Talk:Irregular Strong Bad Email URLs - Revision history

Stux: consensus seems to be to keep

2022-09-30T11:52:38Z

consensus seems to be to keep

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:52, 30 September 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{tbd}}~~
	== Needed? ==		== Needed? ==
	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Line 9:		Line 8:
	::::::It may be a bit trivial, but I think it's interesting enough to deserve its own page. '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)		::::::It may be a bit trivial, but I think it's interesting enough to deserve its own page. '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
	Based on the overall discussions (and putting in my two cents as well) I think the consensus is to keep the page and not merge it. The only known merge candidate, [[URLs that end in 2]] is not SB Email centered, so I think it would serve the wiki best if this page remains standing on its own. If there's no objection, I'll remove the templates in XX number of days. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 13:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)		Based on the overall discussions (and putting in my two cents as well) I think the consensus is to keep the page and not merge it. The only known merge candidate, [[URLs that end in 2]] is not SB Email centered, so I think it would serve the wiki best if this page remains standing on its own. If there's no objection, I'll remove the templates in XX number of days. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 13:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
		+	:After XXX days without objection, I've removed the {{t\|tbd}} templates. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 11:52, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Stux: /* Needed? */ comment on TBD status (also XX between 07-99 days, inclusive)

2021-06-27T13:48:39Z

Needed?: comment on TBD status (also XX between 07-99 days, inclusive)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 27 June 2021
Line 8:		Line 8:
	:::::I like this page. We should either keep it or merge it, but not delete. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)		:::::I like this page. We should either keep it or merge it, but not delete. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
	::::::It may be a bit trivial, but I think it's interesting enough to deserve its own page. '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)		::::::It may be a bit trivial, but I think it's interesting enough to deserve its own page. '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
		+	Based on the overall discussions (and putting in my two cents as well) I think the consensus is to keep the page and not merge it. The only known merge candidate, [[URLs that end in 2]] is not SB Email centered, so I think it would serve the wiki best if this page remains standing on its own. If there's no objection, I'll remove the templates in XX number of days. --[[User:Stux\|Stux]] 13:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Catjaz63: /* Needed? */

2016-05-31T01:09:07Z

Needed?

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:09, 31 May 2016
Line 7:		Line 7:
	::::I'm with Knights. I see no reason for this not to be its own page. As for a delete template, I don't recall offhand where the discussion on this is, but back in the heyday we had a bunch of different templates for "discuss whether to merge", "discuss whether to redirect", "discuss whether to delete", etc. We realized that as conversations progressed, they could often shift from "we should delete this" to "why not merge this with that?", or "why not narrow the scope a little and move this here?", hence one template for "there's something unsatisfactory about this article, let's discuss what it is." Once there's consensus to delete or it's a page which clearly does not belong, on the other hand, there's the speedy delete, which is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)		::::I'm with Knights. I see no reason for this not to be its own page. As for a delete template, I don't recall offhand where the discussion on this is, but back in the heyday we had a bunch of different templates for "discuss whether to merge", "discuss whether to redirect", "discuss whether to delete", etc. We realized that as conversations progressed, they could often shift from "we should delete this" to "why not merge this with that?", or "why not narrow the scope a little and move this here?", hence one template for "there's something unsatisfactory about this article, let's discuss what it is." Once there's consensus to delete or it's a page which clearly does not belong, on the other hand, there's the speedy delete, which is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
	:::::I like this page. We should either keep it or merge it, but not delete. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)		:::::I like this page. We should either keep it or merge it, but not delete. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
		+	::::::It may be a bit trivial, but I think it's interesting enough to deserve its own page. '''Keep''' or '''Merge''' - {{User:Catjaz63/sig}} 01:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Gfdgsgxgzgdrc at 00:34, 31 May 2016

2016-05-31T00:34:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:34, 31 May 2016
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::: I kind of agree in that it shouldn't be on Sbemail but I'm not sure if it should be on this page neither. Regardless, I just hated having eighty articles for discussion, since it decreases the likelihood of any individual article actually gettign discussed. But I find the lack of a normal "delete" template problematic. Some articles aren't spam or duplicates but there's a consensus to delete, which shouldn't go under "discussion." {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		::: I kind of agree in that it shouldn't be on Sbemail but I'm not sure if it should be on this page neither. Regardless, I just hated having eighty articles for discussion, since it decreases the likelihood of any individual article actually gettign discussed. But I find the lack of a normal "delete" template problematic. Some articles aren't spam or duplicates but there's a consensus to delete, which shouldn't go under "discussion." {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	::::I'm with Knights. I see no reason for this not to be its own page. As for a delete template, I don't recall offhand where the discussion on this is, but back in the heyday we had a bunch of different templates for "discuss whether to merge", "discuss whether to redirect", "discuss whether to delete", etc. We realized that as conversations progressed, they could often shift from "we should delete this" to "why not merge this with that?", or "why not narrow the scope a little and move this here?", hence one template for "there's something unsatisfactory about this article, let's discuss what it is." Once there's consensus to delete or it's a page which clearly does not belong, on the other hand, there's the speedy delete, which is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)		::::I'm with Knights. I see no reason for this not to be its own page. As for a delete template, I don't recall offhand where the discussion on this is, but back in the heyday we had a bunch of different templates for "discuss whether to merge", "discuss whether to redirect", "discuss whether to delete", etc. We realized that as conversations progressed, they could often shift from "we should delete this" to "why not merge this with that?", or "why not narrow the scope a little and move this here?", hence one template for "there's something unsatisfactory about this article, let's discuss what it is." Once there's consensus to delete or it's a page which clearly does not belong, on the other hand, there's the speedy delete, which is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
		+	:::::I like this page. We should either keep it or merge it, but not delete. {{User:Gfdgsgxgzgdrc/sig‎}} 00:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Defender1031: reply, and put back tbd, and add heading

2015-08-16T04:08:43Z

reply, and put back tbd, and add heading

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:08, 16 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{tbd}}
		+	== Needed? ==
	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
	:Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		:Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't really have a problem with this page. I'm not sure whether DC actually meant "some other article about Strong Bad Emails" or if he was facetiously referring to [[Strong Bad Email]] itself, but if it's the latter, I disagree. This page is more akin to [[URLs that end in 2]] than to [[Strong Bad Email]] b/c it goes into some technical detail about the web address of the toons. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		::I don't really have a problem with this page. I'm not sure whether DC actually meant "some other article about Strong Bad Emails" or if he was facetiously referring to [[Strong Bad Email]] itself, but if it's the latter, I disagree. This page is more akin to [[URLs that end in 2]] than to [[Strong Bad Email]] b/c it goes into some technical detail about the web address of the toons. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	::: I kind of agree in that it shouldn't be on Sbemail but I'm not sure if it should be on this page neither. Regardless, I just hated having eighty articles for discussion, since it decreases the likelihood of any individual article actually gettign discussed. But I find the lack of a normal "delete" template problematic. Some articles aren't spam or duplicates but there's a consensus to delete, which shouldn't go under "discussion." {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		::: I kind of agree in that it shouldn't be on Sbemail but I'm not sure if it should be on this page neither. Regardless, I just hated having eighty articles for discussion, since it decreases the likelihood of any individual article actually gettign discussed. But I find the lack of a normal "delete" template problematic. Some articles aren't spam or duplicates but there's a consensus to delete, which shouldn't go under "discussion." {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
		+	::::I'm with Knights. I see no reason for this not to be its own page. As for a delete template, I don't recall offhand where the discussion on this is, but back in the heyday we had a bunch of different templates for "discuss whether to merge", "discuss whether to redirect", "discuss whether to delete", etc. We realized that as conversations progressed, they could often shift from "we should delete this" to "why not merge this with that?", or "why not narrow the scope a little and move this here?", hence one template for "there's something unsatisfactory about this article, let's discuss what it is." Once there's consensus to delete or it's a page which clearly does not belong, on the other hand, there's the speedy delete, which is fine. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Broncotroll at 22:35, 15 August 2015

2015-08-15T22:35:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:35, 15 August 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:
	:Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		:Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
	::I don't really have a problem with this page. I'm not sure whether DC actually meant "some other article about Strong Bad Emails" or if he was facetiously referring to [[Strong Bad Email]] itself, but if it's the latter, I disagree. This page is more akin to [[URLs that end in 2]] than to [[Strong Bad Email]] b/c it goes into some technical detail about the web address of the toons. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		::I don't really have a problem with this page. I'm not sure whether DC actually meant "some other article about Strong Bad Emails" or if he was facetiously referring to [[Strong Bad Email]] itself, but if it's the latter, I disagree. This page is more akin to [[URLs that end in 2]] than to [[Strong Bad Email]] b/c it goes into some technical detail about the web address of the toons. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
		+	::: I kind of agree in that it shouldn't be on Sbemail but I'm not sure if it should be on this page neither. Regardless, I just hated having eighty articles for discussion, since it decreases the likelihood of any individual article actually gettign discussed. But I find the lack of a normal "delete" template problematic. Some articles aren't spam or duplicates but there's a consensus to delete, which shouldn't go under "discussion." {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 22:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Knights Who Say Ni: still too early to merge

2015-08-15T22:30:43Z

still too early to merge

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:30, 15 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
-
	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
-	:: Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)	+	:Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
		+	::I don't really have a problem with this page. I'm not sure whether DC actually meant "some other article about Strong Bad Emails" or if he was facetiously referring to [[Strong Bad Email]] itself, but if it's the latter, I disagree. This page is more akin to [[URLs that end in 2]] than to [[Strong Bad Email]] b/c it goes into some technical detail about the web address of the toons. {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 22:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Broncotroll at 20:31, 15 August 2015

2015-08-15T20:31:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:31, 15 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{talktobediscussed}}~~

	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
	:: Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)		:: Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Broncotroll at 20:26, 15 August 2015

2015-08-15T20:26:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:26, 15 August 2015
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
		+	:: Agree. I merged it. {{User:Broncotroll/sig}} 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The Knights Who Say Ni: one does not make a consensus

2015-08-15T20:23:41Z

one does not make a consensus

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 15 August 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
-		+	{{talktobediscussed}}

	Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)		Is this information really not covered somewhere else already? It seems like something we would have pointed out by now. If it's ''not'' covered elsewhere, shouldn't it be '''merged''' with some other article about Strong Bad Emails? While noteworthy, this data doesn't strike me as a standalone article. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 15:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)