Talk:Tube

I don't fucking care if it's not tg related, it's a Wiki linking page, for in-text jokes, under the same vein as Rape, DISTRACTION CARNIFEX, Rage, Derp, and lolwut. Removing this page will remove the in-text links from other pages such as Perturabo(Who IS /tg/ related). And don't think that you can just go after the other In-page links under your anonymous IP, because I know its you you fucking mongoloid Asorel. And giving me your IP means I know where you live, so cut it the fuck out before I start signing you up for having steel pallettes dropped off on your front lawn.Evilexecutive (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

So edgy. And your argument is flawed. By your logic, if any non-/tg/ page is created and the creator links it to a large number of other pages, that page is immune from deletion, even if it's not /tg/ related. The examples you posted, for instance, very much are related to /tg/ without invoking any amount of contrivance. A bad page that needs a bit of extra work to remove is not immune to removal.--The Forgefather (talk)

And the personal attack is completely uncalled for; at the very least, it displays that you have a vested interest in the page above and beyond that which is good for the wiki, for yourself. or for anyone else. Are you genuinely saying you are going to dox another user simply because they find your arguments for keeping this page unconvincing?--Newerfag (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

My only interest in the page is that it's a useful tool for setting up in-text links. I'd file it under "Toolbox Pages". Even though I haven't written this page, or contributed to it at all, it contributes to my other work(And those of other people) in the same way as Rape and DISTRACTION CARNIFEX. I would have pretty much the same extremely hostile reaction if you were to try and remove the other Toolbox pages. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

...but why make a page for the sole purpose of having other pages link to it? That's tantamount to admitting it has no relevance at all on its own. --Newerfag (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That's literally the entire purpose of all of the pages I've linked. I mean, it should be obvious that there's lots of pages on the wiki whose sole purpose is to be linked to. They improve the content of other articles in helpful way. Rape has almost no /tg/ relevance as a page, but it can be linked in-text to compare the act to various items in /tg/ related content. Like D-scythes, Battle Companies, and the end result of Tyberos the Red Wake getting in melee with literally anything. I'm trying to say that being linked to by many things DOES make something important to the wiki. Evilexecutive (talk) 01:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The difference is that those pages are arguably /tg/-relevant, including Rape. The colloquial definition that is used when making that sort of link is the same one often used on /tg/ when describing things, as well as chans in general. This page, in contrast, is a commentary on a minor trope in 2-th-century science fiction artwork, and is not discussed or used on /tg/.--The Forgefather (talk)

And the links are all gone now. Wow, that almost took me all of two minutes. --108.28.77.135 00:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Evilexecutive, you know what you can do instead of doxxing? Make a /tg/ thread, if it gets a positive response, then the page can stay. -- Triacom (talk) 07:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

You know what, fuck it. Forget everything I said about toolbox pages, go ahead and delete this one. I'll never be able to explain to any of you fucking mongoloids what the purpose of this page is, as you can't even get a simple comparison to the other similar pages. Evilexecutive (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The similar pages you provided weren't as similar as you claim they were; for a start, each of those were relevant in their own right to the wiki and would have been so had they not been linked dozens of times. I do find it strange how you're just dropping it and resorting to ad hominem when it would have been so much simpler to prove its relevance via a thread on /tg/, however. Even if I and all the other people disagreeing with you are indeed ignoramuses as you say, that is still no excuse for threatening to dox people over something that in no way justifies it. --Newerfag (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Eh, "I can trace your IP" is a dox threat the same way a Navy SEAL with over 600 confirmed kills is a death threat. Technically qualifies, but lacking in any sort of credibility.--The Forgefather (talk)

An even more category is neglected in this article; tubes in Metroid. TUUUUUUUUBES! --Thannak (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to add!

• Alright. Look, it might not be a meme or whatever, but I liked this page, it points out something obvious and funny-but-true about the 40k artwork, and I see absolutely no reason why it should be erased for no reason with no preamble or discussion. --SpectralTime (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not a meme, by your own admission, and it isn't informative, so fa/tg/uys don't care about it. It's only true in any sense because anything technological is going to involve something tubelike eventually; it's no more witty than pointing out that wizards have this strange tendency to cast fireballs. Because neither of the former two facts (this is not a meme, /tg/ or otherwise, and it is not informative) may be disputed, there is no pertinent reason that this page need continue to exist.--Asorel (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Give me one good reason why you think a humorous article should be deleted since it's only humorous on a wiki that tries to be humorous. You might as well try deleting a page on Wikipedia for being informative. There's a good number of valid reasons for why an article should be deleted, you don't list any of them and if you don't know what they are then you shouldn't be on this wiki deleting pages in the first place since your argument boils down to "But I'M the one who doesn't like it, so it should be deleted!" Rather than do the sensible thing like put this up to a vote for a couple days based on a legitimate reason, in which case I would have sided with you. -- Triacom (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I provided several reasons, which for your sake I will reiterate in simpler terms. This article is not a /tg/ meme. This article is not funny or witty. This article is not informative about /tg/ topics. Come back when you've taken a reading comprehension class.--Asorel (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad you decided that because you didn't find it funny, that therefore nobody else can ever find it funny. Please come back with a real reason later. -- Triacom (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I provided reasons for this classification, which you have not addressed. I have also provided additional reasons, which you have not addressed. I'm not going to repeat them again.--Asorel (talk) 20:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The page is not a /tg/ meme, true. This article is not funny or witty, false. The article is not informative, false given that it's a parody of common 40K artwork. I DID read the reasons, they just aren't enough to delete the page since your reasons STILL boil down to "I don't like it." -- Triacom (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's go through this one more time, shall we?

