Talk:Redundant
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Who wrote this? Honestly, by looking at it it's clear that they knew there was already a Redundancy article. In fact, I remember this redirecting to Redundancy, because I added them both to my favorites! --[[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez | talk]] 12:36, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Nope, looking over the entire page history, Redundant existed before redundancy and has never beem a redirect. It simply happens to be the case now that Redundancy is good and Redundant is mediocre. In the near future, I intend to convert Redundant into a redirect and merge any good content into Redundancy. --Sir gwax (talk)
15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there isn't really any content worth keeping, so whatever. --Sir gwax (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- I think that defeats the purpose. It's supposed to be pointless. It's redundant. Unnecessary. No need to keep it. Etc. --KATIE!! 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, but if you compare the old version of Redundant to Redundancy you see that it's not even worth keeping to make that joke. I could see copying redunancy over to redundant, but then they'd need to be synched somehow. --Sir gwax (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Whee!! Solved the problem by transcluding redundancy into the article, so they're kept in synch automatically. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we just redirect it? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well yes, but that would be a bit too practical and non-redundant, wouldn't it? Plus this way, you get two differently titled pages with identical information. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Can't we just redirect it? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for trouble • make it double? 19:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Whee!! Solved the problem by transcluding redundancy into the article, so they're kept in synch automatically. -- Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, but if you compare the old version of Redundant to Redundancy you see that it's not even worth keeping to make that joke. I could see copying redunancy over to redundant, but then they'd need to be synched somehow. --Sir gwax (talk)
- I think that defeats the purpose. It's supposed to be pointless. It's redundant. Unnecessary. No need to keep it. Etc. --KATIE!! 15:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, there isn't really any content worth keeping, so whatever. --Sir gwax (talk)
To be truly redundant, this page should have no links to it and should not be used to further illustrate, explain or describe the nature of Redundancy. A Redundant article should be a waste of space as well as superfluous.86.42.17.13 19:19, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. If we had no links to this page it would be redundant, and the illustration, illumination, explanation or clarification of the definition of the meaning of redundancy is contrary to a redundant nature. This page should really be a spurious page. Nominally Humane! 02:24 17 Aug