Maybe I don't get it because I live in Belfast, but what's so funny about Lough Neagh? --Jonathan Drain 05:45, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Because it sounds like the noise a horse makes? Just a theory -- AndrewH 09:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

or if you pronounce it with the gh as in through (throo) it becomes loo nee (looney)

• Bastard, Norway

I've removed this entry since I've never heard of it, and besides the name means exactly the same thing in Norwegian as in English so it does not seem very likely that it exists, either. -- Egil 22:07 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

acording too: [1] it exists. -fonzy

Excuse me, but this is the worst reference I've seen for a while. From geocities, with no mention of in which county or municipality. And no attribution. There is certainly no municipality, town or village with that name. And no river nor lake. And no farm. I'm pretty sure it is someone who thought they saw it. Sweden has a Båstad, for instance. Egil 22:39 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the similarly dubious "Cunt, Spain" pending a decent source. (possibly what the above website lists as "Cuntis, Galacia"?) -- Infrogmation 22:44 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

The Spanish census bureau notes a municipality called Cuntis in the province of Pontevedra, Galicia. - Montréalais 19:48, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we need a source for every single placename listed on here? This could take forever. -- Smjg 10:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a "Fuck You" in Toronto by searching Google. Is this a real place? If so, what is it? A street? I find it kind of unlikely for an English-speaking city really to have a place with such a name. -- Elizabeth 00:20, 21 November 2004

Why is Honolulu interesting or unusual?

Does anyone know a better translation for German "Sommerloch"? It's a word describing a period of time during summer when most people are on holiday and nothing interesting is happening because of that. -- Timwi 01:16 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Some translate it as the "summer pause" or the "summer hole". --Menchi 08:56 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

In the newspaper business I've heard they call it "silly season" - Montréalais 19:48, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This name is a serious encyclopedic attempt in listing linguistically unusual and unique placename, like all other lists, right? Then why is there a fake one here?

Bob, a made-up name for Northwest Territories, is a joke, nothing more. It is not a placename in any sense. The poll is limited, and very light-natured. It is not even a nickname, like Italy is called The Boot.

It is not a part of Canada, that's probably what the original contributor realized, and so s/he didn't place a specifer country behind the name. So, there you go, a "placename" that belongs to noplace. Nowhere.

--Menchi 09:07 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If there is an ambiguity, maybe a more serious footnote could make this clear? User:Docu

I've read up on it and from what I see, I think Menchi is right and Bob doesn't really belong on this page. -- Timwi 21:42 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

but, even if it's not a place named in an interesting or unusal way, it may be a place name that is interesting or unsual. Thus before we remove it, we should find a better place for it. Toponymy suggests a place for this. User:Docu

Then you are invited to take it there :)
P.S. if you type four tildes (~~~~), it'll insert a nice signature like this one: Timwi 22:00 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, there it is. :) User:Docu

Oh, how interesting is "interesting"???? :P Wshun

Indeed. and Why is Honolulu interesting or unusual? says somone, above. Here are my Votes for not being very interesting;

• Goodyear - dull - surely just someone's surname
• Lough Neagh - no more interesting than hundreds of other Irish and Scottish gaelic names?

These are a bit "less interesting " on similar grouds, maybe...

• Rann of Kachchh, India
• Thiruvananthapuram, India
• Tiruchchirappalli, India

Opinions? Andy G 20:18 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Agreed. If it's funny, it has to make sense. Otherwise it's just a 1st-grader who laughs uncontrollably at Mahatma or Gaylord. Other than Goodyear, they -- including Honolulu -- are "odd" to some Americans or English, just because of their lack of contact w/ other ethnicities. Some call such an isolation "ignorance". --Menchi 20:56 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"If it's funny, it has to make sense"? Ever heard of abstract humour? Regardless of you finding it funny or not, it's humour and it doesn't make sense. I'm the one who has included Rann of Kachchh and Tiruchchirappalli because of the chchh/chch which you don't (often) find in English. FYI, I also included Boom, Belgium, which, as a Belgian, doesn't make me laugh (boom means tree in Dutch). My point is, this page is inherently POV, because humour is POV. D.D. 05:39 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Boom" makes sense in English, those other you've added do not. You are probably thinking of Mahatma-funny in those cases. --Menchi 05:44 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Again, I disagree with you that something must make sense to be funny. Have a look at Lightbulb joke - one of them goes like this:

Q: How many surrealists does it take to change a lightbulb?

A: Fish.

A2: To get to the other side.

A3: Two; one to hold the giraffe, and one to put the clocks in the bath tub.

Call it abstract humour, call it surreal humour, call it whatever you like, the joke doesn't make sense but it does make people laugh.

Nobody can deny that the chchh in Rann of Kachchh and the chch in Tiruchchirappalli is quite unusual in English. That is the reason why I included them. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not reserved to people who speak Enlish as their first language. If you speak more than one language, including English, you probably find some things funny, just because of your different linguistic background (and I absolutely don't mean that in a condescending way). As I said before, humour is inherently POV. D.D. 19:03 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

• The joke makes sense, and it's in English. It refers to the popular conception that surrealist paintings include animals or objects doing weird thing.
• This is English Wikipedia, a Chinese who speaks just Chinese and can't understand a word of English (and yes, they exist. I was like that until my teenage) can't even read the title of this page. Of course, s/he is free to visit WP any time, but I doubt their browsing out of curiosity will be over 10 minutes, and will never return again until s/he learns some basic vocabulary, to start press on that button "Search" that is spelled in English.
• Wikipedia isn't a joke. Sure, visitors can laugh at us all they want, but that's not our intention or purpose. We are an encyclopedia, as our title implies. We make serious endeavour in presenting facts, some of which happen to be interesting and give ppl a chuckle. But Wikipedia proper (excluding meta-pages) is not for people to point to and laugh their pants out. This page is a part of WP proper, and its title says "interesting or unusual", not "making 2-year-olds giggle like rabbits".

