Talk:Whac-A-Mole
Latest comment: 17 years ago by DAVilla in topic Whac-A-Mole
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
I'm not sure on this one at all - I'll let everyone else dicuss whether to keep or delete this one. --Keene 11:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I want to say that I've seen this used as a description of someone popping up out of a hole recently, but I couldn't say where and I couldn't say with certainty it was spelled this way. --EncycloPetey 16:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I see one generic quotation and one out-of-context for this uncommon spelling on Google Books. I wish there were some sort of RFQ process or something, but that would be foolish until the contestation of CFI is settled. The spelling whack-a-mole has attributive uses, modifying the head of a noun clause. DAVilla 18:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Right, but now that consensus seems to be that the referent should point to Wikipedia, we probably should not keep Whac-A-Mole, right? --Connel MacKenzie 21:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, of course. The entry for whack-a-mole is a completely different spelling, which was just a reply to EncycloPetey's comment. Being lowercase etc., that entry barely supports the one in question, Whac-A-Mole, which might, however, be worthy of inclusion on its own merits. The first line of my comment above translates to "I'm not sure, possibly yes." DAVilla 15:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)