|Spork has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Life. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as B-Class.|
|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|To-do list for Spork:|
Amend "Sporks are also frequently used by backpackers and other outdoors enthusiast as they are a light weight alternative to carrying both a fork and knife" to say "carrying both a fork and spoon."
can't seem to see how to edit this, but this quote is wrong:
"I'm pretty sure the spork was introduced to a wider audience by KFC. I remember them being a part of their standard service when I was a kid in the late 1970s, when some were still called Scott's Chicken Villa (which I believe was the original Canadian company that did a reverse takeover of KFC, dunno for sure). The rest of the Yum lineup is much newer, Scott's go back to the 60's at least."
Taco Bell was founded by Glenn Bell in 1962 and he had opened his first taco stand in the 50s. A&W has been around since the 20s, Pizza Hut since 1958, Long John Silvers since 1969. for the record KFC was started in 1939
Any comments on the spork wars?
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 11, 2004, August 11, 2005, August 11, 2006, and August 11, 2007.|
- 1 Grapefruit spoon?
- 2 Film Appearances
- 3 Thingites
- 4 Foon?
- 5 Best?
- 6 KFC
- 7 OED
- 8 Japan and MacArthur
- 9 August 11, 1970 patent?
- 10 World War II Rumors
- 11 Ok to Use Rumors as Sources in Wikipedia?
- 12 "Spork" as humor
- 13 References
- 14 Spork Patents
- 15 Foon
- 16 Odd ref
- 17 Spork/splade
- 18 Spanish cuchillor?
- 19 School lunches?
- 20 Spork Wars
- 21 Bojangles
- 22 Very Unpopular Sporks
- 23 Materials - Minor edit
- 24 spork or Spork (TM)?
- 25 In Fine Restaurants
- 26 Spork as metaphor - neither spoon nor fork
- 27 Removed story about concealed sporks
- 28 Merger proposal
- 29 Heritage
- 30 Webbed fork
- 31 spork in free and open source software development
- 32 Tines
- 33 why is this article s-protected?
- 34 Edit request from Gooshie, 28 July 2011
- 35 Edit request on 21 March 2013
- 36 Not a foon
Who calls a spork like object a
grapefruit spoon? The only grapefruit spoons I have ever seen were the serrated spoons, no tines involved. There would be no point in using a spork-like design, since it wouldn't cut the tough grapefruit, then would simply leave you with a choice of spoon or fork functions for lifting the pieces.
In reply to the above message I add that a spoon with a serrated edge is known as a spife (spoon/knife hybrid). There are also knorks (knife/fork hybrids). Dont know why I know this but Dominic Bennet of Somerset UK did a yound persons speech about sporks and came 1st in the public speaking competition.
The spork has achieved notoriety is several movies but was first noticed in the supporting role in “Born of the spork of July”. Many critics are on record as saying that the spork carried actor Tom Cruise who has since been seen “in the closet” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Referring to edit by Ravedave @ 19:32, 14/12/05: Apologies, was the link to the Thingites (who adopted the spork as their logo) peceived as promoting a site, or simply failing to add unique content? —Original contributor, 18.104.22.168 02:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Sometimes known as a foon? Who among us has not pondered this alternate humorous name for the spork while meditating on its origins? And, once coming up with it, who has ever used the term seriously? Nobody! (Admittedly the spork is not among the most serious of the cutleries).
- i always refer to it as a foon. but then again, how often does a spork/foon ever come into conversations.22.214.171.124 20:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
"A spork, or as it is more correctly called, a foon," ... judging by the number of relevant results I got on Google, Dictionary.com, Amazon.com, yahoo, and msn.com, I'd say 'spork' is the generally accepted term for this... so that line I quoted is probably false... (also, I was not able to find the word foon in a dictionary) Just in case anyone has objections to the removal of the term "foon" (which IMO doesn't fit into the opening paragraph), I'm replacing that line with "A spork, or foon," Parryield (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Because of the appearance of a stork-pig hybrid animal in the american film "Spy Kids 2" called a spork, I prefer to call a fork-spoon hybrid a 'fpoon', slightly harder to pronounce, but not as awkward-sounding (in my opinion) as 'foon' and more unique. I may be the only person who does this. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Best. Wikipedia. Article. Ever. (Baloney. H2O 00:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC))
- Compared to many of them, it is pretty good...but the phone book is better still.
