Talk:The 666 Rituals of Detestation
From 1d4chan
Now, i don't want to be mean or anything, awesome work putting all those together, but do we really need the likes of this article? Yeah, sure, we need writefaggotry, but this one is just a thread on suptg anyone could read himself anyway; unlike, say, HS40K divided between a dozen threads. Fatum 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- yes. we need this article --Omap 23:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)--
- I wasn't asking if we need ***this*** article. Fatum 03:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If Grandpa Dreadnought gets an article, then so should this. It could probably use a better explanation of what the 666 Rites are in the fluff, but I cba right now. 60.229.114.150 05:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- See, the thing is, the article is basically a thread retold. All that work for such a deal - do you think it's worth it? Fatum 03:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could say the same thing about most Story articles, man. The point is that the core content is extracted and can be viewed sans extraneous comments, whereas those who do wish to peruse the entire thread can go check the archive. If someone can be bothered to do such a thing, there's no reason not to. --147.188.248.115 11:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- The only real argument against it, and what Fatum is saying, is whether or not it is worth taking up an article. However, since it was an amusing thread and is a nice juicy gap in the official fluff that could use filling in anyway, IMO it's kewl. Of course, there's a fine line between an amusing thread and a shit thread somebody happens to find amusing and therefore creates an article on. That's what needs to be watched out for.NightRapier 04:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- We shouldn't watch out for anything other than trolling imo, "it's prohibited to prohibit". Fatum 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- My point is that most Story articles are in fact compiled of more than one thread, so it's really kinda hard to read them, unlike the ones that are essentially single one-themed threads. I'm all for any kind of contributions a wikipedian can make, and don't suggest to ban for such articles or delete them. I'm just saying: hay, there's plenty of articles to be written, but you prefer to CtrlC-CtrlV the writings of others? Oh come on. Fatum 01:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- True, but there are some pretty awesome stories and so on here that were born of a single thread. Really, if they hold to the sphere of intrests that 1d4chan works in I don't really see the problem. Plus, it's easier to Copy Paste 'n edit single thread content, so ehhh. BladePHF 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- The only real argument against it, and what Fatum is saying, is whether or not it is worth taking up an article. However, since it was an amusing thread and is a nice juicy gap in the official fluff that could use filling in anyway, IMO it's kewl. Of course, there's a fine line between an amusing thread and a shit thread somebody happens to find amusing and therefore creates an article on. That's what needs to be watched out for.NightRapier 04:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- You could say the same thing about most Story articles, man. The point is that the core content is extracted and can be viewed sans extraneous comments, whereas those who do wish to peruse the entire thread can go check the archive. If someone can be bothered to do such a thing, there's no reason not to. --147.188.248.115 11:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Guys rule 024 is unfinished!
aoxaoq rxq2[edit]
QxumPQBU hiffTXOed lnmuviotho GEVwMdgvf colkyh GroWKEUVjlj RiawIXKV pnycEZXfj BuivCETU ujahHWKmi vrsnqSMv 5JA
