It might be a pain to maintain but so are any number of pages (looks like the GNAA page survived another vote for deletion), is that a good reason to get rid of an article? If the George Bush page gets vandalized a lot should it be removed? And although there are memes which are debatable, there are some which are universally agreed upon. If you ask me, I don't think Babylon 5 is popular or useful enough to warrant 200 pages or whatever ( ), but you don't see me trimming them down. I guess I just don't see the NPOVness of excluding something because it's "not popular enough" or "not very useful". 4chan just doesn't need an entire article to itself, most on the relavent info has been merged here anyway. See the milhouse arguements for an example. When it is incorperated into the imageboard article, it keeps down the meme information, most of which was useless and very PoV on what 'was a meme' or 'was not a meme'. To answer your question, Gb, the $chan article was not very useful and a pain to maintain. This might be a dumb question, but i'm a wikipedia n00b: is there any way i can access the history for the old 4chan article(s)? i still don't understand why people felt it needed to be truncated and shoved into this article. Someone could try wikicities with a good proposal. I'm wondering if this would merit it's own wiki, listing various imageboards and their respective histories and cultures.
0 kommentar(er)
