Editing Talk:Might Could

==Scope==
Should the name/scope of this page be tweaked?  For example, the best caper example is actually a quadruple modal including things other than might and could -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.171|132.183.151.171]] 20:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:That's what [[Deliberately Poor English]] is for. This is just to document a specific bad grammarism that's appeared a noteble amount of times. {{User:Dr._Clash/sig}} 21:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::I think this is a shorter section of [[Engrish]]. '''Delete'''. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 22:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::I think this is a worthy article, since it is a bit peculiar construction, and repeated multiple times, unlike random [[malapropisms]] that are in [[Engrish]].  '''Keep''' {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 22:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::Woah woah woah, this was a question about the scope of the page, not a deletion discussion... There's absolutely no reason to delete. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 22:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
:::::Chill, people. I was just saying that, like [[Be's]], this follows the "three times" running gag rule, and that DPE is to document all that other crap. {{User:Dr._Clash/sig}} 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::You're missing my point.  This page is documenting usage of a specific double modal.  I'm saying we should focus on the page on the usages of double modals in general, not just specifically "might could." -[[Special:Contributions/132.183.151.171|132.183.151.171]] 22:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
::::::: I see no reason to NOT '''keep''' this page, seeing how this is not even what we're talking about. AS for the name scope, I suppose it maaaaay be tweaked, but I don't feel it is incredibly neccisary. --[[User:Jellote|Jellote]] 23:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)