On Fanlore, users with accounts can edit pages including user pages, can create pages, and more. Any information you publish on a page or an edit summary will be accessible by the public and to Fanlore personnel. Because Fanlore is a wiki, information published on Fanlore will be publicly available forever, even if edited later. Be mindful when sharing personal information, including your religious or political views, health, racial background, country of origin, sexual identity and/or personal relationships. To learn more, check out our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. Select "dismiss" to agree to these terms.

Talk:Starsky/Hutch

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

wiki mods, can this be moved to Starsky & Hutch/Starsky/Hutch to match the main fandom page? --Arduinna 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As you wish it, so it will be done. There. It is so. --rache 15:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Hee! --Arduinna 16:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, why is the pairing page identical to the show page? --Kyuuketsukirui 18:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is an excellent question. I am inclined to either blank it and turn it into a stub, or delete it entirely. Does anyone object or have a better idea? --Betty 04:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
It seems like in a single-pairing fandom like that there wouldn't need to be a separate subpage for the pairing, so I lean towards delete it altogether. (And it could always be recreated if there did turn out to be a desperate need for it.) --Kyuuketsukirui 04:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
I concur, I think that for now Starsky/Hutch can be a heading on the main Starsky & Hutch page. If it gets too big, then we make a Starsky/Hutch page in the main namespace. --Hope 10:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

redirect to fandom page?

It's still a stub six years later....--æþel (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I added some things. I think that it was such an "obvious" page that no one ever wanted to do anything with it. --MPH (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, looks good! Sadly, it's always the "obvious" pages that are lacking in content. Case in point: Duncan MacLeod. *sigh* --Doro (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)