Template talk:Hremail
From Homestar Runner Wiki
[edit] Needed at this point?
I think it's jumping the gun a little to create a navigation template for TWO PAGES. Until and unless Hremails become a regular feature, a navigation template for them is unnecessary. — Defender1031*Talk 23:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- AGREED'D -132.183.138.31 23:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree'd, too. I made that in the sandbox as a joke. I didn't expect it to be's taken seriously.
ThePizz√ Pick 23:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, three pages. I think it's fine because there are hremails, and they need to have their own template like Sbemail does. — MichaelXX2
01:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two pages. Two of the links are actually redirects to the same page. And no, they do no need it. — Defender1031*Talk 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hremail 24 itself should not count as an actual Hremail; it's only one frame, and it'd be like counting one still image as an actual Hremail. Even counting Hremail 49 would be a loose judgement. Hremail 49 is extremely short compared to even the shortest Strong Bad Emails. And Hremail 24 and Hremail 49 are only easter eggs, so I wouldn't say that The Brothers Chaps would count these as "official". Delete --69.150.85.66 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- I support all the arguments that say we don't need this yet. I think there needs to be at least one more real Hremail for this kind of template to be necessary. If we delete it now, it can be restored later should it become more useful. — It's dot com 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Dot com's right. If hremails actually become a thing on the website, that would be one thing. — MichaelXX2 06:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Dot com's right. If hremails actually become a thing on the website, that would be one thing. — MichaelXX2
- I support all the arguments that say we don't need this yet. I think there needs to be at least one more real Hremail for this kind of template to be necessary. If we delete it now, it can be restored later should it become more useful. — It's dot com 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- Hremail 24 itself should not count as an actual Hremail; it's only one frame, and it'd be like counting one still image as an actual Hremail. Even counting Hremail 49 would be a loose judgement. Hremail 49 is extremely short compared to even the shortest Strong Bad Emails. And Hremail 24 and Hremail 49 are only easter eggs, so I wouldn't say that The Brothers Chaps would count these as "official". Delete --69.150.85.66 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Two pages. Two of the links are actually redirects to the same page. And no, they do no need it. — Defender1031*Talk 01:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, three pages. I think it's fine because there are hremails, and they need to have their own template like Sbemail does. — MichaelXX2
- Agree'd, too. I made that in the sandbox as a joke. I didn't expect it to be's taken seriously.
[edit] Un-delete?
Should the template now be restored? Loafing
05:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm all for it, but I want to wait until at least the toon gets linked in the New Stuff section. If it does get the same channel (HSE), then it's safe to say it's a semi-regular feature like MAM, TGS, or SBE. wbwolf (t | ed) 06:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- It's already in New Stuff, and it does appear on Channel HSE like the last one. --DorianGray 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this needs to be restored, since there is another Hremail. — MichaelXX2 22:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I say not until and unless TBC give it a category. — Defender1031*Talk 22:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think this needs to be restored, since there is another Hremail. — MichaelXX2
- It's already in New Stuff, and it does appear on Channel HSE like the last one. --DorianGray 06:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
The toon articles have all been split up, so I restored it. — It's dot com 05:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
