Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles/Archive 1

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

Early comments

Someone has just deleted the WHOLE page.

  • i know. i vote to ban 195.93.21.71. his talk has lots of stop vandelising notes.

The recent flurry of editing on articles such as The Simpsons/Episode List, list of fictional cats, and felching has made me wonder: is there a "Most ridiculous articles" or similar page? Someplace that lists articles that have encyclopedic value, but at the same time make you wonder, "Why did someone make a page on this?" I looked briefly but didn't find one. I am very happy that we have articles like these; there should be a page celebrating their existence. -- Merphant 08:41 Oct 27, 2002 (UTC)

Just commenting the only reason I put The Simpsons/Episode List on a seprate page is that its a very long list. If it was shorter I would have pt it on The Simpsons.

I understand completely; I recently did the same thing with List of musical instruments and the musical instrument article. It's still funny, though. -- Merphant

I just started Wikipedia:Unusual articles for this purpose. I think it's better than most ridiculous articles, as some people may not appreciate their contributions being labeled "ridiculous". ;-) -- Stephen Gilbert 15:55 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)

Can you add a link to it from somewhere appropriate? You're more familiar with the Wikipedia: namespace .. --Eloquence

video games was removed, which begs the question, "what qualifies as an unusual article?" Vera Cruz 05:33 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

I removed it since it seemed to have been added amidst a flurry of vandalism and didn't seem particularly unusual. If you think it's unusual, add it back. -- Someone else 05:35 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

I dont think anything is unusual Vera Cruz 05:36 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)


I feel having felching there is basically like saying

We, at wikipedia, think fucking is an unusual topic for an encyclopedia and so we have decided to advertise it.

Why bother? Vera Cruz 06:53 Dec 16, 2002 (UTC)

There was a lot of commotion over the felching article when it was first created, and that happened to coincide with (and partially inspired) my original comment on Wikipedia:Village pump or wherever it was (see above). I put it back in becuase your original reason for removing it was that people might not want to know about felching; I just don't think that's a valid argument.
I agree more with the reason you gave above, however:
  • Fucking is not unusual, and thus not listed.
  • Call me a prude, but felching is IMO unusual; note that the page links to an encyclopedia of unusual sex practices.
  • I originally suggested the title, "Most ridiculous articles", and I do think felching is ridiculous, even if it's not unusual.
  • I don't think Britannica has an article on it ;-)
Even so, I don't really care too much; if you still think felching should go, by all means remove it. -- Merphant

Categorization

As the list of unusual articles slowly grows towards infinity, I've been considering adding a few more section headers to group the links by category. Been trying to decide what are good category titles, though. I'm thinking "Internet and pop culture", "Science and medicine", "Historical people and events", and "Miscellany". Any comments or suggestions before I go ahead? Bryan 00:47, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

"Internet and pop culture" should be 2 separate sections. Much weirdness comes from both, and thus they'll most likely need to have their own sections. -- LGagnon

What qualifies as "unusual"?

Is Ben Kerr sufficiently unusual? I'm inclined to remove it. There are plenty of regular joke candidates in elections all over the world - Screaming Lord Sutch comes to mind. --ALargeElk | Talk 10:00, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

THe guy's a little strange, but in my opinion is not really strange enough to put on a list of the most unusual articles we have. -- Cyrius| 13:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the holy prepuce is really all that unusual. It's just another relic that may or may not (depends on who you ask) be authentic. Now an article about the last bowel movement would be in a completely different class. Rather than remove it right away, though, I think we need to have at least some discussion around what is unusual in this context. Colin 23:15, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the article title is unusual and the topic matter certainly strikes *me* as being unusual. I'd have thought it was a joke if someone else had brought it up. Elf | Talk 00:54, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think this highlights why I suggest we have a short discussion on what constitutes unusual in this context. My take on unusual and yours are likely to be substantially different; this extending outwards in the wider community. I think there would be little argument about suitability for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, but I see a large grey area between that and Wikipedia generally, which is where unusual articles probably need to come from. Beyond the (to me) obvious requirements for factual accuracy, some proposals to think about:

  1. Something that only the most complete reference materials would mention, i.e. moderate obscurity,
  2. Stuff that the majority has never heard of or thought of yet is common knowledge in specialized groups,
  3. Very obscure with an element of the absurd or humourous.

