Talk:Wedgie

AFD - (Keep at top)

• 1st Nomination for deletion closed with no consensus --Doc^g 01:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd Nomination for deletion closed with no consensus.
• 3rd Nomination for deletion closed with keep --Lendorien (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC), modified by 98.154.26.247 (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seinfeld conversation

• The Seinfeld episode "The Library" contains a conversation about wedgies:

Elaine: Why do they call it a "wedgie"?

George: Because the underwear is pulled up from the back until ... it wedges in.

Jerry: They also have an Atomic Wedgie. Now the goal there is to actually get the waistband on top of the head. It's very rare.

Elaine: Boys are sick.

Jerry: Well what do girls do?

Elaine: We just tease someone until they develop an eating disorder.

What is the point of the last three sentences? Why keep them; they have nothing to with wedgies. I don't want to get in an edit war.Everyoneandeveryone (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's the punchline of the quoted conversation, so there's something to be said for leaving it in, though as you point out it isn't a wedgie-specific punchline, so there's something to be said for taking it out. I don't feel too strongly about it either way.--Father Goose (talk) 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Bogus variants on the talk page

Lots of these variants don't actually exist. Bleeding? Come on. That being said, one that really DOES exist, and I once experienced, is the Atomic Freeze: this is an atomic wedgie, which is then secured to the forehead by quickly wrapping tape around the head. It's brutal to go through, because it leaves the victim flailing their arms while their head is pulled back, along with the associated pain of the wedgie. I wanted to mention it for what its worth.

I would consider that a bogus variant. Anyone can go out and create a wedgie and name it something. Off the top of my head: The bright morning is a wedgie where a person has a warm lightbulb stuck in the underwear so that it breaks and burns the skin, and this is only performed in the morning. As I said, anyone can make a variant. Also, Urban Dictionary is not, I repeat, not, a good source to cite. Keep original research out of Wikipedia, too. And remember to sign your comments, too. Thanks. --Scouto2 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Shortening the Article

Does the article really need that many references to pop culture in it? I think we could cut out some of the ones that are just I"n X TV show, Y character gives Z character a wedgie". These aren't helpful to the reader at all, in my opinion. FingersOnRoids 00:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

With lists like these, it's hard to say which are "important" and which are not. I don't see what reasoning you used to delete some entries and keep others, for instance. I couldn't hope to predict which entries a given reader would want to see and which he or she wouldn't.

Some people respond to lists like these by exercising the "nuclear option" and trying to delete the list altogether. My view of that is, if you think it's a stupid list, don't read it.--Father Goose (talk) 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information --Scouto2 (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Take out the variants and cleanup in the Popular Culture section

I have noticed that there are many variants here, some of which I have not even heard of. I suggest that we take out the variants as those are entirely subjective. One could invent a name, post it on Urban Dictionary, and insert that into the article. Sections like this are the cancer that is hurting Wikipedia.Also, I suggest that we clean up the Popular Culture section. It looks rather cluttered and has little to no citation. It takes up greater than 2/3 of the article.There is no information on the origin/history of this subject, and this article is little more than a popular culture section with Urban Dictionary tacked on. I am also adding a few tags. --Scouto2 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the citeable ones should stay, as long as it stays reasonable < 10 variations with good citations I think it improves the article. I'm going to remove the tag. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup suggestions

Some effort has been made to clean up this article to remove the glaring problems. Some suggestions:

• Wedgies are strongly associated with bullying. Some sourced discussion of this. (I've seen reference of wedgies being discussed as a form of sexual harassment.)
• Discussion of wedgies and their use in pop culture in terms of the stereotypes and when or why used. NO LISTS of occurances.
• The variants section is iffy. I would include the text in the article main text somehow to prevent it from growing any bigger. Things like the atomic wedgie are pretty well known and worthy of inclusion, but a lot of the others that used to be listed are dubious at best.
• Sourcing. It's ok right now, but sourcing style needs to be normalized.
• Catagories needed.
• Wikiprojects if any apply.

--Lendorien (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nice to see that someone else actually cares about this article's problems. Thanks for the help! --Scouto2 (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article per the cleanup request. Removed the 3rd place finish at the fair for creating wedgie-proof undergarments and the self-defense section. While humorous, I doubt that anyone would classify a wedgie variant as a form of self defense. Wikified a few sentences, and improved readability. I am sure an inspired person can add more information, but I just wanted to clean up and add a bit of encyclopedic tone to it per the cleanup request.Bobinit (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Popular Culture

Did we have to chop this article like we did with the briefs article what's next the debagging article ? Matthew Cantrell (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it was completely encyclopedic, impossible to navigate, and completely useless. And I think that the list on debagging (wtf is debagging? i've only ever heard it called pantsing, and the title actually confused me. there has to be a better AE/BE compromise)is horrible. -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 17 July 2009 (UTC)