Talk:Poop deck

message: It would be better to get a image of the deck itself, rather than of the stern windows, with the deck not visible. A little hard to get the angle without climbing into the rigging, perhaps a zoom from forecastle. Stan 16:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Since we have "puppis" from the latin, that is really all the source citation required.  Fiddle Faddle 12:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing sources 

message: How has the poop deck been used? How did it get it's name? InvertRect 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be missing something here.  The article says what it is, and what the derivation is.  I am not being sarcastic (the typed word can appear so), I am just asking "What else do you want to see?"  Fiddle Faddle 23:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In French, the stern is "la poupe" (the prow is "la proue"). Hope this helps. --Jerome Potts 02:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information 

message: A poop deck is a poop deck is a poop deck.  I have removed that tag because I do not see it as valid for this page.  The dereivation is present.  My view is that asking for histir=cal information for this page is the same as asking for it about a tiller, or a ship's wheel, or about any other normal nautical item.  If people disagree with me please feel at liberty to revert my removal.  Fiddle Faddle 21:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It implies he was at some point an officer (or the like); they would work on the poop deck, whilst only deckhands would be around the forecastle. This fits with the "wonderful and polite ways" - he's suggesting the victim was far more refined than you would expect for a sailor, and so presumably has not always been just a mere seaman. Shimgray | talk | 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Perhaps one might, if a citation can be provided. Otherwise this is simple scatological humour of a kind. Since square rigged ships work best downwind your thoughts have little logic about them. Even were the logic to stand this is orginal research without a citation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The histinfo tag 

message: NEMT has placed the homer simpson quote that has lived for a ling time in the talk page within the text of the article, at the head.  The initial part of this section is addressed to NEMT.
The quote is in my view wholly not relevant to the article, which is an article which attracts regular vandalism.  Its position on the talk page, a long term position, is the correct place for it unless and until you can justify its placement in the article and cite it.  I acknowledge that you hold a different view.  I am removing it for the moment as uncited and seeking to build a consensus either way.  See below.
You ask in your edit summary that this be discussed on the talk page.  Equally, with a quotation likely to incite extra vandalism, it could be argued that you should have discussed placement in the article here prior to placing it, and certainly prior to replacing it prior to reverting my removal.  So we are now discussing it on the talk page.
I argue that the quotation is uncited and likely to incite additional vandalism.  Equally, if it is decided by consensus that it should be in the article then the position in the article currently is wholly incorrect.  Articles do not start with quotations.
Since consensus is what we are about, I suggest we attempt to reach it.  I am returning us to the "pre-added state" to minimise incitement to vandalism and suggest we reach the consensus from there.  Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. and what reason would that be?  You seem to be neglecting the inquizitive nature of the Homer quote, which fits well with an encyopedia article in general. --NEMT 02:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be neglecting my dismissal of your bullshit reason for including this quote. Lets try again: wikipedia is not a proper venue for recycling childish jokes. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we keep it civil, please.  "Bullshit" is not really appropriate and a less pejorative term could be used.  I agree with your sentiment, but not your phraseology.  Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair, "bullshit" is not really an appropriate term to use in discussing an editorial dispute. Still I do not think that obvious trolling deserves an entirely polite response. If the proposed amendment seemed like anyting other than facetious posturing I would not have reciprocated in such a brusque manner. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the future you could be constructive and direct when participating in discussion, instead of dismissive and insulting.  I'm sure you'd find much better results. --NEMT 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that my statements came off as insulting, they were only meant to be direct. I am unsure of your motivation for fighting to include this quote. If it is a playful and facetious gesture, then I stand by the dismissal. One way to transform usage of the Homer quote would be to expand the section dealing with the cultural perception of the term "poop deck" to include an annotated survey of pop-culture references. Simply slapping the article with an immature disclaimer is not the way to go. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Many articles have a trivia section, but that does not mean that it's good or proper form for an encyclopedia article.  See the trivia template that is being employed as a weapon against this ill-advised construct. --Kbh3rdtalk 22:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Homer Simpson Quotation 

message: The question is "Should the quotation "Is the poop deck really what I think it is?" -- Homer Simpson" be included in the article.  If it is included, it must have a proper citation
Please respond "Include Homer" or "Exclude Homer" and give reasons:  It would be appreciated if at least ine editor can find a citation for the quotation.
*Exclude Homer.  Uncited quotation with nothing except comedic relevance to the article, and highly likely to incite still more vandalism.  Fiddle Faddle 21:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment. and what reason would that be?  You seem to be neglecting the inquizitive nature of the Homer quote, which fits well with an encyopedia article in general. --NEMT 02:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be neglecting my dismissal of your bullshit reason for including this quote. Lets try again: wikipedia is not a proper venue for recycling childish jokes. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 10:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we keep it civil, please.  "Bullshit" is not really appropriate and a less pejorative term could be used.  I agree with your sentiment, but not your phraseology.  Fiddle Faddle 10:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fair, "bullshit" is not really an appropriate term to use in discussing an editorial dispute. Still I do not think that obvious trolling deserves an entirely polite response. If the proposed amendment seemed like anyting other than facetious posturing I would not have reciprocated in such a brusque manner. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps in the future you could be constructive and direct when participating in discussion, instead of dismissive and insulting.  I'm sure you'd find much better results. --NEMT 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry that my statements came off as insulting, they were only meant to be direct. I am unsure of your motivation for fighting to include this quote. If it is a playful and facetious gesture, then I stand by the dismissal. One way to transform usage of the Homer quote would be to expand the section dealing with the cultural perception of the term "poop deck" to include an annotated survey of pop-culture references. Simply slapping the article with an immature disclaimer is not the way to go. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Many articles have a trivia section, but that does not mean that it's good or proper form for an encyclopedia article.  See the trivia template that is being employed as a weapon against this ill-advised construct. --Kbh3rdtalk 22:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus re Homer Simpson quotation

message: Why is this in here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find this puzzling. The article is about the poop deck and then strangely goes off into a tangent about other parts of a ship's structure. What about the keel? It is also interesting, perhaps we could add a bit about the keel. If no one can explain why this is here I will come back and remove it. Or add something about the crow's nest. Just kidding.    Djapa Owen (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this gets sillier. Fantail redirects to Poop deck. Why not redirect to Main deck since it is structurally part of it? Or Forecastle because that is attached to the main deck?    Djapa Owen (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The link is Fantail (ship), to disambiguate from other uses. The redirect was created in 2008; if there is now sufficient volunteer capacity available to write an article I think the contribution would be welcomed. VQuakr (talk) 04:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantail? 

message: I have always wondered what the word POOP DECK ment.  — [Unsigned comment added by 69.14.110.185 (talk • contribs).]
:And now you have the answer: Poop deck. The lead mentions the origin of the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a poop deck?? 

message: Perhaps there could be a 'related articles' section, with a link to other boating articles, such as Cleaveland Steamer? 123.16.197.208 (talk) 07:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try not to be silly. The two topics are not related in the slightest manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about | Boat Racing?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.4.219.52 (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

text: That tends to depend upon whether you are using a mirror. See Aircraft carrier Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internal Links 

message: I think the picture of the Surprise replica is not warranted in this article. It does show a quarterdeck, not a poop. 6th rates did not have poops. See eg. Lavery, Nelson's Navy, general remarks about shipbuilding and decks. --84.177.35.177 (talk) 20:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture of Surprise replica 

message: Subject says it all, really. This should be in Category:Ship compartments. Can somebody with access please add it? 2601:E:CD80:34E:8C9A:B2F:E733:6FD5 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a compartment. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

text: my cuticles need work 49.178.34.109 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs adding to Ship's Compartments category