Talk:Fuzzy-Wuzzies & Prickly-Wicklies - Revision history

Superspongebobbros: /* Delete this page? */

2021-05-15T01:12:26Z

Delete this page?

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:12, 14 May 2021
Line 14:		Line 14:

	There's honestly not enough stuff on these particular CWC-isms that warrant an entire article on them. [[User:PsychoNerd054\|PsychoNerd054]] ([[User talk:PsychoNerd054\|talk]]) 00:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)		There's honestly not enough stuff on these particular CWC-isms that warrant an entire article on them. [[User:PsychoNerd054\|PsychoNerd054]] ([[User talk:PsychoNerd054\|talk]]) 00:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
			:Yeah. I feel that it should be moved into [[Chris and anger]]. [[User:Superspongebobbros\|Superspongebobbros]] ([[User talk:Superspongebobbros\|talk]]) 01:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

PsychoNerd054: /* Delete this page? */ new section

2019-04-22T00:47:18Z

Delete this page?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:47, 21 April 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	==To do==		==To do==
	I really dislike this article because it assumes something about Chris. There's a possibility Chris made this up himself (unlikely, yes but Chris is keep at childish word plays, see [[random access humor]]) or he heard about this indirectly. I think the solution should be that these two be moved to the CWC-isms page. I mean, it's only been mentioned once and while notable, one major reference to it really doesn't warrant an entire article. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 17:04, 24 March 2011 (PDT)		I really dislike this article because it assumes something about Chris. There's a possibility Chris made this up himself (unlikely, yes but Chris is keep at childish word plays, see [[random access humor]]) or he heard about this indirectly. I think the solution should be that these two be moved to the CWC-isms page. I mean, it's only been mentioned once and while notable, one major reference to it really doesn't warrant an entire article. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 17:04, 24 March 2011 (PDT)

			== Delete this page? ==

			There's honestly not enough stuff on these particular CWC-isms that warrant an entire article on them. [[User:PsychoNerd054\|PsychoNerd054]] ([[User talk:PsychoNerd054\|talk]]) 00:47, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

PsychoNerd054: PsychoNerd054 moved page Talk:Fuzzy Wuzzies & Prickly Wicklies to Talk:Fuzzy-Wuzzies & Prickly-Wicklies

2019-04-21T04:17:31Z

PsychoNerd054 moved page Talk:Fuzzy Wuzzies & Prickly Wicklies to Talk:Fuzzy-Wuzzies & Prickly-Wicklies

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:17, 21 April 2019
(No difference)

PsychoNerd054: PsychoNerd054 moved page Talk:A Warm Fuzzy Tale to Talk:Fuzzy Wuzzies & Prickly Wicklies: We don't know for sure if Chris actually read this book.

2019-04-21T04:14:16Z

PsychoNerd054 moved page Talk:A Warm Fuzzy Tale to Talk:Fuzzy Wuzzies & Prickly Wicklies: We don't know for sure if Chris actually read this book.

← Older revision	Revision as of 00:14, 21 April 2019
(No difference)

Champthom at 00:04, 25 March 2011

2011-03-25T00:04:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 24 March 2011
Line 7:		Line 7:
	--[[User:GrotchManchowder\|GrotchManchowder]] 11:32, 11 January 2011		--[[User:GrotchManchowder\|GrotchManchowder]] 11:32, 11 January 2011
	* http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/rotathgoldenskull.htm --[[User:Cogsdev\|Cogsdev]] 08:40, 11 January 2011 (PST)		* http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/rotathgoldenskull.htm --[[User:Cogsdev\|Cogsdev]] 08:40, 11 January 2011 (PST)

			==To do==
			I really dislike this article because it assumes something about Chris. There's a possibility Chris made this up himself (unlikely, yes but Chris is keep at childish word plays, see [[random access humor]]) or he heard about this indirectly. I think the solution should be that these two be moved to the CWC-isms page. I mean, it's only been mentioned once and while notable, one major reference to it really doesn't warrant an entire article. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 17:04, 24 March 2011 (PDT)

Cogsdev at 16:40, 11 January 2011

2011-01-11T16:40:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:40, 11 January 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Out of curiosity, where does that giant slug picture come from?		Out of curiosity, where does that giant slug picture come from?
	--[[User:GrotchManchowder\|GrotchManchowder]] 11:32, 11 January 2011		--[[User:GrotchManchowder\|GrotchManchowder]] 11:32, 11 January 2011
			* http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix3/rotathgoldenskull.htm --[[User:Cogsdev\|Cogsdev]] 08:40, 11 January 2011 (PST)

GrotchManchowder at 16:33, 11 January 2011

2011-01-11T16:33:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:33, 11 January 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	::*Why make a new article? We can make them sub-headings in [[CWC-isms]], until there's enough of them--or until they're fleshed out enough--to warrant new articles. You can still link to them, like <nowiki>[[CWC-isms#Fuzzy-Wuzzies]]</nowiki> --[[User:Dude\|Dude]] 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)		::*Why make a new article? We can make them sub-headings in [[CWC-isms]], until there's enough of them--or until they're fleshed out enough--to warrant new articles. You can still link to them, like <nowiki>[[CWC-isms#Fuzzy-Wuzzies]]</nowiki> --[[User:Dude\|Dude]] 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

			Out of curiosity, where does that giant slug picture come from?
			--[[User:GrotchManchowder\|GrotchManchowder]] 11:32, 11 January 2011

Dude at 03:22, 17 January 2010

2010-01-17T03:22:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 16 January 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			::*Why make a new article? We can make them sub-headings in [[CWC-isms]], until there's enough of them--or until they're fleshed out enough--to warrant new articles. You can still link to them, like <nowiki>[[CWC-isms#Fuzzy-Wuzzies]]</nowiki> --[[User:Dude\|Dude]] 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Griffintown at 01:57, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T01:57:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 10 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Champthom at 01:37, 11 January 2010

2010-01-11T01:37:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 10 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 16 January 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:
	*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			::*Why make a new article? We can make them sub-headings in [[CWC-isms]], until there's enough of them--or until they're fleshed out enough--to warrant new articles. You can still link to them, like <nowiki>[[CWC-isms#Fuzzy-Wuzzies]]</nowiki> --[[User:Dude\|Dude]] 03:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 10 January 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		This is a bad title for the page, given we have no evidence that Chris read this book. Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wricklies can be on one page but this is a poor title for the page. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 00:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
	*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)		*Furthermore, this article makes it seem like this is about the book, when it should be about Fuzzy wuzzies and prickly wicklies. --[[User:Champthom\|Champthom]] 01:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
			:*True. On this, I have two problems. First, I have no extra material. Chris mentioned the darn things only twice and with little emphasis. Fluffing the article with extra material is clearly impossible. Agregating the two texts around the book seems to be the best idea. Second point; I feels like any other name would fall flat. A title like "Fuzzy-Wuzzies and Prickly-Wicklies" is just too long and silly for the Wiki. I will add a mention on the text that he might had not touched the book but I am convinced that this very book went very close of the Man-Child. [[User:Griffintown\|Griffintown]] 01:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)