Talk:Fucking, Austria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Really necessary?[edit]

There are children who use wikipedia for school projects!!! My daughter came across this and I am not happy. Making up places just because you think it's funny to give them fictional names like "fucking" is very immature. I'm hoping Wikipedia will see sense and take the article down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.105.240 (talkcontribs) 22:38, 2 May 2012‎

  • (a) Wikipedia is not censored. (b) It's a real town, to the delight of English-speaking children. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (a)Exactly, it's a real town — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.32.189.49 (talk) 15:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (c) Um, why is your child using Wikipedia for her school projects? --Antodav2007 (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • How would your daughter "come across" this without it being intentional? I highly doubt your daughter would be clicking on the Random Article page. I'm also sure that if she can type and read, she is already aware of the word "Fucking". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.41.68.6 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 11 July 2012‎
    • I find it extraordinarily funny that this woman actually thought the place was fictional. LOL. But this is probably the funniest article in all of Wikipedia. --Antodav2007 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
      • What about if it was the opposite? What about if it was an article (in the Wikipedia of any language) of an English word which may be an offensive word in another language? I haven't come across with any example, yet, but do you that the word “Cona” may be offensive in Portuguese? 85.242.30.202 (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
a) exactly what their daughter had been doing on Wikipedia when she "came across" the terribly rude article of Fucking on her parents' computer, or else...
b) that the original poster was a vandal, and that the outraged complaint above regarding Wikipedia's lack of maturity is just the creation of a fucking troll! (As the Austrians might say.) AtticusX (talk) 13:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Surely the Austrians wouldn't want to claim the troll as their own. —Tamfang (talk) 09:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Not the Austrians, I'm sure, but maybe the Norwegians or Icelanders are missing one of their trolls...
As an Austrian, I am surprised that someone does not accept a whole village in my country - due to it's misunderstood name. Maybe you should read more and talk with your daughter much more... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.22.182.193 (talk) 19:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Guys, this is a (supposed to be) serious talk about one's thought that the town of Fucking is a fake. Don't take it too far.

(But then again, I could take the comma of the article) Kevon kevono (talk) 22:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 15:48

Oh, have a sense of humor.[edit]

There are so many more places the name of the town could be entered into the article with perfect accuracy. It would certainly make it much more readable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.139.9.155 (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move: → Fucking[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved per WP:SNOW. Legoktm (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


Fucking, AustriaFucking – This is the only article on Wiki of this title, so there is no need for disambiguation. "Titles of distinct articles may differ only in their detail," per WP:PRECISION. The vast majority of items in Category:Cities and towns in Upper Austria do not use the comma-Austria tag. This is the actual name of the village. There is nothing "funny" about it. Please do not come to this RM if you plan to make fun of the name, for example by asking whether it is the sister city of some other town with a ribald name. We've heard it all before. Kauffner (talk) 10:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

Isn't the purpose of the disambiguation to distinguish it from the inflected version of the word fuck, rather than from some other place of the same name? Prioryman (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Red meat is considered to be sufficiently disambiguated from Red Meat, per WP:PRECISION, linked above. Kauffner (talk) 11:49, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaving Fucking Alone, clever clogs. The article's doing it's job fine and unambiguously where it is. Let's face it, the versatile word 'fuck' is generally used as a verb, but as we usually mandate nouns as article titles, it's arguably in the wrong namespace. It's highly likely that the proposed title could cause misdirection of traffic. We don't want the innocent stumbling onto the wrong article now, do we? Admittedly, the worse case would be in the other direction. But landing on the wrong article because someone wants to write in shorthand doesn't serve the readers nowt, and I sure as hell don't want to see an article entitled Fucking (activity). ;-) -- Ohc ¡digame!¿que pasa? 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • F*** me, hands off. Tony (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:disruptive and WP:childish. See "I definitely had fun writing this" In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • A little disambiguation goes a long way. For example, I was just visiting here to check out something one of our most distinguished admins said to one of our most distinguished pitas "I don't care about your Fucking article!" Did he mean this Fucking article? Apparently not. FWIW, folks go to incredible lengths to disambiguate around here, e.g. a couple of days ago somebody decided to make sure that when I wrote New York City, that readers would understand that I meant New York City, New York, United States. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
See [1]. But maybe he was just making a point, since I'd already identified the location as in Lower Manhattan Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is relevant here (and is listed at WP:PRECISION as one of the possible reasons for an exception to the precision criterion). When someone is looking up "fucking", I would argue that they are most likely looking for the article "fuck". If the redirect were changed to not point to the disambig, then it would me more appropriate to have it point directly to "fuck" rather than to this article. (note: I'm not endorsing that change either - I think the disambig serves the encyclopedia better than redirecting to a specific article). --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Either 1) rename to Fucking (Austria) or 2) Keep. The common use of the proposed target in English is the activity so WP:COMMONNAME should point it there. On 1) I think brackets disambiguation is preferable to commas as the latter can give the misleading impression that the full phrase is the standard name for the place, but that battle may have to be fought at a higher level. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Pointless move request. The current redirect for Fucking points to where most people searching the term would expect to go. As such, this article's title is appropriate as is. Resolute 19:45, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Fucking, Austria should stay where it is. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Supposed bad word?[edit]

