Talk:Oink

Stub

This doesn't look long enough for a good Wikipedia article. Please do one of 3 things:

1. Put on Vfd
2. Move to Wiktionary
3. Re-direct to Pig

66.32.66.166 01:37, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Move to Wiktionary. RickK 02:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True or false??

True or false: Wikipedia has similar pages for other animal sounds. 66.32.65.129 00:42, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

VfD notice removed -- page kept

No consensus for removal. VfD debate appears below. -- Cecropia 17:47, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

• A dicdef of a sound? RickK 02:13, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Now we ought to have a page that discusses animal sounds in different language; the various ways they are represented is interesting. But we probably don't need a page for each sound. I'd really like to fill the page with intriguing details about Oink, but I'm drawing a blank. Smerdis of Tlön 04:16, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep as expanded. FWIW, this page compiles a lot of the data I was talking about. Smerdis of Tlön 13:41, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Well it was good for a brief laugh anyway. Delete, but tell me more about this proposal for Animal sounds in different languages.... Exploding Boy 09:03, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Come now, if someone were to add "Oink" is the sound people think pigs produce (the whole text of this article) to the pig article we'd revert it as vandalism, I think. It doesn't get any less silly for having its own article. Borderline for BJAODN. The animal sounds... project sounds good however. Andrewa 09:54, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Now a remarkably good article. I'm amazed. Well done team. Still a bit dubious on the title, but I can see that argued both ways. Andrewa 13:39, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Recommend the new article as [[transcriptions of animal sounds across languages]] or some variant. It's not a problem that the animals make different sounds but that we hear and transcribe them differently. Rossami
• Keep. People have missed the point that this could be heavily edited to discuss not only people's thoughts about this pig-made sound, but the sound itself (for what reason pigs make it, and whatever boring discussion of the phenomenon flows from that). And as this is the English wiki we don't have to have what pigs say "in other languages". --Daniel C. Boyer 15:59, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Maybe a new page should be created for animal sounds generally; then we could not only discuss the transcriptions of animal sounds in different languages, but also move the existing Grr (also on VfD) and Oink to them. Smerdis of Tlön 16:25, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• No vote from me on this, but I thought I should also point out Meep as another onomatopoeic article for consideration. Bryan 17:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Instead of deleting, try moving to Wiktionary or re-directing to Pig. 66.245.10.117 22:45, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I suppose at least then the author won't feel disgruntled. (;-> Andrewa 00:22, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'll try to be serious. How will the target article end up if we do redirect to pig? Let's see: The domestic pig is usually given the scientific name Sus scrofa, though some authors call it S. domesticus, reserving S. scrofa for the wild boar. Pigs go oink. Do you see the problem? At least it has something for everyone I guess. I did try to be serious. Andrewa 00:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added a bunch of extra info - two other meanings that people may not be aware of unless they're really into useless trivia (*ahem*). :-) -- ChrisO 12:33, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep: informative. Well done, Chris, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 13:47, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• This discussion is the best thing I've read in ages! And where's that Grr article discussion? I vote to keep, it's bloody brilliant! Exploding Boy 14:37, Apr 15, 2004 (UTC)
• Merge into Onomatopoeia or something similiar, redirect. till we *) 20:02, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I really like it in its current form - entertaining yet informative. The animal sounds project sounds very worthwhile, too. Pteron 21:05, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Nice work in making an informative article out of this. Ambivalenthysteria 04:20, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• There's enough there now to keep, easilly. Good job. Isomorphic 05:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• Definitely keep now. -Sean 21:46, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Dog

How do we justify having one for pigs but not dogs? (if I am not mistaken) Paul Dehaye 09:41, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mean Woof? -- ChrisO 13:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, stupid me Paul Dehaye 13:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{disambig}}?

Should this page really carry a {{disambig}} template? Wikipedia:Disambiguation says that disambiguation serves a single purpose: to let the reader choose among different pages that might reside under the same title. Here we don't have different pages — everything is together... I'm not sure what to do with such pages. Should they carry any tags or should they be splitted? Please answer at Talk:Woof. — Pt _(T) 20:11, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, now I've found it: Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Multi-stub pages says that {{disambig}} should be removed. I am bold and now I've removed it from here, as well as from Woof. — Pt _(T) 20:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

We need to splitty :-) --Ihope127 04:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think "oink" as in "the sound pigs make" should have it's own encyclopedic article. We already have a Wiktionary article about it, and adding information on usage and etymology doesn't make it any more encyclopedic. If it's to be considered encyclopedic it has to be about an abstract or concrete concept that is completely separate from the animal that makes the sound or mere descriptions of language usage. The former is just impractical to fork and the latter clearly belongs in a dictionary, something Wikipedia is not.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Split to Oink! (comic)

I don't really care about animal sounds, but do about the comic. I've moved the section out to Oink! (comic), and created a hopefully half-decent disambig. --Vodex 20:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

What is a möffelhase?

Is this a joke?

Since this article is the only Google hit for the word, it seems likely. sneakums 02:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OiNK - BitTorrent

The following message is in the source:

< !-- The torrent site has been added here many, many times. it is not notable and will be removed.

Do not add the torrent site to this page without presenting and discussing multiple reliable

reference sources on the talk page. -->

Notability is important for creating an article (the article oink.me.uk has been deleted several times as per WP:NOTE), but what is the justification for removing it from the disambiguation page? Smtomak 07:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A disambiguation page's intended function is to aid navigation by listing articles associated with the same title. If there's no article, there's generally no need for an entry on the disambiguation page. The disambiguation page guidelines state: "Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject". The previous deletions and the AFD discussion indicate that an article that meets Wikipedia's content guidelines cannot be written on the subject at this time. --Muchness 09:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why is Demonoid (BitTorrent) in existance, whilst Oink isn't, despite Oink being such a close member of the scene. It's not even an article, just a mention on the disambiguation site. 86.6.17.37 10:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the article above, its a matter of notability. How many people know what demonoid is? A lot. How many know what oink is? Not as many. // 3R1C 00:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, how many registered users does Demonoid have? I'm not sure; that's not available. Let's say at least 200,000. OiNK? 170,000. OK, 7,000 isn't enough of a difference? Demonoid has 177,000 active torrents. OiNK has 192,000. I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of notability and popularity. --Grahamdubya 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to roll around in the mud with WP:BIGNUMBER, at least don't half-ass it with made-up numbers. —ptk✰fgs 22:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, at this point the site has probably been covered in enough reliable secondary sources to meet the criteria for WP:WEB. --Evil1987 17:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Then let's bring those citations here and have a look! The best anyone came up with in the last AFD was an article that was alleged to refer to Oink because it described a bittorrent site with a predominantly pink stylesheet. —ptk✰fgs 23:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.spin.com/features/magazine/2007/07/0708_leak/ for one. 67.168.69.140 20:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the current notability criteria for web sites on the English Wikipedia:

1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
   • This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
     • Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
     • Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
3. The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for:
   • Trivial distribution such as hosting content on entertainment-like sites (GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)

One thing you'll notice is that the brief mention in the Spin article is just that -- only a brief mention, among a fairly long list of music sharing sites. This is what the criteria mean by "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the internet address" and by "(3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site" and is not sufficient to establish notability. A Spin feature on Oink, in combination with a second non-trivial work about the site, would be sufficient to establish notability. The English Wikipedia requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources to establish the notability of web content, and that has not yet been presented. Thank you for your contribution to this discussion. —ptk✰fgs 20:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

OiNK is now the subject of extensive coverage on several news outlets, among them the Telegraph, the BBC, the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Reuters, the International Herald Tribune, and others. If it wasn't notable before, it definitely is now. -Ori.livneh 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The OiNK torrent people are very exclusive. Having a page on Wikipedia for commoners to read would hurt their street cred. The only people who would want an article on OiNK are the ones who don;t know about it. - Plasticbadge 20:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC) everybody had oink 87.78.157.20 14:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think there should be an article on OiNK. If there was one once, perhaps it should be retrieved? I only noticed because I saw this in the news (on the Guardian website). Here's the link: Guardian. Does that count for notability? Arjie 11:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

==OiNK Post-Shutdown Update

References