Talk:Poop deck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Image[edit]

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)[reply]

The Image is useless as is. There must be a better one out there. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.184.101 (talk) 13:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citing sources[edit]

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

Information[edit]

How has the poop deck been used? How did it get it's name? InvertRect 21:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The histinfo tag[edit]

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)[reply]

In the ADVENTURE OF THE CARDBOARD BOX (A C Doyle), the killer's confession includes a description of one of his victims as a "dashing, swaggering chap, smart and curled, who had seen half the world and could talk of what he had seen....and he had wonderful and polite ways with him for a sailor man, so that I think there must have been a time when he knew more of the poop than the forecastle." -- I would be nice to understand the significance of activities in the "poop" to add dimension to this excerpt. 74.44.154.130 (talk) 20:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You might also want to include that it was called the poop deck because it was the place that they stored animals. This way all the unpleasant smells would be carried away during the ships passage and all the "poop" could simply be push or shoveled into the wake of the boat. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGMJonathan (talk • contribs) 05:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm glad I read this. I was contemplating pooping from a poop deck as a kind of homage to Family Guy. As the mostly landlubberly scurvy dog you're ever likely to encounter on the seven seas of the internet, I'd never have thought about the obvious wind direction problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.57.250.8 (talk) 15:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Homer Simpson Quotation[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There appears to no major support for including it - eight users opposed, only three supported it, and of those only one gave a reason. Given the general rule that the onus is on showing why something should be in the article, rather than shouldn't, I think we can take that as a fairly clear editorial consensus for the time being. Shimgray talk 12:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Consensus re Homer Simpson quotation[edit]

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)[reply]
  • Include Homer. The case for citation seems highly irrelevant, as the quote can be easily found on any online script for the episode, in assition to wikipedia's own article on it (see: Simpson Tide script, Simpson Tide). Additionally, its inclusion in the article serves to compliment statements made in the second paragraph, "Despite similarity of the words, this has nothing to do with slang terms for defecation..." While including the quote at the top may not conform to proper style, it could be included as a second paragraph heading. --NEMT 22:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia requires all quotatations that can reasonably have citations to be cited. Were this not the case all articles could be filled with unattributed quotations and make a nonsense of the encyclopaedia. This specific quotation does not (my view) complement the article as a whole, and has no relationship with the words about defecation, which are a statement of clarification regarding the root (or indeed not) of the term. Fiddle Faddle 08:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. Homer's quote accurately depicts the common misconception and state of confusion or duplicity many have about the term poop deck, and as such, it seems appropriate and beneficial to the article. --NEMT 17:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have never met anyone except those with "potty humour" who considers a poop deck to be used for defecation, etc. We meet so many of those as self styled comedians who act as vandals on this article that I feel strongly that we should not give them any "lead" by turning the article towards levity. It may be a cultural thing regarding the usage of the word "poop" in different parts of the world, but I do not feel we should create an article which is lighter than the serious and encyclopaedic tone we have now. While Homer's quote may be appropriate for an article on "Poop", I do not feel it appropriate for an article on a Poop Deck. I sense that neither side will yield their position. I know I will not. So I suggest we await a consensus. In assessing the consensus we will work, I hope, in the same manner that an AfD admin should work. Fiddle Faddle 18:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Homer - same goes for not including an immature quote to introduce Bangkok ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Include Homer. It's quite relevant. Notsharon 08:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account[reply]
  • Exclude Homer or have a paragraph heading Trivia (many articles have this) and include in there and then everyone is happy (hopefully!) but because this page is the subject of continuous vandalism, a section for Trivia will probably invite the wrong sort of 'information'! Boatman 10:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Exclude Homer this is not a directory of Simpsons' quotes, it's irrelevant, and looks like a very poor attempt at toilet humour in an encyclopaedia that is trying to be taken seriously. LeeG 10:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very well said by LeeG above. Boatman 12:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Homer All the relevant arguments have already been said.Nam3witha3init 04:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account[reply]
  • Exclude Homer irrelevant. --Kbh3rdtalk 22:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Homer relevant and funny --Prince Grobhelm 17:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Homer irrelevant to the article. Why not have a separate article re Poop Humour with a link from Poop Deck as already suggested. 'Poop Humour' is potentially a big job. We could kick the article off with "Poop Humour is a big article - said Boatman on January 1, 1999" followed by "Is the poop deck really what I think it is? - said Homer Simpson" in script xyz first broadcast on television in USA on zzyy, 19xx and in Europe on aabb, 19xx", followed by "Poop Humour is potentially a big job - said Boatman on July 8, 2007" . Boatman 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hey look everyone- Batman!Nam3witha3init 02:11, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account[reply]
  • Include Homer Brings it up another notch. BAM!$look$likeanS 04:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet account[reply]
  • Include Homer.Listerslashrimmer 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) — Listerslashrimmer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet account[reply]
  • Exclude Homer I love the Simpsons but this is an extremely lame thing to put in an encyclopedia. Radishes 16:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include Homer 193.120.116.179 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Homer This is a good article without it. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exclude Homer Wikipedia is not a proper venue for recycling childish jokes. Mieciu K (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fantail?[edit]

Why is this in here? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

What is a poop deck??[edit]

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)[reply]

Internal Links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What about | Boat Racing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.4.219.52 (talk) 08:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not truly relevant to "poop deck", but isn't the "island" on an aircraft carrier usually on the port side? I also now better understand the other uses of the word "poop".Iroll2000 (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Picture of Surprise replica[edit]

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) de:Benutzer:Marinebanker[reply]

Needs adding to Ship's Compartments category[edit]

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)[reply]

 Not done It is not a compartment. Fiddle Faddle 09:39, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done my cuticles need work 49.178.34.109 (talk) 21:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poop_deck&oldid=1212905927"