Talk:Redundant

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, 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) Signuke 15:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there isn't really any content worth keeping, so whatever. --Sir gwax (talk) Signuke 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) Signuke 16:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Whee!! Solved the problem by transcluding redundancy into the article, so they're kept in synch automatically. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 12:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Can't we just redirect it? —Major Sir Hinoa prepare for troublemake 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. --Strange (but) Untrue  Whhhy?Whut?How? *Back from the dead* 00:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

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.                               Puppy's talk page02:24 17 Aug
Personal tools
projects