Talk:Munchies

As of now this is a non-encyclopedic slang-definition article that should be moved to Wiktionary. Alternatively it might be moved to a "cannabis and appetite" article with internal and external links, medical uses, and scientific studies. Cacycle 10:17, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This article was proposed for deletion February 2005. The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Munchies. The consensus was that the article should be moved to Wiktionary. Joyous 03:30, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Should be a page for the Nestle chocolate snack 'Munchies' but don't know how to start it as there's already a page titled 'Munchies (food)' Cavie78 20:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No page on the actual munchies and lab controlled studies of getting the munchies :O JayKeaton 19:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Insertion of Dicdefs and non-likely search terms

Regarding this edit and previous others like it. I have reverted these as the inclusion is IMHO (a) a Dictionary definition and (b) Not a likely search-term/candidate for disambiguation. The rationale given by both Yaharl

It doesn't matter if it's "likely to be confused" with the rest of the definitions. It's a piece of information and we don't want to exclude it.

and Jason Palpatine

It doesn't matter if it's "likely to be confused" with the rest of the definitions. It's a piece of information and we don't want to exclude it. MOD Squad is a valid liting.

(I assume the similarity is down to lazy cut-and-pasting) is incorrect, and they clearly don't know what dab pages are for. Disambiguation pages are *not* the place for general information, they are solely for differentiating similar meanings and helping searches.

Anyway, I'm referring this to Wikipedia:Third Opinion.

(BTW, the edit summary "removed, this isn't Urban Dictionary" referred to a piece that I'd meant to remove in a separate edit; unfortunately, I mistakenly removed/reverted both that and this in one go). 15:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I say that the "munchies" (craving of food when not hungry) should be included. It is a slang term, but, from my experience, it's fairly common. It should also possibly be noted that many use it to denote feeling hungry while high on marijuana. - hmwithtalk 16:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to tentatively agree with Fourohfour here. Its omission seems rather glaring; but Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and unless a substantial article on the term itself can be created, it doesn't warrant inclusion on the disambiguation page. --84.65.22.233 16:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can I make clear that the main problem I have is with stuff like:

[[The Bod Squad|Bod Squad - Watch Out For The Munchies]], An animated 80's ABC Network short about proper eating habits.

* '''The munchies''', a slang term for a food craving when a person ''is not'' hungry; taken from the ''Bod Squad - Watch Out For The Munchies'' short.

relating to a particular episode (that happened to *include* "Munchies" in the title and no more) of a particular programme. If anyone is looking for the origin of "munchies", they can click the relevant (food cravings) link and the information can be included in that article section. (Although unless it's able to be reliably cited as the origin of the expression, it doesn't belong there either.)

As an expected article for someone typing "munchies", I don't think it's plausible, and it's clear that the people who wanted to include it don't know what a dab page is for. The Bod Squad article itself only mentions it in passing.

FWIW, I don't have a problem with the cravings meaning being *listed* here, so long as it's a link to a relevant article section and no more (i.e. not a dicdef). In fact, someone has already done exactly what I had in mind, so... thanks. :-) Fourohfour 17:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I did it. I decided that it should be here, so I did it. As for the stuff relating to the show, no, don't put that here. - hmwithtalk 17:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Include -- The munchies (craving of food when not hungry) was the subject of an ABC Bod-Squad episode. The term in this sense originated from this segment. The episode is the most famous segment of the short-lives info-series. People aware of this fact may do a search for it here -- after all I did. True, the only article is the The Bod Squad article itself, and only a mention at that, as the article describes the series overall. Sometimes a piece of information that only exists as a mention needs to be listed. There are many such entries in any published encylopedias -- items listed that only have one or two sentences of information instead of 3 or 4 pages of subject material.

• Bod Squad - Watch Out For The Munchies, An animated 80's ABC Network short about proper eating habits.
• The munchies, a slang term for a food craving when a person is not hungry; taken from the Bod Squad - Watch Out For The Munchies short.

If you followed the link and read The Bod Squad article, you know that the fact set forth here is correct. There is no seperate episode article for it -- in fact, I have come to learn that some administrators here disaprove of such articles and have begun activly deleting some of them. Someone may be looking up just that particular piece of information. There is just too little material for it to justify having an article of it's own. The info takes up one line. Perhaps this is more to your likeing:

• Bod Squad - The Munchies, An animated 80's ABC Network short about proper eating habits. The title is taken from a slang term for a food craving when a person is not hungry.

This is a disambiguation page. And the entry being deleted points to what is clearly a retalted data entry on the site. If there is a reason for it not to be here, please make it known rather than deleting it. Yes, this is not a dictionary, but this is a link to another related article that justifiably could be what someone here doing a search for The Munchies just may be looking for. Isn't that significant enough?

You say The Bod Squad article itself only mentions it in passing. Just how much article info can you create about a 90 second television spot? If that is really a problem to you -- expand it.

If it's not that important, then it certainly doesn't belong on a dab page. It's not a problem, we're using the shortness of its entry as an indication of its importance. It's not our job to expand it. You're the one that implied its importance. Fourohfour 20:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

And I don't know where you get this association with marajuana. I'd like to see some source info on that. -- Jason Palpatine 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Hi, Jason. Do you have any proof that the animated short is the origin of the term? Thanks, William Pietri 18:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking further, the term certainly does not originate with the animated short you mention, and the term has a long association with marijuana. The New York Times had an article on December 14, 1973 titled "Getting High in Mountainside" that contains the following: "Marijuana is as integral a part of my high school as its doors. My school is literally high. The incidence of staggering students, 11 o'clock munchies, and rolling papers falling out of lockers is commonplace." William Pietri 18:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason, please don't make substantive edits to your posts after people have replied to them. It can destroy all hope of a coherent discussion. Just add a new post instead. As to saying, "If that is really a problem to you -- expand it," I think you have it backward. You're the one suggesting that the link be put on the disambiguation page. But the point of the disambiguation page is to connect people with useful information. That there was something whose title mentions the word twenty years ago doesn't seem to merit a disambiguation link; disambiguation pages are generally for substantive references. If people really want to know every place the word "munchies" has been used, I think they're better off just searching. Hope that helps, William Pietri 18:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi. I'm stopping by from the WP:3O listing. I agree that the Bod Squad stuff is not necessary. One possible solution to the rest is described at WP:DAB: mention the definition briefly and refer to the proper source. Wiktionary covers both the normal and drug-related meanings already, so you could just link to them. If we had a better article or section on the phenomenon I'd say just link to that and forget the dictionary, but the current link to Cannabis (drug)#The_high is slightly confusing as the actual text they should read is in the middle of the paragraph. Hope that helps! -- William Pietri 18:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have always been taught to err on the side of caution. It's a small piece of information that a person here may be looking up. There is a link to the related article. Such a little piece of info being here is helpful. Even withoiut reading the guidelines page, I know that a disambiguation page is intended to help a user in finding information they may be looking for.
• The omission of information is an entirly different matter, I have been called up to justify the prescience of a very small piece of information I've added to this DBD. It's being listed here serves a purpose. What possible pupose could be served by it not being on the list? I DEMAND someone justify it's deletion! -- Jason Palpatine 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

Jason, here is the first source that popped up for that info: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro02/web2/kfong.html. Search for "munchies - marijuana" on any search engine, and you will get hundreds of results, thousands if you use a slang term for marijuana.

EDIT: Or there's always USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2001-04-11-marijuana-munchies.htm) - hmwithtalk 18:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason, you don't get to demand anything here; you're addressing colleagues, not minions. Please try to keep the atmosphere friendly and calm. Thanks, William Pietri 18:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

(Writing my response here, as indentation above is getting more confusing than it's worth).

Jason, we've already explained our reasons, and William Pietri explained it well; dab pages aren't for every use of a term.

You should have known that by now. But you admit to still not having read the the guidelines page- even *after* we pointed out your misunderstanding of them and you were aware of that page's existence(!!!!!) (See discussion here).

