a fruit pudding. 82.133.95.239 ( talk) 18:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I no longer have proof of this, but I remember a while ago someone who had been vandalizing pages created a User Category with the title "Wikipedia vandals." I wonder if that would qualify for this? Beggarsbanquet ( talk) 06:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.238.140 ( talk) 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
If I could vote for the one most worthy of being restored, I would vote for things that are "far left" according to Bill O'Reilly. (Of course, it could be merged into the BO'R article but that would violate NPOV, I suppose.) -- WickerGuy ( talk) 17:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that "shoop da whoop" (A internet meme in which a Object with a face (faced?) Fires a lazer out of its mouth with bright red lips and bulging eyes) and "kitler" (A image of a cat that resembes Adolf Hitler) are not on the list, Should they be added? 14:48 21 Janruary 2009 fulizer —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
Wasn't this one deleted off this page? For being reported by its creator? And now someone put it back? What's going on? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro communications accomplishments 12:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
If'n this page is ever *gulp* deleted, due to some stupid folks who want attention, I wouldn't let the page be in vain. I would save it on my computer, in a word file if need be. Like A. Parrot said, it's the funniest of the humor pages, simply because of the randomosity hits you like a machine gun, over and over, until you practically wet yourself with laughter. I must confess, it is the greatest of temptations I have resisted to create a DAFT article. That would be truly hypocritical. *steps down from soapbox* We need to save this page. It'd be a cryin' shame to see this page die in the fires of Wiki policy. Maybe, if there's an admin willing to put down humorous stuff, I'd like them to stand up. Give this page special protection. Make it so vandals can't submit their own content. Only the primo DAFTness can shine through. Deliberate vandalism is different than someone who was just random enough to make something funny. If only we could keep this out of the eyes of vandals. Behind closed doors, so to speak. Vandals won't ever know, so they won't try. The list is funny right now. Sorry for typing your eyes out. I happen to be rather prolix. Maybe I should write novels. IDK. The first L4L fan ever, 2J Bäkkvire Maestro stuff more stuff 04:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
Another user recently added a page to the list that I discovered that they made. Should it be deleted? 2D Backfire Master fast food 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, should we maybe have a page for pages with freaky titles that still remain?
Examples:
Neutrality Patrol
Spain does not need wise people
Muhammadry
Me name's Brian, not Brain
Cod Wars
I know these names make sense when you read the articles, but out of context, they seem fairly 'freaky', and would warrant a place on this page if they were deleted.
Just wondering what people think
Kill me when i die ( talk) 02:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that tears it. To the guy who used to be User:Bully25 and User:Kill me when i die: stop creating stupidly titled pages. That's vandalism. Obviously you like this little collection of silliness, so why are you risking it being deleted because it promotes vandalism? And don't think you've fooled anybody, User:Damn cookies!, showing up on an obscure project page just a week after User:Kill me when i die got blocked. You have two choices: you can quit editing, sit back, and watch this page grow naturally through the foolishness of other editors, or you can be foolish yourself and watch it disappear. A. Parrot ( talk) 04:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
A title which I recently added was removed because the article in question was speedy-deleted as a hoax. However, clicking through the citation links for various entries on this page shows that quite a few of them were also deleted as patent nonsense, hoaxes, vandalism, or even attack pages. So do those get to stay under some kind of grandfather clause, or should they be culled out? 69.111.189.155 ( talk) 16:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Regarding this removal, that entry was removed before but the removal was reverted as unexplained. Somebody really wants the entry removed for whatever reason, whether out of embarrassment or some other problem, and I don't think there are any good reasons to deny this request. It is not absolutely essential that *every* *single* entry remain on this list forever. Graham 87 03:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)