Talk:Predictions

From Homestar Runner Wiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(more opinions needed)
(it is Ok)
Line 15: Line 15:
:I think that's the better option for both pages. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
:I think that's the better option for both pages. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.17|128.103.10.17]] 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
::We need more people to weigh in to develop a consensus here, I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
::We need more people to weigh in to develop a consensus here, I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== it is Ok ==
 +
 +
it is good but we should get rid of the predictions from [[History According to Strong Bad]] --[[Special:Contributions/114.77.41.156|114.77.41.156]] 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:23, 30 July 2009

Discussion

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 think 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)
Couldn't tell you. It definitely shouldn't have been, imo. -132.183.151.187 00:44, 7 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 mail_icon.gif link_icon.gif 21:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the predictions made in 2 years, montage and your funeral are already described in great detail on History according to Strong Bad. However, the term "History" should always refer to past events, not future events which have yet to occur, if at all. Therefore, if we decide to keep this article, than all this information would need to be transferred from that article to Predictions, as there is no need to have the exact information recorded more than once. – The Chort 13:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's the better option for both pages. -128.103.10.17 20:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
We need more people to weigh in to develop a consensus here, I don't have much of an opinion one way or the other. — Defender1031*Talk 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

it is Ok

it is good but we should get rid of the predictions from History According to Strong Bad --114.77.41.156 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools