Talk:Hamburger Shampoo

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 15:42, 6 October 2008 by Heimstern Läufer (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Merits of this page

I would like to know what others think of this page. I personally do not think it deserves an entire article. As funny as it is, I highly doubt it will make another appearance and there's really not much to say about it that cannot be ascertained by watching geddup noise and reading the label of this product. And since this product is apparently approved by a certain noise, why not merge with The Geddup Noise? —THE PAPER PREEEOW 06:09, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)

It's times like this I think there should be a Minor Items list, like the Minor Alternate Versions list and the Minor Teen Girl Squad Characters list... Then there's nothing lost, and if it ever appears again we can always pull it out to its own page again (I can't stand the "you never know, we might see it again" argument) --phlip TC 09:19, 27 Sep 2005 (UTC)
I'm surprised there isn't already a minor items list for the tiems that pop-up in easter eggs, but I guess most of those are food. Mior foods wouldn't be too difficult to make. It's just a matter of someone actually taking the time to compile all of those items together. Acam30 23:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of pages like that. They're too broad, and unnecessarily bring disparate items together into a list. I don't think this article needs merging. Heimstern Läufer 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
On the flip side, I am a fan of pages like that, while I'm *not* a fan of pages like this one. They're too short, not very interesting or informative, and it seems like overkill to have so many entire pages devoted to minor one-shot items. I think it *should* be merged. That said, I don't think "Minor X" pages are arbitrarily lumping things together at all. There's simply not much we can *say* about them, and at least from my viewpoint, it's far easier to read about them in a place where they're all conveniently together than to have to shuffle through a dozen separate one-line pages. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 00:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Minor Items is a particularly problematic article. "Item" is extremely broad. I can support something like Minor TGS Characters, as they're clearly related, but not so much minor items. If someone could come up with something less broad, that would be better (though I really don't get what's wrong with these short articles. Last time I checked, the wiki isn't paper.) Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
{Takes a deep breath and prepares himself} Ok. Once again, we find ourselves with another suggestion to merge all the little articles. And you know what? I don't think whether the outcome of this discussion, whatever it will be, will make that happen. Why? Because it was done before. Twice. Both times it failed completely. The first it was in the Tavi days when we had the "Rejects" section. All those little minor things were dumped there in a long article. Then It became so long they split each one and made a list. Then when we moved to MW, it was decided to get rid of the "Rejects" and go the more professional way and just have pages for each one. Fast forward a few years later, and there was what people now call "Merge Craze". Minor Items, Minor this, Minor that... The only thing left from this is Minor Foods. Those didn't work when we had less then 1000 articles. We now have over 2000. Not only will the list will be huge, and so large the page will takes a lot of time to load, we'd have to decide on a case-by-case basis on what's "minor" and what is not. If we go that way I predict many heated debates and long discussion on at least half the items. And besides, if anyone forgot, we already have two item lists on the wiki: Items and Category:Items. The first one needs updating really really bad. (People tend to forget some of our most important pages. Like Characters) Elcool (talk)(contribs) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
How about Miscellaneous Items? An article listing all these one time items that don't fit anywhere else? At least the title sounds better than Minor Items to me. – The Chort 12:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Miscellaneous Items or One-time Items sound good. I like one-time items even more, because then there's a clear guideline on what items could be on the page. Items with only one appearance. Acam30 17:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't like One-time Items. What if an item makes a second appearance but we still don't think it should have its own article? We might end up with Two-time Items! I prefer the title of Miscellaneous Items: we could write an opening sentence like "Most of these items have only appeared once in the Homestar Runner universe" to act as the guideline. – The Chort 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm firmly opposed to Miscellaneous Items, for all the reasons Elcool and I have already given. We don't need a long list of unrelated items, especially when we already have Items. One-time Items I'm more willing to consider for the very reason Acam and The Chort mention: that it can only have items that appear once, and that items appearing twice would have to be given their own articles. Keeps the list under control. But still, I think leaving these articles separate is a better choice. Heimstern Läufer 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Mm. I suppose I'm a bit biased towards Miscellaneous Items or something like it because I've always been partial to lists, list-making, and list-keeping. That said... What I feel makes an item "minor" is if it's either in the background with no mention whatsoever, or it's just in an Easter egg. The former are never mentioned, and therefore aren't especially deserving of a page, and the latter are basically just there to make a joke based on something (usually) that Strong Bad typed. This one, however... well, it has no plot significance, but at least it's *mentioned*, and not just an Easter egg pop-up... Eh, I'm changing my stance here to neutral. It's not really important one way or another, overall. -YKHi. I'm Ayjo! 06:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The reason I'm opposed to any sort of merge of these into a Misc., Minor, or One-Time Items list, or whatever, is that, other than their status as "minor" and being items, they have no connection whatsoever. What's the connection between denture tablets, smoke detectors, hamburger shampoo, and whatever else would be crammed into this list? That's why I don't like it: there's no common link, aside from minor status. --DorianGray 06:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What about integrating it with geddup noise? Seems most appropriate. 03:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
How? that seems to make no sense. — Defender1031*Talk 12:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Because that's the toon it appeared in. There's really nothing to integrate though... unless we add a fun fact to state that the bottle looks like a laundry detergent bottle, everything else is in the transcript already.  Green Helmet 13:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
These are two fundamentally different types of articles: one being a toon transcript and the other being a description of an item. Thus they shouldn't be merged, as they perform two separate functions. Heimstern Läufer 13:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern's comment is exactly what i was getting at. — Defender1031*Talk 17:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it, people want to merge this article, yet none of us can agree what to merge it with. It's not a food so it can't go under Minor Foods. Minor/Miscellaneous Items won't work because we'd end up with a long page of completely unrelated objects. Besides, it's not like there's any pressing need to merge this article. It seems to work perfectly fine on its own to me, even if it is only four sentences. Maybe the only solution is to leave the article how it is and hope that someone washes his hair with Hamburger Shampoo in the near future. What's wrong with that? – The Chort 14:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools