HRWiki talk:Spoons - Revision history

The Knights Who Say Ni: moving to relevant section; reply including a non-sequitur link

The Knights Who Say Ni — Thu, 17 May 2012 21:04:18 GMT

moving to relevant section; reply including a non-sequitur link

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:04, 17 May 2012
Line 66:		Line 66:
	:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)		:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
	::::::::I have to agree with the above. Little would be lost if we deleted most of these lists of ridiculously common items and actions. Lately, it seems like every new member wants to "establish themselves" by creating a page of some sort, just so they can say they made a "major contribution", which is leading to all sorts of pages on things we ultimately don't need to document. (Mind, I've been here several years, and I've never actually created a page. A few redirects were the closest I ever came...but I digress.) That said, I think I'd have much less of a problem with them (and I assume others would, too), if they weren't all treated as full-on "inside references" or "running gags", and linked to in every single article in which one appears. Things that're unique to HR, such as "Eating The Cheat" or "Shut Up, Lady!", yes. But do we really* need to put, in Inside References section on near every page, "This toon contains a [[Spoon]].", "This is another instance of [[Pizza]].", "Strong Mad is eating [[Bacon]] for breakfast.", and so on? If we must link to them, can't we do so in the transcripts themselves? That is to say, the actions. e.g. ''{The Cheat walks in, carrying a [[spoon]].}'' Eh, just a thought. -{{User:YK/sig}} 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		::::::::I have to agree with the above. Little would be lost if we deleted most of these lists of ridiculously common items and actions. Lately, it seems like every new member wants to "establish themselves" by creating a page of some sort, just so they can say they made a "major contribution", which is leading to all sorts of pages on things we ultimately don't need to document. (Mind, I've been here several years, and I've never actually created a page. A few redirects were the closest I ever came...but I digress.) That said, I think I'd have much less of a problem with them (and I assume others would, too), if they weren't all treated as full-on "inside references" or "running gags", and linked to in every single article in which one appears. Things that're unique to HR, such as "Eating The Cheat" or "Shut Up, Lady!", yes. But do we really* need to put, in Inside References section on near every page, "This toon contains a [[Spoon]].", "This is another instance of [[Pizza]].", "Strong Mad is eating [[Bacon]] for breakfast.", and so on? If we must link to them, can't we do so in the transcripts themselves? That is to say, the actions. e.g. ''{The Cheat walks in, carrying a [[spoon]].}'' Eh, just a thought. -{{User:YK/sig}} 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	It's pretty obvious that just about every user that has seen this page thinks it should be deleted. We have a [[spoons]] page already, so why should we have another spoons page? This page is useless, and should be a-digga digga... a-diggity... a-diggity diggity... '''DELETED'''! {{User:Tenerence Love/sig}} 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
		+	:Just so you know, this page far outdates [[Spoons]]. The mainspace page was originally started as a joke page based on this page until it was decided by [[The Popular Vote]] that it would make a good article. Now they have almost nothing to do with each other. This page pretty much talks about not writing an article about collective data that would be considered normal in general, and it's a generic understanding across the wiki that a [[HRWiki:Spoons\|spoon]] is any article on such a commonplace subject that it doesn't deserve to be a separate article. [[Spoons]] is about relatively unusual uses of spoons in the Homestar Runner universe. Not to mention, all the normal uses of spoons were taken off of that page per the guidelines expressed on this page. So no, this page shouldn't be deleted. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 21:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

	== Ugh, The Name! ==		== Ugh, The Name! ==
Line 74:		Line 77:
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)		I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-	~~== Delete ==~~
-
-	It's pretty obvious that just about every user that has seen this page thinks it should be deleted. We have a [[spoons]] page already, so why should we have another spoons page? This page is useless, and should be a-digga digga... a-diggity... a-diggity diggity... '''DELETED'''! {{User:Tenerence Love/sig}} 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Tenerence Love: /**/Delete

Tenerence Love — Thu, 17 May 2012 04:41:00 GMT

: Delete

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:41, 17 May 2012
Line 74:		Line 74:
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)		I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Delete ==
		+
		+	It's pretty obvious that just about every user that has seen this page thinks it should be deleted. We have a [[spoons]] page already, so why should we have another spoons page? This page is useless, and should be a-digga digga... a-diggity... a-diggity diggity... '''DELETED'''! {{User:Tenerence Love/sig}} 04:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

JCM: /* Ugh, The Name! */ daggone it

JCM — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:12:54 GMT

Ugh, The Name!: daggone it

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 5 December 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[w:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)	+	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

JCM: /* Ugh, The Name! */

JCM — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:10:05 GMT

Ugh, The Name!

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 5 December 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[w:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Jellote: /* Ugh, The Name! */ Tradition/Progress: the hardest topic ever made.

Jellote — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:48:44 GMT

Ugh, The Name!: Tradition/Progress: the hardest topic ever made.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 2 November 2009
Line 72:		Line 72:
	:: It doesn't pertain to just items. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:: It doesn't pertain to just items. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

YK: Attempting to revive a very interesting and thought-provoking conversation.

YK — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:43:03 GMT

Attempting to revive a very interesting and thought-provoking conversation.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:43, 2 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-
	Now, I don't agree with this. Let's go hypothetical and assume that I'm the sort of sad person who would make a Wiki about a house. What would come first? The rooms of course, let's say those are the main characters and the toons too, but then, since I'm trying to make a full knowledge base of my house, I put in my TV, my TV isn't some huge thing, I have three TVs, lets say they represent [[Senor Cardgage]], he doesn't appear often, but he is large enough to merit an important page, even a featured one. So		Now, I don't agree with this. Let's go hypothetical and assume that I'm the sort of sad person who would make a Wiki about a house. What would come first? The rooms of course, let's say those are the main characters and the toons too, but then, since I'm trying to make a full knowledge base of my house, I put in my TV, my TV isn't some huge thing, I have three TVs, lets say they represent [[Senor Cardgage]], he doesn't appear often, but he is large enough to merit an important page, even a featured one. So

Line 66:		Line 65:
	:::::::Now, about the concept itself: I think I agree entirely with what MibZelinda says above. There's an important side effect to "wiki-is-not-paper"-motivated bloat, that it makes it more difficult to navigate or to find significant information in. The other day I was researching a piece by a [[Wikipedia:Manuel Quiroga\|Galician composer]], but little did I know that the relevant information was not only in [[Wikipedia:Galicia (Spain)\|Galicia]], but also in [[Wikipedia:Kingdom of Galicia\|Kingdom of Galicia]] (which is not part of [[Wikipedia:History of Galicia\|History of Galicia]], which does not include the [[Wikipedia:Timeline of Galician History\|Timeline of Galician History]]). Granted, many of these linked to others. But though both "Galicia" and "History of Galicia" briefly discussed the significant movement of Galician nationalism, ''neither'' linked to the article on it, [[Wikipedia:Galician nationalism\|Galician nationalism]]. Oh, wait, or is [[Wikipedia:Galicianism (Galicia)\|Galicianism]] the article on it? And of course there were separate articles for Galicia's [[Wikipedia:Music of Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias\|music]], [[Wikipedia:Galician cuisine\|cuisine]] (not including [[Wikipedia:Galician wine\|wine]]), and [[Wikipedia:Galician people\|people]] (though that one doesn't include the, um, [[Wikipedia:List of Galicians\|List of Galicians]]).		:::::::Now, about the concept itself: I think I agree entirely with what MibZelinda says above. There's an important side effect to "wiki-is-not-paper"-motivated bloat, that it makes it more difficult to navigate or to find significant information in. The other day I was researching a piece by a [[Wikipedia:Manuel Quiroga\|Galician composer]], but little did I know that the relevant information was not only in [[Wikipedia:Galicia (Spain)\|Galicia]], but also in [[Wikipedia:Kingdom of Galicia\|Kingdom of Galicia]] (which is not part of [[Wikipedia:History of Galicia\|History of Galicia]], which does not include the [[Wikipedia:Timeline of Galician History\|Timeline of Galician History]]). Granted, many of these linked to others. But though both "Galicia" and "History of Galicia" briefly discussed the significant movement of Galician nationalism, ''neither'' linked to the article on it, [[Wikipedia:Galician nationalism\|Galician nationalism]]. Oh, wait, or is [[Wikipedia:Galicianism (Galicia)\|Galicianism]] the article on it? And of course there were separate articles for Galicia's [[Wikipedia:Music of Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias\|music]], [[Wikipedia:Galician cuisine\|cuisine]] (not including [[Wikipedia:Galician wine\|wine]]), and [[Wikipedia:Galician people\|people]] (though that one doesn't include the, um, [[Wikipedia:List of Galicians\|List of Galicians]]).
	:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)		:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
		+	::::::::I have to agree with the above. Little would be lost if we deleted most of these lists of ridiculously common items and actions. Lately, it seems like every new member wants to "establish themselves" by creating a page of some sort, just so they can say they made a "major contribution", which is leading to all sorts of pages on things we ultimately don't need to document. (Mind, I've been here several years, and I've never actually created a page. A few redirects were the closest I ever came...but I digress.) That said, I think I'd have much less of a problem with them (and I assume others would, too), if they weren't all treated as full-on "inside references" or "running gags", and linked to in every single article in which one appears. Things that're unique to HR, such as "Eating The Cheat" or "Shut Up, Lady!", yes. But do we really* need to put, in Inside References section on near every page, "This toon contains a [[Spoon]].", "This is another instance of [[Pizza]].", "Strong Mad is eating [[Bacon]] for breakfast.", and so on? If we must link to them, can't we do so in the transcripts themselves? That is to say, the actions. e.g. ''{The Cheat walks in, carrying a [[spoon]].}'' Eh, just a thought. -{{User:YK/sig}} 00:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

