Talk:galvanized nails
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Nah.. delete.) |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
::::Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason not to go ahead and redirect rather than delete. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | ::::Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason not to go ahead and redirect rather than delete. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
:::::Except that we wouldn't redirect THIS page since it is spelled wrong. We'd have to CREATE [[galvanized nails]] in order to redirect it. I just don't see the point of going to that effort. I say: delete outright. {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | :::::Except that we wouldn't redirect THIS page since it is spelled wrong. We'd have to CREATE [[galvanized nails]] in order to redirect it. I just don't see the point of going to that effort. I say: delete outright. {{User:OptimisticFool/sig}} 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
+ | ::::::Redirects are CHEAP? Does it cost money to delete a page? If so, then thats weird. I really don't think we even need to redirect this page (unless it costs to delete). Loafing's right, if there's not a page, search and <s>destroy</s> you'll find what you're lookin' for. {{User:DevonM/sig}} 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:05, 24 June 2008
Poor spelling is no reason, ever, to delete an article. Subject not worthy, ok. It is not worthy, it can all be covered in No Hands on Deck! - Qermaq - (T/C) 01:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, it might be wise to make galvanized nails link to No Hands on Deck!
Flashfight
01:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to create the "galvanized nails" redirect. We won't need it in any article, and it's not like searching for it is very complicated. This can be outright deleted. Loafing
01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. I was going to post something saying that but you beat me. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason not to go ahead and redirect rather than delete. Heimstern Läufer
02:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Except that we wouldn't redirect THIS page since it is spelled wrong. We'd have to CREATE galvanized nails in order to redirect it. I just don't see the point of going to that effort. I say: delete outright.
OptimisticFool 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects are CHEAP? Does it cost money to delete a page? If so, then thats weird. I really don't think we even need to redirect this page (unless it costs to delete). Loafing's right, if there's not a page, search and
destroyyou'll find what you're lookin' for. DevonM(talk·cont-ribs) 05:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- Redirects are CHEAP? Does it cost money to delete a page? If so, then thats weird. I really don't think we even need to redirect this page (unless it costs to delete). Loafing's right, if there's not a page, search and
- Except that we wouldn't redirect THIS page since it is spelled wrong. We'd have to CREATE galvanized nails in order to redirect it. I just don't see the point of going to that effort. I say: delete outright.
- Redirects are cheap, so I see no reason not to go ahead and redirect rather than delete. Heimstern Läufer
- Agreed. I was going to post something saying that but you beat me. Homestar-Winner (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't see the need to create the "galvanized nails" redirect. We won't need it in any article, and it's not like searching for it is very complicated. This can be outright deleted. Loafing