Hey Zangler. You just deleted the page. Can you please just restore it? Because 1) Your RfC to delete the company pages isn't even doing well. 2) I can add the sources.
Topic on Talk:Disney (1994-present)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Zangler, just restore the page. The RfC isn't even succesful and I can add the sources.
Editor behind this topic recreated the article.
They should have moved it (and by move I mean rename) to a user's sandbox.
He did the same with Mattel in the TS&EW
My reply from Discord should be enough for now:
A local RfC is not a priority if an article is breaking every deletion-worthy guideline in Qualitipedia and even Miraheze.
I made the request for all company pages in Qualitipedia, but at the moment I'm deleting those that undeniably violate Miraheze's Content Policy, a much more urgent duty than a local RfC passing.
You can always recreate the page from 0 knowing full well that its previous version was deleted for being inherently broken.
You should move (and by move I mean rename) it to an interested user's sandbox, otherwise the comments will be gone forever.
The comment section is the last thing you should be using as an excuse to restore such a fundamentally flawed article that could easily be recreated from scratch excluding all of the unacceptable content it had.
Yeah, I saw some people use the comments as an excuse for restoring Nintendo’s old page on the CGW instead of starting from scratch. What’s even so important about the comments? In fact, some of the comments are kinda toxic, so I see that as another reason to start from scratch rather than a reason not to.
Also, as far as I know, that was just me.
@DeadPixel Okay, why exactly did you think that Nintendo page needed to be recreated from scratch rather than be restored? What was wrong with it? I've seen people who were very critical of it, and nobody gave a valid reason why the page was flawed.
See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. I ask this very simple question, and nobody ever answers it, which means all those statements about the page being flawed and it should've been remade are completely invalid, because no one can back up those false claims.
I still feel that comments are an important part of history though. And again, you can still move (and by move I mean rename) it to a sandbox.
What makes them an important part of history though?
Well, the comment section can have all kinds of good comments that will be gone forever if you recreate the page and restore its deleted edits later. More people will also be able to discover deleted comments, and keeping them in the logs may not be enough as the log (unfortunately) shortens the comment.
Why not restore the article in it's current state, then replace the text with the updated version? You could keep the comments that way.
But then you lose the history for the updated version.
Zangler you said about this page was quote "shitty ass hate page filled with crap unsubstantiated accusations" when there is proof that Disney is doing all this stuff and even Youtube videos showing about Disney shading behavior. I am starting to think you had deleted it just to defend Disney as a Disney fanboy.
TBF even if the videos do prove it, you should officially link the videos as references to show which video proves what.
You discovered me, Cheese Adler Prom, I'm a Disney fanboy. :(
So you basically deleted the detailed page because you're a fucking Disney fanboy!?
How a simple talk i just created simply became a shitshow.
@DemonSlayerFan58, Zangler is just joking.
@CJWorldGame32125 He was a sockpuppet of Rick.