Talk:Shrinkage

Untitled

Um, where did the penis shrinkage come from??? Is this really appropriate?

My money's on Seinfeld. I'm surprised it doesn't mention it. Azure Haights 20:37, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

It's covered as one (slang) definition under wikt:shrinkage. -A876 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about clothes? Is there any articles about why clothes shrink in the wash? And if there is, why isn't there a link here?

(It's in there, at Shrinkage (fabric).) -A876 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the page

I oppose this move to split the pages, as nothing extra is needed for any of the sections and this will just be needlessly creating three sub-stubs. Harr o5 06:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. [To rephrase Harro5:] The article already functions as a disambiguation page. If the three sections were really long, then it would make sense to split the article. But they are not. If the article were split, it would result in a disambiguation page and three VERY short articles - and the point of that would be? John Broughton 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John Broughton. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! I ask to merge things that actually belong together, everyone opposes me. I ask to split things that have nothing to do with each other other than the name, everyone opposes me. I don't get you people. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. —Keenan Pepper 15:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support: People are more likely to expand upon articles if they are seperate stubs. Also, it just makes it easier for people who are looking for something.

Article?

German Wikipedia has a nice article on shrinkage at de:Schwindung. -A876 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]