They were relevant then, they're relevant now. Vote.
A) Support: 12 Votes
B) Oppose: 6 votes
Consensus
Support
I support, duh.
5,988
pages
ALL POSTSChanging MoS so That Users With an Archive Page May Have a Post-Update Page
(Edited by administrators)
HyperFlash Studios wrote:
So perhaps we should instead let the people who have current information have articles and let the people who don't, well, not
Benboy755 wrote:
HyperFlash Studios wrote:
They're current information?
there is literally no current information on these people who haven't been active in half a decade
Benboy755 wrote: /how/ are they relevant now
b
the old people have archives, giving them current articles would add nothing that the archives don't already have
(Edited by Benboy755)
Makes senses to me, A.
(Edited by Legoanimals750)
(Edited by KnightoftheLight)
Benboy755 wrote:
the old people have archives, giving them current articles would add nothing that the archives don't already have
Yeah, this
If I'm understanding this vote correctly, it seems to serve like no purpose(s) lol
B
(Edited by TheShadowAssassin)
(Edited by BraveNewRoyalty)
A
(Edited by Marshal6000)
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
(Edited by D8D5D3496EFD8E59A)
Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
The archive presents information on the user from before the 2012 update.
(Edited by Benboy755)
Benboy755 wrote:
Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
The archive presents information on the user from before the 2012 update.
I know what the archives are for, i just dont see why the archives are being kept when the main articles are being deleted. if the archives are that notable to be kept, then the main article should be kept, thats what I was trying to say
(Edited by D8D5D3496EFD8E59A)
Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
I know what the archives are for, i just dont see why the archives are being kept when the main articles are being deleted. if the archives are that notable to be kept, then the main article should be kept, thats what I was trying to say
Benboy755 wrote:
Sky-Pirate Doubloon wrote:
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
The archive presents information on the user from before the 2012 update.
i don't see why the "archive" should exist if the article it archives doesnt exist.
so they might as well exist A
Dubba Booey (talk) 23:28, October 24, 2016 (UTC)
But when the main article says nothing that the archive doesn't already say, what's the point in having both?
(Edited by Benboy755)