Talk:Monopoly Money
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Defender1031 (Talk | contribs) (→Go to delete. Go directly to delete. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 edits.: i wasn't aware that we required all articles to have pictures.) |
(→Go to delete. Go directly to delete. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 edits.: nothing I'd be enthusiastic for, but also no problem with it) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::"Monopoly" (the game) isn't a spoon; it's a brand name. Besides, don't funding a movie with its currency, running an economy with its currency, using the currency as a music video prop, using a cameo of the character (if we accept that), and using the token for a fanmade figurine count as "novel uses"? No one's ever seen just ''playing'' the game, after all. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ::::"Monopoly" (the game) isn't a spoon; it's a brand name. Besides, don't funding a movie with its currency, running an economy with its currency, using the currency as a music video prop, using a cameo of the character (if we accept that), and using the token for a fanmade figurine count as "novel uses"? No one's ever seen just ''playing'' the game, after all. --{{User:Jay/sig}} 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
:::::Also, articles don't need pictures in order to be considered viable. Plenty of really good articles don't. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | :::::Also, articles don't need pictures in order to be considered viable. Plenty of really good articles don't. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::An article about Monopoly money sounds OK to me. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:17, 23 March 2011
Go to delete. Go directly to delete. Do not pass go. Do not collect 200 edits.
I'm unconvinced about several appearances in this article.
- Two of these are about "Monopoly money", which is sometimes used as a term for just any old non-legal tender (see the Wikipedia article), whether it comes from the game Monopoly or not.
- The mayor in Teen Girl Squad is a "striking resemblance", not a clear reference (to me, he just looks like any stereotypical old statesman).
- While I'll grant that Weekly Fanstuff, unlike ordinary fanstuff, has been vetted by TBC, it's still not a reference they themselves made.
All these facts together lead me to conclude that this article doesn't have enough of a leg to stand on and should be bankrupted... err, deleted. Heimstern Läufer 
10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I concur with Heimstern. I have some non-Monopoly Monopoly money myself. None of these really stand out as an actual reference, and the article should be deleted. --DorianGray 10:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I lean towards delete, but not as strongly as the others. When TBC say "monopoly money", it seems pretty clear to me that they mean actual monopoly, especially given that one of them is followed by the irrefutable baltic avenue reference. I also have not personally heard the term used to mean anything other than money specifically from the game. As for the resemblance to Pennybags, that's more iffy, especially since I’ve always thought the pringles guy was his long-lost cousin or something. I see 3 references i'd consider valid to monopoly MONEY though, so perhaps those should be moved to a page specifically about such. Doing so would also avoid the question entirely of whether the term is generic or not. — Defender1031*Talk 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'm fine with the article, but in a mostly-neutral kind of sense. But if not this page, "Monopoly money" would be a perfectly fine option. --Jay (Talk) 19:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- This is a fine example of the Spoons theory developed by the hrwiki. Just because an real life everyday object or brand name is referred to occasionally doesn't mean it's necessary to make an article about it. This is the Homestar runner wiki not Wikipedia. Unless this would be like, say, Mountain Dew which actually held a good signifacance to the homestar universe, is expressed in an interesting way, or holds a good amount of trivial/interesting facts related to homestar, the article is not worth while. Besides this page lacks content and doesn't even have a picture. I'd say delete it.--safariventureman 19:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Monopoly" (the game) isn't a spoon; it's a brand name. Besides, don't funding a movie with its currency, running an economy with its currency, using the currency as a music video prop, using a cameo of the character (if we accept that), and using the token for a fanmade figurine count as "novel uses"? No one's ever seen just playing the game, after all. --Jay (Talk) 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Also, articles don't need pictures in order to be considered viable. Plenty of really good articles don't. — Defender1031*Talk 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- An article about Monopoly money sounds OK to me. Heimstern Läufer
04:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- An article about Monopoly money sounds OK to me. Heimstern Läufer
- Also, articles don't need pictures in order to be considered viable. Plenty of really good articles don't. — Defender1031*Talk 20:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- "Monopoly" (the game) isn't a spoon; it's a brand name. Besides, don't funding a movie with its currency, running an economy with its currency, using the currency as a music video prop, using a cameo of the character (if we accept that), and using the token for a fanmade figurine count as "novel uses"? No one's ever seen just playing the game, after all. --Jay (Talk) 19:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I lean towards delete, but not as strongly as the others. When TBC say "monopoly money", it seems pretty clear to me that they mean actual monopoly, especially given that one of them is followed by the irrefutable baltic avenue reference. I also have not personally heard the term used to mean anything other than money specifically from the game. As for the resemblance to Pennybags, that's more iffy, especially since I’ve always thought the pringles guy was his long-lost cousin or something. I see 3 references i'd consider valid to monopoly MONEY though, so perhaps those should be moved to a page specifically about such. Doing so would also avoid the question entirely of whether the term is generic or not. — Defender1031*Talk 11:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
