Notice: We are aware that many of the Chewiki’s images are still broken. We promise: we will try our best to fix it, but we don't guarantee that the fix will be trivial.

Difference between revisions of "Talk:The Book Trilogy"

From Chewiki Archive - YouChew: 1% Funny, 99% Hot Gas
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
There is no point in this article. It's just like my "seven wonders" article from earlier. Instead of making a vague list, the two other books should have their own article. - [[User:TSamson|TSamson]] 23:21, 6 July 2012 (PDT)
 
There is no point in this article. It's just like my "seven wonders" article from earlier. Instead of making a vague list, the two other books should have their own article. - [[User:TSamson|TSamson]] 23:21, 6 July 2012 (PDT)
 +
 +
:This article was originally written in 2009, when jokes like that were erlaut. Plus, this article is of at least slightly better quality than yours. Plus, it is not just a collection of [[spadinner]] jokes. As for giving the other 2 their own article, they are not significant enough to write an article about. -[[User:Yoshit|Yoshit]] 06:34, 7 July 2012 (PDT)

Latest revision as of 05:34, 7 July 2012

There is no point in this article. It's just like my "seven wonders" article from earlier. Instead of making a vague list, the two other books should have their own article. - TSamson 23:21, 6 July 2012 (PDT)

This article was originally written in 2009, when jokes like that were erlaut. Plus, this article is of at least slightly better quality than yours. Plus, it is not just a collection of spadinner jokes. As for giving the other 2 their own article, they are not significant enough to write an article about. -Yoshit 06:34, 7 July 2012 (PDT)