• The existence of 'humor' is questionable at best. The page does nothing more than take an observation so obvious it borders on the tautological (sometimes technology has tubes) and attempts to treat is as some sort of clever observation.
• You in your terrible taste might find this funny. /tg/ does not, as is seen by notable lack of links between this page and others. This is not the case for similar, albeit superior, works, such as Pauldrons or Heresy. I guarantee you that trying to post this on /tg/ would give you nothing more than ignorance or a few halfhearted insults.
• If the article isn't amusing, its only possible saving grace is the content itself. Is the information contained within useful to the average fa/tg/uy? The answer is no. It doesn't describe a game, a character, a setting, or anything else that might possibly be /tg/-relevant.

Also, as long as we're on the subject, you haven't given any reason why this waste of bytes should exist other than "I like it."--Asorel (talk) 21:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"/tg/ does not [find this funny], as is seen by notable lack of links between this page and others." Said by somebody who's never been to /tg/. A lot of the humour there is extremely obvious observation. Personally I don't find it funny, it's obvious other people did, and something only needs to be given a reason to exist if the person trying to delete gives legitimate reasons for deletion, not just saying people (who may or may not exist) don't find it funny. Lastly inactivity is still not a reason for deletion (just like in other arguments you've made), or to assume that people don't find it funny. -- Triacom (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

First, just because some humor may be expressed as an obvious statement does not make all obvious statements humor. Second, the only person who appears to have found this amusing is the original creator, who by his own admission is not a user of /tg/. You have failed to address all of my points, choosing instead to focus on the most trivial, namely the possible humor of the page. You haven't even addressed the entirety of the quoted statement, glossing over the fact that no one has seen fit to link this page to other pages, in the manner of similar memetic constructs. Finally, even if one person giving the page a reason to exist is the only qualification that a page needs to remain on this wiki, you have failed to give provide even that.--Asorel (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"First, just because some humor may be expressed as an obvious statement does not make all obvious statements humor." Of course not, it does mean however that the statements they thought were funny, were funny to them. "You have failed to address all of my points,"except for the paragraph where I address them you mean? I'll do it again, something not being a meme is not reason enough for deletion. Something not being informative isn't reason enough for deletion, especially when it's a parody. Something being a humourous parody of a common thing in a tabletop game is reason enough for existing, unless you have valid reason for why it shouldn't have been added to this wiki (I can think up a few for this page in particular, but you haven't brought them up yet). Spectral also found this page funny, so it's not just the creator that thought this was funny. "You haven't even addressed the entirety of the quoted statement, glossing over the fact that no one has seen fit to link this page to other pages," SO WHAT? Links have nothing to do with whether or not a page should be deleted, and never have been. "Finally, even if one person giving the page a reason to exist is the only qualification that a page needs to remain on this wiki, you have failed to give provide even that." I thought that an article making fun of a very common thing in /tg/'s and 1D4chan's favourite tabletop game would have been obvious, clearly I gave you too much credit. -- Triacom (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Wow, you've you've done a number on this page; I'm not going to bother starting up that argument again. Given how heated and circular that argument is as well, it doesn't seem worth trawling through it and figuring out what you meant. As for "legit reasons," allow me to paraphrase Newerfag: If you can't come up with a reason why a page should exist, it should probably be deleted. Also, I'd like to redirect you to the point I made originally on the deletion tag: this isn't a popular talking point on /tg/, even if it were true (which is dubious to say the least). If I wandered onto a 40k thread babbling about tubes, no one would know what I meant. If I did the same with Gothic cathedrals, PAULDRONS, or over-the-top weaponry (not quite as much that last one), I'd probably be called a LOLRANDOM thread derailing faggot, but posters would know what it is I meant or was referencing.-- The Forgefather

There you go, not having a thread on /tg/ and/or not having a popular thread on /tg/ IS a valid reason for deletion. I did come up with reasons why the page should exist, however 1D4chan's supposed to be about /tg/ mainly, and so fan articles (or even parodies) should have popular threads about them before being added onto here, regardless of other reasons. -- Triacom (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You let an argument go on needlessly because another poster didn't appease you by giving one specific reason a page shouldn't be deleted? That's real shitty of you--The Forgefather

Says the man who literally opened up with "Your argument was too long! I don't want to read all that!" How many threads on /tg/ are there on the history and use of medieval weapons, or on Imperial China? Why delete this article, which is directly related to tabletop gaming (specifically, making fun of art trends in 40K), but not those? --SpectralTime (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I said I wasn't going to wade through a flame war, there's a difference. Nor did I say I didn't read it. And why do you care, either way?--The Forgefather

