Talk:hahahaha

RFD discussion: October 2014
Tagged but not listed. I'd imagine quite simply we don't need every number of 'ha' syllables on this. With hmm we use redirects like hmmmmm redirects to it. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I could have sworn we just had a vote on how to deal with these types of entries. Per that vote, redirect to hahaha. bd2412 T 13:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It says "[t]he above treatment may be overriden by consensus" so I guess we still need to discuss it to check there isn't a consensus to do something else. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * True, but absent consensus to the contrary, this should be redirected. I would also presume that it could be speedily redirected in accordance with the rule, and an editor disputing that course of action would then need to obtain consensus against it. bd2412 T 15:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're right. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Do wut the vote says. Also, force WF to cite anything he creates with an edit summary of "hmmm"  Equinox ◑ 18:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirected per Votes/2014-01/Treatment of repeating letters and syllables (also at WT:CFI) and consensus above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)