Saying- incorrectly- that a dab page should do X, Y and Z and that you "know" this without having to bother reading the guidelines when we've already pointed out that your understanding of the guidelines is wrong (and linked to them) is mindbogglingly arrogant and lazy.

We've already justified our point-of-view. If you'd bothered reading the guidelines, they'd make sense to you; in fact, we'd probably not even need to spell them out explicitly. Don't expect us to waste our time re-explaining things because of your laziness.

Fourohfour 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't see me making a third revert do you? I apologize for the choice of words. But I belive a negative needs more justification than a positive. THe negative in question is of course your decision to remove the DAB info we a discussing. I do not belive this project operates on a principle of significance. I do not recall seeiong such a policy.

If by "significance" you mean "notability" (see Wikipedia:Notability), then Wikipedia very much does operate under such a policy. In fact, it's one of its basic principles. Fourohfour 11:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

And I do not recall reading such a policy on the DAB policy page -- which I have read! From my POV, it supports and justifies my earlier actions. --Jason Palpatine 03:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The stated purpose of a dab page inherently requires notability. Dab pages differentiate separate articles with the same (or *very* similar) titles. To have an article (or at least subsection), the subject/content should be notable.

But the issue here was never with notability in itself. The episode you mentioned certainly warrants inclusion in the Bod Squad article; possibly more than it has at present. It was whether that specific entry (and the related information) belonged on a dab page entitled "Munchies". We explained why it didn't. Fourohfour 11:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

OK -- Let's just keep it here. I always did dislike ping-pong discussions.

From the DAB policy:

"Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic. In many cases, this same word or phrase is the natural title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topic pages that could have essentially the same term as their title."

For example, to create a link to Munchies, just put double square brackets around the word — [[Munchies]] — producing Munchies. Now, Munchies is a disambiguation page, listing the multiple usages of the word. All Munchies links in an article probably refer to a particular meaning of Munchies, such as the 1987 comedy film (Munchies (film)), the brand of snack mix sold by Frito-Lay Munchies (snack mix), a brand of confectionery sold by Nestlé Munchies (confectionery), a craving for junk food (usually associated with using marijuana) Munchies (food craving), Hunger as redirected from The munchies, or Bod Squad - The Munchies, An animated 80's ABC Network short about proper eating habits. The title is taken from a slang term for a food craving when a person is not hungry.

The second para is taken (paraphased) from the DAB policy page you keep telling me to read. Additionally, it goes on to say A disambiguation page is not a list of dictionary definitions. A short description of the common general meaning of a word can be appropriate for helping the reader determine context.

Which is what I am doing!

