![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article about foot odor. An antique artistic painting of a girl removing her socks has very little relevance to the contents.
I request someone to please remove the picture within the next few days, or I will. Thank you.
161.142.96.177 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree wholeheartedly. 68.219.33.198 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I removed the picture of someone's feet as it adds no value to the article whatsoever. 173.248.208.210 ( talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I would like to have the picture back, at least to be shown in the talk page. To challenge the humour liason. Then I will make my donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.44.17 ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Summary of rationales: Supporters of merging cite as reasons "the amount of unreferenced info", "all the info from both can be combined in one article", "consensus ... is that the appropriate term is foot odo[u]r", "foot odor [article] has precedence", "There is just no need for a separate article", "this article was silly and completly unnecessary", "This should not be a stand-alone topic", "[the] very notion of an independent article ... is an affront", "if we let this article stay what ... articles will pop up next?". Opposers of the merge cite as reasons "enough RS coverage on both topics to maintain separate ... articles", "[most] of the information would be lost anyway", "The two articles are related yet distinct", "This claim [that the article title is wrong] is not supported by any evidence", "Smelly socks is better researched and written than many articles ..., most of it would be lost if there was a merger", "the things the articles are about are fundamentally different", "there was no clear consensus [in the AfD] for any particular course of action and in that situation the status quo prevails", "we'd be at risk at loosing the cultural aspects which are unique to smelly socks", "the responsible way to accomplish this would be to go through the sources individually, and reach consensus [for each]", "There is enough unique content to fill its own article". As an editor who's not been privy to the AfD and this discussion prior to stumbling on this page via a link on
User talk:I42, it's quite regrettable that the support rationales towards the end of this discussion degenerated to
emotional appeals. In comparison the opposers of merging kept their focus on the merits of the article content. In summary I don't find the supporters' rationales sufficiently compelling to change the status quo. Now can we get back to washing our socks or editing other equally important parts of the 'pedia?
P.S. I'd also like to caution certain editors against characterising others' work as "immature/unnecessary", probably because the topics seem common and mundane to you. It may not be so to people of different cultures, e.g. in this case, people who do not/rarely wear socks. On the other hand, I don't think it's civil to tie the nominator's username to the possible motive for his nomination, as one of the opposers has done. Kimchi.sg ( talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
I am proposing that
Smelly socks be merged and redirected to
Foot odor. "Smelly socks" is clearly not a proper title for an encyclopedic article, and the topic is duplicative to this article. However, there is a small amount of useful, sourced info there. An AfD for
Smelly socks ended with no consensus, however there was a strong support for merging the article here. See comments at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks.
SnottyWong
communicate
05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Michaelabaseber (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Gag224.
— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 ( talk) 00:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is an article about foot odor. An antique artistic painting of a girl removing her socks has very little relevance to the contents.
I request someone to please remove the picture within the next few days, or I will. Thank you.
161.142.96.177 17:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I agree wholeheartedly. 68.219.33.198 07:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC) reply
I removed the picture of someone's feet as it adds no value to the article whatsoever. 173.248.208.210 ( talk) 22:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I would like to have the picture back, at least to be shown in the talk page. To challenge the humour liason. Then I will make my donation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.44.17 ( talk) 03:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
Summary of rationales: Supporters of merging cite as reasons "the amount of unreferenced info", "all the info from both can be combined in one article", "consensus ... is that the appropriate term is foot odo[u]r", "foot odor [article] has precedence", "There is just no need for a separate article", "this article was silly and completly unnecessary", "This should not be a stand-alone topic", "[the] very notion of an independent article ... is an affront", "if we let this article stay what ... articles will pop up next?". Opposers of the merge cite as reasons "enough RS coverage on both topics to maintain separate ... articles", "[most] of the information would be lost anyway", "The two articles are related yet distinct", "This claim [that the article title is wrong] is not supported by any evidence", "Smelly socks is better researched and written than many articles ..., most of it would be lost if there was a merger", "the things the articles are about are fundamentally different", "there was no clear consensus [in the AfD] for any particular course of action and in that situation the status quo prevails", "we'd be at risk at loosing the cultural aspects which are unique to smelly socks", "the responsible way to accomplish this would be to go through the sources individually, and reach consensus [for each]", "There is enough unique content to fill its own article". As an editor who's not been privy to the AfD and this discussion prior to stumbling on this page via a link on
User talk:I42, it's quite regrettable that the support rationales towards the end of this discussion degenerated to
emotional appeals. In comparison the opposers of merging kept their focus on the merits of the article content. In summary I don't find the supporters' rationales sufficiently compelling to change the status quo. Now can we get back to washing our socks or editing other equally important parts of the 'pedia?
P.S. I'd also like to caution certain editors against characterising others' work as "immature/unnecessary", probably because the topics seem common and mundane to you. It may not be so to people of different cultures, e.g. in this case, people who do not/rarely wear socks. On the other hand, I don't think it's civil to tie the nominator's username to the possible motive for his nomination, as one of the opposers has done. Kimchi.sg ( talk) 11:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC) reply
I am proposing that
Smelly socks be merged and redirected to
Foot odor. "Smelly socks" is clearly not a proper title for an encyclopedic article, and the topic is duplicative to this article. However, there is a small amount of useful, sourced info there. An AfD for
Smelly socks ended with no consensus, however there was a strong support for merging the article here. See comments at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smelly socks.
SnottyWong
communicate
05:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
reply
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Michaelabaseber (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Gag224.
— Assignment last updated by Jason.DeLaCruz1313 ( talk) 00:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC) reply