Talk:Walk of shame

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on Nov 11, 2005. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name origin

We might want to mention the root of the name, which is probably a play on "Walk of fame." 71.169.35.161 (talk) 13:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Walk of Shame?

Why isn't it called Walk of Pride? After all, getting laid is nothing to be ashamed for... 85.125.140.66 (talk)

Good idea. If there are any sex-positive websites that we could use as a source, we could certainly mention that some feel that it ought to be called the walk of pride. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because "Walk of Embarrassment", while more accurate, has too many syllables to catch on. While at least in developed cultures there obviously is no shame in sexual relations—ad hoc or otherwise—depending on the person it may be embarrassing having your recent activities put so prominently on display. It's an invasion of privacy, of sorts, and being self-inflicted makes it all the more frustrating. Konaya (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is generally referred to as a walk of shame because the person (typically in a college environment) walks back to their room in the same clothes they were in yesterday. This causes situations where on a saturday afternoon a girl walks back in a dress and high heels - obviously not clothes she would be wearing on a standard afternoon...causing it to be a "walk of shame" as all the college students who see her know what she has been up to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.84.161.147 (talk) 07:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An anon says keep

Keep, but clarify. There is a place in wikipedia for popular cultural constructs, but they should be highlighted as such.

Junk

This article has no place in an encycopedia. It's not even remotely encyclopedic and it deserves to be nomiated for deletion. ShizuokaSensei 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. I was going to say that in harsher words. Gronky 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone nominates this for deletion again, please notify me so that I can comment. Gronky 20:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about just deleting the unbacked assertions, POV and unsourced material? That would delete much of the page. The references seem to suggest that people do use the phrase as a slang term, which would warrant some sort of mention in wikipedia. Cazort 23:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary is the place for terms, not an encyclopedia. Gronky 01:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm for keep. There are plenty of examples where words or phrases which have entered into popular usage are made into articles or even featured articles (though I don't generally support these FA nomiations). See truthiness. Aran|heru|nar 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed most (if not all) of the original research. The article still has a ways to go before it will be up to Wikipedia's standards, but it's a bit better. --DearPrudence (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the worst written artical I have ever seen on Wikipedia, this kind of crap should be reserved for Yahoo Awnsers not Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.171.242 (talk) 02:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The walk of shame does exist !!!I have unfortunately walked it before, and it has been referenced in HIMYM before. How I met your mother- Walk of Shame www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Ub8qA6xJI 168.142.192.43 (talk) 14:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it "exists" doesn't mean there needs to be an encyclopedia article on it. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What an embarrassment to Wikipedia

What is this? I think this article needs to take the walk of shame. This is embarrassing. It looks like something a college student typed up after a party. At least this gave me a good laugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.151.31 (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just because many of us haven't had the opportunity to take a walk of shame doesn't mean it's not a significant (albeit rather overwhelmingly urban) cultural phenomenon. Haikupoet (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something exists does not justify poorly written articles to explain it. Should this article be deleted, the phenomenon will still exist, and still be known. People need to stop worrying that deleting articles somehow means we don't care, or are forgetting about it. It simply means it needs to be presented in a neutral, and explainable light. This article is not general enough, and makes it seem as if only drunk horny teenagers at parties experience this phenomenon. This can happen at a much more varied set of events than this, and this article is not open to these possibilities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.157.105 (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another meaning

When I first clicked on this link, I thought it was about the process by which someone expelled from (some) military schools for violating the honor code must leave school after packing, in civilian clothes, down a walkway to the front entrance lined with cadets, all of whom turn their back as the expellee approaches (This is depicted in the film version of The Lords of Discipline). Anybody have anything on this? Daniel Case (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do those strangers know?

What's wrong with wearing clothes from the day before and how do strangers know the circumstances? I doubt that people wait at their windows for someone to show up. In crowded buildings, no one cares or knows that you don't live there. Why is there shame if no one recognizes you? --92.75.214.212 (talk) 21:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Walk of shame. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]