Talk:Aglet

Etymology

I added some knowledge about when the aglet was first introduced and what its contents were made from or contained. But the reference I tried to add was not valid on this website because it was blacklisted but it is fine. No worries. Flirteebby (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

from VfD

aglet - orphan that can never be more than a dictionary definition, better redirected to Wiktionary. Daniel Quinlan 08:12, Nov 24, 2003 (UTC)
- Agree. Anjouli 08:19, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Changed my mind after the Java def. added today. Keep it. Anjouli 08:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - I was just screwing around; I took "can never be more than" as a challenge. I should just get a life. Don't let it influence you. orthogonal 08:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - Seriously, keep it. I didn't know about the java. That's factual content. Why delete? Anjouli 14:35, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - I've just expanded the article into a decent sized stub so I'd like to keep it. theresa knott 15:50, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Is more than a dictionary definition. Keep. Onebyone 15:59, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I created the 'aglet' page about two days ago (11-22-03), and I'm happy to see its now been handsomely flushed out from the original entence or two I posted. But if it gets complaints THIS early on, maybe Daniel Quinlan is right. Then agin, the tide seems to have turned for keeping it so DO- who knows if, heaven forbid, someone actually has to know what an Aglet is! Litefantastic
- Keep now. can never be more than a dictionary definition should really be immortalised as famous last words for anyone listing a recently created article here...:) Jamesday 02:55, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  - - - The funny thing is. Had the article not been listed here I and User:Orthogonal would probably never seen it and it would have more than likely stayed as a dictionary definition.The phrase "can never be more than a dictionary definition", cries out to be proved wrong and is has made the article what it is now.theresa knott 09:32, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    - Hear hear! -Litefantastic 8:28, 25 Nov 2003 (Eastern Time)
    - Hear hear! I enjoyed the aglet article and was startled that anyone would want to delete it. Opus33 18:39, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. It's more than a dictionary definition now. -- Ortonmc 05:04, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know how to edit the article, but there is a pop culture reference to the aglet in the 1990 Leslie Nielsen comedy Repossessed, which has Linda Blair in the lead role, as Nancy Aglet. In the "memorable quotes" section of imdb.com you'll find this... Frieda: What does the name 'Aglet' mean anyway? Braydon: Well a long time ago 'Aglet' meant 'He who puts those tiny little plastic things on shoelaces' you see a long time a go a mans' name was his profession. Frieda: Oh so a man named Fred Carpenter would build houses and John Baker would make bread Braydon: Exactly Ned: So what did John Hancock do? 202.50.245.82 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Rose.[reply]

im actually using this article to help right an essay for my english comp and rhet class. he said for us to do a descriptive essay about it. id post it, but i dont want him to think that i stole it from here.

The plastic tips at the end of shoelaces are called aglets. Their true purpose is sinister. - The Question

Trivia

It is as unacceptable here as it is everywhere else. Simple mentioning aglets doesn't warrant inclusion in this article, and its importance cannot be implied without a secondary source. --Eyrian 15:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Shakespeare reference doesn't count as trivia, then? 216.151.95.158 17:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That sentence is discussing a particular sort of aglet that was common in the past, and mentions how this was referred to in Shakespeare, giving a name to the phenomenon. --Eyrian 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are trivia or popculture references unacceptable in this article, or at all? Why is it not relevent to say that the aglet was mentioned in a Leslie Nielson film or in a cartoon, but for example the Albuquerque article mentions a Partridge Family song (in a very long list of pop culture references)? Mathlaura 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither reference is acceptable. I'll go take a look at the one you're talking about. --Eyrian 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Shakespeare reference, if it were "Shakespeare mentions aglets in Taming of the Shrew", it would be removed. In this case, it is describing a particular variety of aglet, and Shakespeare is being used as a reference for the name. --Eyrian 17:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just removed the "In popular culture" section. Apparently this isn't the first time. See WP:TRIVIA. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ends on shoelaces are called aglets, their true purpose is sinister. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.196.167 (talk) 02:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general the "In Popular Culture" sections annoy me, but in this case it is the only reason that someone might look up Aglet. I, for example, hit this page by searching Google for "Their true purpose is sinister". Instead of random pop culture references it might be best to include some explanation of why it often appears in TV/movies/comics. 63.197.247.13 (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cocktail reference valid?

