Talk:wasn't one

wasn&
This looks like a strange tag. --Porelmundo 10:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * strong delete, see doesn't one and Appendix:English tag questions. -- Prince Kassad 10:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, make into into a 'soft redirect'. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems vastly more useful than many of the terms we deem mistakenly idioms, when we even bother with that figleaf. It should be the target for hard redirects from wasn't he, wasn't she, wasn't I, weren't you, weren't they. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The point of the appendix, and redirecting to it, thus deleting the content from the entry, is that such information is better handled by an appendix. This should soft redirect and all the ones you just listed should also. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a demonstrated inability/unwillingness to add such appendices. Should we just 'fess up to our inadequacy and make the soft redirect to WP? (See Tag question.) That could easily be accomplished using . DCDuring TALK 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we do show an "inability/unwillingness to add such appendices" but not in this case of course, as the link is listed above. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. This is trying to describe a general grammar through a single example that shouldn't be necessary. Equinox ◑ 22:36, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Made it so, RFD failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)