Talk:The
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Defender1031 (Talk | contribs) (→The Delete: reply) |
(pointer to redirect) |
||
(includes 7 intermediate revisions) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | {{ | + | {{deletedtalk|redirect=Integral Article}} |
== The Delete == | == The Delete == | ||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
::I think redirecting it to [[Integral Article]] might also be a good notion. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ::I think redirecting it to [[Integral Article]] might also be a good notion. --[[User:DorianGray|DorianGray]] 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::I agree, as long as thee redirect is still VERY VERY hard. Hardness is a must. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | :::I agree, as long as thee redirect is still VERY VERY hard. Hardness is a must. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::...haw. I was actually considering making this page a long while back out of protest for all the absurdly common things we've *been* making pages for... of course, I'm tactful enough not to actually *do* that, heh... Admittedly, seeing that someone *did* make this page, though, did not stop me from cracking up. =P In all seriousness, though, I guess, '''redirect''' to [[Integral Article]]. -{{User:YK/sig}} 04:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::Was this article a joke??! A redirect to [[Integral Article]] would be the ''soft'' option; I'm for '''deleting it outright.''' --{{User:Jay/sig}} 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::::No harm in the redirect, so I say go ahead with that. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::::I'm for redirecting as well. No matter if this article was made as a joke, "the" is easier to remember than "integral article", so it could actually be a useful redirect.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 10:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::::::Since "Integral Article" is basically a sensible equivalent to this article, I propose an immediate '''redirect''' to that article. Perhaps on the next April Fools Day, this article could be brought back for the day! {{User:The Chort/sig}} 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | :::::::::This article is just one big joke... I'm redirecting it to [[Integral Article]]. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC) |
Current revision as of 16:17, 19 June 2009
![]() |
[edit] The Delete
The? An article on "The"? Oh, just delete it. This is such a spoon type article. wbwolf (t | ed) 04:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- You know, i think this article illustrates the point better than the word spoons. i move for rewriting the spoons article to be on the word "the" instead... (And yes, delete VERY VERY hard). ;) — Defender1031*Talk 04:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think redirecting it to Integral Article might also be a good notion. --DorianGray 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, as long as thee redirect is still VERY VERY hard. Hardness is a must. — Defender1031*Talk 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...haw. I was actually considering making this page a long while back out of protest for all the absurdly common things we've *been* making pages for... of course, I'm tactful enough not to actually *do* that, heh... Admittedly, seeing that someone *did* make this page, though, did not stop me from cracking up. =P In all seriousness, though, I guess, redirect to Integral Article. -YK
04:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Was this article a joke??! A redirect to Integral Article would be the soft option; I'm for deleting it outright. --Jay (Gobble) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- No harm in the redirect, so I say go ahead with that. Heimstern Läufer
07:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm for redirecting as well. No matter if this article was made as a joke, "the" is easier to remember than "integral article", so it could actually be a useful redirect. Loafing
10:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since "Integral Article" is basically a sensible equivalent to this article, I propose an immediate redirect to that article. Perhaps on the next April Fools Day, this article could be brought back for the day! – The Chort 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- This article is just one big joke... I'm redirecting it to Integral Article. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Since "Integral Article" is basically a sensible equivalent to this article, I propose an immediate redirect to that article. Perhaps on the next April Fools Day, this article could be brought back for the day! – The Chort 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm for redirecting as well. No matter if this article was made as a joke, "the" is easier to remember than "integral article", so it could actually be a useful redirect. Loafing
- No harm in the redirect, so I say go ahead with that. Heimstern Läufer
- Was this article a joke??! A redirect to Integral Article would be the soft option; I'm for deleting it outright. --Jay (Gobble) 07:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- ...haw. I was actually considering making this page a long while back out of protest for all the absurdly common things we've *been* making pages for... of course, I'm tactful enough not to actually *do* that, heh... Admittedly, seeing that someone *did* make this page, though, did not stop me from cracking up. =P In all seriousness, though, I guess, redirect to Integral Article. -YK
- I agree, as long as thee redirect is still VERY VERY hard. Hardness is a must. — Defender1031*Talk 04:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think redirecting it to Integral Article might also be a good notion. --DorianGray 04:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)