It's worth saying that it's famous for its name because its name is spelt like an English bad word. 85.210.158.7 (talk) 21:36, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that is covered adequately. Wikipeterproject (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Google Maps indicates a change to the town name -- why?[edit]

Google maps shows the name of the town, and the name of its main road(s) as "Hucking" (observed 16 Nov 2013). Is there any evidence of how such a change occurred? The map search was for the original place name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.150.252 (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look and it seems that Google has named all the village streets and even some of the nearby roads "Hucking"; however, if you zoom out by one level, the village's limits appear, as does the name Fucking. I think the "Hucking" form is simply a mistake. Quite possibly the compositor refused to believe that a place could be called "Fucking". Kelisi (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
You know the public can edit Google Maps, right? – Epicgenius (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

German Towns with silly names?[edit]

What is the problem with a German town being called Himmelreich ("Kingdom of Heaven")? Does this have some rude double-meaning in German, like "Glory Hole" or something? Muzilon (talk) 08:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, Himmelreich doesn't have a rude double-meaning at all. Gugganij (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Notification of a TFA nomination[edit]

In the past, there have been requests that discussions about potentially controversial TFAs are brought to the attention of more than just those who have WP:TFAR on their watchlist. With that in mind: Fuck: Word Taboo and Protecting Our First Amendment Liberties has been nominated for an appearance as Today's Featured Article. If you have any views, please comment at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. — Cirt (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2015[edit]

Since the name of this town "Fucking" is very often mispronounced I want to add the correct pronunciation with a sound file recorded by me and uploaded with my account: soundcloud-link

edit - I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia commons: [[2]] Xamuel1804 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Could you upload the file to Wikimedia Commons? That way I can add it to the article. If you want to upload the file to commons, you will need to agree to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 (or similar free-use licence), as Wikipedia will only include material is allowed to be used, modified, and redistributed for any purpose, by anybody; although you retain the copyright to your work. Follow the instructions here: Commons:Special:UploadWizard. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Rob984 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015[edit]

Since the name of this town "Fucking" is very often mispronounced I want to add the correct pronunciation with a sound file recorded by me and uploaded with my account. I have uploaded the file to Wikipedia commons: wikipedia commons link Xamuel1804 (talk) 10:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done by Rob984 -- Chamith (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Undue weight problem[edit]

