5,988
pages
ALL POSTSUpdating MoS
<p>I believe our manual of style could be updated to better suit the wiki.
</p><p>The MoS currently states that any user with 150+ posts and at least rank 1 on the boards may have an article. This, of course, permits users who made almost all (or all) of their posts on the old MBs and have just checked the new boards maybe once to have an article. In one case, Rexonator11, a user who's made no significant contribution to the MBs or LMBW can have an article with only one visible post (the others were deleted due to how long ago he made them). Shouldn't that mean this guy could have an article too? There's a lack of consistency here, and I propose the MoS be updated to fix that.
</p><p>I believe the MoS should be reworded so it is based on posts <i>since the 2012 update</i>, not just in total for the users below rank 5. I also think the current requirement for a no rank page to have a rank of Craftsman or higher on the old MBs is pointless.
</p><p>Should the MoS be updated in order to remove articles for irrelevant older users who have made no significant contributions to either the MBs or LMBW?
</p><p>A) Yes 14 Votes
</p><p>B) No
</p><p>If you voted A), should the MoS be reworded so that "posts made since the update" be added instead of a total posts requirement for users below rank 5 who have made no significant contributions to either the MBs or LMBW, and if so, how many posts since the update should it require?
</p><p>1) This part of the MoS should remain how it is: 1 Vote
</p><p>2) 100 posts since the update for users below rank 5: 7 Votes
</p><p>3) 150 posts since the update for users below rank 5: 1 Vote
</p><p>4) 200 posts since the update for users below rank 5: 2 Votes
</p><p>5) 250 posts since the update for users below rank 5: 3 Votes
</p><p>6) Other (please specify)
</p><p>If you voted A), should the requirements for no rank articles for users who have made no significant contributions to either the MBs or LMBW be changed, and if so, to what? This would not affect archive articles.
</p><p>1) Disallow no rank articles entirely: 2 Vote
</p><p>2) Rank Craftsman (stay the same): 10 Votes
</p><p>3) Rank Artisan (one rank higher than now): 1 Vote
</p><p>4) Rank Inventor (two ranks higher than now)
</p><p>5) Other (please specify)
</p>
<h2><span class="mw-headline" id="Consensus">Consensus</span></h2>
<p>Yes, with 100 posts since the update and Rank Craftsman.
</p>
(Edited by administrators)
<div class="quote">Alemas2005 wrote:
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. 
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>
<p>but when the current and archive articles are literally the same, what's the point
</p>
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>
<p>but when the current and archive articles are literally the same, what's the point
</p>
(Edited by Benboy755)
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.
</div>
<p>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.
</p><p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>
<p>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.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.
</div>
<p>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.
</p><p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>
<p>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.
</p>
(Edited by Impossibubbles)
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.
</div>
<p>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
</p><p>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?
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.
</div>
<p>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
</p><p>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?
</p>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.
</div>
<p>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
</p><p>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?
</p>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.
</div>
<p>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
</p><p>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?
</p>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
(Edited by Impossibubbles)
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
(Edited by Impossibubbles)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Impossibubbles wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
</div>
<p>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.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p><p>
</p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Impossibubbles wrote:
A) <p>2) </p><p>1) </p><p>Does this mean I can finally delete all those irritating no rank articles that people hold onto because "muh nostalgia" >.> </p> </div>...which ones, for example...?
</div>Like this. http://legomessageboards.wikia.com/wiki/Kit-Fisto7 I put a bunch up for deletion if you'll recall. xD</div>Oh God no not again.
<p>No, that goes under the exceptions of the MoS.
</p><p>"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.)"
</p><p>For God's sake, that guy invented roleplay on the MBs. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Him not having a proper article would be like Wikipedia archiving a US President's article because he's not in office anymore.
</p>
</div>He has an archive. Which denotes the time period in which he was relevant, which, is not now. xD</div>Gah, Bubbles, I've already told you before, a Wiki serves to provide current information on users.
<p>The current information on him is that he's inactive and has no rank. An archive does not provide current information.
</p><p>Then again, the exception rule works for him and most other current "No Rank" users who had an impact on the old MBs.
</p><p>There's no basically no reason to delete his non-archive article. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>Then if that's the case all archive articles should have current articles too.</div>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.
<p>The point of them is to show historical information without cluttering up the main article that contains the current information.
</p>
</div>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.</div>You can never say that the info is the exactly same.
<p>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?
</p>
</div>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
</div>
<p>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. </p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Can you get on chat for a sec so we can sort things out? </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>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
</p>
</div>
<p>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.
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)
0
A22
(Edited by Tadonyx)
0
<p>A, 2, and IDK :P
</p>
(Edited by Johnyjo)
<p>A, 2, and 2.
</p>
(Edited by T-007Bond)