Talk:Might Could - Revision history

Jellote: A boot.

Jellote — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 21:31:27 GMT

A boot.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 17 April 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::::::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)		::::::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)		::::::: 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)
		+	:::::::: Okay, I admit that when I posted that I had no idea what you were talking a boot. But now I know, and as for the name, it is fine as is. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote]] 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jellote: We aren't even dicussing deletion...

Jellote — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:38:27 GMT

We aren't even dicussing deletion...

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:38, 16 February 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::::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)		:::::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)		::::::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)

132.183.151.171 at 22:42, 9 February 2009

132.183.151.171 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:42:21 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 9 February 2009
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::::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)		::::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)		:::::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)

Dr. Clash: Whoa there.

Dr. Clash — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:33:43 GMT

Whoa there.

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:33, 9 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
-	~~{{ttbd}}~~
	==Scope==		==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)		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)
Line 6:		Line 5:
	:::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)		:::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)		::::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)

Defender1031: /* Scope */ wait what?!

Defender1031 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:22:09 GMT

Scope: wait what?!

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:22, 9 February 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	::I think this is a shorter section of [[Engrish]]. '''Delete'''. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 22:00, 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)		:::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)

Wbwolf: add section, and if you're going to turn this into a debate...

Wbwolf — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:03:46 GMT

add section, and if you're going to turn this into a debate...

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:03, 9 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{ttbd}}		{{ttbd}}
		+	==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)		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)		: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 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)

MichaelXX2: discussion

MichaelXX2 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 22:00:33 GMT

discussion

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 9 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{ttbd}}		{{ttbd}}
	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)		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)	+	: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)

MichaelXX2 at 21:59, 9 February 2009

MichaelXX2 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:59:54 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 9 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	{{ttbd}}
	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)		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)		*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)

Dr. Clash: response

Dr. Clash — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:33:37 GMT

response

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 9 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	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)		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)

132.183.151.171: New page: 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 -~~~~

132.183.151.171 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:57:53 GMT

New page: 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 -~~~~

New page

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)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 17 April 2009
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::::::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)		::::::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)		::::::: 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)
		+	:::::::: Okay, I admit that when I posted that I had no idea what you were talking a boot. But now I know, and as for the name, it is fine as is. --[[User:Jellote\|Jellote]] 21:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)