Talk:Spam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Food and drink (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
 
WikiProject Brands (Rated Disambig-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Disambiguation page Disambig  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.
 

Older comments[edit]

Just as a comment, I slightly went against MoS:DAB by adding periods to the end of summaries. This is because one summary was two sentences, and having the first sentence end with a period but the second one not looks awful. Once periods are established as line terminators, you then need internal page consistency. This has been discussed and tacitly approved on the MoS:DAB talk page.

In other news, a few of the links were going to the same place as the main link, and one of the entries seemed to be completely bogus, at least according to Google. SnowFire 21:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

product history[edit]

i'd suggest a summary of the product rollout and development would be useful. for example, my father (a WW II vet) will not to this day eat spam, because it was a staple canned meat in the infantry in WW II. surely the acquisition demands of the war department helped to increase the production capacity for this product, which in turn drove domestic (homemaker) marketing campaigns to create demand for the production capacity after the war ended. in addition, spam is an important step in the overall development of processed foods during the 20th century, which were essential to the ability to transport and shelf display meats in the retail food infrastructure (compare to the importance of oats as a foodstuff in the 19th century that could be shipped and delivered by mail order) but are now understood to be the cause of epidemic obesity and eating disorders. i am not an expert on spam or on food technology, but i am suggesting that the commercial and social history of a meat product that people put in their mouths is at least as important as the linguistic history of the alternative comedic and digital denotations.Macevoy (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

S.P.A.M?[edit]

Aren't spam just short for Stupid, Pointless, Annoying Message? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.109.192.85 (talkcontribs) .

See Spam_(electronic)#History -SCEhardT 23:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

no i think because spam is terrible ;)Spex control 09:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

"Spam" is a Monty Python skit where all the dishes served contain Spam, and when a woman complains that "I don't like spam," Vikings chant "SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM LOVELY SPAM WONDERFUL SPAM". Usernet users started referring to advertising as spam because of it being unwanted and annoyingly repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.168.162.185 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
S.P.A.M. also: Society for the Publication of American Music. Did a lot of good work toward that end and their acronym can be seen on the plate-end of many musical scores of the early 20th-c (the society started well before 1937 so any puns are anachronistic!) Schissel | Sound the Note! 20:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Design[edit]

Spamily Tree.JPG

Snowfire, you are absolutely correct about what Wikipedia:Manual of Style says about the layout of disambig pages, and your revert was correct, per the book.

Nontheless, I am going to revert. For the first time in my two years on Wikipedia, I am making reference to WP:IAR, because this, I believe, is clearly an instance where it is called for. Let me explain.

MoS says that we need to place the most common usage or meaning first. But the situation with spam is fairly unique. For one thing, if you think about it, the use of Spam to refer to the canned meat is almost certainly not the most common usage today. There are likely many, many people who use the term spam without even having heard of the meat. So MoS would seem to dictate that Spam (canned meat) should NOT be the first thing listed. The only thing is, there are so many other spam meanings here, which one should come first? It's almost impossible to pick one. And then there is the fact that you cannot avoid the fact that these usages are all related (though the Weird Al usage is the most distantly related, as the only meaning with no connection at all to the Monty Python sketch.)

