Talk:Miss Kitty Fantastico

Untitled
If you would like to include the link regarding the ERKEFAP, please clarify its context in the text. As is, it is a non sequitor. Even if clarified, shouldn't this go on the page about the kitten-eater, not the kitten? - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 00:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You didn't explain "irrelevant".


 * "Some demons" links to an article in which the alleged ailurophagy of one of those demons (the only reason the demons are mentioned) is discussed in a manner which has pretty much the same fluffy-levity coefficient as the Miss Kitty Fantastico article. This saurine scandal was written up in The Toronto Star as a Buffy shout-out. Whether that shout-out was correct is "irrelevant". "Play it again, Sam" is incorrect, but it's still a reference to Casablanca.


 * I've reverted your reversion. Two editors like the current version.   Two dislike it.


 * If someone else reverts me, then I'll bow out disgracefully (and vice versa :-) Otherwise, I see no reason to censor a link to a kindred article.


 * chocolateboy 00:56, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a kindred article at all. It's an article about Ontario politics, not relevant even to most Canadians.  A link to a Buffy-related page (perhaps not this one) from there might be relevant, but the reverse is not the case.


 * You count User:Evercat as supporting you, but although he appreciated the humor, it doesn't necessarily mean that he actually supports weblog-style "box of chocolates" hyperlinking in an encyclopedia, if he gave it some thought and expressed an opinion. It makes encyclopedias less useful. -- Curps 01:22, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see what Evercat thinks.


 * I think the link is not entirely sensible. :-) Evercat 19:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a kindred article at all. It's an article about Ontario politics, not relevant even to most Canadians. A link to a Buffy-related page (perhaps not this one) from there might be relevant, but the reverse is not the case.


 * The Miss Kitty Fantastico article is also "not relevant even to most Canadians" and, if it comes to that, not "relevant" to most Wikipedians (whatever "relevant" means in this show-me-the-policy context). So that's another thing the two genial pieces of fluff have in common. (Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet was recently a Featured article candidate, so it's not quite as "who cares?" as it might at first appear.)


 * Repeating the "box of chocolates" metaphor doesn't elevate it to the status of an argument. On the contrary, for those of us who find it difficult to regard the image of a chocolate hyperlink as despicable, the metaphor serves only to render the link more apposite, not less.


 * chocolateboy 02:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not saying that Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet is a bad or irrelevant article, in fact it's quite a good one, and perfectly good for Wikipedia. The problem is linking to it from Miss Kitty Fantastico, all the more so because of the linking style you use.


 * For lack of a better name, I have chosen to call this linking style "box of chocolates", from Forrest Gump. See "Box of chocolates linking considered harmful". This is not a metaphor about your username.


 * -- Curps 02:39, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is not a metaphor about your username.


 * It's also not an argument or a policy. See Wikipedia:Village Pump.


 * chocolateboy 03:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

What I wrote in User_talk:Chocolateboy, copied here:

It's a general rule on Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, that links should point to exactly what you expect them to link to, based on the linked text.

Some general websites have a policy of linking many words per sentence to external pages, and you have no idea what the link will go to. That's their style. Sometimes Metafilter does this. However, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia links have to follow a no-surprise "what you get is what you see" policy.

The policy is manifestly implicitly in use everywhere on Wikipedia, in every link. It may even be explicitly stated in a style guide. It's just the nature of an encyclopedia. Weblogs often use surprise "box-of-chocolates" (in the Forrest Gump sense) links, but Wikipedia isn't a weblog.

-- Curps 01:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, the kitten-eating demon Clem is not reptilian nor from another planet, and if memory serves nor were his poker-playing buddies. -- Curps 01:12, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Some demons ...


 * chocolateboy 01:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Rant
Village_pump was moved to: Wikipedia talk:Principle of least astonishment

-- Curps 02:08, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The link is ridiculous, and I would have deleted it myself if somebody else hadn't. This is the most ridiculous edit war I've ever seen. Rick'''K 05:42, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If no-one else thinks the link is acceptable, please unprotect the page: I won't reinstate it.


 * chocolateboy 05:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Personally, though I agree that some types of linking can be annoying, such as sentences in which every other word is linked, this particular link doesn't bother me. On the contrary, I found it both amusing and informative, I wouldn't have discovered the article were it not for this link, and I can't see the harm in it. I'd call this a "free association" link - the linked to article is not totally random. Even Google will sometimes bring you to a free-association article if you hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button; and according to a founder of Google whom I heard quoted recently, not all these links are randomly generated by the search algorithm, some of them are actually planted. However, if Curps and/or RickK feel that strongly about it, go ahead and remove the link. --Woggly 06:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Evercat 19:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Excellent Pussy
I mean, of course, Miss Kitty Fantastico, the greatest cat on TV. But the line 'The very name "Miss Kitty Fantastico" has therefore been interpreted by some as meaning "pussy is great"' - seems unlikely to me, as it's pretty much the opposite approach to the one Joss used in portraying Willow and Tara. There was never anything prurient about it, except that dream sequence when Xander has his little fantasy - and the point about that is that his fantasy was so different to how the girls really were! Searching on Google for "Miss Kitty Fantastico" and "pussy is great" gives two results, Wikipedia and (bizarrely) Websters Online, which reprints the Wikipedia entry. Now I know someone is going to revert my deleting that line and I won't fight it, but *please* give a citation? "Interpreted by some" - by whom? Hobson 02:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)