Talk:Spoo (food)/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 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.  Pagra shtak  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?  Pagra shtak  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 Proposed deletion or Articles for deletion. I'm sure there are many of them.  Pagra shtak  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.  Pagra shtak  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.  Pagra shtak  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)

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.

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