Jump to content

Talk:Fart lighting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Benjiboi (talk | contribs)
No edit summary
Line 89: Line 89:


:This may be true but as 216.67 anon notes, we need sources, they actually lead the way as to what we should include. Personally I think it would help to show that the activity is worldwide and/or cultural differences. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
:This may be true but as 216.67 anon notes, we need sources, they actually lead the way as to what we should include. Personally I think it would help to show that the activity is worldwide and/or cultural differences. [[User_talk:Benjiboi| -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj<font color="#FF4400">e</font></u><u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b<font color="#AA0022">oi</font></u>]] 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

== Flamability ==
It should be mentioned that you need some kind of diffusor (underwear or pants) to make the gas ignite.

Revision as of 22:42, 18 March 2010

Archive
Archives
  1. 2003 - present

Template:Multidel

Mythbusters

Mythbusters had an "unairable" episode where Adam successfully lights his own flatulence on fire which was recorded using a high speed camera. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BqFRBHPIE-w&feature=related —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.248.45 (talk) 23:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistence on the gas odor

The hydrogen sulfide is stated to be odorless first and then to be partially responsible for the fart odor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.141.47.140 (talk) 10:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a Spike Milligan reference

From memory he rights about it in "Hitler and my part in his downfall". - Ta bu shi da yu 13:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Book wikilink --> My Part in his Downfall. Benjiboi 18:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.

This is, without irony, possibly my favourite article on WIkipedia. Thank you to all involved in its creation! --MrTrilby 01:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article puts to rest any notion that Britannica is better than Wikipedia. --Foxhead (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning that Britannica is definitely better than Wikipedia, no doubts about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.150.250.189 (talk) 11:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from popular culture section

I removed the following two sentences because of the poor grammar, syntax, punctuation, and phraseology:

  • In the internet show Angry Kid he is farting on his sister. His sister then farted stronger, on him. He then attempted to bring his fart on fire but it only blew out.

Unfortunately, I don't know anything about Angry Kid and/or the episode(?) in question, so I was unable to reword it accurately (e.g. does Angry Kid actually fart on his sister, or is this just a poor translation from the contributor's first language?). EmmetCaulfield 10:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

So, umm, someone want to take a pic so we can remove the pic tag at the top? lol -- ALLSTAR ECHO 00:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing it! :-) Bearian'sBooties 20:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movie references

1981 movie Caveman

I think the "References in popular culture" section needs a reference to the lit fart scene in the 1981 movie "Caveman" with Ringo Star, Barbara Bach, Shelley Long and John Matuszak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucepick (talkcontribs) 14:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest adding back references to popular culture

I think the references to popular culture are quite interesting and relevant in terms of background on the overall stunt of fart lighting. I suggest reverting the "popular culture" section from [1]. There's not much scholarly or academic discussion of fart lighting, so popular culture is the best reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wxidea (talkcontribs) 08:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references are trivial, and therefore unsuitable to an encyclopedia article. Carl.bunderson (talk) 09:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually trivia sections, especially unrelated, unsourced items are discouraged but not forbidden and an area that many feel wikipedia excels as is another example where wikipedia publishes information relevant and current to our readers. And these are mostly sourced and all correctly related in the section. Ideally the list would be updated and put in date order, oldest to newest. True trivia also aren't to be simply deleted but integrated into the main text as appropriate. This, however, is a list at the moment. Benjiboi 11:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since it it discouraged, we should remove the section. It merely invites users to add more nn trivia items. Tell me, how are these notable enough that they can be integrated into the article? Perhaps include the first line of the trivia section in the lead, but there is no need to list the fart lighting references in pop culture--it's simply non-notable. Carl.bunderson (talk) 22:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding unsourced and unrelated trivia is indeed discouraged but this is mostly sourced and all related. Juvenile, lame and gross perhaps but perfect material for an encyclopedia that doesn't censor. Sometimes material is better presented as a list which I think might be true in this case. Benjiboi 14:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, ok. I disagree but give in. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue to look at this to see if it can simply be converted to prose. Benjiboi 18:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also section

I am going to remove these per relevance and WP:ALSO. Maybe they can be worked into the article? Thank you. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually those are exactly what a See also section if for, links awaiting introduction into the article. Banjeboi 22:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic content

The current image, while slightly humorous, is not particularly illustrative of the topic at hand. Actually, it just looks like a man whose posterior (bum, ass, butt, etc.) is inexplicably on fire. And as for the Zappa quote... well, that's just totally out of place (nothing to do with the section it's placed under). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a quasi-comedic, semi-serious blog. I know it can be difficult to be serious (objective, encyclopedic, etc.) when writing about a topic such as this, but we must honestly try. The article in its current state is almost... well... laughable.Fuzzform (talk) 05:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US bias

The whole "Motivations" section seems to be about why and when Americans light their farts (e.g. the reference to "fraternity houses"). Believe it or not it has also been known to happen on the other 93% of the world's land mass as well.

80.7.16.160 (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide documentation?216.67.46.134 (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This may be true but as 216.67 anon notes, we need sources, they actually lead the way as to what we should include. Personally I think it would help to show that the activity is worldwide and/or cultural differences. -- Banjeboi 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flamability

It should be mentioned that you need some kind of diffusor (underwear or pants) to make the gas ignite.