	== Ugh, The Name! ==		== Ugh, The Name! ==

Stux: /* Ugh, The Name! */ reply

Stux — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:16:16 GMT

Ugh, The Name!: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 2 November 2009
Line 71:		Line 71:
	: I know! I hate it too! Especially now that there is an actual [[Spoons]] article. This page is in dire need of a name change. Like fast. If we don't change it fast, things are gonna get ugly. I still like my old '''Generic Items''' name from that day I almost got blocked, but that seems to generically named. Pun intended. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		: I know! I hate it too! Especially now that there is an actual [[Spoons]] article. This page is in dire need of a name change. Like fast. If we don't change it fast, things are gonna get ugly. I still like my old '''Generic Items''' name from that day I almost got blocked, but that seems to generically named. Pun intended. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:: It doesn't pertain to just items. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:: It doesn't pertain to just items. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ColdReactive: /* Ugh, The Name! */ re

ColdReactive — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:13:31 GMT

Ugh, The Name!: re

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:13, 2 November 2009
Line 70:		Line 70:
	How about '''Make Some Sense!''' {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		How about '''Make Some Sense!''' {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	: I know! I hate it too! Especially now that there is an actual [[Spoons]] article. This page is in dire need of a name change. Like fast. If we don't change it fast, things are gonna get ugly. I still like my old '''Generic Items''' name from that day I almost got blocked, but that seems to generically named. Pun intended. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		: I know! I hate it too! Especially now that there is an actual [[Spoons]] article. This page is in dire need of a name change. Like fast. If we don't change it fast, things are gonna get ugly. I still like my old '''Generic Items''' name from that day I almost got blocked, but that seems to generically named. Pun intended. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	:: It doesn't pertain to just items. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Jellote: /* Ugh, The Name! */ We need to change this fast! Red alert! There are TWO articles on spoons, and one tries to kill the other one!

Jellote — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:12:29 GMT

Ugh, The Name!: We need to change this fast! Red alert! There are TWO articles on spoons, and one tries to kill the other one!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 2 November 2009
Line 68:		Line 68:

	== Ugh, The Name! ==		== Ugh, The Name! ==
-
	How about '''Make Some Sense!''' {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		How about '''Make Some Sense!''' {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	: I know! I hate it too! Especially now that there is an actual [[Spoons]] article. This page is in dire need of a name change. Like fast. If we don't change it fast, things are gonna get ugly. I still like my old '''Generic Items''' name from that day I almost got blocked, but that seems to generically named. Pun intended. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ColdReactive: /**/Ugh, The Name!

ColdReactive — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:09:06 GMT

: Ugh, The Name!

