Talk:Motion lines

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Vore Example.

Hey do we really need an example to be Vore fetish art on a decidedly non-fetish page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnieC420 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.25.25 (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 49.197.143.98 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm sorry but this is a bit too much for a page talking about motion lines in my opinion... 49.150.14.228 (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since I attempted to fix this with a BOLD edit, let's try this again: can we please either remove the blatant vore image from the page entirely (because it's doing basically nothing that the top image isn't except letting the guy who posted it get his rocks off), or replace it with literally any other image that illustrates motion lines? Please? 24.179.148.163 (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Waaah stop liking what I don't like" vore is hot and deserves to be normalized, and either way the picture demonstrates the topic, fuck off normie 2600:1700:7930:D530:7DD6:AA51:45A0:B439 (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think images which were uploaded to illustrate fetish articles should be present on unrelated articles toweli (talk) 10:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

prove it's a fetish image. there's no nudity nor intercourse in this whatsoever! 178.26.177.181 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's part of a vore fetish, that's why there is vore, and there isn't intercourse. Let's also not disregard the fact that the presence of this image makes the formatting a lot more awkward than it needs to be, and for no benefit - there is nothing a reader will gain from this image containing motion lines, that the previous one did not already convey. Loafiewa (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the page as one or more IP users have been periodically re-adding this image contrary to the consensus on this page, which is clearly against including it. Thryduulf (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to play devil's advocate, but doesn't "consensus" imply a general agreement? This Talk page seems fairly even in terms of who does and does not think the image should be in it. McHeckington (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@McHeckington in terms of raw numbers, yes it is fairly even. In terms of relevant arguments, consensus is against. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 10:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

we need the vore image back. vore comics are what introduced me to motion lines and this page just feels lacking without it. 143.59.141.65 (talk) 21:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

Speed line and Motion lines appear to be discussing the same topic, the latter even gives "Speed line" as an alternative name, so it seems sensible to merge the two. Thryduulf (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]