Yes, chch is unique orthographically, but it's not hard to pronounce at all. If it were to be mentioned, maybe on linguistic oddities or rare linguistic syllables ("rare" as in # of speakers on the int'l stage), although what you think of as common, such as th and st, are hard for most Europeans and all East Asians. So, do we include all sounds and syllables and syllable-cluster? Or do we just include those odd to the native English speakers? Anyway, the point is that there are many more examples of chch in several languages, Russian similarly has shch. And many more odd sounds to English speakers and/or speakers of other languages.

--Menchi 19:38 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your first point: OK, the joke might make sense in an indirect way.

Your second point: I fail to see how this has anything to do with what I've said. I make no reference to people who cannot read/speak/understand English.

Your third point: I have never said or implied that Wikipedia is a joke.

Your last paragraph: if you think your sense of humour is superior to that of others, go ahead, delete the places you don't find interesting or unusual, and don't forget Å, Norway, Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg, Massachusetts, Fuku, China, Gorsafawddacha'idraigodanheddogleddollônpenrhynareurdraethceredigion, a train station in Gwynedd, Wales, Himmelspforte, Germany, Kalamazoo, Michigan, Kokomo, Indiana, Krung Thep Mahanakhon Amon Rattanakosin Mahinthara Ayuthaya Mahadilok Phop Noppharat Ratchathani Burirom Udomratchaniwet Mahasathan Amon Piman Awatan Sathit Sakkathattiya Witsanukam Prasit, the poetic name of Bangkok, Lake Titicaca, Salsipuedes, California, Sommerloch, Germany, Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu Hill, New Zealand, Waikikamukau, New Zealand, Woolloomooloo, Sydney, Australia and Y, Alaska (and I'm forgetting some) as they don't mean a thing in English.

For the rest, I'm not going to spend my time further to discuss what can be considered funny and what not. I feel we're just talking past each other and this article really isn't that important to me. D.D. 20:10 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re: "if you think your sense of humour is superior"

Take your "superiority" hypothesis to the Aryan Neo-Nazi.

I speak for those whose humour is selective, i.e., not everything that sounds like Buchachachacha is funny. And since you probably have a more inclusive taste, you think such a taste is inferior, the norm, or superior, that's your opinion. To me, it possesses the innocence of a child who lacks understanding of the world, but unsuitable in formal occasions (i.e., encyclopedia -- where, for example, we don't type "Queen Louisa wanna destroy England because she really doesn't like their sense of arrogance. It irritated her so!!").

Re: deletion:

Å & Y are truly unique as placenames, they are a part of an extremely small amount of placenames with just one letter. The long ones are unique and very rare as well. Titicaca is just Mayan. Salsipuedes is just Spanish (Is Los Angeles funny?). Himmelspforte & Sommerloch have their meanings explained. The rest are in Maui and other native languages.

You know I will not abuse my power as Wikipedian by removing some names just because I find them unqualified, so to make such suggestions is an insult or a dare. If you don't care, remove the ones you added yourself if you'd like.

--Menchi 20:39 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I seem to have stired up a hornets' nest. On reflection, I vote for leaving things alone - every entry must have been interesting to someone, otherwise they wouldn't have put it in. And things dont have to be "interesting" only in English: see Grand Tetons and Hérrison. I still wonder why Goodyear got in, though. Andy G 19:55 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

[Goodyear was added by User:Docu. Their response to above wondering as added to User Talk:Docu 21:25 3 Jul 2003]

:-) Be bold in updating pages, afterall you contributed to the list. Obviously, it's not "inherently funny" nor "sex related", but the list isn't titled that, nor is the name on [2]. -- User:Docu

I'd like to nominate "Hard-to-Find Farm" in High Wycombe, Bucks. This place is indeed quite hard to find - unless you happen to look on any map of the area, including Ordnance Survey, where it is clearly and prominently marked! GRAHAMUK 06:09 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Is that a commercial farm's name? Many of them intentionally use such weird names in modern time to attract costumers visiting. Farms aren't really places I think. --Menchi 06:18 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, though it's been on the maps for many years. If you actually go there, the gateway is very ordinary and simple - just a plain wooden gate. Doesn't LOOK like a place that's trying to attract attention! Here's a map: Hard to find FmGRAHAMUK

It seems like Streetmap labels every farm in the UK though... --Menchi 06:39 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

This page has been listed for deletion.

Text moved from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion:

