Is this meant to come across as much a joke as it does? You know you could basically swap out the word couch for window, desk, door, chair, carpet, etc and create more or less the same article. If we're going to have articles on very everyday things we surely need their existence to be a little more notable and substantial than they existed in people's offices... --8of5 13:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think that a clear line we should draw is to not make articles about furniture (unless of course they are technological devices in their own right, like a command chair or biobed). -- Captain MKB 13:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- Click on "What Links Here". This article can be expanded. – AT2Howell 13:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
This is pretty much the same conversation we had [the Forum], although it seems to be the impression that there's been some reconsideration on opinions. Seeing things in concrete, perhaps lends a new view? --Captain Savar 14:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- The subject of furniture was not brought up in that conversation -- this is a new discussion of a previously undiscussed part of that topic.
- My opinions have not been reconsidered -- I stand by my comments and agreements that animals, foods and ranks/titles have good solid referencing and make informative articles.
- Nothing was said in that discussion about furniture, although if one were really intent on categorizing it based on its appearances in Star Trek, I'd make the same suggestion I made about clothing -- make one unified article that lists the different iterations of the topic (perhaps call it furniture) so that we aren't subjected to numerous non-contextual articles about love seats, rocking chairs, ottomans and sofa beds. -- Captain MKB 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
- That could work. I think the most important bit in this article is the Cardassian bit. That way if some future author needs a reclining Cardassian...BAM! We've got a reclining Cardassian. – AT2Howell 15:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)