I would be inclined towards the last. There are lots of articles on very obscure topics that I suspect the majority would not attempt to put here. The difference in the (admittedly few) articles I've read in this list seems to be the addition of humour or absurdity. Of course, I'm open to alternatives. Colin 21:03, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm a bit cheezed off that someone put the "Allbeefpaties..." article on the list because I didn't think it qualifies as an unusual article according to my own vague definition. So I think this discussion is valuable. Maybe we need a page for each of the 3 areas mentioned above. But again we probably need some form of strict definition. One Salient Oversight 23:42, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps Wikipedia:Unusual images is in order—I hesitate to remove the three images on the page, but technically they're not articles... —tregoweth 16:30, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Since the current page is (IMO) intended more as a whimsical amusement for Wikipedia junkies than as a rigorous catalogue I think it's no biggie if we scatter a few strange images throughout this list as eyecandy. Perhaps a separate article or section would be in order if so many images get added that they're starting to crowd the list? Not that I feel particularly strongly one way or the other... :) Bryan 07:33, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oh, one objection I do have which I feel a little more strongly about: Image:Hairless boy 02.jpg appears to be linked to solely from this page. I don't think an image should count unless it's actually used in a Wikipedia article for some actual valid reason. Bryan 07:37, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Without reading the talk page, I've gone ahead and removed the two "new" pictures. I guess the cow picture has made it to our more or less official logo, but we should not turn it into an image gallery of unusual pictures. Especially since that would mean favoritism on unusual articles. :-) JRM 01:29, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

Adding the table and a synopsis

The unusual articles page is one of my favourites. But everytime I go here I forget what the articles are. So in a fit of proactivity, I have added a table (based upon the how to edit wikipedia page since I had no idea how to do it when I began) which includes a short synopsis. I think it really adds to the page because it will get people excited about what the articles actually contain and gives them the desire to read them. --One Salient Oversight 12:19, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the idea of the synopsis is an excellent one, but I'm not a fan of the table (particularly because one long article title means that all the synopses end up a large horizontal distance from their corresponding article titles). Can I suggest something like:
Crushing by elephant - An unusual form of capital punishment used throughout history
Emperor Norton - The man who claimed to be "Emperor of the United States and Protector of Mexico" in 1859
Moresnet - A European nation that disappeared in 1919
How's that? -- John Fader 12:46, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I like that much better. The synopsis doesn't have to be very long - after all, we want people to read the full articles :) sjorford 15:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Far more logical than what I've done - it was too late at night for me to make good decisions. I'll make the change. Thanks. -- One Salient Oversight 22:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I confess I was about to admit that, now that I see my proposed format writ large, I'm not so fond of it - but your making the article titles bold help a great deal. You've done a stellar job. -- John Fader 02:09, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Be careful of bloat

We have a lot of unusual articles in Wikipedia, but before you add one, please think about whether it's really unusual. The main criterion is this: would you be greatly surprised if you found this in a very thorough "regular" encyclopedia? If not, then it probably doesn't belong here, even if you personally think the topic is amusing.

Things like The Eye of Argon, extreme ironing, how to keep an idiot busy, Ich bin ein Berliner and the wonderful bread clip definitely belong here: "regular" encyclopedias have no articles on that, and it's unlikely they ever will; they wouldn't spend paper on it, either because the topic is too whimsical or because it's far too small to merit attention.

OK, so this page is mostly for fun and giggles, and I don't want to be a nazi about it. But how unusual are (for example) Chauchat, E.T. (video game), Hans Guido Mutke and space burial? A particular bad machine gun, a particularly bad video game, a fighter pilot with a reasonable but disputed claim on breaking the sound barrier, and a recent phenomenon that can only be expected to become more common? The articles on them are not in any way unusual that I can see. If Britannica deigned to give these topics attention one day, I wouldn't be surprised. (Possibly about E.T. because regular encyclopedias don't list video games — but why not include Galaga, then?)

Now that I think about it, perhaps a better main criterion is this: does one have to go to unusual lengths to both write an encyclopedic article about the topic, and keep it encyclopedic? That certainly applies to Hitler has only got one ball, Sealand and inherently funny word, but not to Voynich manuscript, Phineas Gage or squaring the circle — these are all unusual topics (to most people!) but they do not make for unusual articles.

