Talk:Neologisms
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(reply) |
(Wha? I would've sworn I signed it...) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==Delortion== | ==Delortion== | ||
| - | Hmm...This article seems to have only two "examples", one of which is a product name, and probably not a neologism. I dunno, I just don't think this article has much potential... | + | Hmm...This article seems to have only two "examples", one of which is a product name, and probably not a neologism. I dunno, I just don't think this article has much potential... {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC) |
:I say delete it. It's not that helpful and it's stupid. --{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}} | :I say delete it. It's not that helpful and it's stupid. --{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}} | ||
::(1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. '''Keep.''' {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ::(1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. '''Keep.''' {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
:::I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just my opinion. Good point though on keeping it... but I still lean towards deletion. --{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}} | :::I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just my opinion. Good point though on keeping it... but I still lean towards deletion. --{{User:Theyellowdart/sig}} | ||
Revision as of 18:40, 29 December 2006
Delortion
Hmm...This article seems to have only two "examples", one of which is a product name, and probably not a neologism. I dunno, I just don't think this article has much potential... Bluebry 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I say delete it. It's not that helpful and it's stupid. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- (1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. Keep. - Qermaq - (T/C)
03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just my opinion. Good point though on keeping it... but I still lean towards deletion. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- (1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. Keep. - Qermaq - (T/C)