This article desribes in great detail the controversies and incidents surrounding the name of the town, even including quotations from a local tour guide, the municipality’s mayor and a police chief. One could argue that this kind of detailed information should not be in an encyclopedia. More problematic is the fact that the amount of attention given to this topic is disproportionate concidering the little information that is provided about the town itself. Not surprisingly, this is a problem that occurs often in Wikipedia-articles involving more ‘popular’ topics. Tridek Sep (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The only reason this remote village is so notable is its name, so it is only natural that most of our (and our sources') coverage revolves around that name. Compare, for example, the article about pair of barren islets named Imia/Kardak -- they're notable only because the border dispute, so "the amount of attention given to this topic is [also] disproportionate [to the] information provided about the islets themselves". However, I don't see any problem there -- we assign exactly the due weight (proportional to weight used by our sources) to that particular aspect. No such user (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
This seems to be an WP:OSE argument. And maybe indeed, the article about Imia/Kardak should be renamed to better reflect the topic it describes. I don’t think, however, you can compare the relevance of the controversy surrounding the funny name of an Austrian village with a military crisis and subsequent dispute over an Aegean island that started in the 19th century and continues to this day. The fact that a vast amount of sources on the Internet are dedicated to the strange names of villages, does not reflect encyclopedic notability. Wikipedia is not a repository of information found in tabloids and anecdotal websites. The issue can be mentioned, but certainly not with every detail that is now included. Tridek Sep (talk) 16:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
So, would you rather assist in detecting sources that focus more on demographics, economy and culture of Fucking, population 93, or you just prefer drive-by tagging? How does that tag help anyone? How do you propose that we "fix" this "problem"? I've told you already that the only reason why this village is interesting for anyone is its name, and that's what the sources focus on (did you read them). For comparison, its municipal seat of Tarsdorf, pop. 2000, is a substub with infobox and nothing else. Should we delete all the material from this article that is, um, actually interesting to make it more like Tarsdorf, which was (un)fortunate to have a dull name? No such user (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be foolish to further elaborate on the demographics, economy or culture of a village with only a few inhabitants. I rather suggest to limit the amount of space given to the section ‘popularity and notoriety’. This is what I meant when I wrote: The issue can be mentioned, but certainly not with every detail that is now included. I apologise if I made myself not clear enough. I also want to point out that being interesting is not and has never been accepted as an excuse to include trivial information on Wikipedia, hence my reference to the concept of encyclopedic notability. You do however add an interesting note when you mention that the article about Tarsdorf (pop. 2,000) is a substub (it only has two sentences!). Even the articles on the region of Innviertel (pop. 215,000) and the entire state of Upper Austria (pop. 1.4 million) are smaller than the article about this little town in question. This is my point exactly. Tridek Sep (talk) 01:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
So find something sufficiently interesting about those places to flesh them out, if you wish; your argument seems to be WP:OTHER STUFF DOESNT EXIST, which isn't really any more useful than its opposite. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The policy you are referring to seems to be non-existent, hence the red link. Other stuff doesn’t exist is a characteristic of an undue weight problem, though. And while expanding the articles I mentioned would be a good idea, it does not solve the other issue I described. Tridek Sep (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't know that's what a red link meant, and I've only been editing here a decade. Indeed, you are invoking a non-policy. Tell you what, why don't you use your sandbox and put together a version of this article that does not have the problems you describe; then we'll actually have something to discuss. --jpgordon::==( o ) 13:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
From my experience, a red link indicates no such link exists. I am, however, impressed by the fact you've been editing here a decade. Congrats! Tridek Sep (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Since you like policy-based discussion, here's one for you, WP:BALASPS (bold mine): An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. Now, if you google:Fucking Austria, 95% of links (and that includes reliable sources therein, and our references as well) deal with just one aspect of the subject...
May I suggest that you're taking this issue way too seriously? An encyclopedia should include light-hearted subjects as well, and treat them appropriately, which I believe is the case in this article. But seriously, you aren't being helpful. No such user (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why start class?[edit]

C'mon, this is almost a B-class article! This town isn't even big. It has like a population of 100. There has been an adequate description and a long and interesting history. There's even no citation needed places! Why is it still in Start class?

Rant by Kevon kevono (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC) (What the hell is UTC?) 21:15 (PT)

Neutrality[edit]

A gentle reminder to editors to adhere to the neutrality policy. This article describes clearly differing viewpoints over whether the coincidental homograph with the English word is highly amusing or intensely tedious. Editors should make every effort not to take sides in this dispute. Where sentences are phrased in a way that creates double entendre, this could be seen as taking sides with the view that it is amusing, so this should be avoided. Examples of this include using the place name adjectivally outside of direct quotations (e.g. Fucking street map instead of Street map of Fucking). So too is excessive repetition of the place name beyond what is necessary for context, and inclusion of detail which labours the pun beyond what has been reported objectively in high quality sources (e.g. inclusion of references to other road signs which could be misinterpreted). The whole thing ought to read in such a way that it is not possible to tell whether editors consider it to be amusing (and I still have some concerns regarding the overall length). Thank you. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 06:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017[edit]

I grew up in this town, and I want to make sure that the article reflects more about the history rather than the popular association with an offensive English word. There is more to the town than that.JohannFromFuckingAustria (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC) JohannFromFuckingAustria (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. JTP (talkcontribs) 22:23, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge[edit]

