Talk:Times

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→What's the joke?: wow, how long has this been here?)
Line 3: Line 3:
Okay, what's the specific running gag here? A page that simply lists instances of the word ''times'' (most of which are either perfectly grammatical or nearly so) is not worthy of inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Okay, what's the specific running gag here? A page that simply lists instances of the word ''times'' (most of which are either perfectly grammatical or nearly so) is not worthy of inclusion. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree.  There's nothing particularly unusual about these usages. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.223|132.183.138.223]] 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
:I agree.  There's nothing particularly unusual about these usages. -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.138.223|132.183.138.223]] 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 +
::I just noticed this. I agree too, there's nothing really special about the word itself. It's used in odd places because of the jokes going on there at the "times", not actually because of anything intrinsic to the word itself. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:50, 23 March 2009

It has been suggested that the content of the page this talk page accompanies should not be a separate article on the wiki.

  • Please discuss below whether the content of the page should have its own article. Remember to consider ways the content could be brought up to the wiki's standards before making this determination.

If it is decided that the content should not have its own article, then the following additional issues need to be addressed:

  • Whether to merge the content with another page or remove it entirely.
  • Whether to redirect the leftover page or delete it outright.
 

What's the joke?

Okay, what's the specific running gag here? A page that simply lists instances of the word times (most of which are either perfectly grammatical or nearly so) is not worthy of inclusion. — It's dot com 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's nothing particularly unusual about these usages. -132.183.138.223 23:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed this. I agree too, there's nothing really special about the word itself. It's used in odd places because of the jokes going on there at the "times", not actually because of anything intrinsic to the word itself. — Defender1031*Talk 18:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://www.hrwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Times"
Personal tools