Jump to content

Talk:Cleveland steamer: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Diagram?
Line 224: Line 224:
Uh, does anyone really think it's necessary for this article to have a diagram? God, I hope this is a joke, unless Wikipedia is turning into Goatsepedia. (;^_^;)
Uh, does anyone really think it's necessary for this article to have a diagram? God, I hope this is a joke, unless Wikipedia is turning into Goatsepedia. (;^_^;)
[[User:Akira625|Akira]] 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[[User:Akira625|Akira]] 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

==This article sucks.==

This is precisely what Wikipedia should NOT be. This is the kind of thing that will appear in sensationalistic news reports and blonde, blow-dried commentators will ask school board officials to comment on. What crap. [[User:Billy Blythe|Billy Blythe]] 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:04, 1 October 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on December 16, 2005. The result of the discussion was keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31 March 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Transwiki comments

Thanks for moving the def. This prob.doesn't need a full article, but if anyone wants to make one ...

Is there too much info on the family guy episode now? --Apyule 7 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)

Comments moved from the top of the page for formatting purposes. Let's keep templates at the top of the page together and comments underneath them. -- backburner001 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Show

I added a bit from an Ed Helms report on the Daily Show on 10 December 2005, but it still needs some work, and I'm not sure if it should be included. If anyone could either comment on its relevance or fix it, I'd be much obliged. Vash The Stampede 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The part about P. "Cleveland" Keenan probably shouldnt say he was charged with "steaming it cleveland style" unless of course those were the actual terms used to describe it which i doubt Come to think of it is this even true? A closet serial defecator?

Original research

I just put up an original research template. I'll check back later to see if the article is any better, and if it isn't, I'll do something then. Brian G. Crawford 02:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your original research template on the basis that the article does now contain a link to a source that defines the article title. As such, I've identified this article as a stub. -- backburner001 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Urban Dictionary and its ilk are not considered to be reliable sources. Brian G. Crawford 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then the template you choose should make a note of identifying the article as one that may contain unreliable sources; not one that alerts editors to original research. The template I placed at the top of this article is more appropriate to the nature of this dispute. (Also, note that I formatted your comment as a reply to mine, since it seems to be as such.) -- backburner001 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be blanked until the AfD is complete

Please do not blank it while it is under review. Kukini 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to restore the version that Brian G. Crawford keeps removing while the AfD is occuring, to no avail. -- backburner001 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not on AfD anymore, so you can't use that excuse to keep all the unverifiable material. I guess you'll just have to either cite reliable sources, or let it go. Brian G. Crawford 01:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here?

The article basically admits we don't have a single reliable source for it. It has practically no content. The only thing preventing me from speedying it right now is that thanks to the two AfDs, WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. Johnleemk | Talk 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

Regarding my removal of two footnotes. The purpose of a footnote, is to put information, that can't fit into the mainbody, without disturbing the flow. Showing a footnote, that shows merely the name of the film, when that film name is in the body, acheives nothing. Now, stating exactly where in the film, or some sort of extra detail, would make a footnote possibly useful. --Rob 22:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:DRV

