Talk:Skelevision

Although the technique of Skelevison is merely a gimmck that is being attempted for the first time, as I am writing this it is October 2006, it is nonetheless a venture worth noting on a separate page. Skelevison may be used as a comedic device applicable to future television programs and this page will offer a precious recount of those instances in an effort to demote a dissolved network of links between them on wikipedia.org.

What may happen in the future is irrelevant and unknowable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rught now it's a one-time, single-use, neologism. Wikipedia has no interest in being the first to document something which may become notable in the future. We wait. Fan-1967 03:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exclusion of what may happen in the future does not make it irrelevant and suseptible to deletion. The long term effects of an unproven affliction, namely Global Warming, are subject to documentation. Although the importance of one appears to have precedence over the other, the fact remains that if similar parameters are not equally held to two separate articles, both are deserving of validation through a restructuring of standards or both are deserving of deletion.

Let's see, global warming has been going on for decades, and has years of research by thousands of scientists behind it. This one was a skit on tonight's Conan show. Yeah, I'm sure any sane person would judge that the two are really comparable. Fan-1967 04:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your acid tounge is not appreciated. As I had openly admitted to earlier, one does take precedence over the other and yes one is in more dire need of global attention than the other. However, holding two things (articles being the thing in question) to a double standard holds ground for debate.

Don't be ridiculous. There is no double standard. The one article has thousands of sources, the other has one. No comparison at all. Fan-1967 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, there are tens of thousands of other articles that recive documentation on this website that are arguibly a greater trifle. I must ask, do you choose to be argumentative and pose harsh scrutinization onto others for recreational purposes?

My main interest is keeping Wikipedia clear of ephemeral trifles which have not established any notability at all, and have no business being here. The fact that there is other crap that doesn't belong here doesn't excuse adding more. I don't see any point in adding anything more, and I'm going to bed now. Good night. Fan-1967 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a rebuttal to which I expect no reponse, I had never identified Skelevision to be an "[ephemeral] trifle" and I apologize if some may not find any interest in the subject, but the choice is not up to those who maliciously seek the termination of information that that they don't share a keen interest in. Its plans for the future do remain in question, but that is all there is to its debate. Now I feel I too shall retire to my bed. Boxybrown13 04:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you hadn't identified it as an ephemeral trifle. I identified it as an ephemeral trifle. When you create an article on something that happened today, and may or may not ever happen again, that's as ephemeral as it gets. Fan-1967 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a whim I checked to see if the topic was covered in Wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was. I was mostly curious to see what airing provided the audio content for this episode. Maybe there is a better place to post this information, but Wikipedia was the first place I thought of to look for it. In fact, if it wasn't here I would have given little hope of finding it elsewhere.

If it wasn't here where would you have looked to find this out?--DataSurfer 05:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this material would go better under the Late Night with Conan O'Brien article. If it gains more widespread use, then a new article can be created for it in the future. --Nowayout203 06:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merging seems the proper thing to do.--DataSurfer 09:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected to the show's page, rather than deleting it. I've not bothered merging the content; I've redirected as an alternative to deleting, not because I paticularly want to keep the stuff on. However, if anyone does want to try and put the content into the show article, you can access it at the history page here --Robdurbar 17:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]