Talk:Blistergeist

From Homestar Runner Wiki

This is the talk page of an article that has been merged with Minor Video Games#Blistergeist. Please do not participate in the discussions archived here. If you can provide a reason for the existence of this page that hasn't been discussed below, you may start a new section. Please refer to the inclusion guidelines that are generally applied to judge an article's merit.

[edit] Merge with Minor Video Games

Since the creation of Minor Video Games and a subsequent decision to keep that page, Head Chopper 2 was merged into that article, and the other video games from slumber party were added to it as well. Blistergeist is almost as minor as the rest of them, except that "Blistergeist Mode" appears in the playable Clapping Party. Nevertheless, this is of rather slight significance, and I advocate redirecting this article to Minor Video Games#Blistergeist. Trey56 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm not a big fan of the tendency these days to merge things that have been around for a while into Minor X articles. I really feel articles like that should only be for things that are too minor and insignificant to possibly have their own article (Head Chopper and the other slumber party video games being examples of this). The article we have here stands alone fine, in my opinion (largely due to the Blistergeist mode on Clapping Party), and thus I'm going to oppose redirecting it. Heimstern Läufer 03:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

My view is exactly the opposite. When all the info we have on something can fit neatly in a table with other things like it, I'm all for merging them. There's no special need to have a huge number of short (and oftentimes boring) articles. It doesn't make things more "encyclopedic", IMO, just cluttered. But then, I've always been partial to lists, myself. -YK 04:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice Chrono Trigger sig :)

Heimstern, I agree that merging small articles on notable topics is a bad idea, but I think the problem with this article is that it doesn't have enough to stand on its own legs. The only thing that separates it from the rest of the slumber party video games is the appearance in Clapping Party, and that is 100% documented on Clapping Party, where it belongs.

Minor X articles are good when each element on them

(1) has small importance and

(2) is best understood in the context of the rest of the elements.

In this case, Blistergeist only has significance when either

(1) lumped together with the rest of the M-rated video games or

(2) discussed as an unlockable mode in Clapping Party.

Since it doesn't have any importance by itself, I contend that it shouldn't be on a page by itself. Trey56 07:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's stood on its own legs since 9 November; I don't see that anything has changed so that this is no longer the case. Heimstern Läufer 07:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Minor Video Games has just recently been created. Until now, there hasn't really been a good alternative (we'd considered Slumber Party Games but ended up agreeing that wasn't appropriate). Trey56 07:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly where I disagree with the methodology. I don't agree with the idea that we have an article that's OK on its own one day, but as soon as there's an article to merge it into, it should be merged; rather, it should be seen as either notable in and of itself or not so, regardless of what other articles exist. This is a bit off of the question of why this article should remain, but there's my thoughts on why merging should be done sparingly. Heimstern Läufer 15:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you're diverting from the issue at hand: the merit of this particular article. Trey56 18:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Which I've already addressed above. Heimstern Läufer 18:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Clean break: anybody else have thoughts about this? Trey56 18:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

definately merge. --Acam30 00:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

hello people... is there any reason this hasn't been merged/deleted yet? IS somebunny gonna take care of this little hiccup? --Acam30 01:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we really need more than four people to weigh in before acting on this. Trey56 02:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd make the case that the info is already present in the Minor Video Games article and move for deletion. I really don't see what we'd gain by merging - indeed, this is already a case of duplicated info.Scanna 05:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I think we should resist merging for merging's sake. Unrelated pages shouldn't be combined simply because we don't want short pages. On the other hand, if short, related articles could be combined in such a way that they complement each other and save clicks for the reader, then I'm all for it. We merged all those articles back in the day, realized that we'd gone overboard, and split some of them back up. Since there seems to be a rough consensus to merge, why don't we do so and see if it fits. If it doesn't it can be reverted. Scanna: We wouldn't delete this page outright on a merge. This page would become a redirect. — It's dot com 21:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)