Generally speaking, a disambiguation page is only supposed to point one in the correct direction, that is, to the article that the reader is looking for. But in this case, this page is the "last and best hope" (hyperbole intentional) for the reader to discover and truly understand the relationship between these terms. For that reason, I think we need to ignore the usual rules regarding disambiguation pages and revert to the unusual format it had before. Unschool 04:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with all these points. The Spam page is by no means a special case; it's a bog-standard DAB.
which one should come first? It's almost impossible to pick one 
To the extent that this is a problem, it is a common on for DABs, and MOS:DAB is the best way to address this. See e.g. Georgia, Springfield, Java (disambiguation), Tara, pepper. The order of items is much less of an issue when there is a compact list of only a few than when there are sprawling paragraphs of prose. The guideline of "commonest usage first" is just for reader convenience, not some fundamental principle of representation. If the decision on ordering is easy, make it; if it's close-run, it doesn't matter much if you get it "wrong".
you cannot avoid the fact that these usages are all related 
in most DAB pages, many of the terms have a common origin; probably more than the cases where two things have the same name by coincidence. wikipedia is not a dictionary and does not need to show the branching etymologies. Individual articles can discuss the etymology of the relevant word. The MOS does recommend grouping by subject area, which may give a modicum of relationship info. OK does not divide the page into "things named after okay" and "other things"; it's not relevant for a DAB.
this page is the "last and best hope" for the reader to discover and truly understand the relationship between these terms 
Huh? If someone want to find out how spam (electronic) got its name, it's in that article. If someone wants to find all the different subtypes of spam (electronic), it's in that article, and in {{Spamming}}, and not even now on this DAB, which currently only lists some of them. If someone wants to find out how Spam (food) got its name, it's in that article. What question a reader might have is made more difficult to answer with the MOS format? The Spamily tree graphic is cute, but even if it was encyclopedic, it's WP:OR. Who says "street spam" derive directly from "mindless repetition" rather than from electronic spam? The article doesn't.
Also
"Both are about the original meat product." As regards Save Ferris, this is unsourced. If true, it belongs in the It Means Everything article.
jnestorius(talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Jnestorius, I appreciate your desire to follow WP:MOS, and I remain open to persuasion. I would love to be able to adhere to the MOS, but I also want for the page to be of best service to the reader. Your version of this page, that Mudwater reverted, was not, in my opinion, superior to the current version. One thing that I did like about it was that it was shorter. Frankly, I'm not thrilled about the listing of all these ostensibly unique types of electronic spam. But the articles for those topics do exist, and therefore they need a dab page. Unless you want to make a dab page of electronic spam itself, I don't see how you get these off of here. More important, to me, is to recognize that this is not just a dab page. It is an article in and of itself. While I suppose that the interrelationship of the Hormel product to the Monty Python sketch to the crap that pollutes our email inboxes can be figured out by someone with a healthy degree of determination, it is not going to be obvious. Indeed, as of this writing, only the Monty Python article contains in its lead the information that would connect these three uses. Most of the articles above are not, as far as I can tell, similar to this example. There is not mysterious connection between the meanings of Georgia, they are just different places that have the same name, or are—as is ubiquitously common practice—streets and towns named for these previous places. There is nothing there that would cause the typical person to say "huh?". But most people today first hear of "spam" in their email, and to ascertain whether and how that is connected to a precooked meat product is essentially impossible. Therefore, this article (not just a dab page) exists to explain it. I just don't see why this is so horrible that it should not be kept in place. This has been discussed at length on multiple occasions, and that has been the consensus to date. Again, I am truly open to persuasion that there is a better way, but I haven't seen it yet. Unschool (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and as to your comment that the diagram is OR, you are of course correct, but you should also know that you aren't the first to make that observation. Unschool (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
"to ascertain whether and how that is connected to a precooked meat product is essentially impossible." -- why can't they read Spam (electronic)#Origin of the term "spam"? jnestorius(talk) 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
The question presupposes that we know what the reader is going to do. Let's say that the reader is some middle-aged fart like me, except he only knows about spam from eating it as a kid and because he now gets it in his email inbox at work. He wonders if there is a connection, so he comes to Wikipedia, types in the article title Spam and comes to your version of the article. He doesn't see anything at all about email, but okay, let's suppose that he figures out that he should go to Spam (electronic). He starts reading the article. Nowhere in the lead does it refer to the origins. He keeps going, and comes to the email portion of the article. Now he reads the email section, and still does not learn about the origins, but sees that there is a larger article devoted exclusively to email spam. So he clicks on that, reads the entire article, and still does not learn the origin of the term, because (at least today), it's not in there anywhere.
Jnestorius, not everyone thinks alike. The biggest reason I think that the world embraced Windows over DOS was not actually the pretty graphical interface, and not even because it was easier to click on a picture than to type in a command, but rather, because eventually Windows allowed for the fact that different people would take different paths to get to the same place. Your approach would be fine, if everyone thought as you did. Oh, sure, you can go into each and every individual spam article and place a section on the origin of the term, but that would be a bit like going into bird, reptile, and mammal and having a section defining the meaning of vertebrate. No, this does not follow WP:MOS. But yes, it is far more likely to be more helpful more quickly to more people.Unschool (talk) 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I have no stake in this debate; I do think that disambiguation pages can and should occasionally vary from the usual layout, and I suppose I can see Unschool's point though I'm ambivalent about it. That said, if the consensus ends up being to use a normal form of a disambig page (note: last one of that style is here), then perhaps Unschool's concerns can still be addressed by the creation of a prominent "Spam (terminology)" article or the like which would also be linked to from here. SnowFire (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The last DAB layout is not the one you've linked to but this much shorter one. Including some (not all) subtypes of Spam (electronic) is pointless clutter. How much of Category:Spamming do you think belongs here? Rose (disambiguation) doesn't include everything in Category:Roses; that's the job of the Rose article and its associated category. If you feel the Spam (electronic) is difficult to navigate, then by all means improve it; don't try and make up for any deficiencies there by creating a half-baked mongrel article here. There is no need for a "spam (terminology)" article; the Spam (electronic)#Origin of the term "spam" section explains everything, and there are crosslinks from Spam (food)#Cultural references, Spam (Monty Python)#Impact, and Spam (Monty Python)#Hormel's response. This is not a labyrinth, people; it's three articles. jnestorius(talk) 01:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Pardon, but are you responding to me? I am confused by your first line above:

The last DAB layout is not the one you've linked to but this much shorter one. Your link and mine appear to be identical. Am I missing something? I am certainly confused.

No, that was addressed to SnowFire. jnestorius(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Now I provided you with a very specific and very probable scenario in which a reader would be completely frustrated by your proposed set-up. Might you first be able to respond to that? Unschool (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I said "If you feel the Spam (electronic) is difficult to navigate, then by all means improve it". For example, move the Origin section to be the first subsection; or add a mention of the origin in the introduction. In any case I find your scenario implausible. Someone might perhaps skip over the Table of Contents, thereby missing the mention of section 4.2; but it's implicit from the article's organisation that that E-mail spam is a type of Spam (electronic), and hence that the word "spam" will be discussed in the parent article rather than the child. You wouldn't expect the etymology of Leopard to be explained on the Snow leopard page. jnestorius(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to continue to stay out of the debate over how this page should be presented, but I disagree strongly that at least some specific types of spam should be linked to. DAB pages are meant for convenience, and forcing people to pointlessly make more clicks is not part of that. Many people when they type spam are referring to "e-mail spam" which is way more prevalent than the other types of electronic spam. I'm not saying that the Electronic Spam article shouldn't exist, but there's absolutely no harm in letting people get right to the meaning they meant right away. It's the difference between... if Cat was a disambig page, then yes, the first link should be the family Felidae, but "Cat" also refers to the domesticated (house) cat, which is also a type of cat. Both are called "Cat." Many people will be interested in e-mail spam which is just called "spam," so a link is entirely appropriate. (As it happens, the specific "house cat" meaning is so overwhelming that's what the Cat article is, but if there was a disambig page there, it would absolutely merit links to both.) Another example is that Will links not just to Will (philosophy), but various specific meanings like Free will. Sure, we could force people to click more, but why? SnowFire (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Unschool (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I will concede I was too extreme. I can see the benefit of leaving E-mail spam on the DAB for the reasons you specify; but not of including spamdexing, spam in blogs, etc. jnestorius(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a proposal to address these concerns:


Spam may mean:

  • Spam (food), a canned meat product sold by the Hormel Foods Corporation
  • "Spam" (Monty Python), a comedy sketch set in a restaurant where every dish contains spam
  • Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages (named after the sketch); in particular:
    • E-mail spam, unsolicited or undesired bulk email messages
  • "Spam" (song), a song by "Weird Al" Yankovic
  • "Spam", track #9 on It Means Everything, 1997 ska album by Save Ferris
  • Flyposting ("street spam"), illegal blanket advertising in public places

