Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles/Archive 2

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

What this page teaches us

  1. Wikipedians find nose-picking both unusual and highly amusing, enough to include as many images of it on possible on a single page.
  2. Wikipedians find lots of not-especially-unusual-or-amusing lists both unusual and amusing, like "fictional admirals" and "List of people who have been considered deities" and all sorts of "flops".
  3. Wikipedians like inane article descriptions. ("Male lactation - Given the right conditions, even Ah-nuld can do this.")
  4. Regardless, Wikipedia has a lot of really nifty articles. -Silence 19:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Dash? Mdash?

Comma? Colon? Indent? What's the standardized way this page will go from the article name to the description of the article? Most of this page currently uses a simple "dash", which is certainly the easiest way to handle it, though not grammatically correct. "mdash" is used in the computers section, which seems fine to me and creates a more obvious mark, though it's not grammatically ideal either and doesn't seem to be used elsewhere in the article. I'm not overly concerned about which system we use, but I do want it to be used consistently: so just tell me which we're using and I'll make sure we use it. -Silence 01:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I say go with the nongrammatical simple dash, since
  1. Fewer people will screw it up.
  2. Most of the article is already that way.
Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, though, as I said, if there's interest in implementing a better system, I'll help transfer it to the new method and try to help keep it maintained. -Silence 03:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Some new Deletions.

Not quite sure where to write about this. So I pick here.

I am deleting the following articles:

-Ferdinand Lop. No use linking to a stub.

-Unibrow. Doesnt seem far from something an ordinary encyclopedia would have an article on.

-Page 3 girl. Boring.

Jonatan 10:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


Looks good. I think this is much clearer, and hopefully people will put everything in the right place now... Dave (talk) 08:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

lorem ipsum

Unusual, or not? It was removed several months ago, and has now been re-added. I'm removing it again until we can decide. -Silence 04:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

People are really rushing in to discuss the matter. Hmm. I'm teetered on the fence on that one. It's a well-known topic in some circles... but to a greater or lesser extent, so are many of these articles. To those outside the circles, it certainly might be a matter of some curiousity. And the article isn't too shabby. I guess I'd weigh it as a "weak keep". If this were an evil poll, that is. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I would also lean toward keeping Lorem ipsum. If someone wants to prune the list, I'd suggest starting with the first entry, 165 University Avenue, and also Border between West Jersey and East Jersey. I just don't see anything unusual, certainly nothing strikingly odd, about either of those. Jonathunder 17:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly don't dispute that the article's interesting. But is it really that unusual? What's so strange about it? It's just a garbled Latin text that's used as typeface filler. It's more of a slightly amusing factoid, a "curiosity" as you put it, than an "unusual article". And I agree with removing both of those entries, as they indeed don't seem that unusual and also "165 University Avenue" is far, far too short.
Actually, I think I'll make a separate page for entries that were on this page for a significant amount of time (i.e. not just the random vandalisms that get included and quickly reverted) but were then removed, so people won't be so hesitant to remove ununusual articles from this list. Similar things have been implemented for pages like Films considered the worst ever (Removed films), and have worked out well. -Silence 20:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, it's up at Wikipedia talk:Unusual articles/Removed. -Silence 20:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Opinions on Kumis? I never thought it was all that strange. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and if Lorem Ipsum goes, so also should go ETAOIN SHRDLU, I think... same concept as far as I can tell. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
ETAOIN SHRDLU isn't really the same thing. It's similar, but that article concerns a strange, cryptic (until you know the explanation, at least) string of letters that occasionally appears in print due to error; "lorem ipsum" is only about a common printing convention. I'd at least say that ETAOIN SHRDLU is more unusual than "lorem ipsum"; whether it's unusual enough is an entirely unrelated matter. I'm on the fence on it, so go ahead and remove it if you feel it doesn't belong. Oh, and I've removed kumis, since it's painfully usual. -Silence 22:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I have to say, for those unfamiliar with the world of typography, "lorem ipsum" is a highly unusual phenomenon. For some reason, Wikipedia just seems to attract a good crowd of typo-concious folks...--Pharos 16:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Fairuse images shouldn't be used

I would ask that people not add, and please remove any fairuse images. Fairuse should only be used in article space. Also, since these are just selective example images, it makes more sense to use examples where a free image is available. --Rob 07:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this collection

Coming here from hot dog, and ketchup on hot dog's AfD page (which it survived), I'm very pleased to find this. Definite bookmark for lots of entertaining perusal. Thanks! TransUtopian 03:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

What links here... Category?

