Category talk:Fad

Considering more cleanup on this category by merging all fads to their respective member articles, based on whoever the fad is about or whoever made the fad. TheJoey 21:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, it would just cause a bunch of unneeded work and its easier to go and see "whats fad x *look up* ok" than to go "whats fad x *look up* wait I have to know who made this? :(" Then again you probably have your ways to fix that with your wacky redirects and stuff so. MoneyMan 18:57, 30 May 2010

Well I would redirect all fad articles to go to members' pages, and add the fad to the article. Most fad articles are small and pretty pointless. TheJoey 22:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Could go by the general notability/stub guideline that anything that can't even manage a few sections in its article shouldn't have its own article. And anything that doesn't deserve its own article should just be merged into the fad starter's article, or even just a general "List of MFGG fads" article for all of the fads that only really have one paragraph of description. And yeah, redirects are pretty much there solely for making things easy to find under different names. --Kyori 23:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, one thing's for sure: this category should had been called fads, the plural form of fad. So, if it was to be kept, it would either be as Fads or, (if you move the fads to the user pages) List of Users who have created Fads. Ah2190 04:27, 18 January 2012 (EST)

Sounds good to me J00 TAKE MY EMWOOORDS?!?!?! 11:38, 18 January 2012 (EST)