Talk:Cleveland steamer/Archive 1

message: Thanks for moving the def. This prob.doesn't need a full article, but if anyone wants to make one ...
Is there too much info on the family guy episode now? --Apyule 7 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
:Comments moved from the top of the page for formatting purposes.  Let's keep templates at the top of the page together and comments underneath them. -- backburner001 01:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transwiki comments

message: I added a bit from an Ed Helms report on the Daily Show on 10 December 2005, but it still needs some work, and I'm not sure if it should be included.  If anyone could either comment on its relevance or fix it, I'd be much obliged.  Vash The Stampede 06:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Show 

message: I just put up an original research template.  I'll check back later to see if the article is any better, and if it isn't, I'll do something then. Brian G. Crawford 02:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed your original research template on the basis that the article does now contain a link to a source that defines the article title.  As such, I've identified this article as a stub. -- backburner001 05:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Urban Dictionary and its ilk are not considered to be reliable sources. Brian G. Crawford 23:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the template you choose should make a note of identifying the article as one that may contain unreliable sources; not one that alerts editors to original research.  The template I placed at the top of this article is more appropriate to the nature of this dispute. (Also, note that I formatted your comment as a reply to mine, since it seems to be as such.) -- backburner001 00:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Please do not blank it while it is under review. Kukini 07:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to restore the version that Brian G. Crawford keeps removing while the AfD is occuring, to no avail. -- backburner001 21:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should not be blanked until the AfD is complete 

message: The article basically admits we don't have a single reliable source for it. It has practically no content. The only thing preventing me from speedying it right now is that thanks to the two AfDs, WP:SNOW doesn't apply here. Johnleemk | Talk 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this here? 

message: Regarding my removal of two footnotes.  The purpose of a footnote, is to put information, that can't fit into the mainbody, without disturbing the flow.  Showing a footnote, that shows merely the name of the film, when that film name is in the body, acheives nothing.  Now, stating exactly where in the film, or some sort of extra detail, would make a footnote possibly useful. --Rob 22:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: Somebody posted a message on my talk page, asking why there was a link to the article "school dinner" when it has nothing to do with the sex act. Apparently, this is because "hot lunch" – a synonmyn (at least in these parts) for school lunch, school dinner, etc. — is a synonym for Cleveland steamer the sex act. [[Briguy52748 21:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update — I also placed a comment at the top of the page stating how "hot lunch" is used on this page, and that people wanting to go to the page about the school meal need to click on school dinner. [[Briguy52748 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 'hot lunch' is not a synonym for Cleveland steamer, see Urban Dictionary: hot lunch  --dinomite 17:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of hot lunch as a synonym for Cleveland steamer

message: *Hollywood films mentioning the act include Not Another Teen Movie and Woody Allen's Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Nowhere in Not Another Teen Movie are the words "Cleveland steamer" mentioned.  Brian G. Crawford 17:57, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gotta agree.  It's unsourced from any reliable sources, a dictdef padded with trivia, and in sundry other ways complete bollocks. Just zis Guy you know? 20:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing irrelevant trivia

message: I'd just like to know why there is a factual accuracy dispute over this article? There are some people who disagree with its existence, but I'm not sure what part of the article is factually disputed. Thanks, --Apyule 06:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose.  But if this article is going to exist (and apparently it is), there's no reason not to include mainstream cultural references. And the OED doesn't describe cultural references, it gives examples of usage.  That's not the same thing at all.  Usage of "Cleveland steamer" in Family Guy is not simply an example of usage.  In fact, it's an awful example of usage because the term is purposefully used in a way where someone who doesn't already know what it means won't understand what the reference is to.  It's an allusion, which is perfectly encyclopedic to discuss. john k 05:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding an unchecked list of such cruft sounds like a half-assed attempt to make an encyclopedia article in the absence of reliable sources.  I just don't think there's that much useful information to impart about a slang name for a purported sex act that involves taking a dump on someone's chest.  Coprophilia is notable, cleveland steamer is not.  If "Cleveland steamer" was the default name for this purported act, we'd need an article, but just as we don't have a separate entry for schlong, which is redirected to penis, we don't need a separate article for cleveland steamer. Brian G. Crawford 16:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your argument, then, is with the existence of this article.  But, for better or for worse (probably the latter) this article isn't going anywhere, and there's no reason to oppose (modest) attempts to improve the article simply because you think the article shouldn't exist in the first place.  And what do you mean by "unchecked" - of course all pop culture references should be cited, and if that can't be done, they should be removed.  But that's a different issue. john k 01:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual accuracy dispute 

message: Whether or not "cleveland steamer" should be an article in its own right, I don't see any justifiable reason why searching on Cleveland Steamer (i.e. capitalised) should bring up a different article to the one for cleveland steamer. So I changed it back.
You can make up your own minds as to what the motives behind this change were in the first place.
Fourohfour 22:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland Steamer 

message: The Brando book, in fact, describes perfectly what people would call a steamer.  I'm not entirely sure why the reference would be removed in this instance. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it doesn't use the term, I'm afraid it's pretty much irrelevant.  Maybe it would be relevant to Coprophilia, but this page is about a neologism, so I think all "cultural references" have to actually use the term.  I also removed the "inverted cleveland steamer" (the only place this turns up on the web is Urban Dictionary), and the saran-wrap/head variant, which I found no mention of in 4 pages of Google Hits, except for one where it said not to confuse "cleveland steamer" with "cincinnati steamer," the latter described as the head-wrap variation.  Mangojuicetalk 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure something has to use the term explicitly to be a reference, especially when the reference is exactly what's defined here.  The other removals I have no qualms with, as I really need to monitor this page closer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brando book 

message: I, again, don't see the point in a move/merge.  How often are we going to fight this battle? --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't support this merge, and I can't see any support for it on any of the relevant talk pages. I'm going to remove the tag, feel free to restore it if you want to discuss it. --Apyule 15:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New merge tag 

message: Why is there a refrence to the Bob and Tom show that is contradicted within the article? Would it not make more sense to get it right the first time, and not correct it when discussing footnotes/refrences?  Am I missing something here? Darquis 01:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob and Tom 

message: Uh, does anyone really think it's necessary for this article to have a diagram? God, I hope this is a joke, unless Wikipedia is turning into Goatsepedia.  (;^_^;)
Akira 07:35, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Diagram needed"?! 

message: This is precisely what Wikipedia should NOT be.  This is the kind of thing that will appear in sensationalistic news reports and blonde, blow-dried commentators will ask school board officials to comment on.  What crap. Billy Blythe 08:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as I agree that this article is quite lewd in nature and could fuel bad press about Wikipedia, it is about a real term that really is used; I think removing it simply because of the coarse nature is wrong.  --dinomite 17:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is NOT a street dictionary. Even though the term may be used a lot, Wikipedia is not, and has never been a dictionary of any kind. Yes, its leud and borderline obscene, but this article should be deleted primarily because it is a street dictionary definition (as well as being leud and obscene). Diez2 13:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This article sucks.

message: Choice   	Number of votes	Percentage of total
Keep     	23             	59%
Delete   	13             	31%
Merge    	3              	8%
Transwiki	1              	2%
There were 40 votes in total. --Apyule 10:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results for 5th deletion attempt