(Moved discussion from WP:DRV to the appropriate page --Silensor 23:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)) Kept at Afd not once but twice. Arguments for deletion: unverifiable from any reliable sources, no reliable source has ever been cited. Arguments for keep: "Real, I've heard of it"; removing it would be "censorship". Two AfDs, several tags, numerous arguments, and not one reliable source has ever been cited. Which leads me to believe that no reliable source can be cited, because none exists. So, how long do we have to wait before we finally acknowledge that, or does it get to stay forever and we amend WP:V to say any old nonsense can be added as long as we tag it as unverifiable? Just zis Guy you know? 21:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, process was not followed. AfD was treated like a vote (which it is not) rather than on policy (which in this case means it must be removed, as no sources could be found). If it can be verified from reliabel sources, fine, but last I saw it could not. Despite mass protestations that iot could. Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My judgement may be somewhat clouded because... I heard of it on teh Internets as well :-). It's not that I don't believe in verifiability, I just don't want to see 100 or even 50 articles a day on this page. If a discussion on DRV is divided into AfD's "keep" and "delete", as it is here, rather than "keep deleted" or "undelete", DRV is becoming a rematch instead of a reconsideration, and that must not happen.
  • I think for AfD to declare "Professor H. Q. Tenure of the University of Intercourse Pennsylvania may not have written a study on this subject, but if its been referenced in pop culture so many times it's worth an article" is a valid result. After all, if we have featured articles that are only mentioned in a single pop culture reference, surely we can have things that are mentioned in a mere few. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episode of Family Guy that mentioned this meme was "Mr. Saturday Knight" [2]. It seems trivial to verify that there is at least an internet meme about it (75,000 Google hits). At the very very least it has to be redirected to wherever we have a list. Pcb21 Pete 22:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep... Verifiable source.... hows the San Francisco Bay Guardian? I think the fact there are over 80,000 google hits for the exact phrase "Cleveland Steamer" says we need an article on it.  ALKIVAR™ 22:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry to be a broken record but why is this being discussed here? The article has not been deleted and this discussion does not belong here. Silensor 22:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have voted "delete" on this article's recent AfD and some of the others of its ilk. However after seeing the support for them I have a new suggestion. Merge this article with others such as Donkey Punch, et al into a single article dealing with the phenomenon of fictitious sex acts, maybe Fictitious sex acts phenomenon (Note: I am aware that these things may have actually occurred before the popularization of these terms but that is pure coincidence. By fictitious and imaginary I mean that the creators of these terms were not sexual historians referring to real-life acts but comedy writers who probably developed the definition from their imagination) The benefit to doing it this way is that by referring to them as fictional, we can use the web pages where they first appeared as sources for the phenomenon of the creation of these terms, instead of the current line of thinking which forces us to pretend like there was some sort of sexual underground where folks went around bragging about pulling "
  • DRV is not the place to refight an AFD debate over an article that was kept. Please discuss this on the article's talk page. Bearcat 22:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Censure forum shopping. Keep article. Discuss problems on talk. Grace Note 23:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable, unless someone can find a real reference. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 23:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, it's ridiculous to even be discussing this! I doesn't need verifibility, it's something people actually look up. Why should we stop people from learning something, even if it is a taboo?

Attestation

Personally, I dislike that people invent these stupid sex pratices, and that other people propogate them. If shit (literally) like this must be shat upon the pages of WP then it should at least be as encyclopedic as possible, and not a public embarrassment. While this is not a WP:RS AFAIK, one early attestation is: Gaius Valerius Catullus, "what is a steamer?" alt.sex February 3, 1995 Шизомби 01:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; it's not ever going to be the ideal Wikipedia article, nor one I'd ever consider creating myself. However, I'm glad that someone is broadly in agreement with me that we should apply the same standards to problematic material like this that we do with the rest of Wikipedia. That's not to say that questionable or uncitable stuff shouldn't be removed, but that we (generally) shouldn't use "final measure" standards before considering other options (in cases where we wouldn't have done this elsewhere).
And I still support the removal of *blatant* vandalism and nonsense straight off. If this (or any other similar page) becomes a vandal magnet, we can at least protect it from anonymous and new editors. Not a perfect solution, but workable.
I notice another user has slapped citation tags all over the article. That seems reasonable to me; if anything, we probably need more of them elsewhere on Wikipedia, but IMHO it's still a reasonable thing to do here. Fourohfour 15:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of hot lunch as a synonym for Cleveland steamer

Somebody posted a message on my talk page, asking why there was a link to the article "school dinner" when it has nothing to do with the sex act. Apparently, this is because "hot lunch" – a synonmyn (at least in these parts) for school lunch, school dinner, etc. — is a synonym for Cleveland steamer the sex act. [[Briguy52748 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Update — I also placed a comment at the top of the page stating how "hot lunch" is used on this page, and that people wanting to go to the page about the school meal need to click on school dinner. [[Briguy52748 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)]][reply]

Update

I added the synonym "The Tyler Osbourne." I have heard it been refered to as that, it's not as common The Cleveland Steamer, but still in use nonetheless.

Removing irrelevant trivia

Nowhere in Not Another Teen Movie are the words "Cleveland steamer" mentioned. Brian G. Crawford 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the article for plate job, nor is it the article for coprophilia. Keep this stuff out. Brian G. Crawford 17:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • a2m the british pop-punk band frequently refer to cleveland steamers, chilli dogs and other such actions during their live performances. The singer will often offer the bassist a california pizza hotplate and the bassist will turn it down, usually implying that they have performed the act on stage once previously.