There is no need for separate articles about the town and the sign for the town. Much of the detail from the sign article is already included in the town article, anything else of note can be merged. This is creating spin-off articles for the sake of creating DYK nominations, in what appears to be an attempt to game the system; this seems to be more prevalent lately. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Oppose As to merge the sign info into here would violate WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to the sign rather than the village. The village is not its sign alone. If anything, the sign info in here should be put in the sign article to balance it out. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    And having a standalone article on a sign isn't WP:UNDUE? Especially when most, if not all, the information in the sign article would easily merge into the town article. This appears to be gaming the system to create unnecessary forks for DYK purposes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Prioryman You agree with whom? Do you have a position? Or a vote? 7&6=thirteen () 12:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose and Keep or Merge Lots of sources. More and different content. No compliance with WP:Before. Article has been around a long time, and This brouhaha is about the DYK, even as you opine that it isn't. Where have you been all these years? And this is about the sign, not about the town. I also incorporate by reference the reasoning of User:The C of E 7&6=thirteen () 13:41, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    The sign is already covered in the town article, as it should be. All information here that isn't already in the town article can be merged in. By the way, Before relates to deletion, this is merging. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
As a point of clarification, this article started as a redirect in 2008 and has only now been expanded. 7&6=thirteen () 14:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your vote. "keep" and "merge" are diametrically opposite in a merge discussion. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Clarify. 7&6=thirteen () 14:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
You asked, I accommodated. Violation of the rules of cross examination. Wellman says, "Don't insist on an answer." 7&6=thirteen () 15:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
No, no, not at all, I'm just amazed by how confused this has all become. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
In part because it is a masked ball. Things are not what they seem. And we have a conflicts of laws problem, where one part of the project and their rules may not agree with other parts. We also have questions of "intent," which includes arguments about 'gaming the system' and impugning motivations of editors (all of whom are volunteers and are needed). The relationships are way more important than the outcome. We have a shared community of interest. It is a microcosm of what has gone wrong in Wikipedia. This is ugly and complicated.
Needlessly so. Over something that is so miniscule that it doesn't really matter.
When you scrape away the turds, you still have shit on your boot. Just sayin ... 7&6=thirteen () 15:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I think it's more of a clear demonstration of what damage DYK is doing in some quarters of the encyclopedia, but your mileage may vary. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I've nominated the article for deletion, as there clearly isn't anything worth merging. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fucking sign. Prioryman (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Merge take II[edit]

MERGE AND REDIRECT:
Closing this discussion per a request at WP:ANRFC.

It seems clear that the majority of participants at the AfD believed we do not need a separate article just for the village's sign. The "no consensus" was with regards to whether the solution was outright deletion vs merging. However, closer reading shows there is a strong bent towards merging & redirecting, even in the delete votes: some of the delete comments in the AfD actually went on to suggest merging the content, despite being marked as "delete". Others voted delete on the basis that there was little original content worth merging in the first place (which suggests that they weren't opposed to a merge in principle). All of that suggests there was more support for merge & redirect than it appeared on the face of things.

Clear arguments for M&R have been made in this discussion and the AfD, particularly Crow's rebuttal that the sign's coverage in the article isn't undue weight, since the majority of the village's press is as a result of the name and the sign. A random sign that said "fucking" would be unimportant except that in this case it is an amusing placename. Conversely, no one would care about this tiny village except for its name. The two are inextricably connected via the name. Coverage of the amusing sign is, inherently, coverage of the village and its amusing name. If "Fucking" signs started to pop up all over the place for some reason, and coverage of the signs became separated from that of the original village, I could see an argument for a separate sign article. But as it is, the Fucking sign is only significant because Fucking is a funny-sounding name for a place to live.

I will redirect the article back to the town. Editors can decide to merge anything relevant after that. ♠PMC(talk) 22:38, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok, so the AFD was somewhat curiously closed with keep as the outcome, regardless of the plethora of non-keep votes. So I've restored the merge templates as my reading of those involved in the AFD was a clear and distinct consensus to either delete or merge. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons previously stated. Merger proposal was closed. Deletion proposal was closed as keep. This is just forum shopping and motions for rehearing. Serial proposals are b.s. 7&6=thirteen () 18:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The merger was closed prematurely (less than 12 hours with little input besides those with the vested interest in the article's ongoing existence) as the article was nominated for deletion. This is just a continuation of the process which now actually reflects the community's feelings about this article. Calling this "bullshit" is unhelpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The AFD was not closed as keep, it was closed as no consensus to delete. The closure was particularly odd since at least a dozen contributors suggested either delete, or merge whatever was there and delete/redirect, while a tiny minority said "keep". Please keep to the facts. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Oppose. - Yes exactly the Afd was closed hours ago with no consensus to merge or delete. A previous Merge discussion above less than a month ago did not come to a merge consensus either. Perhaps it is time to realise were this is heading.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The merge discussion was closed because the article was nominated for deletion, not because a consensus was achieved. You can see that, it was only open for 12 hours. Please don't spin this. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Comment It might be useful to ping @Mjroots: here; I've seen some admins close discussions like this explicitly as "merge and redirect", but others won't close an AFD this way, and instead say "keep" but mean "keep, because merging and redirecting does not require AFD, and this should not be literally deleted". I certainly don't think it's likely that Mjroots meant "keep and don't merge", but if he did, that's good to know too. Asking for his clarification is quick and easy and useful. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Already done, not helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to clarify. I have no strong feelings re keep, merge or delete. What I said to TRM was that if an editor was to be WP:BOLD and merge, then that would be fine. However, if another editor was to revert the merge, then it goes back to keeping the article whilst the issue is discussed, per WP:BRD. Such discussion could take the form of another AFD (which I will not participate in, in any capacity per WP:INVOLVED), or further discussion at talk. Mjroots (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
So if I can put words in your mouth, you don't see this merge discussion immediately after the AFD close as forum shopping or anything, but a natural next step in reaction to the decision not to actually delete. Right? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:05, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I've been WP:BOLD and "merged" and redirected the spin-off article. I say "merged" in quotation marks because every piece of content in the spin-off article was copied from this article. There is literally no new content to merge. Actually, the one item of content which is different is wrong: the editor who created the spin-off article credulously reported a hoax from the Daily Mirror as true, whereas this article gets it right. A poor job all round. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No doubt some will see it as forum shopping. I think it is better that the issue is discussed rather than an editor throwing his/her toys out of the pram because they didn't get the exact result they wished for. At least it wasn't immediately sent to WP:DRV! Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it was a "wrong" decision by the closing admin, though some of the !votes in the discussion were on remarkably stupid grounds. A second AFD is another option, as you say. Prioryman (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