How do people find this (Unusual articles, not the talk page)? Mostly from User, Talk and Wikipedia pages, a significant number of the latter being Articles for Deletion. While I understand this page is largely subjective and fun, I support the idea above of having an Unusual articles category. For example, I've visited several of these fun articles, not knowing there was this page that linked these articles together.

Is there a technical way to have articles added to this page automatically listed in such a category? And what are the pros, cons and alternatives? TransUtopian 07:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If such a category was ever created, note that it would have to be used on article Talk pages only, not on Articles themselves, since "Unusual articles" is an metanalysis, not a content, issue. -Silence 10:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


I was wondering whether a Portal for unusual articles would be a good idea, with the newest and best articles shown more prominently, with links to unusual categories, and would help with the repair & cleanup of some of these articles. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

British Rail flying saucer

can this qualify?

Good lord, yes. tregoweth 00:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ben Hana

This is an article about a homeless man who wears a blanket and a loincloth in Wellington New Zealand and is usually called "Blanket Man". What section should this go under? --Midnighttonight 09:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I have no idea ... should it be popular culture or religion and spirituality? Either way, he definitely deserves a spot in wikipedia's List of people widely considered eccentric. Graham talk 11:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The cannon as a musical instrument

Not an article in itself, but I thought you might be interested that I have written a section on the cannon page discussing the cannon's role in music, and quote two examples of its use - namely Tchaikovsky and AC/DC. --MacRusgail 17:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Tacky entry?

I noticed someone has listed Vedem, the magazine written by young Theresienstadt inmates. While certainly noteworthy, I wonder if it's a bit tacky to put here. Most of the unusual articles listed are amusing, while this one is tragic. -- Mwalcoff 01:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and I've removed the entry. It's extroardinary, not unusual. Graham talk 12:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hindu milk miracle

The Hindu milk miracle is begging to be added to the list, but the article needs to be fleshed out first. Any takers? The story is pretty fascinating/silly/unusual. The article describes it in just a few brief sentences. The first external link on the article, however, goes into more detail and includes VIDEO.[1] I'd love to see somebody give some love to the article and grow it into an UNUSUAL article we can be collectively proud of! --AStanhope 02:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. I went through the microfilm archive at my University's library and added what information I could find. The article is expanded about as much as I think it can be. GeeJo (t)(c) • 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Tubby (dog)

Should we remove the entry for Tubby, as his article currently redirects to Tacoma Narrows Bridge?--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've removed it. The bridge article is already on the page. Graham talk 05:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Table or Bulleted List?

Sections 1 and 2 (Places & Numbers and Dates) list their unusual articles in a table, while the rest of the page lists articles in bulleted lists. Should the rest of the article be converted to using tables, or should we just stick with the bulleted list?--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it really matters, so long as it's consistent. Be bold and change it to one of the two :) GeeJo (t)(c) • 02:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm usually a huge fan of tables, in this case it looks like the bulleted list is much, much more efficient and aesthetically pleasing; the table format just makes things too crowded and cluttered-looking, especially with the images on the side. As is often the case, simpler is better: an ordinary list will do here. -Silence 02:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ironically, I began tabulating the page as I felt the bulleted list created a crowded and cluttered-looking page. Cf for example Language and Names; I'd say the latter looks more dense (so less inviting to read) and the horizontal overlap between article names and annotations from one item to the next makes it less easy to scan the list of article names for any that seem particularly interesting. (Hope that made sense.)  However, if folks are unhappy with tabulation here, I'll stop. Re the images, I agree they reduce the room for text, but I'd say this is more than compensated by their reducing a sense of dense text and the possibility that they invite readers to visit items they might otherwise have passed over in the list/table. Regards, David Kernow 11:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we alternate?--The Ninth Bright Shiner talk 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Might be a good way forward, even if only to prompt folk to register their preferences. Anyone else?  Thanks for the idea, David 21:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No further thoughts, so I'm aiming to finish tabulating the Language section before skipping Science and then tabulating Popular culture, entertainment and the arts, etc. Hope that's okay. Regards, David Kernow 23:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
PS I don't think it'll happen quickly!