• List of interesting or unusual place names
  • There is absolutely no way in the world that this can ever be NPOV. -- Oliver P. 08:40 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Why is this a question of NPOV? The names in this list are not fictional, and the introductory paragraph explains quite well (a) the intention of the page and (b) that in many/most cases the names just sound funny to foreign language speakers. If someone added things like "Fucking is very popular with tourists", well, that would of course have to be removed. But the bare list? --KF 08:54 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • It is POV because it calls these names 'funny' or 'interesting', which is something fully subjective. Andre Engels 10:24 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Then let's rename the page List of place names that are likely to be considered by some as unusual and we've got rid of all our problems. --KF 11:11 7 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Not really. "Likely" is far too vague, and so its interpretation is subjective too. Now, if it were List of place names that some published source states is interesting or unusual, then we could be objective about it. Does anyone want to go for that title? I would guess not. But as it is, it is a purely subjective list, and therefore not appropriate for the Wikipedia. -- Oliver P. 13:50 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to apply NPOV to an issue as trivial as whether or not a place name is interesting? I doubt this can ever offend anyone. Evercat 13:54 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • NPOV is a Wikipedia-wide policy. We can't just start arbitrarily deciding not to apply it to some articles. Whose POV do we go with when deciding whether or not to apply the NPOV policy? This is just silly. -- Oliver P. 13:58 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • NPOV is overrated mental masturbation - this is a nice article Pizza Puzzle
      • Well, of course it's nice. But Wikipedia is not here to be nice. ;) You love NPOV, really, you know you do... -- Oliver P. 14:49 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Heh, OK, but I still refuse to believe that it's POV to say that Fucking, Austria is an interesting name. I mean, who doesn't find it so? :-) Evercat 15:10 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)
          • Well, I do, admittedly. :) But it's still a subjective judgement, and I think we should be trying to be as objective as possible. Much as I like this list, I don't think it is appropriate for an encyclopaedia. -- Oliver P. 21:55 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
            • If you really want it to be NPOV you could re-cast it as list of place names that sound like "vulgar" (dictionary tag) English words, list of place names with an unusual number of letters, etc., and move remainder to "inherrently funny words" article. But why bother? Leave it in, Killjoys. Andy G 22:15 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
              • "Killjoys"? This is supposed to be a serious encyclopaedia, not somewhere to have a laugh. "Why bother?" Because an encyclopaedia is supposed to provide a summary of human knowledge. What does one learn from this page? Nothing, except about the minds of the Wikipedians. How can we check a "fact" on this page? What reference source can we use to check if something is interesting or not? We can't check anything on this page, because it contains nothing but the subjective impressions of the people editing it. -- Oliver P. 02:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Objected. :-) -- Timwi 23:39 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • On what grounds? I know the page says "Votes" in the title, but I think we should provide arguments. -- Oliver P. 02:27 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • What does one learn from this page? you ask. One learns about interesting and unusual place names. Evercat 02:33 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • Do you learn what is interesting from other people? Of course not. There is no objective truth behind the concept, so you can't learn about it from other people. It's purely a matter of taste. This is just a list of what some Wikipedians find interesting. I mean, what are we going to get next? A list of songs that are good? A list of political doctrines that are sound? A list of people that are attractive? -- Oliver P. 04:59 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • I can't see the problem with this page. FearÉIREANN 04:14 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
        • I started this page do de-orphan Fucking, Austria, and that is how I generally see most of the lists on Wiki that might be accused of being non-encyclopaedic - as place holders for links to articles that might not otherwise get wirtten. Some of the interesting and unusual places, I find less than interesting. If you want to delete this page for NPOV reasons, then a page containing placenames that are vulgar in English would susbstitute the majority of entries, but then we would orphan pages such as Bang Bang Jump Up and Macgillicuddy's Reeks Mintguy

I think the best way to de-orphan placenames is to list them in the article on whatever region the place belongs to. I think this should be done whatever the decision on this page, so I might do it later. I'll put it on my things to do list, so it might get done by around 2043 or so. :) -- Oliver P. 01:27 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I started adding footnotes to some of the entries, possibly this makes the list more objectif in your eyes. -- User:Docu

That's cool, but if you're going to explain a large proportion of the entries, it would probably be easier to put the explanations on the same lines as the entries themselves. But it doesn't help with my NPOV concerns, which are related to the title - specifically, the words "interesting or unusual". That's purely a subjective matter. However much you do to explain why you have chosen to include something, it's still your personal choice, and there is no means of checking whether or not it is a valid choice. Maybe that's true with all lists, to a certain extent, but it's particularly true of this one. And I didn't realise that the linking-to-headers thing had been implemented here yet. That's hideous. Please don't do it again. :P -- Oliver P. 09:01 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If you like to suggest a better title, I'm sure I'm likely to follow your suggestion. As for the inclusion criteria, I tend to think that looking up the words in a dictionary is a fairly objective process, even if it may the wrong dictionary. -- User:Docu

Well, KF came up with List of place names that are likely to be considered by some as unusual (see above), but I'm not sure that was a serious suggestion. Then I suggested that we could have List of place names that some published source states is interesting or unusual, but I wasn't really being serious myself. It would mean removing all the placenames until such published sources could be found, anyway. And I don't understand your comment about looking up words in a dictionary. How many dictionaries tell you which of their words are "interesting"? Even if one of them did, it would still only be the point of view of the editors of that particular dictionary. So I still support deletion of the page. Why is no-one else supporting me? >:( -- Oliver P. 15:59 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Since I'm here, I just thought I'd say three things:

1. I am another person who thinks this page is not neutral and shouldn't be here. Having articles for entertainment value is more Everything2's style.
2. However, I don't care enough to argue about it. Have fun.
3. I have a friend from Shag Harbour. He was reminded on a daily basis how funny that was. I believe that Shag Harbour is more interesting, however, for that fact that it seems to have developed a unique dialect of English. -- Stephen Gilbert 16:01 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how this could be a NPOV issue. On a reasonable reading, lists of this kind implicitly assert only that many people are likely to find the entries interesting -- not that one point of view is superior to another, or that anyone who finds the names uninteresting is "wrong". I have to think that what's really bothering the objectors is a feeling that the topic is frivolous or unencyclopedic, not that it's biased. I see no good reason to delete it. -- Cjmnyc 02:14 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure "Hérrison" is correct? Hedgehog is "hérisson". -phma

The correct spelling of the town in France is "Hérisson", like the word for hedgehog. I've fixed it. Cjmnyc 04:31 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

1. I changed Rann of Kachchh to Rann of Kutch. The latter is a more accepted spelling (turns up more on google). Also see official website of the Kutch district and the American Heritage® Dictionary

Changed Tiruchchirappalli to Thiruchirapalli.

Have the names become less funny by my changes ?

2.Whats interesting about Thiruvananthapuram ? P'haps its historical name of Trivandrum is funnier (Tree Van Drum ;)).

3.Can someone tell me the location of the place Dikshit in India, cuz I haven't heard of it.

