Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles

src: i.ytimg.com

Video Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles

BLP

Not to be the wet blanket (and I support humour project pages : ) - but I think we really should avoid placing article titles here which refer in any way to to a real person, existing business, or organisation of any kind.

IANAL, and I won't presume to be anywhere near an expert on such legal issues, but at least per WP:BLP and the like, I just don't think adding such examples here is a good idea. And so I think all such entries should be pruned, and this criteria should be noted in the header.

That said, I obviously welcome others' input on this. - jc37 05:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

No BLPs may be a fine addition to the inclusion criteria for the list. Certainly it would be easy to create a page with a title both "freaky" and a BLP violation. The one that I added which seems to have started this is certainly verifiable and in fact the only reason it came to mind was that the article was deleted because its only claim to notability was that it appears on lists of cases/people with freaky names. But the person is still nonetheless a more or less low-profile individual. So no objections here. I suppose I'll opt not to create Jc37 is a wet blanket, CSD it, and include it here :) -- Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Rofl. And please let Linus know that Snoopy has his blanket, so that Lucy will stop trying to throw me into the dryer : ) - jc37 19:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The recent changes look way too draconian to me. No reference at all to real people is allowed? Most of the titles say nothing negative about their supposed subjects. "List of world leaders whose name are anagrams of their domains", for instance, doesn't seem to have said anything about Omar Bongo except the spelling of his name. As for bands, the point of most nonsensical band names is to catch attention by being nonsensical, so they don't seem likely to object if DAFT points out that their names make no sense. Saddam Hussein and Elvis Presley are dead, so BLP doesn't apply to them. "List of people who died with tortoises on their heads" was a redirect to the entry on list of unusual deaths for Aeschylus. I ask you, in what universe could BLP rules possibly apply to a man who's been dead for 2,470 years? A. Parrot (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, there's still a lot of junk on this page. (band names, web-related content names, indie movie names, self-published book names, etc.) The purpose of this page was humour about nonsense. Not to list real life names that someone may find humourous. People who produce such things want them promoted, so they pick such names intentionally.

That aside, I blankly deleted anything which referred to a person's name (or people in general), regardless of recent-ness. If you think a certain entry should be restored, please feel free at your discretion. - jc37 02:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

To know what the exact purpose of this page was, and whether it was meant to incorporate bizarre names of real but obscure things, you'd have to ask @Grutness:. For the moment, I will revert most of the deletions, leaving out only those entries that seem derogatory in some way. A. Parrot (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The initial purpose was for the page to include pretty much what the title indicates - deleted articles with bizarre names. As the initiator of the page (way back in the dim dark days of Wikipedia's infancy), I'd have to say that A. Parrot's views on what should be here are a lot closer to mine that Jc37's are. It seems that a lot of the deletions recently have been under the misapprehension that this page's title refers to "Deleted articles about freaky subjects". Whether the subject of an article actually existed or not is largely irrelevant - in fact, if anything, real life things are more worthy of inclusion on this list, not less, as they are less likely to be vandalous items. The "list of people who died with tortoises on their heads" is exactly the sort of item this page was created to include, so deleting it largely defies the pages function. I'd be quite happy to have a no BLPs disclaimer, though - it seems like a good idea. And I am definitely willing to be swayed by others on what this page should hold - WP:DAFT is old enough now to be a teenager and no longer be following its parent's guidance ;) Grutness...wha? 09:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Then you will have an all-inclusive listing of every name ever applied to a group of people calling themselves a "band", and every other name which some producer invented solely for the purpose of attracting attention. Which I would be surprised to find would be your (Grutness') intention : )

I had added the following as a guide.

• This page is not for subject names which really exist. In particular, entertainers and producers of art may create names for themselves, their bands, books, podcasts, and the like, which are intended to attract attention. If in doubt, don't add it to this page if it was deleted for CSD rationales G9, G10, G11, A7, A9, etc.

I welcome a better way to write it : ) - jc37 06:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Be surprised, then, Jc37. I would strongly oppose that suggestion, as it would gut the page almost completely. A fair proportion of things listed on this page actually exist, but aren't the things that anyone would sensibly consider writing articles about. Asylum leftovers actually exist. People do buy chocolate. Charlie's sister may actually exists, too. "Dead prostitutes in popular culture" might be a valid, if misguided, article. This page contains a lot of things which exist which should be here simply because the titles are bizarre. In any case, most band names are not bizarre - certainly not as bizarre as something would need to be to be listed here. Is U2 a bizarre name? No. The Beatles, Byrds, Rolling Stones, Talking Heads, Nirvana, Supertramp, Teardrop Explodes, Bangles, Egyptians, XTC, Toy Love, Chills, Clean, House of Love, Charlatans, Crowded House, ABBA, Cream...? No, and the list is endless. Those which are truly bizarre at first hearing become less so if the band's name is well known, as repetition dulls any oddness it may have. Look at the page as it stands. How many of the listed deletions are band names? I picked 50 items from it at random, and no more than five of them could conceivably be the names of bands, and of those only one actually is shown by Google to be a real band (before you ask, "All Hail The Yeti"). There's no problem here - and if it ain't broke, move on. Grutness...wha? 08:00, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:Deleted articles with freaky titles

TOC

Not sure why, when I made portals into its own section in the TOC, the Wikipedia pages link stopped working. More than likely I did something to screw up the template, goodness knows I'm prone to doing that, so someone who knows what they're doing might want to have a look and see if they can fix whatever it is that's going on. The Blade of the Northern Lights (??????) 06:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The problem was that {{Alphanumeric TOC}} only supported five custom sections. I've added a sixth one, but managed to mess it up along the way ... oops! Graham87 14:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks better to me now. Thank you! The Blade of the Northern Lights (??????) 17:36, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

src: image.slidesharecdn.com

Merged articles?

Is it okay to add articles that were merged rather than deleted? Because I think Squirrel attacks is an appropriate title for this page. 169.228.147.248 (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Naaaaah ... "MAFT" or "DMAFT" don't quite have the same ring to them. Besides, we already have a link to Koala attacks in Australia. Graham87 01:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

src: i.kinja-img.com

Freaky versus Humorous

Before I begin I want to say that I am all for a funny and creative joke, but we need to draw the line somewhere to avoid this becoming a collection of titles.

The entries that I removed included:

• Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
• Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

• Both of these have no humor attached to them other than being "freaky titles". So I did a quick search to find more "freaky titles" and found: Bbbb [1]. Surely this is a "freaky title" but was deleted as pure vandalism.

• My proposal? Lets limit this list to article names that are creative and/or have a funny backstory to them. If we don't do this then thee list will become a repository for any title that an editor may think is "Freaky". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• An example of a funny title is how "????????" was a redirect to sun. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment. Although there are more and more titles on this list that I don't find funny myself, "funny" is a hard standard to maintain because it's so subjective. Random weirdness like "The egg's sunset in the upside down ramp" strikes me as funny, but will it do so for everybody? A. Parrot (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is indeed going to be hard but we need some kind of line drawn in the sand or else this will become a dumping ground. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comments

• "Freaky" is a pretty vague word, but it implies something which invokes an emotional response, or is unusual in a humorous or intellectual way. Some of these titles aren't particularly interesting or meaningful. Some appear to have been with random keystrokes (eg., "File:X1pUr2osLO3XWiRHuBLD0Ws7i1QLNBl Yp7HSeHbkg00uZ5otWl rlpRD05jYuX5eZ q373O AJwyB0-R3BAB46ZrLl7vFH2XWkD6saaC-EAC0EyunzoOcLNlf6MjSB0jvWgP2ARoMIB10.jpg")
• The ones near the bottom from Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation were only proposed articles, not real articles.
• Anything that is promotional should not be preserved here when it's been deleted to get it out of the encyclopedia (eg, "File:Singh Rashmi's book The Fallen Love release at WORLD BOOK FAIR 2012 PUBLISHED BY PIGEON BOOKS NEW DELHI.jpg"). --Anne Delong (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• This is very possibly the dumbest page on Wikipedia. Of course, this means it would be impossible to get a consensus to delete it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

src: images.mentalfloss.com

Did you just assume my gender? (or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Outdated Transphobic Memes)

This was removed from the page in November 2017 for being both not freaky (it's a reference to a meme) and transphobic (for obvious reasons, before being readded with the justification that an article on a random meme was freaky enough, and also for being in 'good humour'. In other words, 'just a joke'. I have now removed it again because a) a random meme is not noteworthy, but also not really 'freaky' if you know the context and b) Transphobia is not 'good humour'. It's easy for the editor who restored the page to this list to say that as (I assume) a cis person, but this meme was literally created with the intention of mocking trans people, so is offensive regardless of it being 'just a joke' --217.42.24.158 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Causing offense isn't a valid reason to delete content (Wikipedia is not censored). That said, I don't think it's funny or "freaky" enough to belong here. So I'd say just leave it out. §pur§y§ituation§ (talk) 12:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

src: i.kinja-img.com

Recent removal of "vandalism" titles

Several pages were removed lately from this list because they were deleted as vandalism (G3 or G10), with the stated goal of avoiding encouragement of vandalism. However most of these pages were created years ago, and the likely vandals who created them have long since moved on and forgotten about them (if not left Wikipedia entirely), with very few exceptions. So I think maybe we should prohibit only recent (past year or so) vandalism on this page, since that should achieve the goal without necessitating deletion of perfectly good titles. And some of the pages removed (e.g. "The belief that a cosmic jewish (sic) zombie who was his own father..." that redirected to Christianity) just ought to be kept here, vandalism or not. §pur§y§ituation§ (talk) 12:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I think we should favour denying recognition of vandalism, just like the rest of the project does. Some vandals have very long memories. Graham87 04:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about that too much. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 05:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia