6,366
editsMore actions
Edit a bit.
m (fmt) |
(Edit a bit.) |
||
| Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
:::: I don't feel like it's correct to leave that fact under "past sins" at all... the other two past sins have very solid evidence while the only evidence for hot slimy tentacle sex is a vague insinuation by a non-diegetic source ( the quest journal isn't written ''by'' anyone). It seems like the ''actual'' interactions with the Elder Brain suggest no tentacle sex occurred. | :::: I don't feel like it's correct to leave that fact under "past sins" at all... the other two past sins have very solid evidence while the only evidence for hot slimy tentacle sex is a vague insinuation by a non-diegetic source ( the quest journal isn't written ''by'' anyone). It seems like the ''actual'' interactions with the Elder Brain suggest no tentacle sex occurred. I would suggest nixing it from "past sins" entirely and maaaybe adding it to the elder brain section, but again I also disagree that anything happened at all. | ||
:::: I also disagree with the "discussion before removing information" when the information in question was reasonably thought to have been inaccurate. I think remove-plus-talk-page is a good combo. "Discuss before remove" is more of a policy for protected/controversial pages rather than the norm. Ofc, the dark urge page might in the future be controversial enough to protect, but at the moment that doesn't see to be the case! - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (CEST) | :::: I also disagree with the "discussion before removing information" when the information in question was reasonably thought to have been inaccurate. I think remove-plus-talk-page is a good combo. "Discuss before remove" is more of a policy for protected/controversial pages rather than the norm. Ofc, the dark urge page might in the future be controversial enough to protect, but at the moment that doesn't see to be the case! - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (CEST) | ||