I'm pretty sure the spork was introduced to a wider audience by KFC. I remember them being a part of their standard service when I was a kid in the late 1970s, when some were still called Scott's Chicken Villa (which I believe was the original Canadian company that did a reverse takeover of KFC, dunno for sure). The rest of the Yum lineup is much newer, Scott's go back to the 60's at least.
- I am 100% certain that plastic sporks were in common use before KFC adopted them. Our school started serving hot TV dinner style lunches in 1972 (they were called "satellite lunches", it was an old school building without a real kitchen, so they brought in ovens for these). The dinners were made by Morton, packets with sporks were handed out to the kids to eat them, and the name "Spork" was molded into the back of the handles -- that's how we knew what to call them! (The Morton logo on the sporks was also how we knew where the food came from.)
- I'm sure that KFC (at least the franchises near us) introduced sporks more recently than that, because we thought it was funny when they switched from standard plasticware to the same things we had at school. --188.8.131.52 10:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that the OED records a 1909 usage of the term Spork, I'd say that the rumoured origin is pretty much incorrect --Imran
- Is this in the most recent supplement to the OED? I have not seen it. -- IHCOYC
- From the online version of the OED. --Imran 11:27, 2 Aug 2003 (UTC)
Japan and MacArthur
I removed the references to unsubstantiated rumors. Every reference I can find to sporks in occupied Japan has Gen. MacArthur's named spelled wrong (McArthur). All seem to point back to one comment on the newsgroup some years back. I don't believe this information is encyclopedic at this point. It is probably just another urban legend. If someone can verify it, great, but find a real reference. H2O 08:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The text removed was:
- According to a rumor, the spork was invented in the 1940s by the United States Army, which introduced them to occupied Japan. It was hoped that the use of the spork would wean the people there from the use of chopsticks. This pointless hope did not come true; yet the spork that was spurned by the Japanese found a home in the United States of America, where its versatility and disposability were well adapted to the cuisine of the United States.
- The truth of the rumour about sporks in occupied Japan is also subject to serious question...
- —siroχo 08:54, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I tend to think that the remour should be restored. It is in fact a tale that still circulates on the Internet. You apparently found it attested in several places. It is identified as a rumour, and the article went on to discuss why it is implausible. Smerdis of Tlön 20:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I supplied the factual base for rumor to spread. By the time I was a student, which is in 1980s, school lunch was eaten with chopsticks, spoon and fork. Revth 03:50, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
August 11, 1970 patent?
I did some fact checking on this. First, there's no record of a US Patent issued for a spork on August 11. In fact, no patents were issued on that day. (I believe the USPTO issues patents in batches a few days each month.) If I'm wrong please provide the patent number. I did find a trademark registration to the "VAN BRODE MILLING CO., INC. CORPORATION MASSACHUSETTS CAMERON ST. CLINTON MASSACHUSETTS 01510" for a "combination plastic spoon, fork, and knife". The registration was filed October 24, 1969 and effective October 27, 1970. The registration was not renewed and is no longer considered valid.
Also, there is an article in the New York Times from December 20, 1952 entitled "Small Fry attempting to get peek at yule gifts may be caught in act." It is a collection of anecdotes about recent patents and trademarks. It says Hyde W. Ballard of Westtown, Pa. has applied for trademark registration of "SPORK" for a combination spoon and fork made of stainless steel. Ydorb 21:45, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- The images for patents 3523301-3524202 on the USPTO website appear to claim that they were issued on Aug 11, 1970. Deh 16:16, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The design patents D218269 through D218391 were also issued on August 11, 1970. I checked every one of them, and none is for a spork or anything like that. --184.108.40.206
Some more: The OED lists the earliest occurrence as in the Century Dictionary Supplement, which is in the public domain and is online here  they list the definition as:
- a 'portmanteau-like' word applied to a long slender spoon having at the end of the bowl projections resembling the tines of a fork. Ydorb 22:00, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
World War II Rumors
I went ahead and restored the World War II rumour, citing as its source the so-called "Spork FAQ." Any tale that appears in a FAQ probably is worthy of notice; the article says that it's a rumour, that it is unlikely to be true, and gives reasons. I also referenced the August 11 date to the Straight Dope, which is where I got it from. Smerdis of Tlön 19:39, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't like the idea of using rumors in an encyclopedia article. But hey, this is Wikipedia, so I don't always get what I like. Here is a copy of the discussion about using rumors in the Spork article on Village pump: H2O 00:05, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ok to Use Rumors as Sources in Wikipedia?
On the main page the anniversary of the patenting of the spork is listed, along with an illustration. However, I was dismayed to find this in the article:
"According to a rumor, the spork was invented in the 1940s by the United States Army, which introduced them to occupied Japan. It was hoped that the use of the spork would wean the people there from the use of chopsticks. This pointless hope did not come true; yet the spork that was spurned by the Japanese found a home in the United States of America, where its versatility and disposability were well adapted to the cuisine of the United States."
Am tempted to delete it, but maybe not? Is it really okay to cite a rumor as a source? Seems like there ought to be some factual basis, not just "according to a rumor..." H2O 07:07, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If its a notable enough rumor (for example the folk etymology of posh is quite famous and has been published in books and such), its probably encyclopedic as a rumor, it should be included and noted as a rumor (hopefully with some reasoning for how it started/spread). Of course if a rumor is fact, it should be given as fact. In this case, there should be some more investigation probably. —siroχo 07:42, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- I looked around and everything seems to point back to one guy's comment on a spork newsgroup some years ago. Hardly encyclopedic. Probably another urban legend. I deleted the rumors. If someone wants to verify this with something more than some newsgroup chatter, fine. H2O 07:48, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- If you are feeling confident about your facts and if you think it is important, then you could debunk the rumor as a rumor on the page itself. "Many web sites indicate that the spork was unsuccessfully introduced in Japan following WWII. However this rumour appears to originate from a single newsgroup posting [here]." Pcb21| Pete 10:06, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- I am not confident enough in my "facts" to include a debunking of a "rumour" in an encyclopedia article. That would be like starting another rumour. However, I have enough doubt that I think the rumour should be left out of the article until more evidence is available. Maybe someone knows of a person who lived or served in Japan around that time or has more knowledge of WWII history than I do. They could confirm or deny this rumour. H2O 15:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Proper treatment of rumors, which by nature accumulate small mutations, includes IDing any near-truth in them, e.g.:
- In "the anniversary of the patenting of the spork", almost certainly distinguishing that from "... of a new design for a spork". ("Prior art" aside, popular culture has a pathetic misunderstanding of the incremental nature of invention and patenting.)
- Thinking not in terms of whether sporks were invented for Japan, but of whether there was a specific plan to introduce them there with the intent already stated.
- And don't forget to copy this discussion to Talk:Spork.
