Editing Talk:Babies

==delete?==
<s>[[HRWiki:spoons]] and yes it is. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</s>

Please specify why this is a spoon. [[user:haldo]][[User:Haldo|Haldo]] 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) It's not a spoon, It's neither obscurly uncomon nor rediculously common.
:<s>Babies are very common. (sorry for the late reply, i didn't notice you had edit conflicted me) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</s>
::I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. {{User:Has Matt?/sig}} 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... '''keep''' {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::'''Delete'''. Even if this is enough to warrent an article, then we should have "seniors", "cats", "dogs", etc. Babies just seems too general to warrent an article. {{User:Techgeekmbg/sig}} 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Don't be silly. Cats and dogs doesn't appear enough to warrant an article. [[Bears]] and [[prawns]] are. And for this article: Keep it for all the reasons above. Notablity by weirdity. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 06:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::We [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Cats used to] have "Cats", but it got deleted. We still have [[Dogs]], though. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we should start putting up links so more people can particapate in this conversation, m'yes? [[user:haldo|Haldo]] 20:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
OH!!! I just had an idea: MERGE CHILDREN WITH BABIES. Good idea or bad idea? [[user:haldo|Haldo]]
:Good idea. I vote '''merge''' with [[Children]]. {{User:Homestar-winner/sig}} 01:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
::I'm okay with '''merge''', but I also have no problem with simply keeping the page here. {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 01:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
:::I agree with merging with [[Children]]. It's just... logical. --[[User:Jnelson09|Jnelson09]] 22:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

::::I agree &mdash; this seems like a good solution. {{User:Trey56/sig}} 03:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::I dunno, I think keeping it separate is better. Yes, babies are children, but the use of babies on the site is quite different from how children are used. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 20:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
::::::Agree with HL, no merge[[User:DAGRON|DAGRON]] 21:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Merge with children.

Any of those who supported keeping this page before the suggestion of the merge: would you consider commenting if you agree or disagree with the merge? I think we can safely say this article will not be deleted, but the merge decision isn't so clear yet. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 06:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
:I"m against merging with Children. If anything, that article should be discussed, not this one. The stereotypical baby (big head, wearing almost always nothing but a diaper, drooling, goo-goo-gaa-gaa speaking) is shown in many places and therefor deserves it's own page. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 12:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
::As there's been no real consensus to merge, I'm removing the tags and leaving the article as is. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 23:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)