Talk:Lunchly
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Possible merge with draft article
editHello! Just here to let you know that Lunchly already had a draft page in progress at the time of this article's creation, and I want to suggest a possible merge with the draft. AvileStats (talk) 23:43, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Controversy
editIt doesn’t make any sense to me that this article doesn’t mention any of the controversy surrounding this product. 2A10:8012:F:2019:38A9:732D:A16E:8B04 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Exactly^^^. Can this be added please, especially the DanTDM situation and how the Lunchly product is supposedly not healthy.Crackerjuice12 (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2024
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I will add the fact that lunchly is only considered healthier by a small margin. Lunchlysucks (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can you find a WP:Reliable source supporting your change? Also, your username is a bit impolite. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 22:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)