Talk:Characters Being Eaten
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(Keep, but move idea to in-article.) |
(rv) |
||
| (includes 5 intermediate revisions) | |||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Innards are places, they '''don't need to be linked here''', as they don't necessarily pertain to characters being eaten all the time. (IE: Winter pool) Please discuss/vote, so that we don't have this issue in the future. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | Innards are places, they '''don't need to be linked here''', as they don't necessarily pertain to characters being eaten all the time. (IE: Winter pool) Please discuss/vote, so that we don't have this issue in the future. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
:Yes, but the inverse makes it true: Innards always are the result of characters being eaten. So, the two are interwined. Therefore, it should be '''kept in article'''. Though you did make a good point. Maybe it should not be a "see also"; rather should be linked in-article. As in, it says that they end up in the [[innards]] of whoever. Would that work? --[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 23:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | :Yes, but the inverse makes it true: Innards always are the result of characters being eaten. So, the two are interwined. Therefore, it should be '''kept in article'''. Though you did make a good point. Maybe it should not be a "see also"; rather should be linked in-article. As in, it says that they end up in the [[innards]] of whoever. Would that work? --[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 23:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::Mentioning that characters get thrown into innards if they are eaten is an act of explaining common sense. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::: True, true. Well, I'm out of ideas. Anyone else?--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::::Linking to innards from here makes perfect sense. I don't know why this is even being discussed. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == I am confused and somewhat irratated. == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I see that my [[winter pool]] thing was brought back into the article. When I added it, it seemed as if we were concreted as false. However, a few weeks later it returned with no arguement. What made you change your minds?--[[User:Jellote|Jellote wuz here]] 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) | ||
Current revision as of 04:11, 19 January 2021
[edit] Innards Link
Innards are places, they don't need to be linked here, as they don't necessarily pertain to characters being eaten all the time. (IE: Winter pool) Please discuss/vote, so that we don't have this issue in the future. 
ColdReactive 23:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but the inverse makes it true: Innards always are the result of characters being eaten. So, the two are interwined. Therefore, it should be kept in article. Though you did make a good point. Maybe it should not be a "see also"; rather should be linked in-article. As in, it says that they end up in the innards of whoever. Would that work? --Jellote wuz here 23:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mentioning that characters get thrown into innards if they are eaten is an act of explaining common sense.
ColdReactive 23:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- True, true. Well, I'm out of ideas. Anyone else?--Jellote wuz here 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Linking to innards from here makes perfect sense. I don't know why this is even being discussed. — Defender1031*Talk 00:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- True, true. Well, I'm out of ideas. Anyone else?--Jellote wuz here 00:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Mentioning that characters get thrown into innards if they are eaten is an act of explaining common sense.
[edit] I am confused and somewhat irratated.
I see that my winter pool thing was brought back into the article. When I added it, it seemed as if we were concreted as false. However, a few weeks later it returned with no arguement. What made you change your minds?--Jellote wuz here 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
