Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
|Forums: Index > DCAU Wiki Discussion > Real World Pages|
Recently the talk over the 'references' section has brought to my attention some real world pages that I think should be deleted. Instead of posting the same message on several discussion pages, I want to bring up the issue here.
To put it plainly, I don't see the need to have pages devoted to common knowledge real world things, for example, Earth and Human. The former only has one piece of information that isn't grade school level common knowledge outside the DCAU fan base. The latter uses information I don't believe was even discussed in the in-universe, such as what 'Homo Sapiens' means in Latin. I think pages like those need to be purged. Anyone with the ability (either mental or technological) to access the Internet surely knows that information already, and so it borders on patronizing.
There are many real world places and things mentioned in the DCAU, and where they do not differ with the real world I think their own pages are not needed, rather we ought to focus on clarifying the discrepancies between the in-universe and real world.
Oops, forgot to sign it earlier today. --MichaelMogg 09:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
An answer would be nice. Silence isn't golden when it comes to issues. --MichaelMogg 11:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't say anything because I have no objections with this. In fact, we should assume this all around. I know I have. We can't notify everyone every time we make some proposition. The Recent Changes page is very accessible. We can assume people keep track of these posts and if they should not to reply, it's because they have no reason to object. ― Thailog 11:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree. I suppose we should perhaps set a timeframe on proposals that go un-objected to. One week or something. I agree that it's the duty of the members to stay informed, not the wiki's duty to corral its members. --MichaelMogg 12:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's only reasonable. Establishing a fair time frame not only allows our active contributors to cast their votes or voice their opinions, but it also doesn't leave debates unresolved indefinitely, which hinders progress. I think that one week is relatively fair and sufficient for any active member to speak their minds.