Sumatran Rat-Monkey

Is Sumatran Rat-Monkey unusual enough? I know Braindead is a classic, but after 2 years on Wikipedia, I never expected to find an article about such awkward creature. My friends, who, even having watched the film long time ago still speak about the Sumatran Rat-Monkey at least once a week, loved it and said "I just realized how cool Wikipedia is". Afonso Silva 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since nobody replied, I'll add it. If you find the subject not unusual, just remove the article. Afonso Silva 09:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Kamp Staaldraad

Think this article might qualify?

This has to do with a training camp for the South Africa national rugby union team. This was no ordinary training camp... nudity, alleged firearms use, dubious psychological techniques... a classic example of team building run amok. The aftermath of the camp saw the national team coach and many in the administration of South African rugby lose their jobs. In a more tragic note, the man who blew the whistle on the camp lost his job and ended up committing suicide. — Dale Arnett 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's, um, no ordinary training camp. I'm trying to think of a good description now. :) Graham talk 09:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think, um, that's too tragic to be here.... _dk 10:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a point as well. Most of the articles on here don't have tragic conclusions. But it's a great example of taking an idea to its absurd extreme. Graham talk 12:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Calf-ully thinking about the first image

That cow is not from an "unusual article" and has been the first image for a long time.  It's stale.  What do you think?  Do we need to mooooove the cow and get some fresh meat for the first image?  --User101010 05:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Meddle with our beloved mascot? Perish the thought! :-) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep the cow. Unlike big businesses, we don't have to change the logo every five minutes for people who get bored easily.--MacRusgail 13:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
One of the reasons I frequent this page is just so I can look at that picture. Such an unholy image is to great to be removed. Kaiser matias 06:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If it is moved, the wikiuser suicide rate will increase. Do you want to be responsible for that? Rintrah 09:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


It's been awhile, so can we change the table format back to bulleted form? 14:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk to the hand

what about Talk to the hand as unusual? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

  • How is it unusual? It's a slang phrase; there's a lot of other slang phrases out there. Have you looked through this list? It's about the seriously odd stuff in this encyclopedia. "Talk to the hand" isn't unusual, I think. --Firien § 08:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Does this merit inclusion?

Tony Lavelli, a professional basketball player who also played the accordion at halftime. Zagalejo 03:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Beyond a passing mention of his half-time activity, is there anything else unusual in the article...?  Regards, David Kernow 09:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, that's pretty much his main claim to fame. If it helps, I slightly expanded the description of his halftime performances, but I haven't found anything else unusual to say about him...yet. Zagalejo 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty darn unusual though - can you imagine a modern professional athlete playing an accordian to the crowd at half time? And insisting that it is part of his contract! Lisiate 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Badger pic

Looked ok to me. What was wrong with it?

Because this page is outside of article space, Wikipedia's Fair Use policy precludes the use of any Fair Use images as decoration. GeeJo (t)(c) • 23:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

So why are there any images on here?

If you click on any of the images currently on the page, you'll see that they're freely licensed — meaning that they can be used anywhere. GeeJo (t)(c) • 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these unusual?

Somebody removed these articles from the page. Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador, Fucking, Austria, Jewish Autonomous Oblast, Ham sandwich theorem, and Mathematical joke. For now I'm putting them back and posting this question to see what others think. 18:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Jewish Autonomous Oblast is a province of a world power, it's not obscure.
  • Fucking and Dildo are just accidental language collisions. It's not like they were knowingly given vulgar names, like Gropecunt Lane.
  • Ham sandwich theorem: It's the real name of a significant theorem. So what? I heard of it by that name long before Wikipedia was around. Gazpacho 05:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    If the ham sandwich theorem is included, then surely so should the hairy ball theorem be. That said, I see nothing wrong with including both — if we ever do get dozens of funny named theorems, we can review the issue again then. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that the concepts of Unusual Articles and Amusing and Quirky Topics are similar enough that there should be just be one page listing articles of both. Anyway, someone curious about one is probably just as curious about the other. Rintrah 07:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Gazpacho just removed three interesting/unusual music articles. Who says unusual articles in Brittanica can't also be an unusual article here? I say we put most all of the recently remove articles back. Reywas92 19:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep Fucking, Austria. It has other things that are unusual about it besides its name, such as the fact (though it could possibly be a rumor) that its signs are sometimes stolen because of the name. Dildo, on the other hand, is only unusual because of its name. 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mathematical Jokes should be removed: it is not an unusual article. There are jokes for so many other disciplines and they are not included; nothing is special about mathematics. Even as someone with a mathematical background, I do not find mathematical jokes funny — with one exception. Rintrah 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm adding Fucking, Austria back. The information given in the article makes it seem unusual enough. I'm leaving out Jewish Autonomous Oblast and Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador though. Dildo is only unusual for its name, and I have no idea why JAO was ever considered unusual. 01:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eccentric Australian Cultural Sites

I think more obscure Australian eccentric sites should be included, like the Giant Worm, which is a theme park akin to The Giant Banana, The Giant Pineapple, etc. There was an article in the Australian magazine the Good Weekend which described many of these places — unfortunately, I don't still have it. In its eccentricity, Australia is like a smaller version of the United States, with Queensland equivalent to Nevada and California. Rintrah 07:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't there be a section for rare, unusual diseases? Rintrah 07:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Sounds a good – if potentially queasy – idea!  David Kernow 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

More descriptive name?

Prompted by some of the discussion above over what's in and what's out on this page, perhaps a more descriptive name for the page might help...?  For one thing, it's the articles' topics that are "unusual" (or "quirky" or...) rather than the articles themselves. How about Wikipedia:Amusing, quirky or unusual topics...?  David Kernow 13:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, though the page should not include too much; otherwise, the overall quality diminishes. I won't take responsibility for naming. Rintrah 13:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No! That's like deciding to rename Buckingham Palace! It's a Wiki tradition. violet/riga (t) 19:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I should quite like to rename Bukingham Palace after myself, but I see your point. This project transcends us all, so we should not defile its sanctity. :-) Rintrah 23:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Are Wiki traditions inviolate...?  (Disable the [edit this page] and [move] tabs...?)  Hoping the above is tongue-in-cheek, David 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

John Cage pieces

An IP user asked me to justify my removal of the two Cage pieces here, so I will. First off, I would say that since the top of the page [b]specifically[/b] taks about how these articles aren't something one would find in Britannica, the fact that any decent Cage article would mention them justifies.

Furthurmore, at the very least, 4'33" is certainly one of the more well known, or perhaps notorius, pieces of music (if you wish to call it such, but that's neither here nor there) among those well versed in music-knowledge. The other piece not so much, but I've seen more than one news article about it over the past few years. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in Britannica? It's not mentioned in Britannica Concise, but I'm not sure if it's in the complete version. Zagalejo 04:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I haven't heard of him until now. And 4'33" is unusual.--Ryan! 05:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The qualifacation isn't so much if the topic itself is unusual, but rather that having an article about it in an encyclopdedia is. Earth is unusual in the grand scheme of things too. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
"Unusual"... hence my suggestion posted as the thread above. Regards, David Kernow 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added As Slow As Possible back because, even though it is in the Encyclopedia Brittannica, I feel it is unusual enough to be included. 4'33", however, looks like it could go either way, so I won't put it back. 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Places: Bielefeld-Verschwörung - A city in Westphalia that doesn't really exist

It is impossible to read this and not think that there is a fictional city named Bielefeld-Verschwörung. However, "Bielefeld-Verschwörung" translates as "Bielefeld Conspiracy" and "Bielefeld" really does exist. The entry is quite confusing; I have altered it so that it conforms with reality, so to speak. Hi There 05:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Plants section

I've removed the plants section because all it contained was the article penis plant without any description. Despite the name, it just seems to be an ordinary old cactus, and therefore I don't think it belongs here. Graham87 11:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

If anyone would still like Penis Plant to appear simply on account of its name, the #Names section ("People and things that have unusual names, but are otherwise unextraordinary") would fit the bill. Regards, David Kernow 15:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is unusual merely on account of its name. The plant does resemble the penis (crudely) in shape. For its name alone, I don't think it is remarkable. If odd names must be included, the unusual article list would be too long. Rintrah 08:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Easter Egg

A topic that is probably not mentioned in convential encyclopedias, and one which has unusual content is Easter egg (media). Does anyone else approve its inclusion? Rintrah 08:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've added it - the description should probably be improved. I'm sure it was on here before. Graham87 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Does common scold merit inclusion too? Rintrah 08:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the other strange law articles, I'm not sure it's as strange as say, Nix v. Hedden. I don't really have any strong feeling one way or the other though. Graham87 10:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

