Talk:Gizmonic Institute

[edit] Merge vote

Keep seperate. So it's a stub. Stubs grow. I feel that this aspect of the show is notible enough on it's own. It has background, and it's not really something that can be summed up in 2-3 sentences. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 23:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Delete or Merge It isn't about size, it is about the notability of the topic, which has no reference outside of the one TV show. This is like having a seperate article for every brand of breakfast cereal that the Brady Bunch ate on TV over the years, it would be simply an article for an article's sake. Pharmboy 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment. It's really not like that at all, for quite a while Gizmonic was a large part of the show's plot. It's not there for the sake of being there, it is notible within the show. Would you prepose merging every article related to MST3K back into that article? Just because there's no frame of reference outside of one program (which, by the way, is not true—the word was udilized in many of Hodgson's stand-up routines, as I pointed out.) I've never seen the Brady Bunch, but I'm sure they ate a lot of cereal. The Mads have only had four hideouts, each of them notible. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 23:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment Granted, my Brady Bunch comment was a bit of an oversimplification, but the basic premise still holds true: There has to be a threshold where something incidental to the show becomes worthwhile for it's own article. To compare, The Simpsons have many ('Kwik E Mart', 'Try N Save', etc), but the audience is very broad and many of these examples have truly reached outside the show and into popular culture (See south park "the simpsons already did it" episode). But the Gizmonic Institute hasn't reached anything like this. I used to watch MST3K years ago (Joel's first years) and a fan, but that doesn't change the fact that all we can come up with is a couple of sentences with no wikilinks, references or outside links that meet wp:rs to demonstrate that it has made an influence outside the bounds of the show. No links to Gizmonic Institute Tshirt, YouTube links (gasp), CD's, pencil erasers, etc. I don't want to labor it, I just don't think it crosses the threshold. Pharmboy 00:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment about a comment about a comment. I see what you're getting at, but it sort of comes across to me that you're saying that "if it wasn't murchendized, it's not notible." Too be quite honest, I really don't see much MST3K merchindise floating around period, but I'm the only one in my town who ever watched the show (more or less.) If it helps, I expanded the article to explain more of the Institute's relevence. I also must say that I saw a dead link to this article on more-or-less every other MST3K article, and that's what got me thinking that it must be relivant if so many people thought those links would go somewhere. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 00:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Merchandizing isn't necessary, but it is obvious. Actually, I was trying to give examples that weren't merchandized. The key isn't marketshare (in my opinion) it is mindshare. A more popular show has a better chance of an incidental element becoming its own beast, but the key issue isn't how popular the show is, it is how popular the element is. Every example has a threshold, THAT is the sole question here. I am not an expert on MST3K, nor saying "Gizmonic Institute can't meet this test". I am saying the "importance" of the article isn't obvious, and the current article is far from explaining why it meets that test (to a layman). If it grew enough to be a comprehensive article with a citation or two and references as to the importance (ie: use outside of just the show), I would withdraw my request to merge. But if it doesn't (or can't) then it kinda reinforces what I am saying. And of course, I am but one voice. Pharmboy 00:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I did give an example of how it is used outside the show—Hodgson used it frequently in his stand-up, and that's where the word came from. Your example from the Simpsons sort of fall flat when you consiter 7-11's "Qwik-E-Mart" premotion, by the way. The institute is recognized by most fans of the show as a starting point, and I sort of got the impression when you gave the resoning that "No links to Gizmonic Institute Tshirt, YouTube links (gasp), CD's, pencil erasers, etc." that you thought it had to be merchindized to be important. And, I think that there are plenty of examples of things with their own articles that aren't notible outside their own fictional universes—in fact, if you take a look at most of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy articles under "miscallanious" on the template, you will see that most of them are only important in the Hitchhiker's universe. But, if it pleases you, I will get references for this article. I really think I've made it bigger in the past few hours. Tenk you veddy much. --Wack'd ^{Talk to me! • Admire my handiwork!} 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Edit of above comment. I added some references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wack'd (talk • contribs) 01:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep Separate. The term "Gizmonic" is owned by Joel Hodgson and he took the ownership with him when he left the show. I'd be more in favor of merging it with a Hodgson page than the MST3K page. Jamesfett (talk) 03:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)