Talk:Spoo (food)/Archive 1

message: Ahoy.  I recently re-wrote the entry on spoo, and put a similar version over on the Great Machine B5 wiki and the B5 page at wikicities. 
Of note, I have removed the entire text of JMS's spoo post, but included many, many links.  The reason I did this is because it seems unencyclopedic to just copy and paste a resource, and though JMS indeed said his post can be copied anywhere online, it is still in violation of the copyright rules here, as well as the spirit of the wikipedia itself as an encyclopedia rather than a regurgitator of resources.  In addition to the many, many links, it can be found in the history. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 09:27, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, leading up to the peer review I've added a bunch of stuff, tweaked everything else, and changed my hideous inline links to inline footnotes (inline references).  I've also created and added a wikisource source page of JMS's original spoo post.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: How can something that's been released into the public domain by the author be in violation of the copyright rules here?  I am just curious - public domain is public domain, right?  I was going to suggest Wikisource for the original spoo post, just so this page doesn't have to rely on the current link staying up.  --Dmitri Bichko 21:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: JMS's posts are not in the public domain, not by a long shot - they may be reprinted only on the internet or USENET by anyone other than SFX Magazine provided credit is given, and he retains full copyright.  Not public domain, and more importantly, not GFDL.  Additionally, it is unencyclopedic to just regurgitate the source.  Finally, I've already put it on wikisource, three days ago - check the bottom right hand of the page.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> - 05:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Major Edit

message: Do I get it right? --Stone 11:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get what right? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 12:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of April! Everybody will think this is for the april fool, but if its not than its also OK. The whole article does not look like featured, a little bit short for me, but its in and this is good.--Stone 12:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious! Spoo makes the front page! This has always been a great article -- such excellent work on such a silly topic. JMS would  be proud. Congrats to all. Jsnell 04:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 17:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia runs on UTC, which is ~6 hours ahead of EST.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 06:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Which started 16 hours ago... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 16:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 1)It's a really good show, and 2) Yes.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, folks.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First of April 

message: I'm going to put back the old reference formatting for now - the old one looks better I feel.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. The old style reference format used external links to fake internal ones, it required careful synchronization between reference section and article body whenever changes were made, and it didn't allow multiple links to the same refernece (as I mention below). You're offering only a subjective opinion in opposition to this. Bryan 01:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It did not fake external links as internal.  Additionally, two Ibids is not that big of a deal (aside from being completely appropriate).  As for careful synchronization being needed, its not a problem - this article is incredibly stable, and massive ammounts of text being added are unlikely until more stuff is published (unlikely again).  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. Perhaps you're using a different skin that doesn't make it as obvious, but in Classic internal links and external links have a different color. Footnotes using the old templates are external links that happen to point back to pages on Wikipedia. Check out the source for template:ref; it uses the "fullurl:" tag to insert an external link. Anyway, the new ref tags are the standard endorsed by both Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, so I think you should present more of a case for switching back than just a personal preference for how it "looked." Bryan 01:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The bigger font is OK... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool! Congrats on the article.:-) —Encephalon 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, I would have thought that the day when an article hits main page is when it'd be most important for it to have an easily-updateable referencing format - that's why I jumped in and did it when I did, I saw that the main page had just updated and was anticipating an impending spate of edits to the contents of the article as a result. Oh well, there seem to be a bunch of content edits coming in now so a straight revert to my version would be difficult at this point. I'll just re-do the work some other time. I've been wandering around updating reference formatting on random articles for weeks now so I'm used to it. :) Bryan 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And seriously, thank you for your efforts.  They are appreciated.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean I can put the ref tags back in without being reverted? Bryan 05:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: exactly what is the OR you referred to? Bcameron54 19:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spoo is also a portmanteau of 'Spam' and 'poo', both familiar in sandwich lore." Please.  Provide a reference for that, which, by the way, looks like vandalism, more than anything.  Nothing in the history of the word or the fictional aspects suggests any of that.  Original research, if not vandalism.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

text: we were talking spoo here.  happy april fool's day. Bcameron54 17:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference formatting 

message: Is there an equivalent of vegetarian haggis?
Jackiespeel 21:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None ever mentioned.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spp and the vegetarians

message: He said so in this one "Dilbert" cartoon by Scott Adams.  Dilbert appears to be the only engineer that doesn't know how to lie.  OneWeirdDude 21:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dilbert's spoo has too much fleem." 