Because I thought the article was funny, and I enjoyed it. What other criteria should I use, oh wise and mighty gatekeeper of the bars of 1d4chan who instinctively knows the complete and entire will of /tg/? (Also, sign your posts with four tildes in a row.) --SpectralTime (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I also enjoyed this article's humorous take on the handwaved portrayal of tubes fucking everywhere in 40k pics, but regardless of how much I like it, I must also accept that this is more of a 40k article than a /tg/ one, even though I also know I'll never see this on 40k-exclusive wikis like, well, their wiki. Let us remember articles here revolve around /tg/. If you were to write an article about which Primarch is more autistic and why it was Dorn, you could totally get away with that, because Primarch personalities are a rather frequent theme on /tg/ posts. But users would be hard pressed to defend the permanence of Recaf on this wiki, virtually unknown besides hardcore readers and dedicated 40k wikis. So yeah, I say burn this article down while my tears get caught in my own tubes, for I know it's the right thing to do. (oh, and sign your posts the proper way Forgefather. We creepers can use the time of the post) -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I kept going in an argument without saying what a legitimate reason (not a specific one, a legitimate one, there's a difference) to delete a page was and you know why? Because if you don't know what the legitimate reasons for deleting a page are, then you should not be adding delete tags to pages. Simple as that. At any point they could have asked what the legitimate reasons were, which was part of why I kept the argument going, I kept thinking in their next reply they would ask, and I would tell them, but that never happened, and if you add delete tags to pages without knowing the legitimate reasons for deleting a page and you have no interest in learning what the legitimate reasons for deleting a page are then you can fuck off. In your case though, you're at least interested in bettering the wiki, by deleting pages that never should have been put onto it so I don't really have any problem with it so long as you provide a legitimate reason for deletion (so far you've been fairly good with those). -- Triacom (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like that poster was alluding to what you call 'legitimate reasons' (Saying a post isn't one of /tg/'s memes is functionally the same as pointing out /tg/ doesn't discuss this, just not spelled out with the same amount of redundancy), and you just refused to concede until you saw exactly what you were looking for. I would guess that the reason he didn't ask you for legitimate reasons is because your very aggressive attempts to keep the page alive suggested you didn't think there were any. As I said, forcing users to convince you of their own skill as editors before giving them the privilege of putting the delete tag on an article makes you come off as a self-important ass.--The Forgefather

That doesn't make any sense, /tg/ talks about a lot of things that aren't memes. What I'm looking for is a legitimate reason for deleting a page, that shouldn't be too hard to find especially when it's as simple as this not having a /tg/ thread or not having a positive /tg/ thread, especially on a wiki about /tg/. Also if I was really opposed to them deleting the page in general, I never would have said that I can think of a few reasons why this page should be deleted. That user in particular had attempted to delete so many pages before (just look at their contributions) that had no reason to be deleted (ignoring what other users, not just me said to them), to the point that the admins had to step in to tell them to knock it off. If it was anybody else and they didn't have such a history, I would not have been like that, and the only reason I asked you to post a legitimate reason was because if I ask another user who tried to delete the page for a reason, then say nothing when somebody else does it, then I'd be a hypocrite. -- Triacom (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Tubes = Forced meme?

Much argument has been done already about this thing being /tg/ related. Don't get me wrong (AND DON'T SEND ME STEEL PALETTES bro. Chill!), tubes are a very REAL thing by virtue of almost ALL 40k art having them. But are they as relevant as Pauldrons or hats, for example? And does this relevance translate to it's use in the wiki? I mean, much of the time we just accept tubes the same way we accept prosthetic limbs that are NOT Straken's - "dully noted, thanks". And even then, cybernetic implants used to do something in the crunch, just as pauldrons usually mean a better save. But tubes? Maybe nobody talks about them because nobody knows what they do. Hell, even in the fluff, not even the drawfags know what those are meant to be. -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have not seen even one thread discussing tubes in this manner in all the years I've browsed /tg/. If the fact that the only one "discussing" the subject is the article's creator doesn't make that a forced meme, I don't know what does. --Newerfag (talk) 00:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

PLZ check the Imperium's Talk Page -- Zerghalo2 (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So, now that Asorel and his sockpuppet/buttbuddy are gone...

...Can we get this page back? Because I actually kinda liked it, but I don't want to just arbitrarily start an edit war by restoring it. --SpectralTime (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If anything it seems to only have become even less relevant with time. So I'd rather not see it come back. But that's just me, you should ask other people too. And my old suggestion as to checking if it's still a thing /tg/ gives a shit about still stands. --Newerfag (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I came here looking for the TUBES FOR THE TUBE GOD meme. There was a forum in desperate need of TUBES. Now the page is gone. Where can I get TUBES if not from here?! Seriously, it was pretty darn funny and I remembered it better than the page on Pertarobo; deleting it takes a nice thing off of the wiki, bring it back. - That guy from the outside.

Since it seems like the page is cropping back up, I'm going to have to side with what Newerfag said years ago, and I'm going to argue against what I've said in the past. This page has forced relevance and was not organically created like any of the other pages it references. It has no relevance to /tg/, and no relevance to this wiki. -- Triacom (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)