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:09, 2 November 2009
Line 66:		Line 66:
	:::::::Now, about the concept itself: I think I agree entirely with what MibZelinda says above. There's an important side effect to "wiki-is-not-paper"-motivated bloat, that it makes it more difficult to navigate or to find significant information in. The other day I was researching a piece by a [[Wikipedia:Manuel Quiroga\|Galician composer]], but little did I know that the relevant information was not only in [[Wikipedia:Galicia (Spain)\|Galicia]], but also in [[Wikipedia:Kingdom of Galicia\|Kingdom of Galicia]] (which is not part of [[Wikipedia:History of Galicia\|History of Galicia]], which does not include the [[Wikipedia:Timeline of Galician History\|Timeline of Galician History]]). Granted, many of these linked to others. But though both "Galicia" and "History of Galicia" briefly discussed the significant movement of Galician nationalism, ''neither'' linked to the article on it, [[Wikipedia:Galician nationalism\|Galician nationalism]]. Oh, wait, or is [[Wikipedia:Galicianism (Galicia)\|Galicianism]] the article on it? And of course there were separate articles for Galicia's [[Wikipedia:Music of Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias\|music]], [[Wikipedia:Galician cuisine\|cuisine]] (not including [[Wikipedia:Galician wine\|wine]]), and [[Wikipedia:Galician people\|people]] (though that one doesn't include the, um, [[Wikipedia:List of Galicians\|List of Galicians]]).		:::::::Now, about the concept itself: I think I agree entirely with what MibZelinda says above. There's an important side effect to "wiki-is-not-paper"-motivated bloat, that it makes it more difficult to navigate or to find significant information in. The other day I was researching a piece by a [[Wikipedia:Manuel Quiroga\|Galician composer]], but little did I know that the relevant information was not only in [[Wikipedia:Galicia (Spain)\|Galicia]], but also in [[Wikipedia:Kingdom of Galicia\|Kingdom of Galicia]] (which is not part of [[Wikipedia:History of Galicia\|History of Galicia]], which does not include the [[Wikipedia:Timeline of Galician History\|Timeline of Galician History]]). Granted, many of these linked to others. But though both "Galicia" and "History of Galicia" briefly discussed the significant movement of Galician nationalism, ''neither'' linked to the article on it, [[Wikipedia:Galician nationalism\|Galician nationalism]]. Oh, wait, or is [[Wikipedia:Galicianism (Galicia)\|Galicianism]] the article on it? And of course there were separate articles for Galicia's [[Wikipedia:Music of Galicia, Cantabria and Asturias\|music]], [[Wikipedia:Galician cuisine\|cuisine]] (not including [[Wikipedia:Galician wine\|wine]]), and [[Wikipedia:Galician people\|people]] (though that one doesn't include the, um, [[Wikipedia:List of Galicians\|List of Galicians]]).
	:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)		:::::::I emphatically agree with MibZelinda that our mandate is one of utility over archival. —[[User:AbdiViklas\|AbdiViklas]] 03:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
		+
		+	== Ugh, The Name! ==
		+
		+	How about '''Make Some Sense!''' {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 00:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 5 December 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
-	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[w:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)	+	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[wikia:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:10, 5 December 2009
Line 73:		Line 73:
	:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::The article title seems fine to me, as it alludes to one of the examples used in the article itself. It is common practice in literature and as it is an established name, I don't see a reason to change it. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
	:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)		:::: Established? Yes. Contradicted? Very Yes. The title, and the idea of spoons being not-notable, is outdated, as spoons are now notable. We need to change it, as this article proves a point that a main-naimspace article disproves. There is a problem here. We can't have one article saying "no spoons" while we have a good article on s[[Spoons]] already existing. Tradition now needs to be broken in order to maintain the sanity of viewers who notice the difference. Or at least to maintain consistensy. Either one. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote wuz here]] 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
		+	I'm surprised this article is still here. That and the [[spoons]] article. But the irony, I have to admit, it hilarious, and had to warrant an [[w:hrwooky:HRWooky:Characters\|HRWooky article]]. But in all seriousness, I think both articles should be deleted sometime soon. {{User:HRjcm/sig}} 19:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)