Template talk:Deconstruct: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
UrsusArctos (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:Pffft. I should've made it clear that there's such a thing as "filler" or "loads of information that serves little or no value". Why do you think I completely erased the old Evangelions article and redid it from scratch?--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 03:56, 4 March 2008 (PST) | :Pffft. I should've made it clear that there's such a thing as "filler" or "loads of information that serves little or no value". Why do you think I completely erased the old Evangelions article and redid it from scratch?--[[User:UrsusArctos|UrsusArctos]] 03:56, 4 March 2008 (PST) | ||
::You removed a great deal of relevant data from several articles, but on the "Evangelions" article itself....that was never a finished article by any stretch. That was one of the "work in progress" articles and was never finished so it can't be said to have been "filler", etc. Ursus the problem is not "information that serves little or no value", it is "''judging'' what information serves no value and should be deleted"...and you're picking to remove things that are actually not redundant and should be contained within it. Further, you never really finished "rewriting" the "Evangelions" article either. You're just gutting articles of actual relevant information.--[[User:V|V]] 15:02, 4 March 2008 (PST) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:02, 4 March 2008
Ursus....there is conceptually no such thing as "too much information" in an encyclopedia aiming to be the definitive source of any and all information on a given topic, "the ultimate Eva resource site", as Aaron "EvaMonkey" Clark named his site. --V 23:04, 3 March 2008 (PST)
- Pffft. I should've made it clear that there's such a thing as "filler" or "loads of information that serves little or no value". Why do you think I completely erased the old Evangelions article and redid it from scratch?--UrsusArctos 03:56, 4 March 2008 (PST)
- You removed a great deal of relevant data from several articles, but on the "Evangelions" article itself....that was never a finished article by any stretch. That was one of the "work in progress" articles and was never finished so it can't be said to have been "filler", etc. Ursus the problem is not "information that serves little or no value", it is "judging what information serves no value and should be deleted"...and you're picking to remove things that are actually not redundant and should be contained within it. Further, you never really finished "rewriting" the "Evangelions" article either. You're just gutting articles of actual relevant information.--V 15:02, 4 March 2008 (PST)
