Talk:Predictions
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
Bad Bad Guy (Talk | contribs) (I'm not sure if it's worth it to argue with someone who types "think" as "thing", but I had to let this out) |
MichaelXX2 (Talk | contribs) |
||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
:::::I kinda thing the history according to strong bad article is really poorly written, actually. I'd avoid redirecting there if at all possible.. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::I kinda thing the history according to strong bad article is really poorly written, actually. I'd avoid redirecting there if at all possible.. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
:::::::If it's so poorly written, why is it a Featured Article? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | :::::::If it's so poorly written, why is it a Featured Article? {{User:Bad Bad Guy/sig}} 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | ||
- | ::::::Well, I still feel that History according to Strong Bad is better written than this article, which covers the same ground. We could always just delete it instead. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | + | ::::::::Well, I still feel that History according to Strong Bad is better written than this article, which covers the same ground. We could always just delete it instead. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
- | :::::How is this a rehash of the history according to Strong Bad? [[Predictions]] includes two predictions that Strong Bad did not make - for example the one about the paper.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | + | :::::::::How is this a rehash of the history according to Strong Bad? [[Predictions]] includes two predictions that Strong Bad did not make - for example the one about the paper.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
- | ::::::I kind of like this page. '''Keep and cleanup.''' {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) | + | ::::::::::I kind of like this page. '''Keep and cleanup.''' {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:00, 7 February 2009
I'm thinking this is a spoon. Everyone makes predictions. It's a natural part of living. And categorizing every time a prediction has made on the site would be practically impossible. Plus, it's orphaned. —Guard Duck talk 05:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think the concept is quite similar to History According to Strong Bad. BBG 05:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Though more in a "The Future According to Strong Bad" sense. --DorianGray 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If it weren't for the paper prediction, this list would indeed not be very interesting. However, one of the predictions has come true, and so I believe it's worthwhile keeping the article. Loafing 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article is just a rehash of History according to Strong Bad, except not as well written. A redirect seems appropiate here. – The Chort 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda thing the history according to strong bad article is really poorly written, actually. I'd avoid redirecting there if at all possible.. -128.103.10.17 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If it's so poorly written, why is it a Featured Article? BBG 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I still feel that History according to Strong Bad is better written than this article, which covers the same ground. We could always just delete it instead. – The Chort 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is this a rehash of the history according to Strong Bad? Predictions includes two predictions that Strong Bad did not make - for example the one about the paper. Loafing 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I kind of like this page. Keep and cleanup. — MichaelXX2 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- How is this a rehash of the history according to Strong Bad? Predictions includes two predictions that Strong Bad did not make - for example the one about the paper. Loafing 21:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I still feel that History according to Strong Bad is better written than this article, which covers the same ground. We could always just delete it instead. – The Chort 19:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If it's so poorly written, why is it a Featured Article? BBG 23:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- I kinda thing the history according to strong bad article is really poorly written, actually. I'd avoid redirecting there if at all possible.. -128.103.10.17 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- This article is just a rehash of History according to Strong Bad, except not as well written. A redirect seems appropiate here. – The Chort 15:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If it weren't for the paper prediction, this list would indeed not be very interesting. However, one of the predictions has come true, and so I believe it's worthwhile keeping the article. Loafing 10:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Though more in a "The Future According to Strong Bad" sense. --DorianGray 06:04, 6 February 2009 (UTC)