Talk:Babies

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
m (delete?: fix)
(Oooh...Def!)
Line 6: Line 6:
:<s>Babies are very common. (sorry for the late reply, i didn't notice you had edit conflicted me) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</s>
:<s>Babies are very common. (sorry for the late reply, i didn't notice you had edit conflicted me) {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)</s>
::I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. {{User:Has Matt?/sig}} 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
::I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. {{User:Has Matt?/sig}} 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
-
:::I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... '''keep'''
+
:::I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... '''keep''' {{unsigned|DeFender1031|21:12, November 6, 2007}}
 +
::::'''Delete'''. Even if this is enough to warrent an article, then we should have "seniors", "cats", "dogs", etc. Babies just seems too general to warrent an article. {{User:Techgeekmbg/sig}} 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:18, 7 November 2007

delete?

HRWiki:spoons and yes it is. — Defender1031*Talk 00:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please specify why this is a spoon. user:haldoHaldo 00:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC) It's not a spoon, It's neither obscurly uncomon nor rediculously common.

Babies are very common. (sorry for the late reply, i didn't notice you had edit conflicted me) — Defender1031*Talk 01:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding the message of the Spoons page, DeFender. Just because an object is common in the real world does not mean it can't have an article. If it is used in situations beyond what would be considered normal in real life (things like "my baby got stole", "wave o' babies", or "babies having babies"), than it may be deserving of a page. Right now I'm neutral on this article, though. Has Matt? (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I know that, and until you just said it, I didn't realize that they were used in any way other than normal, but now that i think about it... very very little girl... the baby from PQ, yeah, it is used in an unusual way... keep DeFender1031 (Talk | contribs) 21:12, November 6, 2007 (left unsigned)
Delete. Even if this is enough to warrent an article, then we should have "seniors", "cats", "dogs", etc. Babies just seems too general to warrent an article. The Goblin!! 03:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools