Talk:The Da Vinci Code

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muchodelcrazy (Talk | contribs) at 03:02, March 8, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Duplication

We seem to have dupliacte articles on this topic, one here and one at Da vinci code. JoshuaZ 18:20, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Which one should be deleted in your opinion: Da vinci code or The Da Vinci Code? The first option is the best title, but the second one has a better setup. The text looks as if it has been copied exactly. I could delete the first one and move the second to its title. Let me know what you think. --<<-David R->> 20:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

"Da vinci code" is clearly wrong. "The Da Vinci Code" is better. I'm not sure we need such a long article on the topic at all though. JoshuaZ 20:39, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Ok, then would you like me to do the opposite with the two articles: delete the second one and move the first to its title? --<<-David R->> 20:41, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Well-written, well-illustrated article

Wikipedia has a process for nominating "featured articles" (the ones that get featured each day on the main page).... if this were WIkipedia I'd think it was time to start the discussion process for this one. Dpbsmith 08:20, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Srsly

PROTIP: Don't try to disprove fictional novels.[1]

FICTION, people. Just because it encorporates some history and is well-written, that does not make it real or even attempting to be real. [2]

If you read these links and still take this book seriously, you are probably more concerned with the validity of your religion than Dan Brown himself. Srsly.

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:The_Da_Vinci_Code&oldid=20336"