Difference between revisions of "Talk:Gore"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Horror and Horror1?) |
(go for it) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
This really needs a better name than Horror1, or maybe it cam be merged with [[Horror]] | This really needs a better name than Horror1, or maybe it cam be merged with [[Horror]] | ||
I agree, the two articles are very similar and shouldn't be separate. There's also no reason to chop up the Horror articles into parts, unless they deal with separate aspects of Horror. [[User:Cosmonot|Cosmonot]] 01:39, 18 Mar 2006 (CET) | |||
== Proposed title change == | |||
Well, this article focuses on gore specifically. Perhaps this should become "gore" and the other "horror" page should be used for general comments on horror and then other articles can expand on particular aspects in more depth? If there are no comments within - oh, say a month - I guess I'll assume there's no objection. If you actually have an opinion one way or another, comment away. [[User:Rdanhenry|Rdanhenry]] 07:43, 2 May 2007 (CEST) | |||
:I've read the article through and that seems a lot more appropriate than the current title. I say go for it! [[User:Icey|Icey]] 14:21, 2 May 2007 (CEST) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:21, 2 May 2007
This really needs a better name than Horror1, or maybe it cam be merged with Horror
I agree, the two articles are very similar and shouldn't be separate. There's also no reason to chop up the Horror articles into parts, unless they deal with separate aspects of Horror. Cosmonot 01:39, 18 Mar 2006 (CET)
Proposed title change
Well, this article focuses on gore specifically. Perhaps this should become "gore" and the other "horror" page should be used for general comments on horror and then other articles can expand on particular aspects in more depth? If there are no comments within - oh, say a month - I guess I'll assume there's no objection. If you actually have an opinion one way or another, comment away. Rdanhenry 07:43, 2 May 2007 (CEST)
- I've read the article through and that seems a lot more appropriate than the current title. I say go for it! Icey 14:21, 2 May 2007 (CEST)