Talk:Bulge

Stick out

I removed

• To swell or stick out; the part that swells or sticks out, as in the crotch of ones pants if you wear tapered leg jeans!

*Popular nickname for one Ben Fischer due to his snugly tapered Levis 501 jeans.

• To swell or stick out; the part that swells or sticks out, as in the crotch of ones pants if you wear tapered leg jeans!

To whatever American high school jock/frat boy idiot put this garbage in, I would like to beat you with a sack of hammers. Ykinakin 11:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Manbulge

There are various terms for this phenomenon including manbulging, and cockbulging. The question is, is it notable enough for inclusion here? Well, a google news search shows that of the first 18 search returns the most common sense is the clothing-related sense followed by the astronomy-related sense. MOS:DABENTRY says the purpose of disambiguation is to find help people navigate. Considering that the clothing-related definition of the word bulge is not absolute and very relevant with several news-sources as well as books covering it over the past few years, suggests that people ending up on this page may very well look for the clothing-related sense. Therefore I am completely confident that this entry belongs. Pwolit iets (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree with the addition. You created two dubious redirects for 'urban dictionary' style terms, to link to a sentence in a section which you added, ref-bombed with 7 very poor tabloid sources. You will need consensus to add this, since it is now disputed. -- Begoon 14:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Your above response indicates that you midsunderstand the purose of a disambiguation. Firstly, wp:mosdab says nothing about the permissibility of slang. Secondly, DAB is for helping people to navigate. Since you have thus far not given any policy or guideline-based reason for reverting I will assume you reverted me for no reason - which could fall into the scope of vandalism. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Also, the sentence is about clothing controversies among celebrities. Obviously that is going to be derived from tabloids rather than from a university press. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Please read WP:NOTVAND, and be very careful how you use that term. Wikipedia has a particular definition of vandalism, and misuse of the term can land you in hot water. That's advice. My reasons for disagreeing are clearly stated in the edit summary, and comments above. Please wait for a consensus to form. You don't need to reply to every comment, by the way, and I watch discussions I have participated in, so posting on my talkpage because I don't instantly reply is not required either. Thanks. -- Begoon 14:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Above, I made two points: (a) you reverted me without citing any wp:mosdab guideline I violated, (b) I said that clothing controversies are typically going to be found in tabloids rather than in university presses. By you logic every page under the categories sexual slang or clothing controversies ought to be deleted. Also, when you cause frustration to other editors, by seemingly reverting without (apparently) valid reasons, you ought to at least try remedy that by providing guidline/policy-based reasoning. Pwolit iets (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. Disambiguation pages are for linking to specific topics; despite your creation of multiple redirects related to this topic and your additions to Wardrobe malfunction, there is no appropriate target here because the topic is not covered appropriately. As for the content you've added to Wardrobe malfunction: you have been here long enough to know that tabloid sources are simply unacceptable; if there's nothing better than tabloids, then we do not cover it. This isn't Urban Dictionary: we demand a higher standard of neutral scholarship, and we do not attempt to cover every slang term. Rebbing 18:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, how do you know that I was finished editing? You swooped upon my edit within moments of me making it (as usual) despite the fact that I have clearly stated on my userpage that my internet-connection and computer are very bad meaning I usually cannot edit consecutively. Also, you failed to acknowledge the part at MOSDAB that says "help people find the specific article they want". I believe that intends a very common sense not to be excluded. Also, if tabloids are unacceptable why are there tends of thousands of articles sometimes based entirely on tabloids. Are all the reviewers of those articles imbeciles that completely overlooked it? I admit that the bulk of tabloid content should not be used, but when it is not sensational and verifiable, many well-established editors seem to permit its use, especially if its for an uncontroversial claim. My edits are in line with what DAB says the primary purpose of DAB is. Pwolit iets (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

A slow Internet connection can't be blamed for the inclusion of subpar sources (or sloppy editing in general), and this didn't require multiple edits, just one well-researched edit. Anyway, policy doesn't require other editors to grant leeway for you to finish doing your homework, see WP:BURDEN, and you have a history of making completely inappropriate contributions to disambiguation pages, like this. If you're not done editing; do not hit "submit." I have an article open in my text editor that I've been working on at odd moments all week!

The fact that readers may want information on a subject is not, by itself, justification for including it on a disambiguation page or elsewhere. Other stuff exists, and the fact that some articles have inappropriate sourcing doesn't make it acceptable anywhere: it means those articles need to be improved (or deleted).

As for the merits: Disambiguation pages are for disambiguating topics; despite the sentence you added to Wardrobe malfunction, we do not have enough coverage of men's "bulges" to merit inclusion here. If you would like a third opinion, feel free to ask at WT:MOSDAB, referencing this discussion and asking if the proposed entry is appropriate. Rebbing 18:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• My internet isn't necessarily slow. My computer crashes, which with it (at times) makes sources I gathered unretrievable. Don't know if its my internet or computer or both. I can't afford fixing it now, but hopefully will soon. This week I even created a pretty large article from scratch that took roughly a day to make, but eventually had to scrap it after the crash. That was annoying as fuck. Believe it or not but my computer crashed twice during this very conversation between us two. My editing style leans towards consecutive edits so I can see the progress made. However, even if my computer was working perfectly I expect to get some time from editors to refine or improve the edits I made.
• I agree its not justification. However it is (and I quote) "the primary purpose" of DAB's. Therefore that is the very first question one should ask themselves when considering individual inclusions. To me its incomprehendable per wikipedia policy that clothing bulges, among the most common definitional sense is excluded, yet Helge Bostrom is included, since that contrasts with wikipedia's spirit of undue/due weight. Pwolit iets (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry about your computer. Forgive me for giving you unsolicited advice, but have you considered that it might be a software problem—something you could resolve yourself? Depending on your computing needs, you may have good luck installing a different operating system; Ubuntu is a favorite of non-techies looking for a more stable, less-virused experience than Windows offers.

As for editing, I strongly encourage you to work on more substantial edits in a text editor where you can periodically save your work. That's what I do. Also, the WP:PREVIEW button shows you exactly what you would see if you were to submit your changes. If you enable live preview in your preferences, it's actually faster. The advantage to previewing while working is that other editors won't revert you mid-edit (and you won't waste one of your three reverts), and your work will look more put-together if it's done in neatly-contained edits with proper edit summaries.

Anyway, your computer troubles have nothing to do with my trimming at Wardrobe malfunction: the sources were clearly inappropriate; the only thing to be done with them was to remove them. I believe I was acting fairly conservatively in removing them while leaving the sentence intact, despite the fact that it was pure original research. No matter; I see you've expanded it. Also, you are absolutely not entitled to a grace period for your edits, and, as I'm sure you've seen, you will not be given one. Make decent edits and you won't need a grace period.

WP:UNDUE applies to articles, not disambiguation pages. Rebbing 21:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Progess. I believe the target currently has progressed sufficiently from its initial sentence. I would like to reiterate that that wasn't supposed to be its final state. As a result, I have reinstated it. If there are any other objections, please let me know and I'll considering self-reverting. Pwolit iets (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

"Bulge (dab)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bulge (dab). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 30#Bulge (dab) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:57, 30 January 2021 (UTC)