Talk:Fuzzy-Wuzzies & Prickly-Wicklies

This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --Champthom 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --Champthom 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. Griffintown 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Why make a new article? We can make them sub-headings in CWC-isms, until there's enough of them--or until they're fleshed out enough--to warrant new articles. You can still link to them, like [[CWC-isms#Fuzzy-Wuzzies]] --Dude 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where does that giant slug picture come from? --GrotchManchowder 11:32, 11 January 2011

• http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/rotathgoldenskull.htm --Cogsdev 08:40, 11 January 2011 (PST)

To do

I really dislike this article because it assumes something about Chris. There's a possibility Chris made this up himself (unlikely, yes but Chris is keep at childish word plays, see random access humor) or he heard about this indirectly. I think the solution should be that these two be moved to the CWC-isms page. I mean, it's only been mentioned once and while notable, one major reference to it really doesn't warrant an entire article. --Champthom 17:04, 24 March 2011 (PDT)