Any comments? jnestorius(talk) 13:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, in fact, two of them.
  • First of all, thank you for your good faith efforts to work out a compromise that takes into consideration others' concerns.
  • Second, I am intrigued. I just now looked at it, and it's definately an improvement over your previous version. I'm willing to consider something pretty close to this, but I would like to let others comment before I make some minor suggestions for alterations (and I really do mean minor. Nothing to worry about.) Unschool (talk) 03:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
If you have any suggestions, don't wait for us. Suggest away. Mudwater (Talk) 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Minor changes to proposal[edit]

Spam may mean:

  • Spam (food), a canned meat product sold by the Hormel Foods Corporation
  • "Spam" (Monty Python), a comedy sketch set in a restaurant where every dish contains Spam, the above-mentioned canned meat product
  • Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages (named after the Monty Python sketch); in particular:
    • E-mail spam, unsolicited or undesired bulk email messages
  • "Spam" (song), a song about the canned meat product, sung by "Weird Al" Yankovic
  • "Spam", track #9 on It Means Everything, 1997 ska album by Save Ferris
  • Flyposting ("street spam"), illegal blanket advertising in public places



Well, the extra detail doesn't seem necessary to me, but I won't make a big deal out of it. If nobody else objects, fire away. Regards, jnestorius(talk) 13:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge deal, but can we leave out the term "above-mentioned"? Mudwater (Talk) 02:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit, that did feel a bit awkward to me as well. So is this what we're talking?:

Spam may mean:

  • Spam (food), a canned meat product sold by the Hormel Foods Corporation
  • "Spam" (Monty Python), a comedy sketch set in a restaurant where every dish contains Spam, the canned meat product
  • Spam (electronic), unsolicited or undesired bulk electronic messages (named after the Monty Python sketch); in particular:
    • E-mail spam, unsolicited or undesired bulk email messages
  • "Spam" (song), a song about the canned meat product, sung by "Weird Al" Yankovic
  • "Spam", track #9 on It Means Everything, 1997 ska album by Save Ferris
  • Flyposting ("street spam"), illegal blanket advertising in public places

Requested edit[edit]

Link R.E.M. should link to R.E.M. (band) --Passargea 02:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Unschool 03:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong redirect[edit]

Since SPAM is the registered trademark of Hormel Foods Inc., surely the SPAM page should redirect to Spam (food), not this one. Hormel doesn't mind "spam" (sentence case) being used for UCE and such, as long as their trademark is always spelled in upper case. -- 217.171.129.74 (talk) 04:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not been in the habit of having corporations determine their policies on naming articles, redirects, or anything else. There are perfectly valid reasons—overwhelming, IMO—for having the redirect come here. Unschool (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Addressing concerns of Mudwater[edit]

Mudwater, you are of course totally correct about removing the extra link in that first entry. I noticed when it was placed there, quite some time ago, and just failed to deal with it. I support your removal of the extra link.

However, I am going to revert the formatting on this. To understand why, please read the comments above. This is a case where strictly following a conventional format does a disservice to the reader, and I think separating the uses in the manner they were prior to your edit better informs and better serves the reader. I would be happy to discuss it further if this is at all unclear. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can see that considerable thought has gone into this, and you've got some valid points, but I think your goal can still be achieved while showing the actual article titles, by changing this:
Spam originally referred to a canned meat product sold by the Hormel Foods Corporation. Since then, many other uses of the term have emerged.
to this:
Spam originally referred to Spam (food), a canned meat product sold by the Hormel Foods Corporation. Since then, many other uses of the term have emerged.
How about it? Mudwater (Talk) 03:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Very nice. I think the honor of the edit should be yours. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we're all set. Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 11:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trimming verbosity[edit]

The recent edits by RoySmith are generally well-considered, and improve this dab page. However, there are two of the entries that I'm going to return to the old wording, for reasons which I will now explain. This dab page used to be a lot longer[1], and was shortened to its current length by the efforts of Mudwater and others. When trimming it back, one point that all agreed upon was that it was important that on this dab page we make clear the link between the Monty Python sketch and the electronic crap we get, like email. So I'm putting that connection back in. Secondly, I think that because there are two songs named "Spam", that we should list the artists' names. The purpose of a dab page, after all, is to guide a person to the article they are looking for, and we fail this, IMHO, if we do not include Weird Al's name. Unschool 18:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Spam (disambiguation)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

SpamSpam (disambiguation) — Consistent with most other pages. Hello71 20:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What page do you plan to move to spam. We only need to use (disambiguation) if some other page called Spam is the most the primary topic.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose – per 76.66.180.54's comment. ɠu¹ɖяy¤ • ¢  22:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per WP:DABNAME, "The title of a disambiguation page is the ambiguous term itself, provided there is no primary topic for that term. If there is a primary topic, then the tag "(disambiguation)" is added to the name of the disambiguation page..." In this case there's no primary topic, so this disambiguation page should keep the name "Spam". And that makes sense too, because "spam" can commonly refer to Spam (food), Spam (electronic), or E-mail spam, so there's there's no single article that would be appropriate for a primary topic. Mudwater (Talk) 23:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No basis for move per above. PC78 (talk) 11:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

To avoid recentism use: Spam text[edit]

The refusal to point "spam" to article "Spam (food)" is a clear case of WP:Recentism, where the decades-old meaning of "Spam" is being trampled (by an email term popularized c.2000). To avoid disambiguation for the electronic form, I have created the redirect term "spam text" (which is not a food!). If a new hit song were recorded, with title "Albert Einstein" as a duet played by the remaining Beatles, with Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga, then there would be a push to make "Albert Einstein" a dab page. Sorry, but I think that is just plain wrong. Instead, this is how I would arrange articles for the term "spam":

  • Title "spam" would be a permanent redirect to the much older "Spam (food)".
  • Article "Spam (food)" would note: "see Spam (electronic) or Spam (disambiguation)".
  • Article "Spam (electronic)" would note: "see Spam (food) or Spam (disambiguation)".
  • Other "spam..." articles would note: "see Spam or Spam (electronic) or Spam (disambiguation)".

A recent popular meaning for a term (such as "spam") typically gets mention in the hat-notes for similar titles, but should not wiki-hijack a well-known term, which is many decades older, to become an on-the-fence dab page. It is enough, for the worship of popularity, to put the new, popular article in the hat-notes, not neutralize a decades-old term to become a disambiguation page. That is as concisely as I can explain the concept of retaining older names, without too much spamming (hehe). -Wikid77 12:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "Although an ambiguous term may refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box. If there is such a topic, then it is called the primary topic for that term. If a primary topic exists, the ambiguous term should be the title of, or redirect to, the article on that topic." In my opinion that's not the case here. That is, I think it's not "much more likely" that someone would be looking for the food instead of the electronic kind. So I think that "Spam" should remain a disambiguation page, but I'd like to hear other editors' opinions on this. But in any event, "Spam (food)" should not have a disambiguating hatnote for "Spam (electronic)", and "electronic" should not have a hatnote for "food", because per WP:NAMB non-ambiguous titles such as these should not be disambiguated. Mudwater (Talk) 00:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, the term "SPAM" for decade, after decade, after decade has been "SPAM" the food, not e-mail flooding. Again, if a new hit song were recorded, with title "Albert Einstein" as a duet played by the remaining Beatles, with Justin Bieber and Lady Gaga, then there would be a push to make "Albert Einstein" a dab page, not "some scientist" who died over 50 years ago. People would debate the song title as being what most readers came to Wikipedia to find. When actor, songwriter Michael Jackson died, the pageviews for "Blanket" (son's name) soared many-fold beyond the traffic for "bedspread" or "quilt" (etc.). Obviously, most people came to read about Jackson's son nicknamed "Blanket" so I set the hatnote in article "Blanket" to link an article about his son from there. It could be argued that title "Blanket" should have been immediately changed to be an article about his son, and leave the bed-covering blanket as a minor disambiguation issue. However, setting hatnotes to link popular meanings of a term is logically enough to handle popularity. We should permanently direct title "Cleopatra" to "Cleopatra VII" and not swerve away if "cleopatra" becomes a widespread form of unwanted e-mail. Merely setting the hatnote to other articles is sufficient. -Wikid77 08:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree that electronic spam is more recent than canned meat Spam. But in my opinion both terms a very commonly used, and a reader is not "much more likely" to be looking for the canned meat article. Unlike "Blanket", electronic spam is not a news topic that will decline in search popularity within a few weeks, it's here to stay. So based on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, I think "Spam" should remain a disambiguation page. But I would be interested in other editors' opinions about this. If most editors think that the canned meat is the primary topic, I'd be willing to go along with that. Mudwater (Talk) 13:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe that the canned meat is the "primary topic" in the Wikipedia sense, that is that its usage is greater than all the other uses combined. Both the meat and the email sense are very notable, and there are some other non-trivial meanings as well. Disambig is the right choice.
The comment about the meat being the right choice for decades is irrelevant. It's not uncommon for there to be totally non-notable or minor topics which are eclipsed by something else eclipsing the original meaning in importance. Wikipedia should point to the subject most often desired by readers, not the one with an age advantage. Recentism would more apply if, say, a movie called "Spam" was coming out soon and expected to get a sudden surge in hits on opening weekend, in which case obviously a judgment should not be made immediately based on data that is likely to change soon. SnowFire (talk) 01:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

SPAM vs Spam[edit]

The company has maintained that the name of their product, and the trademark,is SPAM in all caps. But the article's references are all in mixed case.

There's a reference to it on their website somewhere (although I haven't checked recently) and they contrast it with lower case spam meaning UCE.

I'd rather leave it to somebody else rather than go through the entire article changing things, but it doesn't reflect what the company calls the product. Hagrinas (talk) 00:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The article should stay the way it is, and use "Spam" instead of "SPAM", because, per MOS:TM, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, regardless of the preference of trademark owners." There are several archived discussions about this:
Mudwater (Talk) 00:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Spam: Ingredients[edit]

SPAM varieties[edit]

Because the page is locked:

"In honor of its prominent role in Monty Python’s Spamalot musical, Hormel also released limited-time Golden Honey Grail and Stinky French Garlic varieties in 2005 and 2006 to coincide with the play’s Broadway opening."

SPAM with Black Pepper — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.79.13 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Speef and Spork[edit]

Burns Foods, in Canada, manufactured similar products around 1947-8, called "Speef" and "Spork" (probably influenced by the name "Spam"). I'm sure this would be of interest to many, but I'm not sure where to include it here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jbcurio/410913153/

http://spldatabase.saskatoonlibrary.ca/ics-wpd/exec/icswppro.dll?AC=SEE_ALSO&QF0=SUBJECT&QI0==%22BURNS%20%26%20CO.%22&XC=/ics-wpd/exec/IcsWPPro.dll&BU=&TN=LHR_RAD&SN=AUTO13572&SE=1519&RN=0&MR=20&TR=0&TX=1000&ES=0&CS=2&XP=&RF=www_Default+Canned&EF=&DF=&RL=0&EL=0&DL=0&NP=4&ID=&MF=&MQ=&TI=0&DT=&ST=0&IR=0&NR=0&NB=0&SV=0&SS=0&BG=&FG=&QS=&OEX=ISO-8859-1&OEH=ISO-8859-1 Heavenlyblue (talk) 01:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Where is the history section?[edit]

At the moment the article just appears to be a thrown together mess of facts by country. There should be a properly laid out chronology of the product in terns of history, development and period. The by nation sectioning should go. And it reads horribly like an extended advert at the moment. Irondome (talk) 04:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIA continues to spam the public for money[edit]

Wikipedia continues to spam me for money everytime I look something up? This is ridiculous!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.64.8 (talk) 12:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Responsible Person for SPAM crockery, see TTL[edit]

Any resposible persons watching this IP? If yes, perhaps you could help with the Time To Live talkpage qeury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.0.225 (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)