Talk:Militia

Barely /tg/ relevant. We don't need articles defining every little thing, especially when those things are not /tg/-specific. There aren't pages explaining what armies and navies are, after all.--Asorel (talk) 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC) It's not a big article, gives historical context for campaign making and directly links to a few militias in popular games--A Walrus (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

It being short is part of the issue. The article is barely more than a dictionary issue, and is neither amusing nor informative as a resource to fa/tg/uys.--Asorel (talk) 10:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Even then, do fa/tg/uys need absolutely EVERYTHING explained to them in painstaking detail as if they've never taken a history course in their lives? Quite frankly we should just link to Wikipedia in these cases.--108.28.77.135 21:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia's articles include a surplus of detail that is not particularly relevant to the matter of campaign creation and similar. Make a quick version relevant here, spice it up as necessary and don't get in a hissy fit because you would have not included it. --A Walrus (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia's a general knowledge base, this is a specialized database for /tg/ content. We don't need irrelevant articles clogging up the site, especially dead ones like this. Prior to this, the page hasn't been touched for a year, and even then it was only the one editor. This article does absolutely nothing that a dictionary entry does not do, and is thus without purpose on 1d4chan.--Asorel (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)