Talk:List of Running Gags

From Homestar Runner Wiki

This is the talk page of a deleted article. 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] Rerun?

Haven't we had this sort of article before? And it was turned down before because the category covers it much better? I still feel this is the case; running gags are liable to expand over time, whereas other categories turned into articles (e.g., Character Evolutions) are rather fixed. Delete, please wbwolf (t | ed) 02:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless this page can somehow offer something the category doesn't (which, at present, it doesn't), then there's no advantage of a static list over a self-updating category page. --phlip ^T_C 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Running Gags will give you the exact same thing, so why make a page that is the exact same as another page that will self-update?? It makes no sense. — MichaelXX2 04:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above posts. While it is not the exact same thing (using the category will have you click through a flat hierarchy), I believe it will be hard to maintain, and it does not provide any additional information. Loafing 04:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

On one hand, I do like having all of the running gags presented in a nice list, rather than the many subcategories you have to muddle through at Category:Running Gags, but I don't think it's such an issue that we need a wiki page on it. I'm all for deletion. —Guard Duck ^talk 04:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the reason why we have categories on this wiki; it's to avoid long lists like these that have to be manually updated. Delete. – The Chort 14:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The one thing i will say for this page is that at the very least, it could be redirected to the cate-on second thought... redirecting from main to category namespaces isn't a good idea... delete — Defender1031*Talk 18:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

STRONG keep- This way you can visit one page and not wait for other pages to load! --Fangoriously! Chat 00:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It takes just as long for this page to load as it does for the category page to load... — Defender1031*Talk 00:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, it's not that uncommon to have lists that duplicate categories. The idea is that categories don't come up in searches (only mainspace pages do) and that they can't get any special formatting, such as tables and similar. I'm not convinced any of those reasons would make this list needed here, though. Heimstern Läufer 00:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

But on HRWiki, duplicate categories list you! having a list that duplicates categories is just going to create extra work for all concerned. The list will need to be compared with all 13 categories every week or so and be updated. If new articles are added or removed from the category, they'd also need to be manually added or removed from this list, which will mean twice as much work as before. By the way, there's a reason why all the running gags are spread over multiple subcategories; if they were all listed alphabetically on one page, the page would be ridiculously long and probably have no real order whatsoever. Seriously, have you even looked at how many running gags we've come up with? There's 84 word running gags, 47 object running gags, 45 entertainment running gags, 36 activity running gags and about 20 other running gags for the nine other categories, which brings us to just below 400 running gags, a number which will only increase with time. I assume next you'll suggest adding subsections to this article, which, of course, will mean that we'd end up with an exact copy of running gags which lacks practicality. Face it, this article is just not going to work at all and I do not see why a consensus has not been reached yet. – The Chort 13:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say it has been reached. It's just that no one's closed it yet. But I can fix that now. Incidentally, my post is not meant to defend the article, but simply to point out that there are cases for articles that duplicate categories. I've no reason to think this is a case that needs it, though, and consensus certainly seems to dictate that it is not. Heimstern Läufer 04:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)