Jay 21:06, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I got no responses to the above queries. Hence am deleting the above 4 names. Jay 07:14, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Google shows Dikshit as a personal (second) name on many Indian newspaper sites. Andy G 21:49, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A personal name yes, a place name no. Dikshit or Dixit (spelled Deekshith) would mean learned and hence would ideally be a person's name only. However if it's a place name that would be interesting info. User:Mintguy can tell where he got the name from. Jay 20:25, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In Poland

A ¹ has appeared next to Piddle. My understanding has always been that this is to do with excretion, not sex, and a quick look on OneLook doesn't reveal any sexual meaning. Similarly PPR? -- Smjg 10:37, 10 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It can be sexual. heh Copysan 08:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if a category was used instead of an article, it would be easier to maintain. --Sgeo | Talk 11:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

And also lead to a lot of stub pages when people add names from national road atlases and the like. Would this be a Good Thing or not? -- Smjg 17:19, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I deleted The Florida Keys as out of place here, then realized the name might seem unusual to someone who comes from a part of the world where islands are not commonly called keys. What do others think? If someone wants to put it back, it should be alphabetized under F, not T. -- Cjmnyc 05:40, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It was good enough for a "key" joke on one of the Naked Gun movies :) -- Chuq 23:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noone, New hampshire is indeed a real place but what is so interesting or unusual about its name? I might understand Noon as an English word that has become a geographical entity, but Noone? Dieter Simon 22:57, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
However, have now added Noonday, Texas Dieter 3:10, 19 oct 2004 (UTC)

Try reading it as no-one. Although it is probably pronounced closed to noon. older≠wiser 00:23, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. Slightly tenuous, go along with it though. Dieter Simon 23:17, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Why is Milton Keynes funny or interesting?

I really don't get that... -- User:212.219.116.250

The second paragraph in the article Milton_Keynes might explain it. Not funny, but possibly interesting. -- User:Docu

"Why is Milton Keynes funny or interesting?" It isn't. It's name, on the other hand... [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^hello? ]] 13:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

When I started reading BBC News (I'm American), I would occasionally come across the words Milton Keynes - which I assumed had to be a person. Of course, this made no sense in context, so I would skip that sentence (assuming some error was made) and go on. However, I would keep seeing this. Only then did I look it up and discover MK is a place.  :) Ubermonkey 18:06, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

America, Cambs. does indeed exist. Just north of Chatteris in Cambridgeshire on the A141 turn right on to the A142 signposted Ely, after Mepal turn-off turn right at Sutton and at the other side of Sutton is America. It is given in the Millenium Road Atlas. Might be worth investigating, perhaps they have a rather nice pub with local ale. Dieter Simon 23:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've no idea what made someone think it doesn't exist. But I just got a message on my talk page:

16:50, 3 Dec 2004 Jimfbleak deleted America, Cambridgeshire? (content was: 'db|further research shows Mgekelly was right -- this doesn't exist}}For other places named America, see America.America is a town ...')

No indication of what the "further research" consisted of - clearly not the AA atlas (from which I added it in the first place). -- Smjg 14:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You are quite right, Smjg, Jimfbleak should have a butchers at our own Uk maps/atlases before he makes such a statement. Place names either exist in a country's maps or they don't. In this case it is substantiated by two UK atlases. Dieter Simon 23:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Any idea why two different spellings of the same place in New Zealand (the place known to locals as "Taumata Hill", for obvious reasons) are on the list? Surely one will do. [[User:Grutness|Grutness ^hello? ]] 13:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At some point, all occurences of 'Å' in the article was replaced by 'AA'. This is wrong. In Norwegian, this would be extremely archaic (as in before 1917, and then it should have been 'Aa' anyway). In Swedish, there is no such thing as a transcription, anyway. With regards to alphabetization in an English speaking context, I have no opinion. Egil 12:39, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Have removed the above name from this article as it apparently does not exist. I am sorry, but all above names, however strange and unusual, are meant to be geographical names, not literary or rhetorical devices or idioms that illustrate a particular aspect of a language of imaginary places however useful and beautiful in their usage.
Much as I have my doubts about lists such as the above, although I agree it being a fun-site, if we are going to have them, let's play it straight. Dieter Simon 21:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's not the only fictional name in the list; so long as it's clearly described, I don't see the problem. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Mel, I see your point, but then someone had better change the preliminary explanation of the page, as there is no indication that we might be talking about geopgraphically non-existing names. Dieter Simon 23:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the fictional place names and nicknames should be removed. When I visited the page, I was under the impression that these would be real place names that people actually live in or around. That's the reason they're funny! discospinster 21:50, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If part of the list has been removed as has been done to a number of geographical names in letter A, surely we are entitled to know why? Have reverted until anon contributor can let us know why (s)he has done so. Dieter Simon 23:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems that some people manage to make a mess of editing pages on Wikipedia. Maybe by some slip of the mouse (or of the browser) they inadvertently had something selected when they started on editing the page. -- Smjg 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What has this to do with sex, food or drink? The only meaning of "ding dong" I know is an onomatopoeic representation of the sound of a bell. Though a quick search on OneLook also reveals the meaning of "a fierce argument or fight". -- Smjg 16:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A favourite expression of Leslie Phillips Jooler 22:39, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, what did Leslie Phillips use it to mean exactly? None of the sources I can find clarify. -- Smjg 20:32, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it was meant to suggest that the sight of an attractive woman had rung his bell. Very weakly related to sex, I'd say. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least in certain parts of the US, "ding dong" (or "ding ding") can be yet another euphemism for penis (presumably in analogy to the clapper of a bell). But the food part is easier to explain -- "Ding Dong" is the brand name of a ubiquitous US snack cake sold by Hostess: basically a chocolate hockey puck with a white cream filling, wrapped in thin tin foil and packed into lunches by non-health-conscious mothers for decades. (see a picture at http://www.hostesscakes.com/faq.html). Hm, guess I'll go write an article about it now. — Catherine\^talk 04:56, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it neccessary to have some places listed a number of times? For instance, Reading is listed three times, is it really all that interesting the third time? I think it's best to list a place once, choosing to link to either a disambiguation page, the original place with that name, or else the most popular.

Also, are places that have been named after other places, or places with the same name as popular places really interesting? I think it's quite predictable that there are a number of Miami's around, or that Amsterdam is also a place in the USA. I can understand it can be interesting if it appears to go the other way, ie, the New York's in England, that's more interesting.

-- Joolz 10:11, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. I agree with the first point.
2. On the whole I also agree with the second point — but who should be the arbiter? If one person thinks a place name interesting, and another doesn't how do we make an objective decision? We could formulate rules, but then the same would be true of the rules (one person thinks it interesting that there be a town called Lincolnshire in the U.S., another doesn't — so one person opposes a rule against New World versions of Old World places, and the other supports it). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's a problem inherent with this article though. -- Joolz 16:36, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Might it be easier with the second point to list them all in one line, rather than after each other, so that instead of getting:

• Paris, Tennessee, USA ⁹
• Paris, Texas, USA
• Paris, Kentucky, USA
• Paris, Ontario, Canada

we get:

• Paris (in Tennessee, Texas, Kentucky, USA, and Ontario, Canada) ⁹

I also note that New Zealand's longest placename is listed twice with two variants of its spelling ("Taumatawhaka..." is generally used rather than "Tetaumatawhaka..."). Grutness|^hello? 00:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been having a somewhat unsatisfactory discussion about the addition of "Gropecunt Lane"; my view is that we shouldn't include names that are no longer in use, especially given the purge of names that are in use but that don't actually name places (see above). A huge number of archaic names are amusing to modern ears, and we're in danger of overburdening (and overbalancing) this list if we include them. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 07:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see no rational argument there. A place name is a place name. Even if it is no longer in use. Jooler 09:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you see no rational argument, then I can understand why you don't respond to it. Perhaps others will understand it, and explain why they agree or disagree. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rather belatedly, I agree, including archaic names of places which now have a different name, or do not exist any more, does indeed make the list too long.

In the instance of Gropecunt Lane (London) it can't even be ascertained which modern street is meant. Unless someone can substandtiate the connection between the new and the old, it would berather useless including it in the list in first place. Dieter Simon 23:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rubbish. It can be ascertained if someone finds the right map and compares it to a modern one. But no-one appears to have done that and put the info on the web. In any case if the former road was now occupied entirely by buildings and there was no modern road, what difference would it make? A place name is atill a place name even if the place itself has been renamed. This list isn't called "List of interesting or unusual extant place names" I see no reason to leave an interesting place name out because it is archaic. If you feel that including archaic names in the list would make the list too long, then the solution is to split the list, not throw away information. Jooler 28 June 2005 06:56 (UTC)

1. Calm down.
2. If you want to create a list of interesting archaic place names, why not do so? Given that a vast number of archaic place names are interesting or unusual to modern eyes, it's going to be pretty big, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 28 June 2005 10:24 (UTC)

Yes, it is all well and good to say "if someone finds the right map and compares it to a modern one", but until then we won't know one way or the other, will we? We should hang fire until such time someone does indeed find the substantiation to the location and/or new name of an archaic place, and then enter it in the list, or better still, as Mel says, create a new list for archaic names. But I do think we should have proof, otherwise anything can be included just for the hell of it. How do we know that it isn't just a bit of vandalism, especially with respect of scurrilous names such as 'Gropecunt Lane', it would be just too easy, wouldn't it? Well, some of the national papers in the UK have been hunting for its real location and haven't come to any conclusion, have they? Dieter Simon 28 June 2005 22:56 (UTC)

I didn't know that; which newspapaers? Actually, I can probably guess. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 29 June 2005 11:25 (UTC)

You might actually be surprised. It's not any of the ones I think you meant. One of them is: [3] the other is:

[4]. Doesn't seem to be definitive though, and didn't we say Grape Street was in the wrong area of London? See what you think. Dieter Simon 29 June 2005 23:26 (UTC)

Try the following reference: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.asp?compid=5045 It seems that the Centre of Metropolitan History has quite a few references to Gropecunt Lane.

"Well, some of the national papers in the UK have been hunting for its real location and haven't come to any conclusion, have they?" - What we have are a couple of columnists writing two articles that allude to the street formerly known as Gropecunt Lane. This is not the newspaper taking the trouble to do some proper research. It is beside the point anyway. It is known that the "place name" did exist and not just in London. If the people of Fucking, Austria voted to change the name of their town, should be deleted from this list? I think not. Jooler 09:04, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has been said before; yes, if the name changes, then it should be removed from the list. I've said a number of times that it's perfectly acceptable for you to start an article called something like List of interesting or unusual place names (no longer used). Why don't you? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the name of this page to "List of interesting or unusual extant place names". Jooler 22:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a constructive suggestion; I'm not interested in bargaining — especially not over something that isn't my sole responsibility. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in bargaining either. I was merely pointing out the deficiency in your suggestion. Your suggestion isn't constructive. How long would it be before a short list of "places... (no longer used)" was merged into this one. Jooler 06:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It depends how long it takes for hell to freeze over. And why do you think that the list would small? As I've said before, a vast number of archaic names are interesting or unusual to modern ears and eyes; that's one of the main reasons for not allowing them in this list in the first place. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying - "a vast number of archaic names are interesting or unusual ... one of the main reasons for not allowing them in this list" - i.e. a list called "interesting or unusual place names" - your logic is perverse. Jooler 22:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you're getting so emotional over a list of place names, but it's not helping your case. My position is that, while archaic and unused names for places are often interesting and unusual to moderrn eyes, there are far too many to be included in this list, which should be limited to current, still-used names.

Just as with List of misleading place names, your list should be separate; note that, because of the exustence of the "misleading" list, we don't have to rename this one List of place names that are interesting and unusual but not because they refer to more than one place. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no more "emotional" about it than you. You say "there are far too many to be included in this list" - where are they? I see but one. Jooler 21:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only one has been suggested; a moment's thought will suggest many, many more (but you have to think beyond mere vulgarity). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One item does not a list make. when there are more, then it might become an issue, but not before. Jooler 06:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Dondangadale, Victoria, Australia (historic township - not a current place) has been removed from the list on the grounds that it is a "non-existent place". I beg to differ. It exists see Geoscience Australia reference. However, it is a former locality and was annotated as such on the list. From what I know of other former towns in Australia, there is probably a sign there and one or two houses, evidence of former buildings and streets, no post box, ... I think many of the place names on the list are neither unusual nor interesting and this one is not much of an exception. However, it was placed here in good faith (by another editor), is verified as existing, annotated correctly - why remove it? Regards--AYArktos 22:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I should have said "a name no longer used". I was trying to be consistent. It's another one to go in List of interesting archaic place names. (Your message reminded me irresistably of the dead-parrot sketch; this place is non-existent, it has ceased to be, it is a former locality...) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the list is becomming too long and it seems that it can only get longer unless we start removing some items (more names are getting added to the list every week) it will be too long to be of any practical use to anyone, but I'm not sure how to go about shortening it, because we need to re-assess the criteria on which place names are added? -- Joolz 15:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about splitting off a separate page called something like List of places with the same name as more famous places - or something less clunky - to remove all the London, Ontarios and Paris, Texases? Grutness...wha? 08:04, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Misleading place-names? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One could take the list of national capitals and just add " (disambiguation)" to every name and named it Lists of places named after capital cities (and remove entries on those lists from here). -- User:Docu

Well, yes, but that would only apply to capital cities, and most of the entries in question relate to non-capital but well-known countries and cities. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:02, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could break it down by continent instead. -- Joolz 19:33, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How about List of interesting or unusual place names in North America, List of interesting or unusual place names in Asia, List of interesting or unusual place names in the Europe... etc. By contitinent (sp), that way we dont have a hundred country lists. <>Who?¿? 21:05, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd make separate lists by some of the "recognisable categories", e.g. all places with the same name as a famous place, but for a list 48k isn't really that long. -- User:Docu

I've made a List of misleading place names, which gathers all the ⁹ place names. There may be others that I've missed, but I'll go through again tomorrow. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re-add

See maps: [5] and [6] They're on the map, not everything can be found on google. <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 04:40 (UTC)

Thank you - and now I have learned also how to search for obscure place names. I did try many permutations including written sources. I am sceptical of contributions of red links that are not verifiable by a Google search and it would be of course too easy to insert an imaginary place into this list.--AYArktos 28 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

• Not a prob, I dont like the redlinks as much either, but I tend to leave them, hoping for future expansion. I'm really adiment about google searches though, as there are quite a few obscure items not easily found anywhere. Too many wikipedians depend completely on google. <>Who?¿? 28 June 2005 04:57 (UTC)

OK. I'm new here, so if I'm barking up the wrong tree, pls let me know…

1. Why not create a category (Unusual or amusing place names) with different lists in it:

• Place names that with vulgar or sexual references (Dildo, Titicaca, Fucking)
• Really long , short, or numerical place names (A, 5, etc)

Etc etc. You get my drift; I assume the more erudite among us can come up with more elegant and concise titles. It would also be inferred from the title just why the term is unusual.

2. Perhaps a brief reason could be added after the entry, to explain why it is included:

• Dildo, Canada - an artificial penis
• Ding Dong - Euphemism for penis
• Titicaca - Combination of "Titty" (breast) and "Ca-ca" (feces)

This would have helped me see why some names would be considered unusual (like the explanation "Noone" = "No one", above).

3. Also, do we need to add the state/province/subnational administrative division to each entry? For instance, for brevity's sake, why not just say "Dildo, Canada"? It will become apparent where it is when you hit the link.

4. If there's no separate page for non-extant placenames, then why not just -- for now -- add an asterisk or dagger or such to indicate "place name is archaic"?

5. I realize there seems to be a debate over whether this article should stay. Although it may seem frivolous, I think it is as encyclopedic as any list of eponyms. Coming from Newfoundland, I have grown up around placenames ranging from the idyllic (Little Heart's Ease, Paradise, Heart's Content) to the strange (Old Shop, Jerry's Nose) to the rude (Blow-Me-Down, Come-By-Chance, and the ever-popular Dildo). So I actually went looking for such a list of odd or unusual placenames, and was gratified to find it here on Wikipedia. I was able to go through the list, and decide also which on the list were interesting to me in particular. Basically, there is information here that people may want to know, and they can find it here without having to vet every state, provincial or national gazetteer until something catches their eye. And I have found articles relating to this topic from sources as varied as The Book of Lists to Reader's Digest to Maclean's magazine. Just my opinion; that and four quarters will get you a loony. SigPig 17:07, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that we need to split the article up, and some of your suggestions seem on target (where, though, is "Ding Dong" slang for "penis"?). The sub-national terms are useful when there's more than one place with the same name in the same country, and when there's no article yet (so no article to go to for the information); also, many, if not most, place-name articles have the state, county, etc., as part of the title.--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:27, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to create a List of interesting and unusual names of thoroughfares (or something similar)? Strictly speaking these aren't place names, and there are probably enough of them to constitute a decent list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• are streets and thoroughfares not places then? or are they only places if you speak laxly? surely some streets are larger than some towns or bluffs or buttes or... well you get my drift. DavidP 04:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are places with the word "Butte" listed here? Is it because people think it looks or sounds like "butt"? That's kind of a stretch. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No more than many other supposedly comic names here, I'd have thought. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the parenthesized claim that this was actually pronounced "weer," and only as "where" by non-locals. It happens to be my hometown and is in fact correctly pronounced the same as "where."

A lot of these are redlinks or have silly comments (eg. "it really exists!"), suggesting that they indeed may not exist. I would suggest all those which are not linked from anything else unless they are verified. Alphax ^τεχ 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that the problem exists (and I couldn't find a single instance of "it really exists!" or anything like it), it surely doesn't warrant a cleanup tag. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page already repeating information elsewhere? Is there a link to http://www.thenortheast.fsnet.co.uk/Place%20Name%20Meanings%20A%20to%20D.htm ? Should there be one as it lists many names already mentioned in this list. Some of which, to me, are far more amusing than ones in the list.

