HRWiki talk:Spoons

From Homestar Runner Wiki

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

I have the stuff I use most on now. I have the TAVI equilivent of my Wiki on my house. But people begin to say, 'Why don't you have other stuff on your Wiki, you must have more stuff somewhere, all you put on is big things!'.

So I go and create a page about the paintings in my house on this Wiki, and a page about my laser printer, and slowly, in my quest for full documentation of my house, I put on cutlery, and then I split it into spoons. I have achieved everything now. My knowledge base is complete.

The point of all this crap is, if we are trying to document ALL of Homestar Runner, we need little things like that, otherwise it isn't complete, and then people will create those pages. Why can't we have a complete Wiki I ask you. Not everything needs to be interesting. Just like not everything in Homestar is very interesting...tape leg.--~ SlipStream 10:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We should really only document stuff that someone might want to read. Whenever you write something, you must keep the readers in mind: will anybody read this? If not, there's no point in writing it. We dont' edit this wiki for editing's sake but to build a knowledge base that holds information that our readers (and ourselves, obviously) are interested in. Now, we CAN have Spoons, Toons that do not contain the letter "X", Toons that use the color #FFE and so on. But there's no point. It's a waste of time, energy and also a little money. It's not only a waste of time for the ones who create those articles, it's also a waste of time for those who edit, correct, format, discuss and delete them. This wiki is a team effort, and every page that is created affects many people. Loafing 10:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Loafing, I find the last part of your reply disappointing. The wiki is a waste of time for you? Don't read it! Editing wastes your time? You don't have to do it! If you have other things to do, then do them by all means. Don't let the wiki stop you. I can show you at least 50 other users from varying levels of participation that edit the wiki solely for the sake of enjoyment.

Now, about the subject in matter, I don't have as much time as I would like to respond to this, which I will do later, but let me leave you with this: One man's spoon article is another man's featured. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well after the bell, but I must respond. Loafing was not saying editing the wiki is a waste of time, energy, and a little money. He's saying (and I agree) that writing and editing articles that are not worth reading is a fool's errand. The point of this policy is to describe what kind of article will be of general interest and will be read and useful.

As far as "don't edit" as a solution, well, I might remind everyone that we all shape how things are done. A "love it or leave it" attitude isn't healthy amongst positive contributors. Rather, I'd advise "love it but work to make it better". I am certain Loafing enjoys working on the wiki, so that's a straw man argument you raised.

Finally, I'd restate your closing remark as "One man's spoon article belongs in a concordance, not a wiki." - Qermaq - (^T/C)  09:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that if spoons were used in a different, offbeat way (such as sticking them up Strong Sad's nose) we could have a page, but spoons are too ordinary and generic to have their own page? That's what I'm saying. --Thy Not Dennis (^t/_c) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic imagery

I would suggest we have a different spoon image of the few available come up on random page grabs. Dot Com knows the way to do it, as do others. There are many fun spoon memories to include here. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

You're saying we should have a random image of a spoon appear on this article? Similar to how we have random quotes appear on certain articles ( e.g. {{homsarquote}} )? Am I understanding that right? OptimisticFool 01:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Not so much saying we should as suggesting we could. - Qermaq - (^T/C)  06:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need images of all the occurrences of spoons? It makes no sense. --75.5.176.233 23:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the Qermaq's suggestion. He said we could possibly have a rotating (random) image of an occurrence of spoons in the Homestar Runner universe, meaning that the image of 1-Up currently on this article could get swapped out for another image at random, like the {{homsarquote}}. I don't think it's necessary, though. {{homsarquote}} was created because of several edit wars over what the caption for Homsar's image on his page should be. There is no such edit war here, nor will there be soon. -- Super Martyo boing! 04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's cool. I want to see it. But that's probably because I hate the 1-Up pudding picture. free 20:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

{robot voice} Don't you think this is a great idea? --Jellote 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this page useful?

Does this page accurately describe a guideline that we follow on this wiki? If so, what is that guideline? It needs to be stated more clearly on the project page, because it is so often invoked in discussions, but it seems to be misinterpreted a lot. If it doesn't describe a guideline we follow, then it needs to be deleted or clearly labeled as opinion. — It's dot com 16:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I've never really liked this page. It's definitely not a guideline; it's at best a distillation of some ideas in our inclusion guidelines. At the time this article was written, the wiki was really slow due to a baby break, so lots of people were really trying to spin running gag articles out of mundane objects. I think that's mainly what this was meant to address, and it's a decent reflection of our practices in that area: we don't make running gag articles about commonplace objects being used in everyday ways. That much is good. The problem is that not all articles based on objects are running gags; some of them are just lists of recurring items. It is clearly within our practices to include articles about mundane objects if they recur a lot, and particularly if they're used in any unusual manner. This much is never made at all clear in this page.

