Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bishonen/Antique toilet paper holder
Excellent article. I advise that this is the finest of the Wikipedia articles on our site! I hope for it to go to the front page. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most flattered, but may I ask what the nominator was doing in my userspace...? Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hey. Just watching recent changes, that's all :-) Ta bu shi da yu 12:29, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Most flattered, but may I ask what the nominator was doing in my userspace...? Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But, why is it still under User:Bishonen's space? -- Sundar 10:02, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Object Not yet comprehensive (see to do list on talk page, I personally have a lot more material to add) and perhaps just a tad over-referenced? Filiocht 10:08, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Ahem. Front page on 1 April? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Unicorn or Jackalope would both be better April 1st entries. ALKIVAR™
11:14, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Invisible pink unicorn or just a plain unicorn? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Either would be fine, although i think the Invisible pink unicorn "invisible image" would be better for the main page. ALKIVAR™ 20:52, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Either would be fine, although i think the Invisible pink unicorn "invisible image" would be better for the main page. ALKIVAR™
- Invisible pink unicorn or just a plain unicorn? -- ALoan (Talk) 14:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Given a large push, we should be ready to go live by then, I hope. Filiocht 10:27, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Unicorn or Jackalope would both be better April 1st entries. ALKIVAR™
- comment: why on earth is this in userspace? ALKIVAR™ 10:56, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Hilarious! Object though...Jeronimo 11:20, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Refer to Peer Review. Not yet comprehensive, like Filiocht says. I'm particularly dissappointed that the Dutch connection is missing. (Does anybody still think that the mission of Willibrord of Northumbria and Saint Boniface of Devonshire was only to convert the inhabitants of the Low Countries to the Christian faith?). — mark ✎ 11:27, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- You raise some interesting points: care to make these additions yourself? Filiocht 12:32, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
- Sheesh, caught with my pants down again! I fully intended to move this out into the article space at a future date (yeah guess which future date) and then self-nominate it. And to be on IRC to spread the word and receive encomia, which I'm not able to do today. Still, now that the cat's out of the bag, how would Unicorn or Jackalope be better on the front page, pray? Are they major scholarly contributions? Are they comprehensive? Are they fully referenced? I believe not. Alkivar, did you see our reference secion? (Over-referenced? What are you talking abouot, Filiocht? Go put in some more inline references, you know you love it.) Bishonen | Talk 12:08, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
ObjectI am frankly amazed that this page has been nominated, and even more amazed at the lavatorialy light hearted, retentive, and juvenile way other editors have chosen to vote here. The information to date has barely scratched the surface of this important and under-researched subject. Why is there no mention of the holder in which Cleopatra secreted her Asp? There is also no mention of those depicted by Hogarth in his scenes of London, so far the page is quite good (mostly thanks to my own efforts) but a lot more information need to be supplied.Giano 20:32, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Giano, you and I are as one when it comes to the inappropriateness of toilet humour here (I just wrote a plea for the subject to be taken seriously on the article Talk page, to which I refer all jokesters)), but if you can't understand that a vast historical subject needs to be summarized, I pity you. Your efforts? Yeah, especially your efforts to sneakily insert your entire extended family. That image of your mother-in-law's toilet paper holder is still in the 18th century section, I see. Bishonen | Talk 21:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need to bring my extended family into this, it is hardly my fault if they were pioneering and patronising the design of luxury items, while the tribes of certain northern nations were still utilising the fiords and flora (and probably fauna) for such functions. Giano 08:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, the luxury items. This is still the brass-plated "Palladian revival" piece we're talking about.. ? To the people inquiring why it's in userspace: because I think in the article namespace it would get whisked off to VfD so fast we wouldn't even feel the draft. :-( Bishonen | Talk 12:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- There is no need to bring my extended family into this, it is hardly my fault if they were pioneering and patronising the design of luxury items, while the tribes of certain northern nations were still utilising the fiords and flora (and probably fauna) for such functions. Giano 08:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support for April 1, although I think that this nomination will stir the necessary contributions by that time. I admit that the Marxist and Feminist perspectives are my own contributions to the pile. I think Jackalopes and Unicorns are a bit obvious, and the former admits straight off the bat that it is a fiction. Unlike the antique toilet paper holder, it's a made-up hoax, and the Jackalope and Unicorn have neither played as vital a role in history, class, gender, and revolution as the toilet paper holder. Geogre 12:40, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I assume it's a joke, although it's an extraordinarily weird one. Can't this nomination just be removed? Everyking 14:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Why do you only "assume" it is a joke, and what exactly is "weird" about such a functional artefact? Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- While this may be considered funny, please do not misuse references in this way. Sorry to be a wet blanket, but it would be just as funny without the false references. Yes, I see all the ones I checked are real books, but I somehow doubt any of them confirm much of the material in this article. - Taxman 14:33, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)
- A suprisingly large amount of the information in the article is confirmed in the references Giano 14:43, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Please check out the online references, Taxman, especially Gorboduc, I think you may be surprised. Just because the story of Eric XIV of Sweden and Elizabeth I of England is little known doesn't mean I made it up. Practically all of it really happened. Bishonen | Talk 14:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- For my part, I played the "like" and "some" game. "Critics SUCH AS Raymond Williams have said that items LIKE the toilet paper holder," and then the reference is spot on. No fabrication where I've been concerned. Geogre 20:14, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- A little info: to address concerns raised on the article's talk page, I have moved it to User:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder and created global hub article User:Bishonen/Toilet paper holder to serve as the parent of sibling articles on the toilet paper holders of other continents. Please see User talk:Bishonen/European toilet paper holder. Bishonen | Talk 20:10, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Who are we to say what won't be reference material to future historians. Though this does bring up the question, since there are toilet paper holders in millions of homes around the world and well over 200,000 google hits, dont we need Toilet paper holder in our data? -- Dbroadwell 20:35, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)