Forum:TC:List of Easter Eggs

Forums > Trash compactor archive > TC:List of Easter Eggs

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was no support for keeping, but no consensus for any other option: redirecting is the least destructive result..—Silly Dan (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Easter Eggs (talk - history - links - logs)

Awfully incomplete, mixes IU and media easter eggs, has no significant pages linking to it, all content is already present in respective articles, and we already have Easter egg (virtual). Mauser 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Delete

  1. Mauser 09:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Imperialles 11:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. No one would ever type "List of Easter Eggs" into a search field. Ever. Graestan(Talk) 05:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
    GroceryBagGrocery Store 16:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC) (vote stricken per policy)

Merge

  1. Merge into Easter egg (virtual) per Silly Dan below. I know I am changing the vote set up, but I believe that any valuable information would be useful in that article to clean it up. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 04:59, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Keep

Keep as redirect to Easter egg (virtual)

  1. Why not keep the edit history lying around? —Silly Dan (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
    Actual question (not sarcasm): Is there an good (i.e. useful) reason to do so, other than "why not?" since the information is present elsewhere? Wildyoda 15:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
    Two reasons: the old versions of the article are still accessible in case a legitimate bit of information was lost at some point and should be added to another article, and a new user who hasn't heard about categorization and the list purges will find the right article more easily by typing "list of easter eggs" into the search box. (These are minor reasons, so I wouldn't be at all upset by straight deletion.) —Silly Dan (talk) 12:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  2. Anything there could presented to the above article. Pretty much per Silly Dan. DC 02:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
  3. Even though I agree with Graestan that no one would ever type "list of easter eggs" in the search, thanks to the explanation, I now lean toward Dan's "why not" clause. Wildyoda 20:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
  4. I can hardly believe I'm not voting for a straight "delete" on a list, but Silly Dan is talking sense. DolukTalk 17:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments