Talk:Bathroom Privileges
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Defender1031 (Talk | contribs) (→privileges?: reply for MichaelXX2) |
MichaelXX2 (Talk | contribs) (Relpy to Defender1031) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
::::You know, I've seen a lot of talkpages in my time, and most of them have people say that if there is at ''least 3 references,'' it would be good enough to keep. I only see two on the board now, so I think this page needs to be '''Deleted'''. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ::::You know, I've seen a lot of talkpages in my time, and most of them have people say that if there is at ''least 3 references,'' it would be good enough to keep. I only see two on the board now, so I think this page needs to be '''Deleted'''. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::I'm curious to know if you even took the time to read the previous opinions. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | :::::I'm curious to know if you even took the time to read the previous opinions. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::Aw,crap! You're right! I'm sorry... {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:39, 12 October 2008
privileges?
While it does seem like a fun gag, it would seem to be below the threshold of three appearance to constitute a running gag. And with only two time, it's not exactly common is it? wbwolf (t | ed) 19:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I admit, this is a case where I personally wish we could be slightly more flexible with the requirement of three: revocation of bathroom privileges is, to my mind, unusual (and funny!) enough that even with only two appearances, the article doesn't look half bad to me (other than needing a better intro). Maybe TBC could help us and put some reference to bathroom privileges in the next update? Please? Heimstern Läufer
01:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd agree with that. I know if we make an exception to the "three appearances limit" here, it'll eventually get cited as precedence on future discussions, but I'd be willing to live with that. And, while I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there's one other gag article with only two appearances... It's not coming to me now, but I'm almost certain it exists. Anyways, the point is, despite falling under the legal limit, I'd be willing to keep this page. --DorianGray 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- First, it's a cute gag so we must delete nothing. And secondly, you must be a bad article to get deleted and you're not. And thirdly, the inclusion thingy is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the HRWiki, Miss Bathroom Privileges. (Ten points if anyone knows what i'm parodying). — Defender1031*Talk 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I've seen a lot of talkpages in my time, and most of them have people say that if there is at least 3 references, it would be good enough to keep. I only see two on the board now, so I think this page needs to be Deleted. — MichaelXX2
02:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious to know if you even took the time to read the previous opinions. — Defender1031*Talk 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aw,crap! You're right! I'm sorry... — MichaelXX2 02:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Aw,crap! You're right! I'm sorry... — MichaelXX2
- I'm curious to know if you even took the time to read the previous opinions. — Defender1031*Talk 02:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I've seen a lot of talkpages in my time, and most of them have people say that if there is at least 3 references, it would be good enough to keep. I only see two on the board now, so I think this page needs to be Deleted. — MichaelXX2
- First, it's a cute gag so we must delete nothing. And secondly, you must be a bad article to get deleted and you're not. And thirdly, the inclusion thingy is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the HRWiki, Miss Bathroom Privileges. (Ten points if anyone knows what i'm parodying). — Defender1031*Talk 02:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
- Personally, I'd agree with that. I know if we make an exception to the "three appearances limit" here, it'll eventually get cited as precedence on future discussions, but I'd be willing to live with that. And, while I'm thinking about it, I'm pretty sure there's one other gag article with only two appearances... It's not coming to me now, but I'm almost certain it exists. Anyways, the point is, despite falling under the legal limit, I'd be willing to keep this page. --DorianGray 01:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