Having said that, I honestly wouldn't mind seeing this page go away. It's redundant, since we already have the inclusion guidelines. I also think "Spoons" are a poor example to use: there are actually at least two cases of unusual spoon usages (taping one to an eggplant; using one as a baton whilst commanding an army). Probably not quite enough to sustain an article, but pretty close. If we want to keep this page, I'd advise an overhaul changing its title, being clearer what kinds of articles it's about, and probably tagging it as an essay rather than a guideline. Heimstern Läufer 16:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

the randomness of adding the name of the utensil to the sentence "Let's eat pudding with a spoon!" is kind of unusual as well... that said, i agree with the Heim man. — Defender1031*Talk 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many people refer to this page as a guideline. Let's get rid of it so we can be rid of obnoxious know-it-nones (such as myself) saying everything is a spoon. It is more relevent on Wikipedia, the hub wiki, but not here. Thaqt said, I agree that Spoons themselves may deserve an article in the future if the gag continues, and this page is the only thing standing in the way of that.--Jellote wuz here 16:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm starting to think I agree. The shame! Anyway, perhaps we could simply make it clearer that this essay refers only to the categorization of object running gags, and then just let the other mundane object lists exist. Someone took the time to create them, after all. I suppose the true measurement here is whether the wiki's server...usage...price...donation total...stuff (sorry, I can code a bit but I've got no clue how server companies charge their customers) could be trimmed significantly by removal of mundane object lists. Ooh, or perhaps we could add a new category for mundane object lists, immune to any mentions of spoons? Additionally, I'm thinking that due to Heimstern's examples, yeah, spoons aren't the right example item. Taping stuff to eggplants is pretty weird. --Onamuji (b/w T. C.  ) 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think that this page is a useful guideline. Even recently, there has been many people trying to create articles on just about any object that happens to reappear in the HRU. On that score, it's a useful reminder that what we are trying to document are unusual or unique ways that those objects, phrases, or ideas are being used within the Universe. On the other hand, I do feel like this is not the correct example and it tends to get overused (much like TTATOT used to ) when stating objection to a page. (cf. Talk:Boats) (and we can't use The anymore as a substitute, since that makes a nice redirect for Integral Article...) Like Heimstern has suggested, this article needs to be rewritten with another example or make the inclusion guidelines section clearer. wbwolf (t | ed) 17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that since the message behind this article has been misused, it be reworded to thoroughly clarify what its scope is and what types of article we aim to avoid creating. I don't think this article should be deleted simply because it has been misinterpreted by some. --Stux 19:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

To me, when certain users describe an article as "a spoon", they're saying "This article is boring and I don't like it and we're not allowed an article on spoons so why should we have an article on this other object?" They never explain why it's a spoon and just say "it's a spoon" as if that in itself is a valid argument because it sounds catchy and professional-sounding. I absolutely cannot stand it when this happens. The frequent abuse of this article has degraded it to such an extent that it no longer has any real meaning. I agree that we need to somehow explain, with vastly more clarity than currently is on this article, that it's not neccessary to create an article for every single object that's ever appeared on the website, just the items which are unique to H*R or have some importance to the plot. On the other hand, we could just scrap the article and use HRWiki:Inclusion guidelines more often. Also, we actually DO have an article on a certain spoon: the Orange Spoon that Colonel Homestar Runner waves about. Yes, it's an exception because it has some importance, but it's existence pretty much undermines the concept of a "No Spoons" approach to the scope of this wiki. Plus, I think there should be an article on Spoons. – The Chort 20:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I find this ironic. Most pages are deleted because they are not famous enough, but this one is being deleted because it became TOO famous. I never thought I would see the day... I am happy about this. I never liked this page. There SHOULD be a spoon article, I agree. free 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems like we agreed to kill it. But should we kill it like in real life, or H*R kill it, so it stays but is still dead? Like, since this was usefull at the time, but has outlived its usefulness, I say we add a retired banner, like on STUFF. Please tell me to stop if you disagree, I just want to kill it. Besides, I'm pretty sure no one wants this page as is. Perhaps we make a new page, and archive this one. One with a better name, a better guideline and a better way of explaining. THis should be retired and kept as is, with a new one. Who's with me? Please answer quickly, as i can't wait to retire this if people agree. --Jellote wuz here 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus here is still not entirely clear in many areas. One thing that is clear is that there is clear consensus against the status quo. What's not so clear is what status quo post we want. Some people are ready to ditch this page completely (whether deleting it or marking it historical); others simply want to see it changed. I can see at least three questions we need to answer: 1. Should this page exist as an active, non-historical page? (If the answer to this question is "no", the other two become irrelevant.) 2. Should it continue to be marked as a guideline, or is it something else (such as an essay)? 3. What object should be used as an example? It appears to me that there is a fair consensus that "spoons" are actually used in unusual enough ways that they are unsuitable as an example.

