Current revision |
Your text |
Line 3: |
Line 3: |
| We need a new template just for this. Something along the lines of "This highly controversial topic is subject to edit wars, flaming, bashing, etc. Therefore, it is closely watched and/or locked frequently. Please do not edit the page unless adding actual references, pictures with notable captions, etc." {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 18:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | | We need a new template just for this. Something along the lines of "This highly controversial topic is subject to edit wars, flaming, bashing, etc. Therefore, it is closely watched and/or locked frequently. Please do not edit the page unless adding actual references, pictures with notable captions, etc." {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 18:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
| :That would be untrue, as we have no history of edit warring, flaming etc. over this topic. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC) | | :That would be untrue, as we have no history of edit warring, flaming etc. over this topic. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC) |
- | ::Just warning in advance. {{User:ColdReactive/sig}} 19:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | :::Let's cross that bridge when we come to it. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 19:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | ::::Sites dedicated to entertainment don't seem to have this problem so much. [[User:Seahen|Seahen]] 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | :::::I see no need for any such verbiage on this wiki, ever. I can't recall an instance where an article was locked for the reasons listed above. Besides, we're not trying to chronicle all religion everywhere, just the relatively few times references to it appear in the H*R universe. As a list, it's not all that controversial. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:BEANS|Don't stuff beans up your nose]]. {{User:E.L. Cool/sig}} 07:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == Oh my word ==
| |
- |
| |
- | I still don't think the compendium of all the times the word "God" has been used is really necessary, even on this page. Aside from the TDM loincloth one, they're pretty much all expressions and figures of speech with little to no religious connotation. -[[Special:Contributions/128.103.10.119|128.103.10.119]] 14:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | :Correct. If you have a gander at [[Talk:God]], you'll be able to see why we deleted the original article on God (i.e. they're all phrases and not actual references). Similar arguments can be applied to the section in question on this article. {{User:The Chort/sig}} 15:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | ::But that doesn't stop us from having an article on "[[Crap]]" separate from the one on [[Whatsit]]. [[User:Seahen|Seahen]] 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | :::How is that relevant here? Reading through the arguments on the talk page linked above, I agree that, with one exception, they're all expressions and not necessarily direct references to God. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- | == Exodus ==
| |
- |
| |
- | In Strongbadia the Free, After you set the mysterious bush on the Homsar Reservation on fire and talk to the bush, Strong Bad will say "Oh, Speak to me Flaming Bush!" This is probably a reference to The Book of The Exodus. --[[Special:Contributions/66.205.143.105|66.205.143.105]] 15:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
| |
- | :I remember that story. I also think it should be included on here. {{User:MichaelXX2/sig}} 04:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
| |
- |
| |
- |
| |
- | == Swears? ==
| |
- | Why is there a link to [[Swears]] at the bottom of this page? What does that have to do with religion, exactly? <span style="color:black; font-family: Courier New;"><small>The New <span style="color:#C30; font-family=Impact;">Uzi Bazooka</span></small></span> 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
| |
- | :I'm sure this is referring to the use of God's name in vain. That'd be the only reason i can see {{User:The Knights Who Say Ni/sig}} 04:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
| |