I accept that unusualness is subjective. I've occasionally removed particularly egregious offenders that where shockingly usual :-) but I just may be reading too much into this, I don't know. JRM 16:08, 2005 Jan 29 (UTC)

Hi JRM. Thanks for your comments.
I absolutely adore this part of Wikipedia because I love reading about unusual things that people just don't know about. Recently I've been adding a whole heap of articles because I personally found them amusing and interesting. The Chauchat gun is one such article - that a government could order such a gun into production and totally ignore what the troops were complaining about - that is funny (and very very sad too).
I think you'll find that military operations have a long history of such absurd and lives-costing actions, unfortunately. JRM 19:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
I agree that there probably needs to be some explicit set of guidelines to determine whether or not an article should be considered "unusual". I'm actually happy if any of my contributions here get nixed for that reason.
So would you agree that one important rule should be that "If a regular encyclopedia does carry, or is likely to carry, a particular article, then it should not be considered an unusual article."
I'm trying to think of another rule. How about "The article in question must contain some form of juxtaposition that will strike readers as being noteworthy."
What the hell am I saying here. Perhaps I can define it as:
  • Reglar information: Hitler / Juxtaposition: Has only one ball.
  • Regular information: A chicken named Mike had its head cut off / Juxtaposition: Lived another 18 months.
  • Regular information: Amish / Juxtaposition: Hollywood script writers keep writing about them in sci-fi TV shows.
  • Regular information: The micronation of Sealand / Juxtaposition: Some guy took over an abandoned naval platform and made his own country.
"Bread Clip" doesn't fit in this one, but it does fit in the first rule.
Any ideas? One Salient Oversight 02:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As to the "Bread Clip" problem: A second category besides juxtaposition could be added to the above, the extraordinarily non-noteworthy, but still notable and/or encyclopedic (Bread Clips, in this case, are very encyclopedic, even if they are (almost) completely non-notable by dead tree Encyclopedia standards). Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 03:44, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure explicit guidelines are needed. The current introduction is fine, and vague enough to solicit input without first having to run down a checklist of criteria that could qualify the article as "unusual". On the one hand, it's true that "if someone found it unusual, it probably is", but on the other hand, there's "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy". That's why we usually think of regular encyclopedias in what is "unusual". I just removed Hans Guido Mutke from the list because, quite simply:
  1. It would not be completely absurd for a paper encyclopedia to have an article on him, and
  2. If it did have an article on him, this is the kind of article you would expect.
These are the criteria I would apply in determining whether an article should go. Bread clip is unusual because it would be completely absurd for a paper encyclopedia to have an article on them (IMO!), even though the article itself is perfectly normal. Same goes for Amish episode, Sealand, Hitler has only got one ball, etcetera, etcetera... Le Train de Nulle Part might meet criterion #1, but it certainly fails criterion #2. Pataphysical situation arguably fails both, and is completely unusual.
I still think Chauchat is not unusual, for example, even though the topic may be. The problem is that whether a topic is unusual is quite subjective, and (almost like featured articles) you need to be damned good to be on this list. :-) Chauchat is borderline because it truly may have been the most awful gun ever produced, but, say, Voynich manuscript and squaring the circle really don't belong here, no more than perpetual motion machine or Protocols of the Elders of Zion would, unusual as these topics may look to some—they all fail criterion #1 by a wide margin. I just noticed history of perpetual motion machines, a wonderful example of an unusual article—note that perpetual motion is not unusual, but having an article that lists the history of perpetual motion machines certainly is, and I would indeed be surprised to find something like that in Britannica—this might be an example of an article that fails criterion #1 but meets criterion #2, being much too detailed for paper.
Now that I've removed Mutke, clearly the worst un-unusual candidate now is anagram. Anagrams unusual? What? Removing that... JRM 19:39, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

It's funny isn't it? When it comes down to it we base our judgements on what we reckon is unusual - and that's fine. Could we agree that if an article matches one or both of the criterions listed above, then they are worthy of inclusion? If we can agree on this, then would it be useful to then make this explicit in the introduction to the article? One Salient Oversight 03:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"internet" vs. "Internet"

These days, referring to "the internet" in all lower-case is valid, and often preferred. The internet is not a brand name or single entity, any more than the power grid or the post is, and thus there's no requirement to treat it as a proper noun. The Guardian Style Guide and Times style guide both state that "internet" is lc. Acb 11:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's not our job to propagate vulgar errors or overthrow the status quo. See Internet, Talk:Internet#Internet vs internet, Talk:Internet#"Internet" v "internet" (reprise), and Talk:Internet#Just the Facts.
chocolateboy 13:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is also not our job to unilaterally decide which alternative usages are and are not errors and "correct" them universally. One may as well decide that "gray" is incorrect and should be changed in all instances to "grey" or somesuch.
If several reputable newspaper style guides sanction a usage, it cannot be considered a "vulgar error". Acb 15:52, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It may not be a "vulgar error", but neither is "Internet" since that is also used in reputable newspapers. I prefer "internet" too, but the fact is that "Internet" is far more widely used within Wikipedia and consistency is most important. Fredrik | talk 16:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That is not the point. The point was that User:Chocolateboy unilaterally took it upon himself to change all occurrences of 'internet' to 'Internet' on a page, which, in light of the acceptability of 'internet', was unjustified. For the record, I am not advocating changing all occurrences to lowercase, but rather a policy of maintaining the status quo, much as is done with British vs. American spellings. Acb 17:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Internet" is the correct form according to the Internet Society, the IETF, ICANN, the National Science Foundation, and other Internet-related standards bodies. It outnumbers "internet" by a factor of 4:1 in common usage both online (Google News) and in print (LexisNexis). Finally, as the Internet article makes clear, "internet" is ambiguous and inaccurate, which may not matter to The Grauniad, famed as it is for "frequent text mangling, technical typesetting failures and typographical errors, including once misspelling its own name", but does matter in an encyclopaedia. Either way, I suggest you take it up on the Internet talk page rather than disrupting this article to make a point.
chocolateboy 17:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Where do all these august bodies state that Internet is the correct usage? Citations please. (Examples of them capitalising Internet do not count, as that is ambiguous; any more than someone writing the word "grey" doesn't mean that they reject the spelling "gray" as incorrect.)
Meanwhile, with over 20% of users using "internet", as well as several reputable newspapers, one would have to be a hard-line prescriptivist to dismiss that as "incorrect", and Wikipedia is not that kind of organisation. And it's rather rich of someone who unilaterally imposes his own judgment of the one true way to capitalise "internet" on the writing of others to accuse others of disrupting Wikipedia.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Acb 21:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
One would have to be a hard-line minoritarian to lobby for a usage that is resoundingly rejected by common usage, common sense, and the institutions that created, maintain and standardise the Internet. For sources, citations, and further fruitless discussion on this topic, see (and take your campaign to) Talk:Internet.
chocolateboy 21:35, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let's see...
  • Common usage - >20% of Google hits (by your own account) and several respected authorities on usage is not exactly a tiny minority.
  • Common sense is a very subjective thing. One can play the common-sense card for either side of this argument. By this token, for example, talking about "the Internet" is like saying "plug it into the Mains", or "I saw it on Television". The internet is not one entity; it is not an authority, a corporation, an institution, a trademark or in any other category of eligibility for a proper noun.
All of which leaves this argument sufficiently open that the only reasonable action is to allow either usage. There is precedent for this on Wikipedia (i.e., both British and American spellings are acceptable in articles). As such, your unilateral changing of the capitalisation of 'internet' to your personal preference is wholly without justification.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question about where exactly the IETF and Internet Society lay down the rules for the proper capitalisation of [Ii]nternet. Until you provide clear citations, that part of your argument is mere hand-waving. Acb 01:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"common sense" is obvious if you actually read the article (the Internet is the largest internet). "the internet" is incorrect and unencyclopaedic as it effaces this distinction and violates the principle of least surprise, as well as the Wikipedia policy of preferring the most common usage ("If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to any other word or phrase that might be regarded as incorrect"). Commonwealth and American spellings have nothing to do with it. We don't call Jehovah "god", and we don't call this planet "earth", and there is nothing ethnocentric or "unilateral" about the correction of such errors. Dismissing the IETF, ICANN etc. technical reports (where a premium is placed on precision and clarity) on the grounds that they don't explicitly address this non-issue is like dismissing the usage of the King James Bible on the grounds that it doesn't explicitly deprecate "god". I can only conclude from your refusal to take this discussion to a forum where it is actually ontopic that you are more interested in flouting consensus to prosecute a minoritarian agenda than in engaging in constructive discussion.
chocolateboy 13:56, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
More prescriptivism. Should we also forbid the use of the word hacker to refer to people who break into computer systems because it is a historically incorrect usage?
"internet" is no longer exclusively a technical usage; it is now used increasingly by non-technical people to refer to a ubiquitous phenomenon. Other equivalent phenomena (the power grid, telephony, television, sanitation) are not capitalised. And comparing the internet to God is a tad excessive.
Since you are the one intending to change the status quo to one allowed usage, the burden of justification rests with you. You have not made an adequate case for why Wikipedia should, as policy, take a prescriptivist hard line against "internet". Acb 18:16, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
As the stats show, "Internet" is both the de facto and de jure standard. Unlike "internet", "hacker" is used to denote "cracker" more often than the "prescribed" term, so that analogy is as specious as your "grey"/"gray" example.
"internet" is no longer exclusively a technical usage; it is now used increasingly by non-technical people to refer to a ubiquitous phenomenon. Other equivalent phenomena (the power grid, telephony, television, sanitation) are not capitalised.
The only thing those terms have in common with the "internet"/"Internet" disambiguation we're discussing is that they're all vastly more common than alternative versions, just as "Internet" is vastly more common than "internet".
And comparing the internet to God is a tad excessive.
God is a god. The Internet is an internet. The comparison is clearly one of usage. Unless you were asserting that the Internet is "gray", or construing the "earth"/"Earth" example as an intimation that the Internet is a planet, I'd suggest you stick to the topic if this entire thread weren't such a futile tribute to your inability to do that, and your refusal to listen to the sound of anyone else's voice.
Since you are the one intending to change the status quo to one allowed usage, the burden of justification rests with you.
Nah. The burden lies with you to rewrite the Wikipedia policies cited above and to propagate those changes to the Internet article. Good luck with that.
chocolateboy 20:27, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Octopus card

I'm removing the link to Octopus card since it seems out of place on a list of "Unusual articles". Afterall, most of us probably have a debit/check card or if not, we've probably seen several throughout the day thereby not making it all that unusual. Just thought I'd throw out my reasoning behind this. Dismas 14:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Image overload

I much dislike the addition of vast heards of images. I think the page now has far too many unnecessary images, making it very slow loading, cluttered, and bloated. Perhaps we could have a seperate image gallery page, if people think having such illustrations in one place is necessary? -- Infrogmation 06:15, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who put all the images there in the first place. I felt that it really added to the page's look and "vibe". I think the unusual articles page is one of Wikipedia's flagships and a great entry point for interested people. I have, however, been on broadband for about 3 months and have forgotten how long dial-up services can take downloading pictures, so your complaint certainly is a valid one. Why not select about half the pictures - the ones that take the longest to load (I think the trepanation and the Ulam Spiral ones are quite big) - and remove them while leaving the other half behind? --One Salient Oversight 06:22, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for going to the effort of selecting the images, and thanks as well for being so gracious about my criticism of the page size. I cut down to 3 images max per section, and shrunk the thumbnail sizes of some others. If I cut any of your favorite images, I won't be offended if you substitute them. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 06:37, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm pretty happy with the changes that've been done. Thanks for your input. --One Salient Oversight 01:15, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is getting very large

someone please do something about it. SYSS Mouse 02:01, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm one of those who have made it larger. The fact is that as Wikipedia grows this page will grow larger as more and more unusual articles are made and discovered. I like the idea of a large page - there are many pages larger than this one. What is your proposal? --One Salient Oversight 04:10, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The only one that comes to mind is to split this into more specialized articles - "Wikipedia:Unusual pop culture articles", for example. But I don't think it's really long enough to worry about that yet, IMO for articles that are just lists like this it's better to have everything on one page for as long as possible. Perhaps once it passes 100KB or so it'd become a more pressing concern. Bryan 06:12, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New articles

I have a few nominees for for unusual articles Exploding toad and Glitch City. Just thought I would give my input. Greyhead 14:37, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Both articles look pretty unusual to me. Seems to be in the same vein as the Exploding whale and the Minus world. Just a thought. Really. Cal 1234 15:15, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image removal

I removed 8 images:

I think only weird, funny or interesting images shall be placed on this page. -- Toytoy 02:45, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Examples

The article contains some form of juxtaposition that most people would find unusual. eg Killer Cockroach, Henry VIII in Space, edible computers.

I would just like to express my disappointment that none of these are actual articles. —tregoweth 02:46, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

  • Sorry. Though "Killer Cockroach" might be the name of a band somewhere, this would probably not make them unusual, since bands have all sorts of ridiculous names. A B-horror movie with this title is conceivable, but this would probably not be unusual either. There is The Cockroach That Ate Cincinnati, though whether said cockroach caused any casualties I do not know.
  • How would you get Henry VIII in space? Easy: stage a performance of Shakespeare's Henry VIII: All is True on the International Space Station, record it, and call it Henry VIII in Space. This chain of events would probably be unusual enough to qualify for an article and a place here.
  • Edible computers, unlike edible underwear, don't exist. There is a radio show called The Edible Computer, but the capitalization is off. It could conceivably be made a redirect.
Finally, what I'm disappointed at is that we don't have edible underwear, nor is there any mention of it in undergarment. I trust this important omission will be rectified soon. JRM · Talk 10:55, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

Will

What is unusual about the existence of an article with the title William I of England?? What is unusual is what happened in his funeral, so the article has no place in this list. I removed it. muriel@pt 12:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

The definition is found in the beginning of the article:
If the article in question meets one or both of these categories then it could possibly be deemed "unusual"
  1. The article is something you would not expect to find in a standard encyclopedia.
  2. The article contains some form of juxtaposition that most people would find unusual. eg Killer Cockroach, Henry VIII in Space, edible computers.
Although the William I article does not fit (1), it does fit into (2) - ie the manner of his death is unusual. I will revert it back. If you still wish to discuss this then feel free to do so - your input is valued.
--One Salient Oversight 13:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
To be fair, the article on William spends exactly one sentence on the manner of his death. William sure had an unusual death, but does that make the entire article unusual? He isn't notable for his death. I'm going to have to agree with Muriel here—otherwise, where is the end? Bill Gates was hit with a pie in the face in public—pretty unusual, right? Are we going to add him for that? JRM · Talk 13:26, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
  • Dear One Salient Oversight, your argument is of course a good one, but nevertheless i think that a reference to that unfortunate accident is something more for List of unusual deaths than for Unusual Articles. Dont you agree? muriel@pt 13:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I stand convinced by both your arguments. Good work - I love objectivity. I will revert the article back. --One Salient Oversight 14:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

  • But please do add this thing to the unsual deaths: its to good to escape listing... :) muriel@pt 14:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Done! --One Salient Oversight 01:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Exploding animals

There seems to be a lot of articles on Exploding animals (enough to get its own page now). I'm wondering wich of those articles we should put in?Greyhead 14:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Marijuana Party of Canada

Is Marijuana Party of Canada really an unusual article? There are similar parties in many countries. And marijuana is enough of an issue that having a single-issue party on the subject doesn't appear to be that strange to me. I don't really care that much about the issue, but I don't think it's that unusual. Mwalcoff 08:44, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I was just thinking that, and I've removed it. -- Scott e 04:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers station

Is that a joke, or real? Numbers station - I never heard of those, but if they are real, i would say this one really is a great addition to the unusual articles --Abdull 18:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

It's real, and it now has Numbers station as one of its members, under the Culture, general section. Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French 22:44, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

pages on VfD

I was going to add Size queen, but was not sure if I should wait and see if it survives VfD. Is there a guideline for this? I think the subject itself would survive the VfD for sure if it were not for the .... unfortunate content in the article so its a toss up. Dalf | Talk 06:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Catergory

I think it's probably worth having an 'Unusual article' catergory. Jooler 01:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Billboards

So why not be listing the other Billboard modification groups? Billboard Liberation Front for one...
~ender 2005-10-26 08:22:MST

Fainting goats

That is scurrile: fainting goat. Especially look at the videos provided. --Abdull 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Berwick-upon-Tweed

Does the article on Berwick really belong here? It's simply a standard article about a town, with one or two oddities. I'd suggest deleting the reference. Does anyone else agree? Jon Rob 09:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The only thing unusual is the story about the war, and that doesn't take up as much space as the town's history. I've removed it. Graham/pianoman87 talk 12:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent deletion: David Rice Atchison

I have just deleted the reference to the article on David Rice Atchison. It is not well written, and its only "unusual" aspect may be a misunderstanding. I will post a message on its talk page to this effect. Wulfilia 15:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)