Wikipedia only repeats information found elsewhere. If you think that there are genuine place names that should be on this list, please add them. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be replaced by a series of categories (Calendar- related unusual place names; number- derived unusual place names, and so on), I feel. What do others think? Andy Mabbett 19:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this. It was a redlink and how many Paradises need to be listed? It's a stretch anyways, it's just a small recreation area on Mount Rainier. The inn there is a historical landmark and would be a notable article... If this is a town please make it point to a page and not a redlink if it's added back. SchmuckyTheCat 23:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted this. What's unusual about it? There are a couple of "half" streets in Washington DC too, and I'm sure it's not the only place. 207.59.86.5 22:06, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fear there has been a bit of misinformation here. If, as has been stated the name comes from the German "Erica" then there must have been a strange shift in the genderization of the name. Modern "Erika" in German is a feminine word, I can't imagine a late-Latin/Germanic word having changed gender like this. If it had meant "near the erica (heather)" it would have been something such as "an der Erika" or "bei der Erika".

Anyway, what's so strange about having places named after places in other countries? There is a Kalifornien in Germany, another Amerika in Saxony, a Brasilien in Schleswig-Holstein, and an England in Bavaria. Well, there is a Dresden in the former Potteries of Staffordshire in the UK. Why this outlandish definition?

Can someone in the Dutch community of the town of America throw light on this? Dieter Simon 02:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone verify that La-Mort-aux-Juifs is a real place? I couldn't find any references to it outside Wikipedia. Dave (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently so, though these pages seem less than great authority.

• http://www.ville-infos.com/45320-courtemaux-013Z-culture-et-elevage-associes.html
• http://perso.wanadoo.fr/marcel.maire/La_Chapelle.htm read this section: L'Ancien Régime (1660-1789)
• http://perso.wanadoo.fr/monument/Ville/C/Courtemaux.htm

SchmuckyTheCat 08:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose being able to read French helps with that sort of thing! Thanks, Dave (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is intersting or unusual because...? Robdurbar 21:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wideopen is in North Tyneside in the Northeast of England.

Cockfield is in Teesdale near County Durham in the Northeast of England.

I Changed it from 'river' to 'small river', since we only use the word in Denmark about quite small rivers. if someone has a dictionary :) they might want to see what the official translation is.

k thx bye. SchmuckyTheCat 22:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names. It was then undeleted at the request of User:Mwalcoff and placed in his user space. He then moved it here into the wikipedia space. --Doc ^ask? 02:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the following instruction in the article:
"Any new place names must link to an existing article on that place."

Feel free to move it or improve the wording. I just believe that since this is a page in the wikipedia namespace, the existence of the place names should also be able to be verified using wikipedia. Also, I don't believe that we should have links from main namespace articles to this page. It violates wikipedia:Avoid self-references, and makes mirroring and forking more difficult. I had to use a wikipedia mirror before coming here, so I try to enforce the guideline. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't mind the red links. It should be possibe to supply other references than existing Wikipedia articles. Besides, we don't want stubs just to complete this list. --- User:Docu

• I support the use of redlinks.Certainly the places must be verifiable. For Australian places this means they should be able to be found on www.ga.gov.au - the Australian Government gazeteer. The links should also be formatted according to any place naming conventions, which for Australia means automatic disambiguation with the state - eg not Woolloomooloo but Woolloomooloo, New South Wales.--A Y Arktos 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the red links on this page brought me to write some articles, I would not have otherwise considered - I learnt something along the way and hopefully contributed usefully to the Wikipedia also--A Y Arktos 23:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your points. I still think the entries should eventually warrant a wikipedia article if they are redlinked. For example, I don't think we should link an entry on Kelly's Knob as it is just a lookout (see [7].) Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, every red link should be capable of being turned into an article. Places are verifiable and should be able to create an article. A lookout seems to me to be unlikely to create an article. There are actually two Kellys Knobs in Australia [8] :-) I doubt whether anybody is going to write the article on either of them. Perhaps one challenge is, if the lister is not prepared to write the article (or at least a stub) themselves, and no-one else thinks it should be there, then it goes. So whoever wants to list Kellys Knob or such places will eventually have to put up or shut up. (We could say that, when queried, a red link needs to be turned into a stub within 7 days or it is delisted. If the lister isn't prepared to do the work and no-one else is prepared to jump in, it goes. Perhaps to leave a record of it going, the entry might get commented out with a note to the effect that while verifiable, as no article or stub ahs been written it doesn't appear on this list. This would save relisting by another humorist.--A Y Arktos 20:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I've put a note there saying that the place should be able to have a wikipedia article, (i.e. a town or suburb is acceptable, but minor streets, streams, ETC) are not. If any entry gets added frequently enough without justifying a wikipedia article, I agree it should be commented out. However, it might be difficult to track the original lister of a place down, because many ppl who edit this list are anons. However, I think we can keep this list manageable. Graham/pianoman87 talk 11:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be mentioned in another Wikipedia article? BTW coordinates for each place would be great. -- User:Docu

There are some entries for this list that were removed in this edit. -- User:Docu

• I missed the AfD debate - I appreciate the rationale of PoV, but this list in its former incarnation brought me to create a couple of articles based on red links. I have just been alerted to Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names--A Y Arktos 22:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination) and add your opinion there--A Y Arktos 07:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the debate at the undeletion reveiw focusses on verifiability and neutrality. The neutrality issue is probably covered by the criteria we have for inclusion. However, are the criteria exhaustive or do we need to develop further?

Some of the issues are that it it is not a "fact" as to whether something is unusual or interesting. This appears to be notwithstanding that the name could be measured against the criteria. The particular eitor is looking for an extrnal source. I am not sure to what extent his view is widely supported. I owuld have thought that if a name describes a place and the name has no apparent sense as to a geographical location - for example "Why" - then that would be sufficient - the place exists and the name matches the criterion.

