Talk:Minion
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Split-off typeface?
- Oppose- splitting a stubbish page into two (mini-)stubs is pointless. May be reconsidered if either grows significantly Fastifex 14:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support The two types of minion covered in this article are so different and apparently un-related that the combination under a single heading seems forced and inadequate. The stub on minion as a "favorite" is sufficiently fleshed out to be a short article, and the subject matter is of sufficient historical importance and interest to stand alone. Lethiere 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Support. "[C]ombination under a single heading seems forced..." is a good way to put this. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 06:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Both are respectable stubs now. EdC 14:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikionary?
I'm not an expert, but this article now reads a lot to me like a dictionary article. It was less clear before the split. What exactly makes this a wikipedia article and not just a dictionary article?Mrjeff 10:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- The etymological stuff can be transwikied, but the historical ("Les Mignons") is encyclopaedic. That said, that should be under mignon, not minion. EdC 17:10, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 2007-04-13 Automated pywikipediabot message
--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mignons?
While I can see "Les Mignons" might be wikipedia worthy, surely it should be at Mignons, or Les Mignons, not minion? Unless anyone comments in the next couple of days, I intend to copy that section to Mignon, then probably redirect this to the Minion disambigulation page.83.67.130.87 17:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The section already exists at Les Mignons, so I'm redirecting this to the disambig page. --Xyzzyplugh 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

