Talk:Garage sale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
WikiProject Business (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Home Living (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Online garage sale mapping software[edit]

I "commented out" the Online garage sale mapping software section of this article because it does not seem encyclopedic. Rather, it appears that it might be intended to promote GSN. Promotional or not, it seems like the type of content you would see on a hobbyist's website, not in an encyclopedia article. --orlady 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I have deleted that section. It was recently restored by an IP user, but there was no effort to explain or demonstrate why it should be considered encyclopedic. Careful examination indicates that it is effectively promotional linkspam. For example, review of the edit history indicates that the section was created by a user who is affiliated with several of the websites that were listed in the table; subsequent embellishments were by users with few or no other contributions.
If you object to this deletion, please explain here why you think this should be restored. --orlady 15:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


The article says, towards the end:

The cultural phenomenon of garage and yard sales in the United States

Is this mainly a US thing? If so, we should probably mention it in the lead. I don't recall ever seeing them in England, anyway. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Appending to articles[edit]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to be having this discussion; however, being new to Wiki, I could not find a link "talk" on the article "Garage Sale". I am the user that added the link to Garage Sale Tracker. I added my link because I feel that this Wiki article and my website strive for the same goals. This article was written with the intent to inform visitors about what a garage sale is. Well as this blog will be read by both novice and seasoned garage sale shoppers, I feel that not only should they be informed about what a sale is but what tool to use to find a sale. My website, Garage Sales Tracker, was designed to facilitate visitors to finding and listing sales. Therefore, I believe it would be a great addition to this blog. Please respond even if you do not consider adding my link to this article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slightstk (talkcontribs) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog, nor a guidebook. Rather it is an online encyclopedia. See WP:EL for information on acceptable external links. --Orlady (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Garage Sales Tracker[edit]

I do think that should be an external link as it provided information and tips on garage sales and is also a place to advertise garage sales. If you disagree than I believe an encyclopedic article should be created for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charto911 (talkcontribs) 17:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not gonna happen." See WP:NOT for the Wikipedia policy on this. Also see WP:EL for guidelines on external links. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you know about the grace in mature garage sale? keep the change my friend grace —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Garage Sale Cow[edit]

If garage sale tracker is appropriate for this page, I, too, would like to add to the site. Garage Sale Cow has several of the features and benefits of garage sale tracker and so its relevance to this article is similar.

How do we go about getting a "ruling" on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GibraltarInteractive (talkcontribs) 19:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

See my reply to the query about Garage Sale Tracker. --Orlady (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

What is UTC?[edit]

The 2nd para of the lead starts off with "Staples of garage sales include...lawn and garden tools (UTC)...". Maybe my brain isn't working today, but I have no idee what that UTC means in this context. Anyone? And can we make it more obvious in the article please? HiLo48 (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

UTC stands for Coordinated Universal Time and it was added with this edit by mistake when the user added his signature to his edit, which automatically appends "UTC" at the end, and forgot to remove it. Noone has caught it until you brought it up now. I removed it. -- œ 05:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


If you want to start an article in Spanish, you could say "venta de garaje" From:

WhisperToMe (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Garage Sales[edit]

I came to this page wondering about the history of garage sales. When or where did they first start? How quickly the idea spread? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Saling / Sale-ing[edit]

To head off an edit war: Formal, verbs that end with 'ing' drop a silent e. [1]. Score 1 for "Saling". Problem is, "saling" isn't a valid tense for "sale", however, "Sale'ing" as an informal neologism is *extremely* common. How common, relative to "saling"?

Google Results: "Garage Saling" = 46,300
Google Results: "Garage Saleing" = 43,200 but hold your hat...
Google Results: "Garage Sale ing" (which includes "garage sale-ing" and "garage sale'ing"): 218,000
For a grand total of 261,000'ish aggregate references for "sale-ing" against 46,000'ish (or, less than 20%) for "saling".