My actions are totally legit. The afd foreclose the merger nom inside 12 hours. The afd achieved nothing, i.e. Maintained the status quo. Reactivating the merge discussion based on the strong consensus at the afd was absolutely not forum shopping. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Prioryman (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
To merge the article is simply wrong. Especially after a Afd abd two Merge discussions has not reached a consensus for it. I smell somethong fishy here. --BabbaQ (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't know what you're talking about. The AfD said "no consensus to delete", the first merge discussion ran for twelve hours and was closed early for the AFD, and the second merge discussion is ongoing. In the meantime, someone has done the sensible thing and redirected the sign to the town. Nothing "fishy" at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Talk about a rush to judgment and forum shopping. Prioryman showed his contempt for this ongoing discussion with this edit. Wow! 7&6=thirteen () 21:10, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't think you understand what forum shopping means, it certainly hasn't taken place in this scenario. If you like me to try to explain it one more time, I'm happy to do so. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
As a practicing lawyer I have litigated the issue. And won. Have you? Meanwhile, you start another discussion and then preempt the result. First the hanging, then the trial? Would you like me to explain how decisions are supposed to be made in Wikipedia? 7&6=thirteen () 21:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point, again. I'll leave it to someone else to explain. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You're missing the point, again. I'll leave it to someone else to explain. 7&6=thirteen () 21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect if anyone can find anything to merge into the main article that is actually reliably sourced that is, if not, just redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge/RD Yes, the AfD was closed with no consensus to delete, but looking at it another way, there were ~2:1 who wanted "something other than keeping the article", that is, to delete, merge, or redirect it. I can see no good reason why this warrants its own article. Even if one wants to get punny with the adjectival use of the name, one can do so in the town's article. CrowCaw 23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Looking deeper into folks' arguments in the above 2 sections, I'm even more unsure why this warrants its own article. The only fact in the Sign article that's not in the Town article is that the sign is made to Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals standards. Beyond that, the Town article goes into much better detail. Repeating what I said in the AfD, WP:UNDUE doesn't say that you can't focus heavily on one aspect of the topic, but that you must balance focus according to the amount of coverage each aspect gets. Since the sign gets the most press, it is logical and sensible that the article's focus be the same. CrowCaw 23:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per the reasons I gave above. Plus just because the AFD was closed with a result that that the person proposing this merge didn't like, I fail to see why we should persist in persecution of this article with a double-jeopardy (or technically triple-jeopardy) merge discussion being opened. I think we really need to consider WP:STICK here. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    No, it's not that I didn't like it (I didn't understand it, but that's another issue), and it's not even single jeopardy. Please read carefully: the initial proposed merger was never completed, only having been open for 12 hours, as the article was AFD'ed. The AFD closed as "no consensus to delete" but clearly there was a large majority in favour of merging or deleting and redirecting. The closing admin made it clear to me that there was no issue with continuing the merge discussion, that's where we are now. Nothing is being "persecuted", no "stick" is required to be dropped, spinning off articles unnecessarily just for points in the WikiCup needs to stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    I would add my own explanation as well. As I see it (in late to this whole thing, admittedly), the original merge discussion was mooted by the AfD. The AfD resulted in No Consensus, so I just see this as trying to find a consensus after one misfire and one inconclusive discussion. Personally, I (and at least one other) feel it should go one way, but if we can get to something resembling a consensus either way, then I'll support and defend that even if it was not the way I would have done it. I just would like to get there, is all. No forum-shopping, triple-jeopardy, flogging the horse, or anything like that. CrowCaw 22:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) I see valid arguments both for and against merging the sign and keeping it separate from the article of the town. My main problem is if the sign can stand on its two feet attracting and directing users through the site. I know there are articles like the sign that exist on its own, but I don't know how commonplace they are. I can see both a section for the sign hogging all the attention on the village's article, but I also can see the sign slowly rotting and abandoned with tags, barely above stub length if it was on its own. Contentious.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 21:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • To me, that's one of a half-dozen reasons why this is a bad fork. Even right now, the 2 articles aren't close in their coverage (the fork should have more info than the main, one would think), and indeed they disagree on what seems like a major point: Whether the "proposed rename" of the town was a hoax or not. Town page says yes, Sign page says no. Regardless of the outcome here, these items need to be addressed, no? CrowCaw 22:44, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not well-informed about that situation. I just know I'm slightly learning towards "Merge" for the article.--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 23:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to point out that the hoax was around changing the name in the 2010s because of relation to Fugging. The Fucking sign article references an earlier motion that occurred in the 90s.
  • Quite so, my mistake. CrowCaw 15:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I !voted to merge and redirect at the AfD and I find the close baffling. The arguments above that a complete merge discussion has yet to occur are correct as the discussion above was halted for the AfD and the close of the AfD shows merging was not considered (because it obviously had consensus – there was simply no deletion consensus. This fork is not needed, not suitable, and not reasonably down. TRM is correct, if there is anything to merge, do so... then redirect. EdChem (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Is there a single academic work dedicated to this sign or this and similar signs? The article about the village could cover the subject. Borsoka (talk) 06:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. Concur with argument stated above. There is no reason why the sign needs its own page; it can easily be covered by a single section on this page. 1.6180339887 goldensqᴉɹʇuoɔ 21:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. The spin-off is a fake article - it appears to have been created by copying the content from the sign section of this page, then paraphrasing it to disguise its origins. There is no content in the spin-off article that doesn't exist in the original other than the incompetent presentation of a tabloid hoax as a fact. I don't think it was created in good faith, and it has no good reason to exist. Prioryman (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect, per previous arguments given. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 04:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect. If the town didn't have this name and the sign that goes with that name, it would be one of those short, one sentence geographic stubs that are all over Wikipedia. No need to have two articles. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Redirect and don't bother to merge. Although I have the article on my watchlist, I missed the show. We're way too lenient on undiscussed content forks such as this one. When a split is challenged, the fork should immediately follow the BRD cycle, instead of going through a thousand hoops as happened here. The forked article is unnecessary and mostly useless. No such user (talk) 20:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect I would have supported delete or merge in the AfD. This is likely a standalone article for humor, as Prioryman points out. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment are we done here now? I've been insulted and insulted and insulted over this, yet it transpires that my original opinion is what the overwhelming consensus of the community opines as well. It's time to call this to an end, and learn at least one lesson: don't create content forks when they're simply not required, regardless of the intent in doing so.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect – Obvious. — JFG talk 21:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.