214:. Imperfect as this article is, it is many orders of magnatude better than the other, as this one has sources. As it was sort of created as a compromise between having the other one (which includes anything anyone happened to toss in) and having nothing, I guess it should stay, just to help keep the other one away. As long as the entries in the articles have sources (real sources, not some "ain't this some funny shit" blogs), I'm not really against it. -
242:
104:
493:(ISBN 0824805240), currently sitting on my shelf and my invariable companion in Hawaiian expeditions, as an example of a way that an editor can compile interesting place names in such a way as to produce an encyclopedic, verifiable and NPOV text. This article doesn't violate wikipedia policy; although it's currently in pretty sorry shape, I think it might one day turn into an article like
432:- given the parameters that were being placed around which references might be used for determing that a place name was unusual, this article will not be able to develop much further beyond the few entries it has now. Place names are easily verified, that the place names are considered unusual seems not to be according to the criteria for sources which as been demanded.--
137:. It looks to me like the previous version was nominated and deleted because of a lack of sources. This has sources so it is not the same article. We can't penalize people for making the effort to provide a verified treatment of the topic. Therefore "forking" does not seem relevant and I hope the article remains on this more scholarly track. --
84:- including some newspaper space fillers. I don't want to provoke a war here, but I am greatly disturbed by this apparent forking. I realise it's slightly different in conception, but overall it really isn't significantly different to the old article in that it is still POV and OR, it just says so up front and then appeals to the
418:. No good arguments for deletion have been advanced. This is not POV, the items are sourced. "Other people's POV" is not a problem at all - the important thing is that it is not *our* POV, as the previous article was. Seems like a good-faith effort to address the strong verfification concerns raised previously.
274:
unusual). World wide focus is a reason for article improvement, not deletion. This kind of phenonmenon occurs in other languages - for example, there were plans to call the Iraqi army (ok, not a place name, but same principle) the New Iraqi Corps, until it was realised it'd be arabic slang for f***.
88:
fallacy to justify it. In the end, "Fucking" is only funny to a sophomore
Anglophone - in its native language it is not actually that odd - and the places listed as producing many "unusual" names are merely an artifact of dialect or influx of people from non-English speaking countries. So this
89:
should, if anything, be a list of place names considered by an arbitrary subset of people to meet some arbitrary definition of "unusual". But in the end no amount of saying "look, this is not the same thing, really it isn't" doesn't make this any less a fork, in my opinion.
307:
will get them started. (4) more-less recreation of AfDed article under slightly different name. (5) current infrastructure of
Knowledge (XXG) simply doesn't allow to maintain such type of articles. After it improves article may be considered but not now.
65:
406:
Either keep or move the old article back into article space. This is a list of place names that are famous for being strange, to the point that they appear in newspapers or other reliable sources. --
270:
this article is referenced. A different name doesn't indicate a fork - this is a more NPOV name than the old one (saying that a name is considered unusual is more NPOV than saying that it
373:
up for deletion, then. (Only kidding) How about only deleting articles with real problems, rather than deleting articles because of potential problems which may or may not eventuate?
489:
is pretty clear that assertions in articles don't need to be true; they just need to be sourced. Some place names are of interest; in fact, I would cite Mary Pukui's fabulous
334:
Stable versions mainly. Such article will be left to horde of kids trying to outwit one another and no one will be able to maintain it. Not a first case here.
444:
it is significantly different to the old list because it has a few examples which are sourced with references, rather than hundreds of unsourced examples. --
494:
518:
116:
As much as I think the original article should come out of
Wikispace, doing an end-run around the rules isn't going to make things any better.--
73:
258:
but change title to "non-traditional place names"-- unusual sounds POV to my ear, and perhaps a more accurate reflection of content. --
165:
17:
576:
555:
510:
475:
466:
454:
436:
422:
410:
401:
377:
364:
355:
338:
321:
312:
295:
279:
262:
245:
218:
206:
190:
169:
141:
129:
107:
52:
227:
Moving the old article to
Project space was the compromise. This is at best trivia, at worst an attempt to ignore consensus.
58:
72:
where deletion was endorsed, and several expressed themselves satisfied with its continued existence in
Project space at
549:
317:
What do you mean by "current infrastructure of
Knowledge (XXG) simply doesn't allow to maintain such type of articles"?
594:
36:
237:
99:
303:: (1) vague name. (2) potentially endless. (3) very prone to be a target of jokers from all over the world. The
593:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
545:
153:
450:
161:
565:
351:
that will continue to get much more vandalized than this one. Nor are the other points you raise valid.
157:
445:
361:
335:
309:
259:
433:
292:
85:
574:
124:
49:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
524:
77:
504:
304:
241:
103:
523:: resurrect and retrofit prior article, merge with nominated article (with current title),
69:
407:
199:
185:
288:
528:
486:
570:
541:
419:
398:
370:
352:
215:
117:
498:
472:
463:
374:
348:
318:
276:
66:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names
80:. This seems to me to be a pretty blatant attempt to get round that by citing
203:
180:
138:
228:
90:
497:, a "list" that rewards the encyclopedic reader by its perusal. -
587:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
462:, this is venue-shopping to try and avoid previous consensus.
360:
The more such articles the worse situation. Limits of growth.
344:
519:
Knowledge (XXG):List of interesting or unusual place names
471:
What consensus? The only consensus was over a compromise.
74:
Knowledge (XXG):List of interesting or unusual place names
534:
entries in given timeframe. If untenable or unworkable,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
597:). No further edits should be made to this page.
397:per (and thoroughly agree with) nomination. --
343:That's hardly a reason for deletion. We have
8:
179:. Too subjective. Too indiscriminate. --
495:List of people believed to have epilepsy
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
240:
102:
59:Place names considered unusual
1:
577:15:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
556:01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
511:00:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
476:22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
467:21:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
455:23:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
437:07:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
423:06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
411:00:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
402:19:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
378:22:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
365:15:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
356:06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
339:04:17, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
322:13:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
313:12:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
296:10:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
280:06:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
263:02:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
246:10:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
219:02:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
207:02:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
191:01:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
170:00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
142:00:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
130:23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
108:23:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
53:08:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
44:The result of the debate was
614:
64:An article was dleeted at
590:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
149:- don't be stupid. -nsh
491:Place Names of Hawaii
485:. Encyclopedic.
86:appeal to authority
68:. It was taken to
546:E Pluribus Anthony
82:other people's POV
76:, since it failed
453:
189:
173:
156:comment added by
605:
592:
573:
568:
507:
501:
448:
305:Fucking, Austria
244:
232:
183:
172:
150:
106:
94:
34:
613:
612:
608:
607:
606:
604:
603:
602:
601:
595:deletion review
588:
566:
564:
505:
499:
362:Pavel Vozenilek
336:Pavel Vozenilek
310:Pavel Vozenilek
239:
230:
151:
101:
92:
70:deletion review
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
611:
609:
600:
599:
582:
580:
579:
558:
513:
480:
479:
478:
457:
439:
426:
425:
413:
404:
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
327:
326:
325:
324:
298:
287:as per nom. —
282:
265:
251:
250:
249:
248:
236:
222:
221:
212:Reluctant keep
209:
193:
174:
144:
132:
98:
61:
56:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
610:
598:
596:
591:
585:
584:
583:
578:
575:
572:
569:
562:
559:
557:
553:
552:
547:
543:
539:
538:
533:
530:
526:
522:
521:
520:
514:
512:
508:
502:
496:
492:
488:
484:
481:
477:
474:
470:
469:
468:
465:
461:
458:
456:
452:
447:
443:
440:
438:
435:
431:
428:
427:
424:
421:
417:
414:
412:
409:
405:
403:
400:
396:
393:
392:
379:
376:
372:
371:George W Bush
368:
367:
366:
363:
359:
358:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
323:
320:
316:
315:
314:
311:
306:
302:
299:
297:
294:
290:
286:
283:
281:
278:
273:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
253:
252:
247:
243:
238:
234:
226:
225:
224:
223:
220:
217:
213:
210:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
192:
187:
182:
178:
175:
171:
167:
163:
159:
155:
148:
145:
143:
140:
136:
133:
131:
128:
127:
126:
121:
120:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
105:
100:
96:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
67:
60:
57:
55:
54:
51:
50:Mailer Diablo
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
589:
586:
581:
563:per JJay. --
560:
550:
536:
535:
531:
516:
515:
490:
482:
459:
441:
434:A Y Arktos
429:
415:
394:
300:
284:
271:
267:
255:
211:
195:
176:
158:88.144.55.62
152:— Preceding
146:
134:
123:
122:
118:
113:
81:
63:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
517:Merge with
446:Astrokey44
408:Sertraline
289:Kimchi.sg
260:Hansnesse
233:you know?
229:Just zis
95:you know?
91:Just zis
542:Mitsukai
420:Turnstep
399:kingboyk
353:Turnstep
349:articles
216:R. fiend
166:contribs
154:unsigned
125:Mitsukai
571:iva1979
540:as per
114:Delete.
78:WP:NPOV
537:delete
529:verify
525:source
500:ikkyu2
473:Andjam
464:Stifle
460:Delete
430:Delete
395:Delete
375:Andjam
319:Andjam
301:Delete
285:Delete
277:Andjam
196:Delete
177:Delete
254:Weak
204:rodii
200:Krash
181:Krash
147:Keep'
16:<
561:Keep
551:talk
506:talk
487:WP:V
483:Keep
451:talk
442:Keep
416:Keep
369:Put
345:lots
293:Talk
268:Keep
256:Keep
231:Guy,
198:per
186:Talk
162:talk
139:JJay
135:Keep
93:Guy,
532:all
347:of
119:み使い
554:|
548:|
544:.
509:)
291:|
272:is
202:.
168:)
164:•
48:.
567:S
527:/
503:(
449:|
235:/
188:)
184:(
160:(
97:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
