Talk:Food Still In Peel or Package
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(i say keep, and its not a stub.) |
AbdiViklas (Talk | contribs) (It's like the entire wiki suddenly became alergic to pages with fewer than three 'graphs) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::::Maybe I was a little harsh, I don't know. I just didn't think it deserved a page to itself. Adding it to the food and drink catagory was good enough for me. {{User:Homestramy20/sig}} 02:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ::::Maybe I was a little harsh, I don't know. I just didn't think it deserved a page to itself. Adding it to the food and drink catagory was good enough for me. {{User:Homestramy20/sig}} 02:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
:::::I say keep it. It's been seen like, 4 times after all. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 02:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | :::::I say keep it. It's been seen like, 4 times after all. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 02:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | Once and for all: there's nothing innately wrong with short pages. Short pages are not necessarily stubs. Short pages should not necessarily merged. If giving an item its own page will result in it being harder to find, that's bad, but otherwise short does not necessarily equal bad. It's kind of like the [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_paper_encyclopedia|wiki isn't paper]] philosophy. —[[User:AbdiViklas|AbdiViklas]] 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
== not stub == | == not stub == | ||
this isn't really a stub, right? we know all there is to know!--{{User:Benol/sig}} 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | this isn't really a stub, right? we know all there is to know!--{{User:Benol/sig}} 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
:It isn't. Glad to see thats taken care of. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 02:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | :It isn't. Glad to see thats taken care of. {{User:Bubsty/sig}} 02:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 03:28, 24 November 2005
I don't know about anyone else, but this page seems pointless to me. There's just nothing to it. I don't see the need for a page that lists about 4 items of food with a "peel or packet". Anyone else agree? Homestramy20|Talk 02:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- agreed--
Benol, aka Coach B 02:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it's definitely a running gag, which should be chronicled. And it's likely that it will grow as time goes on. — It's dot com 02:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about this. A name change. Like Un-opened Food Items or something.--
Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 02:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- anyways, shouldn't it be in the food and drink category?-- Benol, aka Coach B 02:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- anyways, shouldn't it be in the food and drink category?--
- What aren't you sure about? — It's dot com
- I'm not sure if this page is worth having or not. It seems too obscure. But if it has to stay, lets change it to a less confusing name.-- Bkmlb(talk to me·stuff I did) 02:22, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- How about unopened yet edible food? that might work!-- Benol, aka Coach B 02:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- Maybe I was a little harsh, I don't know. I just didn't think it deserved a page to itself. Adding it to the food and drink catagory was good enough for me. Homestramy20|Talk 02:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
- How about unopened yet edible food? that might work!--
- I'm not sure if this page is worth having or not. It seems too obscure. But if it has to stay, lets change it to a less confusing name.--
Once and for all: there's nothing innately wrong with short pages. Short pages are not necessarily stubs. Short pages should not necessarily merged. If giving an item its own page will result in it being harder to find, that's bad, but otherwise short does not necessarily equal bad. It's kind of like the wiki isn't paper philosophy. —AbdiViklas 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
not stub
this isn't really a stub, right? we know all there is to know!--
Benol, aka Coach B 02:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
