Talk:Dutch oven (practical joke)

Google books sources

Here are sources from google books if anyone wants to add them or is concerned about notability: [1]. There are also some wonderful sources on Google News here [2] including something about Ren and Stimpy which should be added. And finally, if someone wants to fold in the marijuana Dutch oven usage (on the disambig page with a cite) please do so. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If this article is just going to be dictionary definitions, it should be moved to meta:Wiktionary --Ronz (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Did that bit. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Possible expand point(s)

per request - The thing that comes to mind for me (other than my own childish acts of 30+ years ago) would be a section regarding popular culture. I remember Two and 1/2 men, and Married ... With Children both having this particular prank, although you would have to research the particular episode. I'm sure that you would also find "farting under the cover" references in shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy. Just a thought. — Ched (talk) 21:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Practical joke?

I don't think this qualifies as a a practical joke. Practical jokes involve trickery and subterfuge with the goal of getting someone to make a fool of themselves. This is just farting on somebody. Funny, perhaps in a 12 year olds world, but not exactly a practical joke. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought it would classify as a prank, but prank redirects to practical joke. I couldn't think of another modifier to differentiate from Dutch oven, but am open to suggestions.--kelapstick (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

How would you title it? Or are you arguing that it shouldn't be included at all? I have the Dutch oven article on my watchlist and the information keeps getting added. I think a mention there would have been fine, but it kept getting deleted. The article title had been Dutch oven (prank) but prank redirects to (practical joke) so I think that's the logic. I think it falls under a broad meaning of practical joke as a funny trick. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting deletion, indeed I notice you've come up with a surprising variety of sources. We do have an article on Flatulence humor, which is rather brief. perhaps a merger? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

While it may be true that good practical jokes require trickery, the literal meaning of a practical joke is any joke which is action based and not merely verbal. Joke, in this case, referring to taking an action which might otherwise be deemed hostile or malicious but is not intended to be such. This isn't the finest example of it, but it certainly is one. - 67.166.136.32 (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Summarize sources rather than just noting them

I think this article is progressing well.

Regarding, "The connection between relationships and performing a Dutch oven has been discussed in newspaper advice columns." While we need to be careful with WP:SYN problems, it is better to summarize what sources say, rather than noting that we have sources on a topic. --Ronz (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

links

OK - I dug up some links for you folks (some you may already have)

• fart facts

(looking for more info) — Ched (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the episode of Two and 1/2 Men that had the Dutch oven in it was "Aunt Myra Doesn't Pee a Lot" — Ched (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion

Reason: WP:WINAD 67.240.228.3 (talk) 08:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Removed template, IP used redirects for discussion, not AFD. Also no discussion was initiated at WP:RFD.--kelapstick (talk) 20:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion 2

DELETE This is one of those useless articles which really makes the Wikipedia project look lame.Is the entire project now being run by 13 year old boys or do they just have the run of the place? Non-encyclopedic. No references beyond the 'in popular culture' type. Could easily be merged with flatulence or practical joke Discuss.Mundilfari (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a valid reason for the deletion of this article then please propose it to WP:AfD. Be aware that you need more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT to make such a proposal. All you have said so far is that you don't like it. You will do what you will do and the article will either remain of be deleted. No-one will die either way. And Wikipedia will not be harmed by its presence or its absence. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Trim

This content was trimmed:

In outtakes from Arrested Development, David Cross farts and then pulls the blankets over Portia De Rossi screaming "Dutch Oven!".

In Epic Movie, Aslo farts while nude under a blanket, which he then exclaims, "Dutch oven!".

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel features a scene where chipmunk Theodore is accidentally trapped in a dutch oven by Zachary Levi.

The Dutch Oven is mentioned in The Sopranos in a conversation between Tony and his son.

The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien uses the term in a voiceover of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to humorously characterize NBC's decision to shift O'Brien's show to a later time slot.

The Dutch Oven was also used as a charades skit on a pay-per-view episode of Jerry Springer Uncensored - Bra-less Brawlers, involving two girls that were taking part in the theme of the pay-per-view, a slumber party. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I note that you have taken the step of trimming the above from the article and placing it here. I see that as a valid editing process pending reaching consensus on the content of the article. Is it your intent to seek to reach such a consensus, or will you wait and see what happens and thereby feel that consensus is built?

I ask because I have very recently reverted a wholesale removal of that part of the article and also a similar section from another article. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm in favor of including the popular culture section, especially bits that can be properly sourced. I posted it here after another editor removed the content (and seems to be doing similar actions on other articles). ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your rationale in trimming it, then. Surely consensus apart form this one lone voice has been to have the section in there as it stood? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I trimmed it. I noted what was trimmed here so that it could be discussed. The alternative was to revert the trimming, but it might have been rereverted and I might have missed it, so I thought it best to note it here and see if there were others about, this also provides some record of the content so that future editors will know that there was that section (even if it's no longer in the article). ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a bear of very little brain. Please see the attempt at building a consensus below, though. It may require your correction Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

A part of this article requires a formal consensus

Non contentious statement of facts

Almost since its inception, the article has contained a section Popular usage. That section is the subject of additions, removals, wholesale removal, and reinstatement. The current state is a partial trimming.

It is clear that this section causes a difference of opinion, and that the difference of opinion is sufficient to seek to build a formal consensus. The question is posed in the section below.

The question for consensus

Looking at the article's most recent history, we need to decide whether the section should be absent (state remove entirely), fully present (state fully present), or trimmed - broadly as it is today (state trimmed). In each case a rationale should be given.

Note that either of the fully present or trimmed options do not of themselves allow anything and everything into this section, and that notability and verifiability must be preserved at all times. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• fully present I believe that they add value to the article and each entry, with due regard to individual notability and verifiability, adds to the verifiability in popular usage of this practical joke, jape, prank or jest. I would not support inclusion of items which cannot themselves be verified. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• remove entirely WP:TRIVIA informally sourced to pop culture primary sources. At a minimum, to add an item there should be a secondary source referring to the pop culture source's use of it, ideally with more than a passing mention of it. Working on such a section is perhaps a lesser matter than finding majority and significant minority views in reliable secondary and third-party sources with editorial integrity that discuss the subject in detail. Possibly that should be given more attention, because what's there right now isn't very good. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 03:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I have proposed that this article be merged into flatulence humor. Previous attempts at deleting this article failed because it was mostly a case of IDONTLIKEIT. However, I think "dutch oven" could fall under the category of neologisms, which are not usually considered strong enough to be articles on their own. The content could still be used on the larger page. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:14, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

To wit, Wikipedia is not a "Usage, slang, and/or idiom guide." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Merge The term alone doesn't seem noteworthy enough to have its own article, and seems to fit right in as flatulence humor. Kjscotte34 (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't Care because it neither enhances the encyclopaedia to have it separately nor does it diminish it for it to be merged. But what is the point? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)