This is a non-notable band. Very few people are going to be interested in their on-stage antics. Brian G. Crawford 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • In his song "Dirty Sanchez Song" comedian Craig Carmean makes several references to the Cleveland Steamer and it's many variations, including: Hot Carl, hot lunch, chili dog, and glass bottom boat.

Non-notable redlinked comedian. Brian G. Crawford 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Six usage examples is way, way more than enough, and no more should be added. New entries will be deleted on sight. Brian G. Crawford 18:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta agree. It's unsourced from any reliable sources, a dictdef padded with trivia, and in sundry other ways complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Factual accuracy dispute

I'd just like to know why there is a factual accuracy dispute over this article? There are some people who disagree with its existence, but I'm not sure what part of the article is factually disputed. Thanks, --Apyule 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other stuff like "California Pizza Hotplate" is disputed. I take it out, and people keep putting it back in without sources. Brian G. Crawford 19:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the stuff that's disputed. What's in the article now is one sentence containing the information that everyone agrees with and no one disputes. Really, nothing more should be added, and nothing needs to be added. Brian G. Crawford 19:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do not agree with this at all. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and your edits to the article have reduced it to the status of a dictionary definition rather than an encyclopedia article. I am going to restore the legitimate comments relating to its use in entertainment, as this is really why the article was created in the first place. --Apyule 10:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is precisely the problem: anything beyond the dictdef is original research. Using the word research in the loosest possible sense, of course, since for the most part the research appears to consist of making it up. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's confusing. Are you saying that examples of its use in entertainment are original research? 128.250.6.243 04:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why do you want to add this stuff? What good will it do? Saying that it was mentioned in Family Guy only proves that the term has been used and contributes nothing to a reader's understanding of the "Cleveland steamer." If you want to amuse yourself by writing lists of trivia, this really isn't the place. Try getting a blog. Brian G. Crawford 17:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Even though I hate it when people answer one question with an unrelated question, I will try to answer yours. It is important as it shows an example of the act's acceptance, or lack therof, by society. The good that it will do is create a better and more useful article. --Apyule 05:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any unsourced additions will be deleted on sight. If anyone wants to add to this entry, they should provide reliable sources. Note that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. Brian G. Crawford 20:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are, as Apyule says, an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. In numerous articles we mention the way things are referenced in popular culture, and for an article like this, references in popular culture are about the only notable things about it. BTW, is our reference for this article actually a usenet post? That's completely absurd. john k 18:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding examples of usage which you call "references in popular culture" don't make it any more worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Plenty of dictionaries have examples culled from literature and other media. The Oxford English Dictionary is a good example. Adding usage examples does not make this dicdef into an encyclopedia article. This article clearly violates several core Wikipedia policies, but it was kept anyway. Brian G. Crawford 00:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose. But if this article is going to exist (and apparently it is), there's no reason not to include mainstream cultural references. And the OED doesn't describe cultural references, it gives examples of usage. That's not the same thing at all. Usage of "Cleveland steamer" in Family Guy is not simply an example of usage. In fact, it's an awful example of usage because the term is purposefully used in a way where someone who doesn't already know what it means won't understand what the reference is to. It's an allusion, which is perfectly encyclopedic to discuss. john k 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Adding an unchecked list of such cruft sounds like a half-assed attempt to make an encyclopedia article in the absence of reliable sources. I just don't think there's that much useful information to impart about a slang name for a purported sex act that involves taking a dump on someone's chest. Coprophilia is notable, cleveland steamer is not. If "Cleveland steamer" was the default name for this purported act, we'd need an article, but just as we don't have a separate entry for schlong, which is redirected to penis, we don't need a separate article for cleveland steamer. Brian G. Crawford 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument, then, is with the existence of this article. But, for better or for worse (probably the latter) this article isn't going anywhere, and there's no reason to oppose (modest) attempts to improve the article simply because you think the article shouldn't exist in the first place. And what do you mean by "unchecked" - of course all pop culture references should be cited, and if that can't be done, they should be removed. But that's a different issue. john k 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About removing {{sex-stub}}