However, there are some sources external to the Wikipedia (possibly derived from the earlier iteration of this article) that could be used to provide external sources. These include (and I have deliberately shown their full URLs)

• http://www.associatedcontent.com/pop_print.cfm?content_type=article&content_type_id=4091
• http://ojandjjhern.tripod.com/OJH_wsn/Interesting_Towns.html

Any more? These are really US centric. Not sure how one manages to get Batman Turkey in the list with the constraint that somewhere outside the wikipedia somebody must have said it was interesting? I think it is taking Wikipedia:Reliable sources too far. The guidleine states "If you can provide useful information to Wikipedia, please do so, but bear in mind that edits for which no credible references are provided may be deleted by any editor." At Wikipedia:No_original_research#Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view there is astatement "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts" - I am not sure that we don't have an exception to this. Can werely on Wikipedia:Common_knowledge? Would an editor who deleted an entry here be within the bounds of this guidleline, or would they be in breach of Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point?--A Y Arktos 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... I think wikipedia is a one-of-a-kind resource in this regard, and it'd be hard to find an independently created list on the internet like this one. Entries have been deleted before for not being unusual or interesting enough, like Christchurch. A problem with this list is that one needs to be well-versed in English culture (especially sexual slang) to understand many of the entries. Perhaps there should be some kind of explanation ... I'm just thinking aloud ... Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than one specific source, we should quote several. -- User:Docu

The verfiability debate could be avoided by leaving the article in Wikipedia space. What do people think? Septentrionalis 22:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be interested in doing any work on such a list in the wikipedia space - it would be pointless to me. I have never added a name to this list. I have however verified a number of names, ensured they were linked correctly and written a number of articles for places that were red links on the list.--A Y Arktos 07:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This list clearly should be in the article namespace. Not only is it article content, and about neither Wikipedia as a project, community activity, or meta-article content, but almost all of the comparable lists -- and there are many! -- are in the article namespace. List of misleading place names, List of city listings by country, &c. +sj + 23:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a tag to every entry to note that they were listed without a corresponding reference/citation. User:Peruvianllama noted:

rm {{fact}} tag from nearly every single item in list - is there any reason that these need to be cited, aside from having their own Wikipedia articles?

I beleive the tags should be removed from an entry once it can be verified as per WP:V and WP:CITE. If it cannot be then remove it from the list. This list cannot simply be a list of places that Wikipedia editors find unusual or interesting (as it is just now) - that would be original research. Thanks/wangi 16:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting some entries and asking for citations for others, wouldn't this be a really POV approach?

BTW I agree with the general idea that the lists needs sources and should specify why a given name is listed. {{unreferenced}} on top of this page should be sufficient. BTW many articles about a place with a given name already explain how it's unusual. -- User:Docu

Is it POV, well yes... But for a lack of sources and given we seem to be ignoring WP:NPOV in this list (in the current version at least) then so be it. Of couse the entries I removed can be added back in if someone really does find them unusual, but so long as they give a reference to shown that they are widely (externally) thought to be unusual.

At the very least we need to provide evidence as good as List of city nicknames#Cities in the United Kingdom does. Thanks/wangi 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed the {{fact}} tags were asking that each city's very existence be verified; it wasn't clear to me that you meant the weirdness of the city's name, which makes much more sense. I agree that were this article to remain in the main namespace, then using a single instance of the unreferenced tag should suffice - but since it has been recently moved into the WP namespace, a more POV approach is permissible, so the point is a bit moot. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, as an immediate followup to my above comment: now that the article exists only in the Wikipedia namespace, is there really any reason to have the "citation needed" tags at all? I'd concede to using {{unreferenced}} if there is a real desire to mark the lack of sources provided. But really, with the opening paragraph basically stating that the whole list is subjective by nature, I don't think there's much need. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd leave them just now... There seems to be a certain amount of "wheel war" going on with this article. By this time tomorrow it'll be somewhere else! Given I was the one who originally AFD'd the article I think we're better off without it, but if we're going to have it then lets do it by the book (and lets be honest, more than we'd normally do since it's hard to justify the list otherwise).

And Docu, I too noticed you too only sent msgs to folk who voted to keep the article in the original AFD and review telling them about the new AFD - not a bit underhand? Thanks/wangi 22:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're rather stupid -- what citation or reference do we need for the fact that "Adios" means "Goodbye" in Spanish???? The existence of most of the placenames in the U.S. and U.K. (other than those like "Alphabet City" which are strictly informal nicknames) could be easily verified from on-line gazetteer databases, i9f necessary. AnonMoos 00:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, what are the citations supposed to prove? Seems pretty silly. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's start with the beginning of the list. 1770 is a verified place name. It meets the criterion fr inclusion - "Some calendar-related names are marked 4". Why is a citation refernce placed there? Seems to me to be in violation of WP:POINT and in bad faith. --A Y Arktos 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)The bad faith edits are pathetic--A Y Arktos 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, by why does that make it unusual or interesting? Who, other than the editor that added it thinks it is unusual? That's why you're needing a ref... T/wangi 11:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

from User talk:Wangi#Unusual names

Hi. I've looked through your list of "standout" ununusual deletions. By & large, well done - in general terms, the list was in need of weeding. However, I wondered if you could explain your reasons for some of your decisions? I wondered specifically why you felt the article shouldn't contain (a) very short names (e.g. Ae, Bo, Ed), (b) rude names (e.g. Twatt, Fister, Beaver City), (c) "duplicate names" e.g. the Bagdads, Baths etc. Were you planning to amend the inclusion criteria to reflect your changes? With best wishes SP-KP 14:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually just done this on a adhoc basis - without any predecided bias. I didn't remove the twatt entries, I actually corrected the links to point to the real articles, rather than disambig pages. "Fisting" and "Beaver" really is school-boy base humour. Regarding the dupes, the top of the list says "Names that match or resemble the name of another much better known place, giving opportunity for confusion (for example New York, Lincolnshire, England, or Boston (also, coincidentally, in Lincolnshire)) can be found in the List of misleading place names.". Thanks/wangi 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]