Could we all clearly state our opinions on these matters? As usual, these aren't just votes, but arguments with reasons to back them up. Then we can get an idea where the current consensus lies.

To start out with my own answers: to question 1: I'm still unconvinced we need this page. All of this is covered where it should be: the inclusion guidelines. We need those; we don't need this page. 2. If we do keep this page, it should not be tagged as a guideline. It's not a guideline itself, it's an essay to help interpret the inclusion guidelines. 3. I have no good ideas for another object to use instead of spoons (which is a big part of why I'd be fine with seeing this page go). Heimstern Läufer 06:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The more I think about it, the more it seems like that this page, by itself, is not as useful as it should be. I'm leaning towards HL's opinion that this page should not stand alone; the point of this page is to clarify a point in the Inclusion Guidelines, but it doesn't make sense if it is separate from that page. To that end, what should be done is having the good ideas of this page (namely that pages should be created that document unique or unusual aspects of the Homestar Runner Universe) be merged back into the Inclusion Guidelines. If the guidelines are unclear, they should be rewritten, with explanatory essay if necessary included.

As for example, personally, I'm leaning towards Nails, but that's just me. Given the nature of H*R, just about anything could have a page. To try to limit ourselves to one example would probably be futile. But I can certainly see a way of writing around that. wbwolf (t | ed) 11:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think what the creator of this article wanted to say was that we should create articles which should are either interesting or unique, rather than mundane or common. The problem is that an article which may be interesting to one person may be boring to another. The term "interesting" itself is subjective. Who's to say an article on Spoons wouldn't be interesting? No one's even attempted to create such an article yet! Anywho, here's my answers to Heimstern Läufer's questions:

1. No. This article is not a guideline itself, but rather one person's interpretation of the Inclusion Guidelines which is currently being questioned on this talk page and has been contradicted by the continued existence of articles such as those mentioned in the previous post.

2. No. As this article is just an interpretation of the Inclusion Guidelines, it should not be tagged as a guideline. If it should be kept as an essay, it should be longer than two paragraphs, otherwise it's not much of an essay.

3. If we decided to keep this article, we should not use an item for this article's title as that won't solve the problem. We'd just have people describing articles as an <item>. I'd suggest the term "Scope" instead, as this article attempts to explain the scope of our project and that articles should be useful, not pointless. But since I think this article should be deleted or retired, this question is kind of irrelevant to me. The ideas of this page should belong on the Inclusion Guidelines. – The Chort 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, it seems to me that most people have misunderstood the purpose and meaning behind this article. As a result the guideline has been greatly misused and so most people are dissatisfied with its existence. I don't believe the article is necessarily dealing with 'interesting vs. dull artifacts' or even that the article itself is interesting. Rather, what it's trying to say is this: if an item is used in a normal, everyday matter, then there's really no point in adding it to an article. Conversely, it stands to reason that if the article is used in an unusual way, it merits inclusion. The best example that would illustrate that is the venerable Spoon. If a spoon is used to eat pudding, what is the novelty in that? We all use spoons to eat pudding; or cereal, or soup or cake. There are many mundane uses of a spoon that are also found in H*R. However, if I, say, use a spoon to single-handedly thwart off an invading army, then that's a notable example! It is my understanding that there are many unusual ways that Spoons are used in H*R. This article should *not* preclude a Spoon article from being made (or the Nails article from being kept). It should, however, prevent us from listing every single instance of a spoon (or nails) appearing in the H*R body work (unless perhaps if it's central to the plot somehow). That's why there's a picture of 1-up eating pudding on the page. Again, this is also a guideline not a set-in-stone wiki law. It means that examples that fall in a gray area should be examined individually, based on their own merit (while keeping this article in mind).

So, should we merge this article with the Inclusion guidelines? I don't know. They should at least point to each other. But at the very least, the text in this guideline should be updated it make it clear the distinction between mundane and extraordinary uses of everyday articles (adding examples would help a lot in getting this done). --Stux 05:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)