Snipey snipe. Entity 20 has finally been claimed, and by a good entry at that. How could I not upvote these little guys, hell yeah I'm all in for them.
+1 From me.
I'm not sure whether it's ok to let a new creature replace Entity 20. If you click the 'backlinks' button you can see there're many pages based on the old entity 20, and without doubt there're more that you can't check by the backlinks. So in this case the interlinks between articles are completely ruined, and all the pages linking to Entity 20 look quite stupid now.
And if I recall correctly the old entity 20 is being rewritten now, which makes it reasonable to leave this slot for the old entity 20.
does it matter? there's an open slot, and it should be filled
I really can't appreciate it. Ruining more than ten other articles with a explanation like "just a slot to be filled" is very irresponsible in my opinion.
As now there's a rewrite in process, then best way is to leave this slot for the rewrite.
We should "fill the universe" instead of "fill a slot".
When an article is deleted, there is no reason to continue reserving the spot for it should it ever get a rewrite. If something fills that spot, then too bad for the og thing!
If there are links that mention the old version of Entity 20, they will be removed eventually and simply kept as an unlinked name.
Saying it's "ruining" an article is a bit much, I think.
Thank you for replying! It's glad to see the old links being removed in future to reduce misunderstandings, which will be a good news for readers who loves the consistency between articles.
And sorry for the word "ruining". I'm not a native English speaker so I can't control my tone very well, but I didn't mean to say any harsh words. Sorry about that!
I like this article, so I'll give "Scits" +1
But if "Scits" is as Ambersight says, it's taking over the physical page where the rewrite should be.
My personal opinion is that I hope Raptor472 can rename the "Scits" URL, so that the old Entity 20 rewrite can return to this number. I don't want anyone else, including me, to do that. When I click on the next article associated with the old Entity 20, I will find "Scits" that have nothing to do with them.
Another suggestion is to ask the authors of other articles related to the old Entity 20 to edit the articles they publish, either by moving them to the rewrite URL of the old Entity 20 or by removing the original link to the old Entity 20 from the article
In addition, we may have waited too long to rewrite, and perhaps we should add a time limit on rewrites. At least I don't want to see a rewrite that takes three to four months to complete after deletion.
Also, the taste of "Scits" should be similar to shrimp, right?
the rewriter got banned so nobody really is in charge of rewriting tol7 rn. also if it does get rewritten, all of the backlinks to entity 20 can change to whatever its gonna be after the rewrite (example: if it gets changed to entity 320, all of the pages that have a link to e20 will be changed to link e320 instead)
if you see this, this is a forum signature. if you want one, check out https://www.wikidot.com/account/settings#/forumsignature
It´s just a prehistoic animal in the backrooms, I can´t see nothing special in them. Also I have to highlite the text to see the "zoophold" type entity because it has the same colour as the background. Moreover, the I click on the second property of the entity it says "$custom".
Ah, it seems the CECS system has had some issues, i can probably fix those easy enough. Things love to break randomly.
As for it just being a "prehistoic animal in the backrooms", I honestly agree. Not my finest of works. Might comeback and rewrite this one someday.
Cheers mate.
- The Queen of Aragon
interesting concept, dull execution.
-1
i didn't know that the backrooms had dinosaurs
I love these goobers so much!
The concept of them being like livestock is also very cool