message: Pronunciation needed or add the word to Wictionary too, please. --Snek01 07:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is not appropriate for wiktionary.  As for the pronounciation, it's pronounced like the word poo with a soft s before it.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: I always assumed the etymology of Spoo in Babylon 5 was related to Bill Mumy (who played Lennier in the series).  
In 1979 Barnes & Barnes (Bill Mumy and Robert Haimer) recorded the song "Three Drunk Newts" which begins with the two of them yelling what I always thought was "Spoo!".  When spoo references started appearing in Babylon 5, I assumed it was some sort of inside joke between Straczynski and Mumy. --Circumjacence 03:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You assumed incorrectly.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it can be shown that Barnes & Barnes indeed say "Spoo!" at the beginning of the song, is it worthy of mention?  1979 predates the He-man reference and Mumy did play a fairly important Character in Babylon 5.  What would be the best way to go about referencing an audio work / lyric? --Circumjacence 14:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spoo and Bill Mumy 

message: This article refers to sources that are considered unreliable. No idea how this article ever came to become a FA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because your view on what sources are considered unreliable is a lot more restrictive than the mainstream? I don't see anything objectionable in the references myself (aside from formatting issues - could use more cite templates IMO). See Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Spoo, looks like there was a lot of discussion of the references there. Bryan 04:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable sources 

message: ==== tastes like...? ====
Shouldn't the 'taste' paragraph mention that there is Bab5 episode which does mention how it tastes:  I'm not sure, but as I recall, G'kar is introducing a human dish to another Narn, who tries a bite and asks with surprise "where did you get fresh spoo?"  G'kar insists it really is a human delicacy, "swedish meatballs".  (This is the same episode which claims Spoo-like dishes have independently turned up in all major cultures.)  Can anybody confirm this with a reference? Not-just-yeti 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Spoo with what G'Kar knows as "Breen," a wholly unrelated dish.  In the episode "Walkabout," G'Kar mentions off hand that every sentient species has a version of Breen - a dish humans know as Swedish meatballs.  This was also a sly reference by JMS to a similar concept by Douglas Adams from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content 

message: Shouldn't the 'taste' paragraph mention that there is Bab5 episode which does mention how it tastes:  I'm not sure, but as I recall, G'kar is introducing a human dish to another Narn, who tries a bite and asks with surprise "where did you get fresh spoo?"  G'kar insists it really is a human delicacy, "swedish meatballs".  (This is the same episode which claims Spoo-like dishes have independently turned up in all major cultures.)  Can anybody confirm this with a reference? Not-just-yeti 03:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are confusing Spoo with what G'Kar knows as "Breen," a wholly unrelated dish.  In the episode "Walkabout," G'Kar mentions off hand that every sentient species has a version of Breen - a dish humans know as Swedish meatballs.  This was also a sly reference by JMS to a similar concept by Douglas Adams from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  tastes like...? 

message: As far as I can see, that's not a template. Is it just trolling? I have never seen a box like that before. --Ifrit 19:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 'The box is custom made, for, although he is incorrect in his factual assesment, he does indeed dislike it.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see absolutely no reason for it to exist, whether it's correct or not. I'm removing it. Bryan Derksen 05:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Wales hates this article? 

message: There is another occurrence of "spoo" in popular culture, the slightly cultish obsession surrounding the phrase "My spoo has too much fleem.", which occurred in a Dilbert comic (date unknown).  If anyone could help elaborate or perhaps even link to the comic so that the rest of the world could enjoy it, it would be greatly appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MyOwnLittlWorld (talk • contribs) 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dilbert Spoo (and Fleem)

message: The urban dictionary of sexual slang  offers correlative data for a sexual/slang origin (which may have followed common linguistic "reduction" from "spooge" to "spoo"). Also, this seems to have crossed over to computer jargon (as "bad output") as can be seen at: 
spooge:
Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spooge [I'm new to Wikipedia; please to pardon all blunders.]
Beofluff 09:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can find a more reliable reference than Urban Dictionary, then I'm all for adding the "spoo(ge)" definition to it. I've heard the term used in that way before, and was actually going to say something about it myself. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 20:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that usage is mentioned in the article and has been for a long time ("According to Slang and Euphemism, spoo is a slang term for ejaculate, etymologically derived from spew, and cited by linguist Pamela Munro in a paper on 1980s collegiate slang at UCLA.") --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further linguistic sources for "spoo" 

message: Consensus is based on a system of good reasons. So, what are the good reasons for keeping information that has nothing to do with Babylon 5 spoo in the article about Babylon 5 spoo? Once again, several people in the review indicated that this information is irrelevant; I saw no rebuttals. Punctured Bicycle 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The real-world usage of the word provides etymological background on the word's construction and use in regards to the word's creation and origins prior to and in relation to JMS.  The section is necessary.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First off, this article is not about the word spoo; if it were, it would begin "Spoo is an English word..." Second, the relevant "etymology" of spoo was preserved in the article ("Spoo is Oops spelled backward"). Third, if you want to indicate that Straczynski was not the first to use spoo, so as not to mislead the reader, then fair enough. But that can be accomplished in a single sentence; you don't need to list every example under the sun—examples which, again, have no demonstrated connection to Babylon 5. Finally, Jimbo Wales himself has cited this article as a good example of original research (even as a featured article), and this section partially shows why. For example, surveying USENET and print archives to discover the "earliest known" occurrence of something is pure original research. It is up to reliable, third-party, secondary sources to tell us when something first occured; you, or whoever searched through these archives, lack the editorial oversight of credible, professional publishers. Punctured Bicycle 13:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo's word is not gospel, and most of the references are third party.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimbo's word is based on Wikipedia:No original research, which is official policy. Is that all you have to say? Punctured Bicycle 14:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Real-world etymology of the word" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It's clear that Wikipedia has failed, and the site must be shut down immediately.--Father Goose (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: What a mess