Talk:Erweenga
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Get dead, page.) |
Cash Money (Talk | contribs) (undid revision 689160; please leave disscussions) |
||
| (includes 3 intermediate revisions) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | {{ | + | {{deletedtalk}} |
== No == | == No == | ||
Seriously? A character who was given 5 seconds air time, doesn't exist, and is merely a doodle? We really don't need this. At all.--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UCT) | Seriously? A character who was given 5 seconds air time, doesn't exist, and is merely a doodle? We really don't need this. At all.--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UCT) | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
::::::Like usual, I agree with jellote. There's some kind of epidemic going around, making anonnies create [[51|Useless]] [[Erweenga|Pages]]. So we should delete. Unless, as the Knights said, we could find a way to add this guy as a variation of [[The Worm]], but that will prove highly unlikely as Erweenga has only been shown once. And we totally don't have a page on 12 times a day man. So no page on Erweenga. {{User:Crab Attack1999/sig}} 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Like usual, I agree with jellote. There's some kind of epidemic going around, making anonnies create [[51|Useless]] [[Erweenga|Pages]]. So we should delete. Unless, as the Knights said, we could find a way to add this guy as a variation of [[The Worm]], but that will prove highly unlikely as Erweenga has only been shown once. And we totally don't have a page on 12 times a day man. So no page on Erweenga. {{User:Crab Attack1999/sig}} 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::::1) It's not "a variation of" [[The Worm]] by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason to even *assume* such. 2) Not *all* pages created by anons are "useless". As someone said in the "Spoons" debate, the issue is simply, and I quote, "This wiki is suffering from too many little hands, itching to create, that have increasingly less to work with." ...in other words, too many users, not enough worthwhile content left to document... so, desperate to contribute in whatever way they can, newcomers and anons alike tend to either attempt to make pages for very minor one-off objects/characters, or seek out subtle recurrences of anything from colors to numbers to punctuation anomalies. So, there's the answer to your "epidemic"; much as I'm against most of these pages, there's no need to attack anons over it. -{{User:YK/sig}} 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | :::::::1) It's not "a variation of" [[The Worm]] by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason to even *assume* such. 2) Not *all* pages created by anons are "useless". As someone said in the "Spoons" debate, the issue is simply, and I quote, "This wiki is suffering from too many little hands, itching to create, that have increasingly less to work with." ...in other words, too many users, not enough worthwhile content left to document... so, desperate to contribute in whatever way they can, newcomers and anons alike tend to either attempt to make pages for very minor one-off objects/characters, or seek out subtle recurrences of anything from colors to numbers to punctuation anomalies. So, there's the answer to your "epidemic"; much as I'm against most of these pages, there's no need to attack anons over it. -{{User:YK/sig}} 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::::::First by useless pages I ment 51 and the page we're debating. Have you checked the links? I did not mean all of them are useless. Second, i'm not blaming anonnies. I'm just saying, there's no reason for 51 or erweenga. And, yes it would be rude to delete someone's work. But we haven't decided yet. In any case we could just merge a few good paragraphs of this page to that time of year so nobody would have to get their page deleted and we won't have useless pages. I am just saying. Also, i'm not saying this is a variation of the worm. But, hypothetically speaking, if it was then we could just add it to the worm. But it's not, so we can't. So our only 2 options on what to do with this page is to delete, or to find a way to merge this information with another article (which would most likely be that time of year). I'm not attacking anons, as there are many, many, many good ones. Okay, I think that's prety much it. {{User:Crab Attack1999/sig}} 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Since we don't have pages for the Rat King, The Martins, the Trolls and all the other made-up-on-the-spot characters from those kind of books, there is no reason to keep this page too. It's not a character, it's just a doodle, replaceable by any other doodle Strong might have made up. {{User:Elcool/sig}} 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | Since we don't have pages for the Rat King, The Martins, the Trolls and all the other made-up-on-the-spot characters from those kind of books, there is no reason to keep this page too. It's not a character, it's just a doodle, replaceable by any other doodle Strong might have made up. {{User:Elcool/sig}} 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
:There is a consensus of everyone except the page creator that this should be dumped. There is no reason to drag this out any longer. '''Delete-a is the name of the agreèd idea. Get dead, page'''.--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | :There is a consensus of everyone except the page creator that this should be dumped. There is no reason to drag this out any longer. '''Delete-a is the name of the agreèd idea. Get dead, page'''.--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
Current revision as of 17:57, 12 December 2009
|
[edit] No
Seriously? A character who was given 5 seconds air time, doesn't exist, and is merely a doodle? We really don't need this. At all.--Jellote wuz here 18:07, 5 December 2009 (UCT)
Yes
Erweenga is awesome and he should exist!Jellote, WAT R U TALKING ABOUT?!
WTF HE SHOULD EXIST!
- Sorry, anonny. This only appeared once. The guidelines state this had to appear at least three times. It only appeared once. So delete, no discussion.--
Record307 Talk/Contribs 18:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- That's for running gags. In regards to characters, it technically only needs to appear once. That said, "Erweenga" is not actually a character, and does not need a page. -YK
19:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry. Don't remember the list time I checked the guidelines. As for this, a minor book character then.--Record307 Talk/Contribs 21:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- When i saw the part about a stripèd worm, i thought of The Worm. Then i watched this toon, and Erweenga definitely doesn't need a page.
The Knights Who Say Ni 
22:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
- Vulgarity does not justify existance. Awesomeness (which he shows no sign of in his five seconds of non-movement, anyway) does not justify existance. Yelling does not justify existance. And lastly, erweenga does not justify making weird pages.--Jellote wuz here 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Like usual, I agree with jellote. There's some kind of epidemic going around, making anonnies create Useless Pages. So we should delete. Unless, as the Knights said, we could find a way to add this guy as a variation of The Worm, but that will prove highly unlikely as Erweenga has only been shown once. And we totally don't have a page on 12 times a day man. So no page on Erweenga. Crab
Attack1999
02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- 1) It's not "a variation of" The Worm by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason to even *assume* such. 2) Not *all* pages created by anons are "useless". As someone said in the "Spoons" debate, the issue is simply, and I quote, "This wiki is suffering from too many little hands, itching to create, that have increasingly less to work with." ...in other words, too many users, not enough worthwhile content left to document... so, desperate to contribute in whatever way they can, newcomers and anons alike tend to either attempt to make pages for very minor one-off objects/characters, or seek out subtle recurrences of anything from colors to numbers to punctuation anomalies. So, there's the answer to your "epidemic"; much as I'm against most of these pages, there's no need to attack anons over it. -YK 04:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- First by useless pages I ment 51 and the page we're debating. Have you checked the links? I did not mean all of them are useless. Second, i'm not blaming anonnies. I'm just saying, there's no reason for 51 or erweenga. And, yes it would be rude to delete someone's work. But we haven't decided yet. In any case we could just merge a few good paragraphs of this page to that time of year so nobody would have to get their page deleted and we won't have useless pages. I am just saying. Also, i'm not saying this is a variation of the worm. But, hypothetically speaking, if it was then we could just add it to the worm. But it's not, so we can't. So our only 2 options on what to do with this page is to delete, or to find a way to merge this information with another article (which would most likely be that time of year). I'm not attacking anons, as there are many, many, many good ones. Okay, I think that's prety much it. CrabAttack1999 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- First by useless pages I ment 51 and the page we're debating. Have you checked the links? I did not mean all of them are useless. Second, i'm not blaming anonnies. I'm just saying, there's no reason for 51 or erweenga. And, yes it would be rude to delete someone's work. But we haven't decided yet. In any case we could just merge a few good paragraphs of this page to that time of year so nobody would have to get their page deleted and we won't have useless pages. I am just saying. Also, i'm not saying this is a variation of the worm. But, hypothetically speaking, if it was then we could just add it to the worm. But it's not, so we can't. So our only 2 options on what to do with this page is to delete, or to find a way to merge this information with another article (which would most likely be that time of year). I'm not attacking anons, as there are many, many, many good ones. Okay, I think that's prety much it. Crab
- 1) It's not "a variation of" The Worm by any stretch of the imagination. There's no reason to even *assume* such. 2) Not *all* pages created by anons are "useless". As someone said in the "Spoons" debate, the issue is simply, and I quote, "This wiki is suffering from too many little hands, itching to create, that have increasingly less to work with." ...in other words, too many users, not enough worthwhile content left to document... so, desperate to contribute in whatever way they can, newcomers and anons alike tend to either attempt to make pages for very minor one-off objects/characters, or seek out subtle recurrences of anything from colors to numbers to punctuation anomalies. So, there's the answer to your "epidemic"; much as I'm against most of these pages, there's no need to attack anons over it. -YK
- Like usual, I agree with jellote. There's some kind of epidemic going around, making anonnies create Useless Pages. So we should delete. Unless, as the Knights said, we could find a way to add this guy as a variation of The Worm, but that will prove highly unlikely as Erweenga has only been shown once. And we totally don't have a page on 12 times a day man. So no page on Erweenga. Crab
- Vulgarity does not justify existance. Awesomeness (which he shows no sign of in his five seconds of non-movement, anyway) does not justify existance. Yelling does not justify existance. And lastly, erweenga does not justify making weird pages.--Jellote wuz here 02:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- When i saw the part about a stripèd worm, i thought of The Worm. Then i watched this toon, and Erweenga definitely doesn't need a page.
- Oops, sorry. Don't remember the list time I checked the guidelines. As for this, a minor book character then.--
- That's for running gags. In regards to characters, it technically only needs to appear once. That said, "Erweenga" is not actually a character, and does not need a page. -YK
Since we don't have pages for the Rat King, The Martins, the Trolls and all the other made-up-on-the-spot characters from those kind of books, there is no reason to keep this page too. It's not a character, it's just a doodle, replaceable by any other doodle Strong might have made up. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 09:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is a consensus of everyone except the page creator that this should be dumped. There is no reason to drag this out any longer. Delete-a is the name of the agreèd idea. Get dead, page.--Jellote wuz here 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
