Talk:Spoo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Spoo is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2006.
Archive

Archives
Featured article star Spoo is a selected article on the Food Portal, which means that it has been identified as a high quality article by Food Portal standards.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia There is a request, submitted by Jeffrey O. Gustafson, for an audio version of this article to be created.

See WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia for further information.

The rationale behind the request is: "This is one of our most unique featured articles, and is ideal for a Spoken Version because of its short length (for ease of recording) and extreme stability, meaning any recording in unlikely to be out of date. ".

See also: Category:Spoken Wikipedia requests and Wikipedia:Spoken articles.

[edit] What a mess

I was just looking through the recent history of this article (the 3 September FAR, and the 12 September AfD), and what happened there is just embarrassing. In the Featured Article review, some of the arguments raised in favour of keeping this article featured were 'any subject that deserves an article deserves a featured article' and 'issues of notability are not settled at FAR' - in other words, since the article has not been deleted, it deserves to be featured. In the AfD, many of the arguments for keeping the article were, essentially, 'It's Featured! How can we delete it if it's one of Wikipedia's best articles?' - in other words, since the article has not been de-featured, it deserves to be kept. Basically, this article was kept based on a circular argument.

I'm not about to nominate it for deletion again - it's too soon, and would probably just bring accusations of trying to overturn consensus or game the system or something similar. But I'm just using this talk page to voice my concerns about this article: I'm appalled that it has passed AfD (and worse, FAR) in its current state. From this outsider's point of view (admittedly, I know nothing about Babylon 5, and am not part of its fandom), it seems to fail WP:FANCRUFT on just about every level. If this is one of our 'best articles', we should be embarrassed by what that says about Wikipedia. Terraxos (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree: this article, and the history surrounding it, is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. It's a wonder why Jimbo Wales doesn't do anything, since he seems to consider it an embarrassment as well. Punctured Bicycle (talk) 20:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
It's clear that Wikipedia has failed, and the site must be shut down immediately.--Father Goose (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily think the article needs to be deleted, but equally all references within it to fandom or fanon, or Usenet forums for that matter, needs to be excised. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The veracity of the sources have repeatedly been held up as accurate and appropriate, both in this space, an FAC, FAR, two FARCs and an AfD (linked above), and in multiple policy and guideline pages and discussions. Please heed those discussions and respect the repeated consensus before removing material that has been discussed multiple times at length. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain to me how 'fanfic' can ever be encyclopedic? A guideline would be perfect... you appear to believe there is one that justifies inclusion of fan speculation. Which one, out of curiosity? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel I should clarify my position... I am not really complaining about JMS' Usenet contributions (having read the reviews you mention above). What needs to go is talk of fanfic and fandom. To take an example, the 'some fans have come up with spoo recipes' bit. How is this in any way encyclopedic? I, Blackmetalbaz, came up with a spoo recipe this evening, involving battery acid and old boot leather. You may now feel free to cite this in the article. It is just as valid and notable as what is currently mentioned. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional foods and beverages in Star Trek? If that article had been seeded with usenet posts and homonyms, would it be featured quality?--Nydas(Talk) 10:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Pineapples and oranges. If that show's producers had provided information via verifiable sources and there was larger context, then, sure, keep that article. But this isn't about that article of course, this is about this one. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Self-published sources, such as DVD commentaries, don't establish notability, though they would be better than a few paragraphs on usenet.--Nydas(Talk) 11:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The usenet group these posts originate from isn't some random usenet group, but a group titled "Babylon 5 creators meet Babylon 5 fans". It was specifically created for that purpose in the early 1990s. Given the show's creator doesn't have an official website, and never had, his posts in said newsgroup are as close to an official statement on his part as it can be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwenhwyfar (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] But...

What colour is it really? White? Grey? Blue? Augh! 76.231.44.109 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)