Its a neologism either way, but the canon of common usage very strongly favors the informal, whole compounding of "Sale" and "Ing". LoverOfArt (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Your results for "Garage Sale ing" are a conglomerate and evidence of nothing. You would have to fine tune that one. No one writes "Garage sale ing" to use "ing" as a word unto istelf. Putting an apostrophe in there is also pretty ugly and more effort. Most english words are created in the former two examples, and usually reduced to just "ing" with no "e" in front.
For example, "today I have been Google ing the word 'Google ing' for Wikipedia. I discovered that 'Googling' is more natural." Leitmotiv (talk) 05:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You need to better understand how google works before citing that as 'evidence of nothing'. It's evidence of usage of that exact term. 261,000 some odd people write "garage saleing", "garage sale-ing" or iterations thereof, irrespective of your own perceptions of aesthetics and the inherent difficulty of using apostrophes. Over the years, "Googling" has taken on standard form. "Garage Saling" has not, per all evidence. We can either delete them both as an invalid neologism, or accept the standardized form per what we see via common usage. That's about where we're at. LoverOfArt (talk) 03:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I think I do understand. First you say that item 3 (which actually includes two items) is an "exact term," when it's actually two. Which is it? Sale ing? or Sale-ing? Either looks ridiculous and yes that is just my opinion. As for how google works, it often returns different results for different folks. My own same exact search for Garage Saling - 45,900. Garage Saleing - 43,600. Garage Sale'ing - 217,000 (but includes Garage Sale ing), but also notes that Google says "did you mean Garage Saling?"
I'm not going to sit here and give you a lesson on how to use Google or what is implied by certain SERP numbers. The information is out there if you wish to learn. As noted, it's a neologism either way so we either seek out the common standard (which in this case is very, very clear and NOT "saling") or delete them both. I'm reverting your edits, feel free to seek mediation on this. I'd actually suggest it. LoverOfArt (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I think you should seek mediation. You are the one willing to undo previously cited material despite your insistence that it be discussed here on the talk page (without prior discussion, I might add). You are the one using Google as your argument, only to have Google undermine your argument as I've outlined.
While it may not be clear which is the most popular usage, your insistence that "Garage Sale ing" or some variation of it, is the most popular, is even less clear since it's a conglomerate of many usages including but not limited to "Garage Sale-ing," "Garage Sale'ing," and of course "Garage Sale ing." Which one is it? We don't know. Because Google as your source is not enlightening us. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL at your calling that a 'peer reviewed article'. Do you have some sort of agenda that you're willing to make such tenuous- basically absurd- claims? The one thing that is abundantly clear is that common usage of the neologism iterates as "saleing", whether they use an apostrophe, a hyphen or just compound the two. Again, your commentary on Google search demonstrates that you know nothing about Google search, so you might want to tread lightly there. You're on even thinner ice with that than you are with your "peer reviewed citation" <-- LOL. Reverting. Seek mediation, or we can just continue with this forever. You're 100% wrong. LoverOfArt (talk) 02:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but the onus is on you to prove it. Where I've completely dismantled your proof, even using your own source against you. By the way, the extra source I provided was found using Google Scholar and is from the University of Toronto Press. Leitmotiv (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
You're entitled to 'believe' whatever you want, but I'd bet hard cash any objective observer wouldn't characterize anything you've said here as 'dismantling' anything I've said. Quite to the contrary, all you've done is proven that you have some bizarre sort of agenda and don't understand how Google works. Re-reverting. See ya again next time. LoverOfArt (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
So here's the deal. Citations were in place prior to you coming along and stripping them. They've been reinforced with better sources including a modern Google Scholar book which you reverted and replaced with a citation from a book from the 70s. It's obvious you weren't reviewing any of the edits and being discriminatory toward mine. Now despite all of this, you have said we should discuss it all here on the talk page. Yes, I agree, but you also continue to make unconstructive edits without reviewing what I've done in the interim, while we discuss it here, and without any consensus.
Concerning your claim that I don't understand Google and it's SERP: I'm willing to hear why you don't think I get it, even going so far to admit that I may be wrong, but you don't provide anything on that front but hot air. In a court of law, as a plaintiff, the onus is on you to prove a claim. In your case, you simply haven't done that. I, on the other hand, sought the middle ground and added the other neologisms, with a "citation needed" notation as an olive branch where you can insert your citations. Until you decide to put substance behind your accusations, I'm just going to ignore them until you are ready to talk.
At this point, I have nothing left to discuss with you except do you have any further constructive talking points? Or would you like to add citations for the other neologisms? Leitmotiv (talk) 03:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I became aware of this dispute by seeing an application for mediation listed here. Though I'm a member of the Mediation Committee, which handles such requests, I'm removing my mediator hat and jumping in here as just another editor in the hope that I might forestall that action. Because of this, I will recuse myself in any mediation which results from that application and, indeed, will list myself as a party to that mediation. The reason I'm doing this is because I believe both of you are discussing this issue under misapprehensions about Wikipedia policy. Here's the deal: The verifiability policy says that nothing should be in Wikipedia without an inline reliable source if it is challenged or likely to be challenged. This terminology issue has clearly been challenged. Therefore, the material about that subject cannot remain in this article without a reliable source. Y'all have been going back and forth with sources and the latest two are of the kind which may be reliable sources (earlier ones were not) but here's the problem: they don't support this material. They're examples of usage of the terms you're fighting over, not sources which say "In the US, the act of going to garage sales has spawned the use of a new verb construction" etc. To take examples and then generalize that conclusion from them is prohibited original research. For this paragraph to exist, you must find a reliable source which discusses the terms and which itself concludes in so many words that the practice of going to garage sales is called such-and-such and goes on to say in so many words that the term has gone into common usage as described in the article. While I may have missed it, my examination of the Hammond and Fedorak sources reveals that they do not do that, they merely use the terms. Unless a proper source for the assertions made in this paragraph can be found, then the paragraph should be removed altogether. I do not know, but rather suspect, that no such source exists. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:48, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good and agree. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
@LoverOfArt: Would you be able to comment on what TransporterMan has said, above? Sunray (talk) 16:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree. LoverOfArt (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Garage sale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)