Brian G. Crawford, why did you remove {{sex-stub}} from this article? I've added the {{sex-stub}} template back as you provided no justification for its removal. -- backburner001 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) It's not a sex stub.
2) The article does not need expanded. --Brian G. Crawford 00:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we have your two claims. Now support them with reasons. -- backburner001 12:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe there should be a {{sexual-fetish-stub}}. As much as I tend to disagree with Mr. Crawford on deletion v. inclusion on these sort of articles, he is right that this is not really a something that should be included in {{sex-stub}}. youngamerican (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we should blatantly lie to people and tell them it would be a service to Wikipedia if they tried to expand this article. It's just not true. It would help Wikipedia if someone worked on missing or requested articles rather than working on this one, which was saved from deletion only because people think it's funny. Brian G. Crawford 16:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If verifiable information can be found about the subject matter of this article, would it not be a service to Wikipedia to add that information? Since the article has survived two AfD nominations, why not identify the article as a stub and see if anyone can find a way to expand it? By saying that it was only kept for the sake of humor does not assume good faith on the part of everyone who voted keep in the past two AfDs. Personally, I voted to keep this article in the last AfD because I felt you nominated the article in bad faith.
Your proposal to merge the content from this article to Coprophilia is a step toward a more constructive solution to the controversy surrounding this article. I'd suggest we continue discussing that approach in a constructive manner. How does that sound? -- backburner001 17:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's funny. You chide me for not assuming good faith and then admit that you assumed bad faith in me. I think this article needs context. It needs merged to something else, whether it's coprophilia or Sexual urban legends. Brian G. Crawford 23:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think a Sexual urban legends article, or something similar, would be a great idea, and a good way to get rid of silly articles like this. john k 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite pleased with that. I'll propose a merge when I get the chance. It would keep the vandalism and cruft to a minimum. Brian G. Crawford 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it gets a stub tag it should be Sophomoric ephemera stub :-) But this article really is in pressing need of being approximately 100% smaller. Just zis Guy you know? 12:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland Steamer

Whether or not "cleveland steamer" should be an article in its own right, I don't see any justifiable reason why searching on Cleveland Steamer (i.e. capitalised) should bring up a different article to the one for cleveland steamer. So I changed it back.

You can make up your own minds as to what the motives behind this change were in the first place.

Fourohfour 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The motives behind this change were Unnngh!. Brian G. Crawford 07:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote to Keep

Whether or not articles of this nature are appropriate for wiktionary has not been clarified. Perhaps it would be best if a disclaimer screen or age verification appeared before vulgar or offensive articles came up. That may help the situation. As it stands, the article, and articles like it, help to clarify things for people they might never dare ask polite company. Brittanica surely doesn't cover sexual or slang terms.

It should also be noted the folks who brought us wikipedia cut their teeth with adult website linking and advertising.

I don't like it any more than the next guy. But, that's no reason to delete. The fact is, it exists.

Brando book

The Brando book, in fact, describes perfectly what people would call a steamer. I'm not entirely sure why the reference would be removed in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't use the term, I'm afraid it's pretty much irrelevant. Maybe it would be relevant to Coprophilia, but this page is about a neologism, so I think all "cultural references" have to actually use the term. I also removed the "inverted cleveland steamer" (the only place this turns up on the web is Urban Dictionary), and the saran-wrap/head variant, which I found no mention of in 4 pages of Google Hits, except for one where it said not to confuse "cleveland steamer" with "cincinnati steamer," the latter described as the head-wrap variation. Mangojuicetalk 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure something has to use the term explicitly to be a reference, especially when the reference is exactly what's defined here. The other removals I have no qualms with, as I really need to monitor this page closer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New merge tag

I, again, don't see the point in a move/merge. How often are we going to fight this battle? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this merge, and I can't see any support for it on any of the relevant talk pages. I'm going to remove the tag, feel free to restore it if you want to discuss it. --Apyule 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Bob and Tom

Why is there a refrence to the Bob and Tom show that is contradicted within the article? Would it not make more sense to get it right the first time, and not correct it when discussing footnotes/refrences? Am I missing something here? Darquis 01:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Diagram needed"?!

Uh, does anyone really think it's necessary for this article to have a diagram? God, I hope this is a joke, unless Wikipedia is turning into Goatsepedia. (;^_^;) Akira 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article sucks.

This is precisely what Wikipedia should NOT be. This is the kind of thing that will appear in sensationalistic news reports and blonde, blow-dried commentators will ask school board officials to comment on. What crap. Billy Blythe 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cleveland_steamer&oldid=78835429"