- --Jerzy(t) 17:26, 2004 Aug 11 (UTC)
- Proper treatment of rumors, which by nature accumulate small mutations, includes IDing any near-truth in them, e.g.:
- I think it is fine as long as you can cite a good source describing the rumor (i.e. it is not just a rumor started by a random Wikipedian). e.g. "One rumor, according to the American Dictionary of Slang (1983), is that the "spork" originated as...." —Steven G. Johnson 22:39, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
- Because incorrect folk etymologies accumulate around works like spork, I think that it is much better to discuss it intelligently within the article rather than to leave it out. Include rumors from suspect sources if you don't have better evidence and if you can establish the rumor as widespread, and verifiable, and label it as such. E.g. do a Google Groups search for it. If you turn it up, say, "The story that the spork originated in thus-and-such way has been widely repeated on the Internet in the USENET newsgroups. However, the first such mention is in the year 1998, and the absence of mentions prior to that time makes it unlikely ..." Readers can judge for themselves whether they trust USENET or like your methodology. Later on, if someone finds a better piece of information they can replace yours. If you just leave it out, people will keep reinserting versions because everyone wants to know the origin. If you can find a dictionary that says "origin uncertain" be sure to say "The so-and-so dictionary says origin uncertain." Say what you believe about the rumor, give verifiable reasons for your belief, and supply information that lets the reader judge the soundness of your statement. My $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:32, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Spork" as humor
This article needs something added to it to note the humorous connotations of the word "spork" and, indeed, the very concept.
- Agreed! I always remember the scene in The Simpsons when Bart accidently joined the scouts after a 'squishy bender.' At a meeting, he was handed a swiss army knife and pulled out one of the eating utensils and said "Cool, A Spork!" in that diabolical little voice of his. lol Yanqui9 23:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
speaking of humor...I removed the reference regarding Bill Clinton calling the Spork "a big, new idea" in 1995; his reference was made at the annual White House Correspondents' Association dinner, where the President traditionally makes a humorous speech (i.e., Clinton didn't really think the Spork was a "big, new idea", as the entry seem to imply...he was making a joke. Taco 20:50, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC) hmm my spell checker knows Spock but not Spork...how ironic
Spork is the name of a pig character in Animal Crossing, and in the VeggieTales Lord of the Rings parody Lord of the Beans, Sporks replace Orcs as Scaryman's evil utensils. CrossEyed7 15:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Humor? What humor? Just because stoned teenagers who watch Beavis and Butthead think sporks are funny doesn't make it true.
- Are you implying that there are absolute standards as to what is and isn't funny? And sign your comments. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Anyone want to help me out with this? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed some URL links to the USPTO, as they were no longer valid. (They are specific to a search that had timed out.) Also, this section is misleading. Some of the patents referred to are Design Patents, they cover a specific appearance of a spork. Others are utility patents that cover the general function of a spork. Finally, quoting an expiration date with a patent is problematic. The patent may lapse if the holder does not pay fees. It may be extended for a months? based on some administrative issues. Ydorb 23:38, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that the way the article currently references patents is misleading; as Ydorb points out design patents (those beginning with "D") covver appearance only and are not really what people think of when something is referred to as being 'patented'; indeed, there are dozens of antecedents and variations on combination spoon/fork designs in the patent annals dating back over 200 years -- if the article is going to try to cover the Spork's intellectual property history it has to do a better job than this. 18.104.22.168 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
- Somewhat disagree. Because a spork is primarily a "shape", in an article of manufacture, it is naturally susceptible to protection under design patents, regardless of its actual (obvious) function. There are dozens of such design patents in the US. Until a US design patent expires, the patent owners can sue anyone in the USA who sells anything manufactured in a similar shape without a license. 35 USC § 289. There are thousands of valuable inventions protected "only" by design patents. Also, there are no maintenance fees due on any US design patent. 35 USC § 41(b)Lupinelawyer (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is also unclear how it might be "problematic" to quote an expiration date of patents that clearly expired long ago. For instance, US design patents expire 14 years after date of issue. As for "patent extensions", they generally only apply to chemistry and biological patents or medical devices that are susceptible of "administrative review". There is no Spork-safety-and-efficacy review agency that could delay a simple spork patent. Lupinelawyer (talk) 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You all know Foon is the true name. Bow down to the Foon colilition. :) -Ravedave 03:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
This may lead to confusion with the quote from the carpet in Life, the Universe and Everything, involves several minutes of unnecessary effort with the redirect, and FOON IS NOT AS NOTABLE AS SPORK (will change as soon as a notable reference to a golden foon as a weapon occurs). 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Anybody know what this reference:
- "Small Fry attempting to get peek at yule gifts may be caught in act" (December 20, 1952). New York Times.
