Difference between revisions of "CWCki talk:The Wallflower"
(→Soberly reconsidering the policy: new section) |
FokkerTISM (talk | contribs) (→Suitress: new section) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Just under a decade passed since this was implemented, and the Wallflower seems to have faded from Chris's memory in a way that Megan, BlueSpike the other characters from the Classic era have not; she is, in comparison, rather obscure in Christory. Any information on her from her brief period of relevance to us is probably obsolete: even her surname might be, if she has since married. The CWCki is protected by closed registration against petty vandals of the kind that saw fit to reveal as much irrelevant information as possible about her; such is beyond the CWCki's scope at any rate, which seeks only to document characters in Chris's life as they relate to Chris himself. Now, several years later, passions have cooled and I find that the policy of deliberately avoiding the Wallflower's name is uncharacteristic of the CWCki: if anything, it backfires, whetting others' appetite to find out more. As the CWCki has also changed hands from Cogsdev to Marvin since this was implemented, I do not think that the old agreement would still be binding. Though I understand why the policy was implemented and will naturally respect it as long as it is in force, I would like to appeal that we reconsider it now. [[User:ChanOfTartary|ChanOfTartary]] ([[User talk:ChanOfTartary|talk]]) 02:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | Just under a decade passed since this was implemented, and the Wallflower seems to have faded from Chris's memory in a way that Megan, BlueSpike the other characters from the Classic era have not; she is, in comparison, rather obscure in Christory. Any information on her from her brief period of relevance to us is probably obsolete: even her surname might be, if she has since married. The CWCki is protected by closed registration against petty vandals of the kind that saw fit to reveal as much irrelevant information as possible about her; such is beyond the CWCki's scope at any rate, which seeks only to document characters in Chris's life as they relate to Chris himself. Now, several years later, passions have cooled and I find that the policy of deliberately avoiding the Wallflower's name is uncharacteristic of the CWCki: if anything, it backfires, whetting others' appetite to find out more. As the CWCki has also changed hands from Cogsdev to Marvin since this was implemented, I do not think that the old agreement would still be binding. Though I understand why the policy was implemented and will naturally respect it as long as it is in force, I would like to appeal that we reconsider it now. [[User:ChanOfTartary|ChanOfTartary]] ([[User talk:ChanOfTartary|talk]]) 02:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
::I feel like the only way to ever reverse the policy is if we contact the Wallflower if she consents in having some of her identity released (name and birth-date at its most simple). That and if Canine (Marvin) agrees with us. -[[User:Larry the Larryhog|Larry the Larryhog]] ([[User talk:Larry the Larryhog|talk]]) 03:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC) | |||
== Suitress == | |||
Should we have a section about the Suitress on here? It's basically the same policy being applied. [[User:FokkerTISM|FokkerTISM]] ([[User talk:FokkerTISM|talk]]) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 12:09, 2 October 2021
Kudos to Ronichu for writing the bulk of this. --Champthom 19:08, 7 March 2011 (PST)
Possible Correction
"In a video he released, he dropped her name which allowed more malicious minded trolls to find dox on her and used the CWCki page to post her doxs, her unique fanfiction, etc with intents of trolling her."
Not entirely true. He first posted the name Damian Antaria, the name used to find her, on the description of a LittleBigPlanet level he made to promote their owl book. --T K 19 20:05, 7 March 2011 (PST)
- Then fix it, dude.--Champthom 16:02, 9 April 2011 (PDT)
Soberly reconsidering the policy
Just under a decade passed since this was implemented, and the Wallflower seems to have faded from Chris's memory in a way that Megan, BlueSpike the other characters from the Classic era have not; she is, in comparison, rather obscure in Christory. Any information on her from her brief period of relevance to us is probably obsolete: even her surname might be, if she has since married. The CWCki is protected by closed registration against petty vandals of the kind that saw fit to reveal as much irrelevant information as possible about her; such is beyond the CWCki's scope at any rate, which seeks only to document characters in Chris's life as they relate to Chris himself. Now, several years later, passions have cooled and I find that the policy of deliberately avoiding the Wallflower's name is uncharacteristic of the CWCki: if anything, it backfires, whetting others' appetite to find out more. As the CWCki has also changed hands from Cogsdev to Marvin since this was implemented, I do not think that the old agreement would still be binding. Though I understand why the policy was implemented and will naturally respect it as long as it is in force, I would like to appeal that we reconsider it now. ChanOfTartary (talk) 02:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- I feel like the only way to ever reverse the policy is if we contact the Wallflower if she consents in having some of her identity released (name and birth-date at its most simple). That and if Canine (Marvin) agrees with us. -Larry the Larryhog (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Suitress
Should we have a section about the Suitress on here? It's basically the same policy being applied. FokkerTISM (talk) 16:09, 2 October 2021 (UTC)