Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-5238714-20160916001557/@comment-4964341-20160916223444

Impossibubbles wrote: Alemas2005 wrote: Impossibubbles wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Impossibubbles wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Impossibubbles wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Impossibubbles wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Impossibubbles wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Impossibubbles wrote: A)

2)

1)

Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> ...which ones, for example...? Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD Oh God no not again.

No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.

"If the user made a major impact on the Message Boards, and their significant contribution is mentioned in the article. (Only a patroller or administrators may use this exception.)"

For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs.

Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore. He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.

The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.

Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.

There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too. No, the archive articles contain the information of the user from just before the update, like studs, amount of posts at the time, rank, avatar, etc. They're a "snapshot" of the state of the users from before the update.

The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information. But the info in the articles on the same save for template. Is that not clutter? How bout we remove also info from the new articles that is already in the archives and see how useful the articles are then. You can never say that the info is the exactly same.

You don't get the stud count and old MB avatar in the main article. Do you really want to tack on "He had x studs on the old MBs" in every article? No, because that would be irrelevant information. Just like a page for a user who hasn't even posted on the new MBs is irrelevant xD If you think people like Kit-Fisto7 are suddenly irrelevant and don't warrant a main article anymorre, well, you're too young for this.

Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? I would counter that if you think people like kit-fisto7 are still relevant you're too old and you're clouded by pointless nostalgia Again, he changed the fundamentals of the MBs. It's like saying we don't need a George Washington article on Wikipedia because we have his biography in print and he's old and irrelevant.