As an experiment, I did a search for the other segment titles. Beans and Rice was the only other hit. The others, like Yuck Mouth and Nutty Gritty did not produce a direct hit. But, Munchies does produce a direct hit, which is the reason I felt it necessary to include the information you are in an uproar about. Regretably, there are no hit meters on the individual articles; how many hits have each of the seqperate entries on the DAB page (including the Bod-Squad) got? The only real reason you are deleting the link is because you consider it to be insignificant. If that is true, then you are telling me the Bod-Squad article is so insignificant that you don't belive anyone would be searching for it utilizing any of the segment titles. That's how I DID find it -- I didn't know it was under Bod-Squad until I did some serious digging! Are you saying that I am the only one to do that particular search? Are you saying that nobody else here has/is/will look up the Bod-Squad article? --Jason Palpatine 16:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed the munchies redirect. Someone who did that was incorrect. Having "the munchies" is a craving for food when one is not hungry. It's not always associated with marijuana, but it usually is. I've heard it mentioned when not talking about being high, but I've never even heard of that show you added. The show just mentioned it. It didn't make it up. - hmwithtalk 16:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Jason. Thanks for trimming back that signature. You make a good case, if a little stridently for my tastes. Thinking about Schoolhouse Rock, which I think was much better known than the Bod Squad episodes, I looked at the disambiguation pages for the ones that came to mind: Zero, Lolly (disambiguation), and Bill. They don't have the Schoolhouse Rock episodes listed, but they do have such a variety of other things that it seems like links to the Schoolhouse Rock episodes wouldn't be out of place. And the use case you mention, where somebody remembers the episode, types in the keyword, and ends up here, is plausible. So if you were talking about dropping the claim about the phrase origin and just adding an entry like ''[[The Bod Squad#The Munchies|The Munchies]]'', a 1980s animated [[public service announcement]] from the ABC ''[[Bod Squad]]'' series, then that's sounding more reasonable to me. Is that what you're proposing? Thanks, William Pietri 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am proposing. The earlier problem you mention is just a bad choice of words on my part. When you pointed out that particular error, correction is necessary. Thanks. As for my signature, I was just to tired to do it the way I usuallt do, so I just used the sig-button. --Jason Palpatine 17:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, William. That would be perfectly fine. Add it! - hmwithtalk 17:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Jason, please add your comments to the bottom of the talk page/section, so you can see the chronology of posts. This made it seem as if your comment was before mine, when it wasn't, as you can see by the times. Thanks. - hmwithtalk 17:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusingly, Jason also posted the exact same comment (the long one above, dated 16:21, 6 May 2007) on my talk page. Hence the non-sequiteur about "ping-pong discussions" which doesn't belong here.

Jason; inserting your own link into the quote from WP:DAB doesn't prove anything. William Pietri suggests a good compromise, and presents your case in a better light than you did yourself.

Personally, I still don't see the point though. The Bod Squad article says little about that specific episode, so I don't think it's going to help anyone looking for information about it. If you feel that strongly about it, it might be more productive to expand details on that important episode first. Fourohfour 18:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I put the reply where I did in order to make it clear that the post was in reply to that particular message. As for the Bod-Squad article, based on what you are saying, Fourohfour (is that as in fourth-of-four, a borg designation?),—This is part of a comment by Jason Palpatine , which got interrupted by the following:

No, it's a reference to the 404 "Page not found" error on the web. There isn't any real significance to it, I just needed a user name. Fourohfour 16:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

it needs info about the individual segments added. The material is next to impossible to find. Apart from some discussion boards, the Wikipedia entry appears to be to only significant reference about it. There is a site which does have some very poor quality strem videos of the segments though.

as for the "ping-pong discussions" comment -- well, I do mean what I say. All future posts be me will be here -- I'll just leave a note on you page telling you. —This is part of a comment by Jason Palpatine , which got interrupted by the following:

No need, I have this page on my watchlist anyway. So should anyone else who's interested. Fourohfour 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Today I just dicovered something. The main tag line is "Soon you're not just bored, you're FAT!!" I always thought is went "Soon you've ruined your act, kid you're FAT!!" Live and learn. Time period for any discussion is supposed to be a week. Let's see what else is posted he before acting on the 13th. I see a couple of people aggree with me. But my wording was a problem. Sorry about that. -- Jason Palpatine 04:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC) This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

It's okay, Jason. It was an honest mistake. It just made my post look out of order and dumb being in the wrong place/context. - hmwithtalk 04:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, William Pietri's compromise

''[[The Bod Squad#The Munchies|The Munchies]]'', a 1980s animated [[public service announcement]] from the ABC ''[[Bod Squad]]'' series

is acceptable to me, even if it's not what I'd have chosen. (Although we only need one blue link in the line, as per WP:MOSDAB.) Fourohfour 16:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right: the multi-linked stuff would be confusing. Thanks for catching that. William Pietri 16:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting variant. But it get the point acrosss succincly. I understand Von Braun wasa hard-sell to the throw-it-all-away-as-you-use-it aproach to getting men to the moon -- I won't be as difficult. It was said earlier that another here argued the case here far better than I did -- it is appreciated. This alternate version appears to be a better and more acceptable proposal on the matter than my two submitted versions. So, William Pietri's version also gets my vote. --Jason Palpatine 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)