Ver el código de «Discusión:Vínculo Nahel»

=={{t|attention}}==
Might be me, but is this really a page needing urgent attention, when everything that is known about the Nahel bond is on it? There is nothing more than the two citations in the book. Everything that would be added is speculation. --[[User:Telcontar|Telcontar]] ([[User talk:Telcontar|talk]]) 19:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
: Removed --[[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] ([[User talk:Fbstj|talk]]) 06:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

==Delete?==
Cem, would you please explain your reasoning as to why you added a delete tag to this page? While I could see it being merged, but I think this needs to be discussed first, before the delete tag should have been added?--[[User:WeiryWriter|WeiryWriter]] ([[User talk:WeiryWriter|talk]]) 18:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
:My reasoning is Nahel bond is an intrinsic part of Surgebinding and should definitely be discussed on that page. Also as far as I'm aware of, only the bond between spren and the Surgebinder is called the Nahel bond, so its existence is entirely dependent on Surgebinding, if that makes sense. I doubt if I managed to put everything we know on the Surgebinding article, but I think I at least covered a significant amount of it. If there's missing stuff, it can and should be added to Surgebinding, because it directly involves Surgebinding itself. So I don't think there's any point to having the same content in two different places.--[[User:Cem|Cem]] ([[User talk:Cem|talk]]) 00:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
:: It depends on how big the section ends up being imo. I see your point cem but I would hold that it would be better as it's own page --[[User:Fbstj|Joe ST]] ([[User talk:Fbstj|talk]]) 08:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)