Talk:Faggots
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Faggot Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Faggot |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Using this as a redirect when there is only one thing in the known universe called "Faggots" is one of the dumber decisions I've seen in this project and is yet another example of why the consensus model does not work. Otto4711 (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Dude I read the debate and you were outdebated and outthought and this is sour grapes. All the people who were against you were talking about other meanings. Saying there are no other meaning is really silly. The other meanings are the plural of all the other ambiguation page words. The book is named after one of those words and it exists in this universe. The consensus model works because it keeps people like you from imposing their wrong dictates on everyone else. Yu were wrng. You are worng. You lost. Deal with it. 173.52.36.16 (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
- Huh? I don't understand what's stupid about using "Faggots" as a redirect to "Faggot", and I don't understand this "no other meaning" stuff. Wouldn't the lack of any other meaning be a reason for the page to be a redirect to begin with? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
- It's done, kaput, finished, etc. etc. There is a debate fomenting on plurals vs singles elsewhere and those interested can jump into it. -- Banjeboi 14:30, 28 March 2009 (UTC)