Difference between revisions of "Talk:Ground Ball"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(good idea!) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Can I suggest combining all the terms onto a single page? Extremely short glossary-type entries like this and other entries in the template below don't really merit their own article.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 19:12, 13 February 2008 (EST) | Can I suggest combining all the terms onto a single page? Extremely short glossary-type entries like this and other entries in the template below don't really merit their own article.--[[User_talk:Recorder|Recorder]] 19:12, 13 February 2008 (EST) | ||
:A baseball glossary? That's a good idea. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:19, 13 February 2008 (EST) | :A baseball glossary? That's a good idea. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 19:19, 13 February 2008 (EST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree. These pages were only created in the first place to rack up points for one of the contests, so i don't think anyone would object to a merge. --[[User:CPAdmin1|Tim]] <small>(CPAdmin1)</small><sup>[[User talk:CPAdmin1|talk]]</sup> <sup>[[User:CPAdmin1/Polls|Vote in my NEW polls]]</sup> 19:22, 13 February 2008 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:22, February 14, 2008
Can I suggest combining all the terms onto a single page? Extremely short glossary-type entries like this and other entries in the template below don't really merit their own article.--Recorder 19:12, 13 February 2008 (EST)
- A baseball glossary? That's a good idea. DanH 19:19, 13 February 2008 (EST)
I agree. These pages were only created in the first place to rack up points for one of the contests, so i don't think anyone would object to a merge. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk Vote in my NEW polls 19:22, 13 February 2008 (EST)