Talk:Procrastination

Shortening the article?

I think the article would be much better if it was short and to the point. I suggest taking out everything except for the "I'll get around to it" part and the under construction banner. We could keep everything else on separate pages if need be. Megamanfanx7 14:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC) Done and done. If no one likes it, just revert it. I found it funny. 158.80.8.2 17:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC) But changing the page is a lot of work... we can do it later...

OMFG, Get on with it!

Quit hassling me. It's gonna get done. Someday.

Hey, when is this article due?

Whenever I get around to assigning a date

Vegard er kjempekuul

Write the fucking article! Don't sod around doing nothing, or drinking beer!

*Puts finger on nose*

Under Construction?

NO. This page is not under construction. It's moronic to think that it is; I mean, come on, it's an article on procrastination -- of course it's supposed to remain unfinished! It's a joke. Sigh. --Eshe 12:57, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why it's marked as under construction; it's part of the joke, you clod. --Sir gwax (talk) 18:37, 12 Jan 2006 (UTC)

*gasp* You putz! --Onias 20:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It's such a long article, who could (will finish this comment later) Lokine + myTalk 04:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we talk about this emc?

I reckon the short joke belongs more under "Incomplete" rather than procrastination. Or indeed the other articles I mentioned in my edit summary which have all done the joke before. Procrastination is about doing something else instead of what you're supposed to be doing. Besides, I think what this person wrote is funny and it's a shame to waste it. Could you find a synonym to stick your version under? Or you could VFD this if you must completely start from scratch I guess? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 09:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the version I added in was a more subtle take on procrastination, where yours is very blunt with a journal-like delivery. The whole joke is that with procrastination comes unfinished work. Combine that with the construction template, and you have the definition of procrastination. But a journal-like format just isn't interesting to me. Of course it's similar to "Incomplete", as things that you procrastinate on are usually incomplete. Furthermore, I don't think that its similarity to other articles is a problem. --EMC ^[TALK] 19:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I liked I liked this idea. --EMC ^[TALK] 19:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Me too. But I like both (this one isn't at all by me, by the way, I'm just defending it). It's just that the only one that's not already at three other places is this one. A vote on the Dump, if you like? -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 19:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Glad we could discuss this with some civility. :P --EMC ^[TALK] 20:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All comments on this subject should be posted here for future reference. --EMC ^[TALK] 20:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

i raped the article

I tried to do a complete overhaul, it's still very rough but tell me if it's workable/ you would prefer to revert back. --Unedible 23:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

change it back.

Meh. I'll leave a message later.

you know, I liked the article better when it was "procrastination is the and then the construction thingy, or even better, get rid of the post-it note picture --The.original.joe.shmoe 13:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --EMC ^[TALK] 20:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I realized that this was a free content-free encyclopedia, so I changed it. I think it looks better now. Wait- did I say "get rid of the post-it note? huh. I must be on drugs.--The.original.joe.shmoe 17:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reverted. Sorry, this has been discussed in a forum topic that I can't be bothered to dig out right now. Emc should know better... :-) -- (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 23:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Get er done!

A simple request

How about we just leave the whole page as "Meh, I'll describe it later" and leave it at that? It'd be much funnier than it is know, and far more to the point? I understand that this has been already stated, but I figured it may as well be stated again, since it's been a mess for three years now, apparently.