Talk:Spoo (food)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Notability

Please place reliable sources attesting to the notability of this subject below. I will wait seven days Shii (tock) 01:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

This has been argued up and down many, many times. I for one do not have the time or energy to argue it again. It has already been delisted as a FA. Like the most recent FAR closer said, "let's just leave the damn thing in peace". Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 18:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is of course that not one of the 13 cites used in this article demonstrate that Spoo has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Indeed, none of those that mention Spoo are independent of the subject. Isn't there anything, anywhere, that means this can be put to bed once and for all? Steve ^{T • C} 22:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

6 days Shii (tock) 01:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Source added. Unless Space.com isn't reliable or independent enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that your reference is about an episode of Babylon 5 and not spoo. It's fine to use as reference, but does not assert notability. According to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is usually shown through significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A piece about an episode of Babylon 5 that mentions spoo briefly as part of a plot point is not significant coverage, and doesn't provide much usable material for an article about spoo. Pagrashtak 14:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I added your space.com reference to the merged page; please check it for me and expand if necessary. You can continue discussion at Talk:A Tragedy of Telepaths Shii (tock) 00:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Shii, you don't get to redirect and essentially remove an entire article because you don't think it should be there. It is obvious that many people think it should be here, based on the many, many debates on this article. The fact that the people who care no longer have the energy to reasser their position does not mean you get to remove the article within an arbitrary 7-day timeframe. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to merge this article at my own leisure until reliable sources attesting to its notability are added. The personal opinions of Babylon 5 fans do not substitute for reliable sources. Shii (tock) 01:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies and guidelines are getting harder on articles all the time to push the quality bar a few notches higher. As much as it may ache that Spoo is a victim of that, it won't get easier to justify a separate article, rather the opposite. I support closing this chapter as merge for everyone's sake. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What part of WP:FICT does this article not satisfy? Realize, too, that no one has formally proposed a merger to anything. Jclemens (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.214.197.178 (talk) 05:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep, with you 100%. We're done, then, since the article has multiple reliable, independent sources. Right? Jclemens (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If by "reliable" you mean "Usenet" and "independent" you mean "official companion books and spinoff products". I await the results of the GA nom with bated breath. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's a fictional element, and those are perfectly good secondary sources for such. There isn't ever going to be a New York Times article on Spoo, and rightly so, but the GNG doesn't demand it. Jclemens (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources like official books are not sufficiently independent. They are fine for referencing information, but do not establish the notability required for having a separate article. Ask yourself—why won't there ever be a NYT article on Spoo? Is it because it isn't notable? Pagrashtak 18:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a reason an NYT article is not the only way for asserting notability. A book about a TV show is a "real world" event independent of the TV show. There will never be an NYT article on all sorts of geographic locations that exist in Wikipedia--why, absent a bias against fictional topics, should they be considered notable while a well-documented fictional element is not? Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you find articles that you think should be deleted, then use Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I'm sure there are many of them. Pagrashtak 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't hesitate to do so if I thought they were un-notable. If you'll look more closely, though, that wasn't my assertion at all. Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

My response was an attempt to subtly instruct you to not cloud the issue by bringing up irrelevant articles. Pagrashtak 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your instruction is a contrapositive to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that I don't find particularly helpful. If you'll notice, I've added yet another independent RS to the article. Jclemens (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I hate throwing essay redirects up in editors' faces, but yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS would have been the blunt answer. I don't know what to say about your not finding it helpful—bringing up unrelated geographic location articles simply has no bearing here. Pagrashtak 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasons for keeping Spoo as-is

1) Spoo is a ficional element. Per WP:NNC the entire article can be merged, as is, to Babylon 5. For stylistic purposes, it may be more expedient to keep it separate. C.f. Discussion of "in popular culture" sections vs. articles. 2) Spoo has been singled out as a "notoriously bad" Featured Article by Jimbo. Removing it deprives Wikipedia of a reference to that historical debate--note that it was kept by the first FAR, despite Jimbo weighing in against it. What, pray tell, are the arguments for piecing out or deleting the article, other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

You want us to keep this article around as an example of how bad an article can be? The burden of proof is on anyone but me to demonstrate, with reliable sources, how this article is relevant to anything. Shii (tock) 04:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Hardly--more like a view of how Wikipedia has evolved. Jclemens (talk) 05:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who disagrees with my recent compacting to this article? Shii (tock) 05:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you explain what you propose changing, and why? Jclemens (talk) 06:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No proposal is needed, I already made some changes which improved the article by eliminating WP:SYNTH and WP:TRIVIA, and they were reverted for an unknown reason. Shii (tock) 09:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

They were reverted so you could start out by explaining them here. Jclemens (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spoo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Comports for the most part with the MoS but I would suggest de-linking common words like "sighing." The multiple short sections make the article choppy. Can the information be re-arranged to make the flow better? Perhaps merge "Before Bablon 5" to the end of "Origins in Bablyon 5" and rename the section to simply "Origins" and combine the "Real-world recipes" and "In popular culture" sections (and call it something other than "In popular culture" because I loathe that construction, but would not fail the article because of it). I'm not sure that the sentence about fans offering JMS a plate of food really adds any value to the article.

    Done Hard to expand on the Spoohunter promo, though, since it has no English dialogue. I'm open to ideas--feel free to view it yourself and propose any ideas that come to mind.

• Another thought...can you expand the Spoohunter and parody song mentions with a brief plot description (a couple of sentences) outlining how spoo is involved for the former and perhaps a quote from the lyrics for the latter? Otto4711 (talk) 06:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   My biggest area of concern with this article. The reference list is formatted acceptably. However, each reference within current note 1 will need an associated page number, as will current note 11. Is space.com a reliable source? There are no references for spoo's appearance in "And the Rock Cried Out..." and "Meditations on the Abyss." I am deeply concerned over the sourcing to message board posts. Per WP:RS and WP:SPS such sources are to be used with caution and a great deal of the article is sourced to them. There is no original research in the article.

   Ref 1 and 11:  Done

   Space.com a reliable source? Check Space.com and decide for yourself. Note especially the second sentence: "Its stories are often syndicated to other media outlets, including CNN, MSNBC, Yahoo!, and USA Today."

   Unreferenced episodes  Done

   Message board posts. They are all used as specified in WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB. All forum posts referenced directly quote the work of the author of the "Spoo" concept, aren't controversial, and don't involve any claims about third parties.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

4. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images tagged with fair-use descriptions, however, I have doubts that either the Skeletor picture or the Spoohunter picture would survive a challenge under WP:NFCC #8. How much do these images really add to the reader's understanding that can't be expressed in text?

   Note that WP:NFCC #8 has been a contentious issue (see WP:NFCC_Criterion_8_debate), and that this is simply a GA review, not an FA. I think it's fair to say that the images are certainly acceptable within the shorter wording, and are arguably acceptable within the longer wording. Given that the article predates the argument over NFCC#8 by a few years, I don't think that should be held against it. Both images in question are already in fair use on separate pages on en.wikipedia, so removing them from this article, if desired, wouldn't remove them entirely.

6. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am going to place the article on hold for seven days and I am also going to ask for a second opinion regarding the sourcing and image issues. Please let me know if you have any questions about this review. Otto4711 (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I am out of town at the moment, but see nothing here that I can't address. The page numbers in the citations will have to wait until Sunday at the earliest, as I do not have the books in question with me. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, one other quick thing. The quote "are the only creatures of which the Interstellar Animal Rights Protection League says, simply, 'Kill 'em.'" neds a separate reference. I'm sure it's probably the same as the one at the end of the paragraph but each individual quote needs its own citation. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Done

• These two quotes from Lane still need page numbers. Once that's done I'll pass the article. Otto4711 (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry I missed those before. Good thing, too, because I acutally cited the wrong volume for those quotes. Everything should be kosher now. Jclemens (talk) 06:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

12/7 Re-review?

As of 2008-12-07, all of the above issues have been addressed. Can you please review the changes I've made and see if you agree that I've improved the article to your standards? Also, if you decide that a second opinion continues to be needed, would you mind articulating the outstanding issue(s) separately below this, so a reviewer can quickly see the area(s) for which a second opinion is requested? Jclemens (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 1 still needs page numbers for each citation in the lead. The Animal Rights Protection League quote needs to be cited as does the depression quote earlier in the same paragraph. Each individual direct quote needs a separate cite, even if it's the same cite as the one at the end of the paragraph, per Wikipedia:Good article criteria 2c. Since there's now a non-forum post for the first appearance of spoo, I suggest sourcing it to the interview rather than the archived forum post and deleting the first part of the sentence that mentions the B5 fan discovering it. That cuts the forum references to three. With the second opinion on the images I'm satisfied, so I think just these few things and we'll be good. Otto4711 (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I can do the page references for the lead tonight. On the fan discovery of the Skeletor/Spoo reference, I've added more forum posts, without interpretation, as per WP:PRIMARY. All the usages of Straczynski forum posts as primary sources support direct quotes (full disclosure: one wasn't--I just converted it) from Straczynski, who, as the primary author, etc., is himself a published expert on Babylon 5.

Second Opinion

Am I correct in assuming the entirity of the second paragraph is using reference 7? I feel references need to be added after direct quotes earlier on in the paragraph to make their origin clear. I am also concerned with the use of the forum as a reference. In the Skeletor reference and "spoo is" reference for example you can not see what Straczynski's has been asked. I feel this decreases the reliability of the references further. It seems that this first paragraph of the origins section is heavily reliable on sources from the forum and I think this is an issue.

As for the images, I think the Babylon park image would pass. I'd let the skeletor image go as well but I think alot of editors wouldn't.

Any questions or comments please feel free to ask. Million_Moments (talk) 16:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• The Lane2 reference, which itself draws from the Straczynski newsgroup post, has been added to the other quotations in that paragraph.
• I found the post of the fan who discovered the Spoo/Skeletor connection, and cited it from Google Groups. I wasn't able to find the quote which generated "spoo is" as a terse response--I believe that is lost, since it was on Genie or Compuserve, and not indexed by Google.
• I don't really understand what the issue with forum posts is. 1) They're verifiable from Google groups, 2) They follow WP:SELFPUB and WP:SPS, and 3) they're acknowledged to be primary sources. What about the way in which these primary sources are used in this article is incompatible with WP:WIAGA? If we took out every web reference, the article would still have multiple published book references to meet WP:N and WP:V, so I see these as just icing on the cake.

I'll be happy to make other enhancements desired, as long as the text exists for me to legitimately do so. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

12/15: What next?

Are there any pending items that I need to address in order for this to receive an up-or-down evaluation? Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 16:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Justification for use of JMS Internet posts as primary sources

Per the current version of WP:SPS, here's my interpretation of how the use of J. Michael Straczynski's (JMS) posts as primary sources in the current Spoo article measures up:

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject of the article;

All six references support direct quotes from JMS' own message board postings.

2. it is not unduly self-serving;

The quotes describe the creative process, author responses to fan questions, and the like. None of them are self-congratulatory or make any special claims about JMS' creative abilities.

3. it does not involve claims about third parties;

Check.

4. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

Check.

5. there is no reason to doubt its authenticity;

If you google any of the JMS quotes, you can find the Usenet ones in Google groups, and all of them are mirrored multiple times in a variety of fan settings. Much of the "Lane" reference draws from such posts.

6. the article is not based primarily on such sources;

27 references are used a total of 38 times. 12 of those references are to dead-tree publications (Bassom, both Lane books), which makes the published references twice as prevalent as the primary source references.

7. the source in question has been mentioned specifically in relation to the article's subject by an independent, reliable source.

JMS' use of message boards is documented in Kurt Lancaster's Interacting with Babylon 5 (ISBN 0292747217) Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoo for Humans

"This near-universal delight in the taste of spoo apparently doesn't include human tastes. In the episode "A View from the Gallery", neither of the two maintenance men, Mack and Bo, find spoo to their liking, despite the high price of the delicacy."

It is not revealed if they are eating fresh spoo or not however. And it is at least mentioned that Mollari refuses to eat fresh Spoo citing that only the Narn can stomach it. From the looks of the spoo and the knowledge of the men it is likely fresh...76.115.250.108 (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Spoo = Semen

Spoo is British slang for semen. 174.89.28.230 (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spoo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050207201256/http://space.com/sciencefiction/tv/babylon_5_203_001102.html to http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/tv/babylon_5_203_001102.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)