It was an improvement to remove the irrelevant trivia. I do think, however, that the reference to the movie Cocktail has encyclopedic value because the word "fluglebinder" has entered the common lexicon from this movie, and many people (myself included, until I did the research today) think it might be the standard word for an aiglet, a word I'd never heard before in my life. When it comes up in conversation, someone always says, "Is that a real word, or was it invented in Cocktail?" but nobody knows any other term for it. Anyway, I came to Wikipedia looking to find out if a "fluglebinder" was an aiglet, so I'd say it was relevant as encyclopedic information, and deserves a mention on this page.

So, I propose adding text similar to the following to the bottom of the main part of the entry:

The word flugelbinder or fluglebinder was coined in the movie Cocktail to refer to aiglets. Since then, it has caught on and is now popularly used to refer to aiglets by those are unfamiliar with the standard term.

If the addition is accepted, then I also propose creating redirect links from "Flugelbinder" and "Fluglebinder" to this article. --Atkinson (talk) 11:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is just a drive-by edit, so if there's support, then someone go ahead and make the changes because I probably won't be back any time soon. Atkinson (talk) 11:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no objection, so I've made the changes myself.--Atkinson (talk) 10:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's gone. This is unencyclopaedic, trivial, and your addition was completely unreferenced. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aglets in popular culture -> Tip of the Day - Phineas and Ferb episode

Mention it - it even includes this song: [1] 78.88.117.116 (talk) 11:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Constant addition of Phineas and Ferb episode

Every week, a well-meaning visitor adds a reference to the Phineas & Ferb episode about aglets. These additions are just as quickly deleted as "trivia" by other well-meaning editors. Will this to and fro continue indefinitely? Is it worth adding a suitably worded entry just to stop the constant edit battle? Is there justification for adding such a reference anyway? After all, unlike other "trivia", this is a whole episode of a cartoon devoted not just to "aglets" but to the fact that the word "aglet" is largely unknown, probably because it is such a "trivial" object (and therefore commonly appears in trivia quizzes). Ian Fieggen (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I watch Phineas and Ferb; I like Phineas and Ferb. But that doesn't mean that the show needs to be mentioned here. In the List of Phineas and Ferb episodes entry for the episode in question, the word aglet is quite properly linked to this article for the benefit of readers wanting more information about aglets. But adding a mention of the episode here does not provide readers with any useful information about aglets or about Phineas and Ferb. "I spotted a reference to X in poplar-culture artifact Y" is not, in general, encyclopedic content; in fact, I think I first looked at this article shortly after the episode aired because I knew that this would happen. Deor (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I looked at this article specifically because of that episode and my curiosity to find out more about the aglet and why it would be worth the time to make it a plot in a cartoon. IMHO, pop culture references are a part of any object's meaning and history, regardless of how trivial said object might be. After all, not only are there entire dictionaries dedicated to slang terms, much of which arise from "pop culture," but also find their way into "normal" dictionaries as well. Wikipedia is supposed to be an ever growing repository of knowledge on any and every conceivable subject known to man (and woman). Major inclusion of an object into cultural reference, be it "pop" or otherwise, is surely deserving of some kind of side note, especially when said reference is an influencing factor in a person's reason for desiring to gather more information about said object. The fact that P&F has had such an influence on enough people to be included in this debate, seems to me to make it enough of a factor to be included in a reference/trivia note. Hanok Odbrook 68.80.23.59 (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be mentioned that it is a very common joke that people do not know what aglets are, often referring to them simply as "the thing on the end of your shoelaces," which is the reason for it's inclusion into various pop-cultural references. Seeing as how this concerns the aglet specifically, to umbrella the concept, I propose that the article read "It is a common joke in English-speaking countries that the proper name for the aglet is regularly unknown."--142.167.187.54 (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]