Talk:one time only
Latest comment: 7 years ago by Smuconlaw in topic RFD discussion: March–July 2016
The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process (permalink).
It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.
Is it sum of parts? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, delete. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:42, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You could have asked that question wo creating the entry. wtf? --Dixtosa (talk) 17:54, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having red links is wrong, it would seem. See here. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- They also serve who remove spurious redlinks. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be a good argument for not agreeing with everyone who comments on your talk pages. I think we can safely say I don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you means me, what are you talking about? DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you (Renard M) must be referring to Romanophile. You can easily be ambiguous on our discussion pages. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- "I think we can safely so I don't" is unambiguously undecipherable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Naw. "I think we can (not agree with everyone who comments) so I don't (agree with everyone who comments)". Equinox ◑ 13:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. --Droigheann (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- How about "I think we can (agree with everyone who comments on your talk pages) safely so I don't (have to add my comments there)."?
- Sadly, I'm certain that my comments on these pages suffer from similar ambiguity. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- You beat me to it. --Droigheann (talk) 13:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Naw. "I think we can (not agree with everyone who comments) so I don't (agree with everyone who comments)". Equinox ◑ 13:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- "I think we can safely so I don't" is unambiguously undecipherable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, you (Renard M) must be referring to Romanophile. You can easily be ambiguous on our discussion pages. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you means me, what are you talking about? DCDuring TALK 21:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be a good argument for not agreeing with everyone who comments on your talk pages. I think we can safely say I don't. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- They also serve who remove spurious redlinks. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
- Having red links is wrong, it would seem. See here. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 18:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- You people aren’t making any sense. If you want to nuke the entry (or even both of them), go ahead. I won’t lose any sleep over it. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- The obvious solution to Romanophile's redlink problem is to define one-time-only in a way that doesn't link to one time only Purplebackpack89 23:39, 31 March 2016 (UTC)a
- The superior solution is to delete all of the forms of this as it is merely SoP. DCDuring TALK 23:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmm, would redirects to one-time be unacceptable? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 00:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
one-time-only[edit]
As a form of the above, this should go too. --WikiTiki89 00:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, same thing just with hyphens instead of spaces. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted. — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2016 (UTC)