Has to do with the article? Jgm 02:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain the part about the spanish translation is BS, it needs to be sourced or I'm gonna remove it. Roffler 20:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Citation was needed for "The spork now also has a Spanish equivalent, formed by blending the words cuchara (spoon), cuchillo (knife) and tenedor (fork). A spork is called "cucharor," and a Splayd is called "cuchillor"." The Spanish Wikipedia article for spork calls them "tenedor-cuchara" (literally "fork-spoon"), with no mention of any of these terms, and it doesn't seem notable or unexpected that sporks also exist in Spain. I've removed the paragraph. --McGeddon 03:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed a bit about sporks (and chopsticks!?) in school lunches. It was in the wrong place and seems too anecdotal to include without a reference. Jgm 18:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
It was common practice durring my Jr. High years for us to play a game entitled "Spork Wars". The goal was to hit the tines off the opponant's spork without damaging your spork. To do this one would hold the end of the utensil in one hand as the other hand bent the handel back. One would then release it so the tines/eating surface snaped down onto the opponant's spork. Turns would be taken untill someone lost by having all their tines broken off or breaking their handel. Was this common practice in any other areas/forms? Does it warent an addition to this artical?
Very Unpopular Sporks
It amused me that sporks were VERY unpopular in medieval times. If they were so unpopular why did they exist and were used? Was mans development at a stage where the invention of the spork was quite so vital that even though they were feared and hated by all, sporks were forged, inexorably bringing man closer to the fast food consumerist ideals of today? Hence, indeed, prompting the industrial revolution? Truly, sporks are a creation integral to human development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:16, April 7, 2007
- If the wording of a sentence seems strange enough to mock it at length on the talk page, it's probably just vandalism or a typo. Be WP:BOLD and correct it! --McGeddon (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Materials - Minor edit
I've cleaned up the excessive wording on the materials section - as well as the misleading "very light" description for titanium (aluminum by contrast was just "light" when in fact it is lighter than titanium) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:38, June 14, 2007
spork or Spork (TM)?
According to the article, "Spork" is a registered trademark in the United Kingdom and in the United States, but the article otherwise uses "spork" in lowercase as a generic name for this type of product. What's the Wikipedia convention for this sort of thing? 184.108.40.206 01:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- MoS:TM; "follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment". --McGeddon 09:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
- SPORK is a registered trademark in the USA, but not for sporks - only for artificial turf carpets. The original SPORK trademark registration, for "COMBINATION PLASTIC SPOON, FORK AND KNIFE", expired in 1990, 20 years after it was registered, having not been renewed. http://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=72341715&caseType=SERIAL_NO&searchType=statusSearch. A 1998 application was abandoned after being published for opposition. My guess is that by then it was considered "descriptive", a genericized noun, and thus no longer a trademark for such things. Lupinelawyer (talk) 18:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
In Fine Restaurants
Spork as metaphor - neither spoon nor fork
Mike Peters's Mother Goose and Grimm strips (archive here) from 16 January to 20 January 2008 support the spork lifestyle. In the 17 January strip, one character makes a poster for the Spork Pride Rally, with the text "We're sporks, not forks, get used to it!" --CliffC (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Removed story about concealed sporks
In 1993, it was made illegal to carry a concealed metal Spork in the state of Wyoming, as well as later, in the city of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan in 1995, after a surge of 'sporkings' occurred, in which it became common, in certain neighborhoods, for people to poke those which annoyed or irritated them with Sporks. This trend was ignored for quite some time, until courts ruled that, after one man, by the name of Jerry Speights, received a Spork to the eyeball after a particularly heated sporking over a lost parking space, a metal Spork could cause damage if poked hard enough or in certain spots on the human body. To this day, it is still legal, however, to poke people with plastic Sporks, and is quite a common thing to find in certain towns in both Wyoming, USA and Saskatchewan, Canada. In fandom, this is thought to be where the term 'sporking' (often used when one finds a particularly bad or funny fanfic and chooses to make fun of it) originated.
