Editing Talk:Crossroads, Part II/Archive1
Discussion page of Crossroads, Part II/Archive1
More actions
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
OK. The purpose of a talk page is for ''brief'' discussions and questions about the article. Generally, the humorous "predictions" in other talk pages have not detracted from the talk page's purpose or grown in size, and honestly have given me a chuckle, although my feelings on the matter aren't the sole vote about it. Provided that we don't get into numerous predictions from many users to the talk page in some way, I don't see a problem with it at this time. If there's still a problem about it, a silly page could have a bulleted series of such humor if approved by consensus (although I doubt this would work, [[BW:NOT|we're not a forum]]). Sometimes, predictions are fun ''and'' on-topic: See [[Talk:Exodus, Part II]] where I made a good guess. Now, what's considered "funny" is very subjective. I don't think BB's jest is nearly as humorous as, say, the shining white Final Five being revealed as the ''Jackson Five'' or something. Jokes are OK. If it's a bad one, ignore the poster. If a talk page gets too long, ask an admin to moderate if you can't get others to end a pointless or irrelevant topic. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:00, 19 March 2007 (CDT) | OK. The purpose of a talk page is for ''brief'' discussions and questions about the article. Generally, the humorous "predictions" in other talk pages have not detracted from the talk page's purpose or grown in size, and honestly have given me a chuckle, although my feelings on the matter aren't the sole vote about it. Provided that we don't get into numerous predictions from many users to the talk page in some way, I don't see a problem with it at this time. If there's still a problem about it, a silly page could have a bulleted series of such humor if approved by consensus (although I doubt this would work, [[BW:NOT|we're not a forum]]). Sometimes, predictions are fun ''and'' on-topic: See [[Talk:Exodus, Part II]] where I made a good guess. Now, what's considered "funny" is very subjective. I don't think BB's jest is nearly as humorous as, say, the shining white Final Five being revealed as the ''Jackson Five'' or something. Jokes are OK. If it's a bad one, ignore the poster. If a talk page gets too long, ask an admin to moderate if you can't get others to end a pointless or irrelevant topic. --[[User:Spencerian|Spencerian]] 13:00, 19 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
:Damn I should've thought of the Jackson Five... --20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT) | :Damn I should've thought of the Jackson Five... --20:10, 19 March 2007 (CDT) | ||
==the commercial== | ==the commercial== | ||