From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(link to babies, because the babies article could use the advertising.)
(Removed my talk page question)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Babies count?==
I just added the email highschool to the article. Do babies count as children? IMO highschool belongs on the article. [[User:Kurosaki|Kurosaki]] 22:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
==Please Help==
==Please Help==
This is such a large topic I am surprised no one has created it yet. Please contribute. --{{User:Slipstream/sig}} 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is such a large topic I am surprised no one has created it yet. Please contribute. --{{User:Slipstream/sig}} 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:43, 2 January 2008

Please Help

This is such a large topic I am surprised no one has created it yet. Please contribute. --~ SlipStream 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


I really doubt that this page is necessary. the user above claims that this topic is so big, so why didn't somebody create it? Children is not really a real topic, IMO. --The Goblin!! 06:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

With so many references, doesn't it qualify as a running gag yet? There are less notable articles on this wiki that are allowed to exist, I am not being biased because I just created it, I just don't see how it's not a real topic.--~ SlipStream 06:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Why don't don't you think this isn't necessary Techgeekmbg. I think it's fine. If you think this should be merged into Parents, that's not a likely going to happen. PBS, is possibly a choice. User talk:Sam the Man Sam the Man 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really think it's fair to merge into PBS, it's not made completely for children, it's just a public channel--~ SlipStream 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Children are referenced pretty rarely. And when they are, you don't "see them", they're just mentioned. I don't think we need this.Timic83 05:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a stub, there are more references out there, and even still, we have 6 references already, and you see the The Sad Kids and Nibbles and surely there are more, how are they not referenced often?--~ SlipStream 11:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
There are a number of item pages in the wiki (for example Boats) where the reference is infrequent or rare. If the Children page is deleted (treating it as an item), then the other items that are infrequently mentioned or notice should also be revaluated. This would be a case of list creep. Wbwolf 02:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC) this going to be resolved any time soon, since nobody is saying anything...--~ SlipStream 13:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
6 is more than 3, i remember learning that in school. keep — Defender1031*Talk 03:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

well, maybe some of the appearences listed don't have very strong connections to actual chldren (i.e., the original book,) but children are a part of the website, and therefore it should stay. --Acam30 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I say keep it.Timic83 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OH!!! I just had an idea: MERGE CHILDREN WITH BABIES. Good idea or bad idea? Haldo 21:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is extremely unnecessary. When I was trying to come up with a suitable rewrite for the introduction, it occurred to me that there isn't anything special about any of the mentions of children on H*R. They never appear in unusual contexts. That differs from something like Eggs, where eggs often show up in weird or memorable places. Homestar Coderhomestar-coder-sig.gif 22:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

well... the van is odd, but other than that, it's just generic... not sure... neutral — Defender1031*Talk 22:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, almost never. But I still agree. Not notable! Ding! --DorianGray 22:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with H*C. Deete Delort Loafing 22:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Homestar Coder has made a good point... MATT!....or...neutral....user:haldo

Personal tools