To the person who deleted Easter Eggs: why are Easter Eggs not unusual? They are well known, but the content of them is often unusual. They are unlikely to be listed in conventional encyclopedias. Rintrah 07:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

That's just it; sometimes, the content can definitely be something that would be considered unusual (and an especially unusual type of easter egg, such as chip art or satirical backmasking, ought to be included here), but often, they're simply small gimmicks that are merely amusing (the bulk of the numerous easter eggs in Strong Bad Emails, for example). The principle of the easter egg is not very unusual itself; if that were the case, I'd have to consider all literary allusions unusual, as it's all a matter of knowing where to look to find some manifestation of a hidden message. --Jitterro 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Thug Behram - Serial killer allegedly responsible for 931 murders?

He's a genuine historic figure. If anyone thinks his article belongs, by all means go ahead and add it. --AStanhope 07:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure that fits as an "Unusual" article - unusual here means 'strange', not 'exceptional'. --Firien § 10:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • His exploits were not unusual as in the sense of this aricle's title. He would qualify for being extraordinary instead. Rintrah 11:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Up for deletion - Tropical nations at the Winter Olympics

Help keep this article - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tropical_nations_at_the_Winter_Olympics --MacRusgail 15:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


The introduction teases the reader that there might be Henry VIII in Space. I want to see Shakespeare's theatre staged on other planets, as well as this one, but it is not so. :( Rintrah 14:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I wonder how much the tickets would cost? 00:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. What do commercial space flights in Russia cost now? I suppose it would be staged on the moon; the prospect of transporting audiences to Mars is still too unlikely. If Macbeth were staged in space, the witches could be aliens instead, and the last scene could be a space battle. "Is this a ray-gun which I see before me,/The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee" Rintrah 07:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


It's been proposed before, but I'll bring it up again. Doesn't anyone else think there should be a category for unusual articles? --Jitterro 03:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't, because it's a subjective criterion and having such categories in the main namespace would violate Wikipedia:Avoid self-references. I can also imagine lots of lame edit wars on hundreds of pages about whether they should be categorised; I'd rather any edit wars were kept to one page. Graham87 08:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
How should this page be better advertised? I only found out about it because a user informed me of it. Surely, though, someone reading Cadaver Synod, or something like that, would want to know about other unsual articles. Rintrah 09:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but I don't think that including a link to this page in such articles can be justified. A link on the main page, on the other hand....
I have a link on my user page. Perhaps others would consider adding links to their pages? TheMadBaron 19:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like this solution? Add a category (or maybe even a template) saying that it is unusual to the talk page. Reywas92Talk 17:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

bad photo placement

In the Places and Names sections, the photo are at the top and right of the section, and it is pushing the text down. Is it fixable? Both use a table and aren't bulleted, but others are tabled too. This makes these sections look very bad. Reywas92Talk 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Here and there

Here is already listed here. Should There be added to complement it?

If it were an article, perhaps. It's a disambiguation at the moment. GeeJo (t)(c) • 00:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate entries

What happens when one article fits into more than one category? Take, for example, Nils Olav. Does he belong under "Military," or "Animals?" What about both?--the ninth bright shiner halloween (at least where i live) 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Orbiting Frog Otolith

Is Orbiting Frog Otolith unusual enough for this list? —Pengo talk · contribs 11:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. After all, Russian space dogs is included. Rintrah 13:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, added. —Pengo talk · contribs 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposals: Cargo cult and Robert Hendy-Freegard

Rather than inserting these links and then seeing them deleted ("... is not unusual") I am suggesting the above two articles on the talk page. If nobody objects I will add them. Wulfilia 04:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The first one is unusual, the second one is not. I do not know what my fellow wikipedianaughts say, but I assent to the former being added. Rintrah 04:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rintrah. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Timeline of non-sexual public nudity

While looking through the copyedit list, I found this quaint article. Do my peers agree to it being added to the Unusual articles list? Rintrah 16:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

It should be added. However, it requires major editing, as most sources are listed in the article, not a ref section, and many different events of the same thing. Reywas92Talk 20:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
If it were listed, more people would come across the page and edit it. Rintrah 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: The World's foremost transexual professional whistler

Is Jeanette Schmid unusual enough? --Roisterer 02:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not really. A transsexual whistler is not any more unusual than a transsexual accordian player or a transsexual circus performer. The concept is just a combination of two slightly unusual things, which in itself is not highly unusual. Rintrah 03:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Descriptions and captions

I changed some descriptions and captions; I hope people do not mind. I did not change any serious ones — only the humorous ones. Rintrah 07:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed Tromboone

I removed Tromboone as thier was nothing really quirky about said article. Deathawk 21:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I disagree; please look over tromboon again. This is not exactly something one would find in any respectable orchestra. How unusual is a "parody instrument", only used in the compositions of a fictional member of the Bach clan? Plus, it's pretty amazing that we have a sound clip for such an instrument.--Pharos 05:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Per that argument and because I *love* the sound clip, I've added it back again. Graham87 11:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Why not add P.D.Q. Bach instead for those of us who like cultured nonsense? Rintrah 13:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
All things considered, he's not all THAT unusual. Perhaps the medium is, but it's not too different than any other made up fictional character really. But the instrument? Definetly, as it's not just made up -- it's conceptually sound, yet rediculous at the same time. (Of course, that's just my opinion, but eh) ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is this unusual?

I was just reviewing the last edit and noticed "List of sex positions" was in the list. Why is this unusual? Is it strange that there is more than 1? I am confused. Rintrah 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not the kind of list you would expect in a traditional encyclopedia, like Encyclopedia Britanica. Graham87 04:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That criterion alone does not qualify it for this list. "A history of Melbourne trams timetabling", for instance, would seem out of place in this list. If we take everything related to sex and not expected to be found in a traditional encyclopedia as the governing criteria, every pornographic article would have to added. Rintrah 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
That criterion is the only thing that justifies bread clip on this list. I suppose it's the amount of detail in list of sex positions that is supposed to be unusual. I'm not too fussed whether it is on here. Graham87 10:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. One would not expect to find a book on bread clips, whereas a list of sex positions is probably in numerous books. Mainstream gossip magazines also dedicate extraordinary detail to sexual topics, which is not unusual because the magazines are mainstream. You are right, though, that the criteria are not well defined. Rintrah 12:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
You say that one criteria alone doesn't make it elligable for the list but that's different than what wikipedia say: If the article in question meets one or both of these categories then it could possibly be deemed "unusual":

The article is something you would not expect to find in a standard encyclopedia. The article contains some form of juxtaposition that most people would find unusual. eg Killer Cockroach, Henry VIII in Space, edible computers. Deathawk 21:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Badger Flash

I still don't see what's so noteworthy about this flash video. It's just one of the thousands of non-sequitor flash videos that have come out of the internet in the past few years. It's utterly unremarkable. Is it weird? Yeah, but only in the shallowest sense of the word. Include this on the list and you'd have to include dozens of other mini-memes like it. 09:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's also one of the most well known, and earliest popular flashes out there. Articles about flash vids in general are unusual, so having this one, sort of as a token example, isn't a bad thing. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:54, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


I am bringing it up again because I feel it really should be done. A new idea is perhaps a template for the talk pages (maybe with a category for the talk page attached) similar to WikiProject templates (with the antlered cow as the pic:)). What links here is mostly userpages and AFDs relating to this. I believe that it must be done. Reywas92TalkSign Here 02:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Potential addition

Do you think [Tetris effect] is unusual enough to be included here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 20:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

A Link to Itself?

Should this article contain a link to itself? In the spirit of Interesting number paradox? It would be a nice touch. 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't an article, it's a project page, so that wouldn't be appropriate. --ais523 14:59, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Why in the hell is this entire page arranged as tables? Please change it to a definition list:

Article name
Another article name
Another article description

If you want them to be lined up across from each other, do it with a CSS class. — Omegatron 21:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

See #Table or Bulleted List?The definition list would take up much less space in the edit window. Table navigation is nice but it is sometimes difficult when navigating to articles like Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateapokaiwhenuakitanatahu. JAWS reads HTML lists quite well. Graham87 07:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus

That is a very odd titled article. Think it should be listed here? J Milburn 16:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Wizard of New Zealand

This guy should definitely be on the list, but I can't work out where he would fit... anyone? Grutness...wha? 12:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)