This sounds highly dubious, and was added by a single-edit contributor, so I've removed it from the article. I was unable to google up any independent info on this (but I did find a more recent article about a drunk guy in Alaska using a KFC spork and a pocket knife to rob someone). In the unlikely event that any of the above content is true, by all means re-add with appropriate citations (see WP:CITE). Speight (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Removed "The more ornate varieties are often sold as ice cream forks." since these predate sproks, as per Petroski, and other sources. Sample ice cream forks. Also of interest "history of the spork"--Belg4mit (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
US Patent 14275, for a modified Table Fork, issued in 1856 does appear worthy of note in the article. However, I'm not sure how to best integrate this material. If you read the patent application, it describes the utensil as having the same function as a spork: "By such a fork, many foods can be eaten more conveniently than with a spoon". Would you consider this to be the first spork patent, or is it a close relative? Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 16:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Plasti-US Patent 14275 is the first/original patent classified in Patent Class CCL/30/150, which is the Cutlery/Spoon and Fork classification in the u.s. patent system. Although not absolutely determinative, this fact is a good indication that 14275 is likely the first spork patent. However, some might argue it is more akin to a foon than a spork. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walmwiki (talk • contribs) 14:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
spork in free and open source software development
- In FOSS, "fork" is a widely used term for splitting a project into two that then diverge. "spork" is a rarely-used term (so rarely that it isn't notable enough for inclusion in the Wikipedia Spork article IMO) for the new project "spoon-feeding" the changes into the existing project. In theory, if the older project accepts the changes, the two do not diverge. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/03/illumos_opensolaris_spork/print.html for an example of this usage. I would not be surprised if multiple people came up with this clever use of "Spork" in the FOSS context with widely different definitions. Guy Macon 18:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
"A spork or a foon is a hybrid form of cutlery taking the form of a spoon-like shallow scoop with three or four fork tines."
The Link is not working for me ... anyway, in the Picture (Four types of Sporks) you can see that the left one have 0 or 2 tines (depends how you count them ...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Somebody with privileges to edit locked articles should remove the reference to Snow Peak sporks. It's an obvious ad for a currently hip product. At least make the branding less prominent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperkine (talk • contribs) 01:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
why is this article s-protected?
- Sorry for the late response -- I just noticed your question and was not watching this page in 2011. I contacted the admin who protected the page and asked him to reduce the protection level from semiprotected to pending change protection. which he was happy to do. This article is too much of a vandalism magnet to be unprotected, but the pending changes feature should make things easier for IP editors. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Edit request from Gooshie, 28 July 2011
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
Amend: "Sporks are also frequently used by backpackers and other outdoors enthusiast as they are a light weight alternative to carrying both a fork and knife" to say "carrying both a fork and spoon."
Could also read "..light weight and space saving alternative.."
Also: 'outdoor enthuisiast' WILL carry a knife if THEY CARRY NOTHING ELSE! so this error is obvious to the most casual observer.
Edit request on 21 March 2013
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
The term foon may refer to a utensil that has a spoon on one end of the handle and a fork on the other. In my experience the term has been applied to differentiate between the two tyoes of combination utensiles. Perhaps staff at Wiki might be able to clear this up. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what exactly you want "staff" to "clear up". "In my experience..." is by definition original research, which is prohibited. Any claims made on an article must be referenced to reliable sources. —KuyaBriBriTalk 14:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Not a foon
I've removed references to foon, as I can't find any WP:RS which support its use. As far as I can tell, it's a totally made up term. The only sources I can find are to unreliable sources such as Urban Dictionary and the like. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)