Talk:Food Still In Peel or Package

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:48, 23 February 2008 by Defender1031 (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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)

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.--minibaseball.png 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)
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.--minibaseball.png 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)
I say keep it. It's been seen like, 4 times after all. — talk Bubsty edits 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 wiki isn't paper philosophy. —AbdiViklas 03:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The wiki might not be paper, but it is files. files take up space. it isn't unlimited file space. we should all thank Joey Day for paying for the wiki he made, and save him money by making less filespace.-- Benol, aka Coach B 03:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
First of all, he doesn't pay for it alone. We all share the cost. Perhaps you would like to make a donation? Second, text files are tiny tiny things, especially compared to even the simplest images. We're not hurting for filespace in the slightest. — It's dot com 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Third, and I have to disclaim that I don't work with these super-boxes for a living, but my understanding is that the same data would take up (for all practical purposes) the same space whether it's on separate pages or one. —AbdiViklas 03:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
In that case (and this is just to completely explore this line of thought), small files would be better, because anytime someone wanted info about anything in the large file, the whole file would have to be delivered, eating up bandwidth. But again, we should have plenty of both disk space and bandwidth at present. — It's dot com 04:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a "running gag" at all. But everything seems to get exaggerated because people are eager to make their first article. That's probably where we get stuff like "The Bug" from. Personally, I've never made an article and I'm proud. And I'm not gonna make on unless it's valuable. Darth Katana X (discussionitem_icon.gif user.gif mail_icon.gif)
That reason couldn't be very accurate in most cases because it takes a group consensus to keep a questionable page. And almost everybody here won't keep a page just because it's some little user's first. -_- It's here because it's a possible running gag. - Joshua 12:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

There's so many 'running gag' pages that are clearly just pointless that my face hurts now; egg, bacon, coffee and now UN-OPENED FOODS!? In The Simpsons, beer appears a lot, is it a running gag? — (Talk | contribs) 22:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC) (left unsigned)

Why yes, yes it most certainly is. — Defender1031*Talk 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

It isn't. Glad to see thats taken care of. — talk Bubsty edits 02:29, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools