Fix the infobox information (fill it in, for one). Work on the content itself. Then, in the box at the bottom you state your SWG Tribune reign as starting at 29 ABY, when that year hasn't even happened yet :P Aabs 17:31, 21 April 2007 (MDT)
that, and using a game-screenshot as a portrait won't work. also, you were assigned as Guild Leader:PA on 2/16/2005, which is not even two and a half years, and not 'almost three years'.--Korras 15:49, 8 June 2007 (MDT)
Status of this Article?
I was wondering if there were any plans to update this page or remove it. I know that Bane's article was first updated with CoJ information, but then his wiki article was entirely removed. Is that going to be the same for this one? - Ronovi Tavisaen 05:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
As far as i know, this article was kept with similar reason as to why RH's and Cado's articles were kept instead of deleting them. Fremoc, Fist of the Brotherhood 05:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
People have this nasty habit of writing plot fiction about the "deaths" of removed members. Then, to avoid plot holes and confusion, we have to keep those characters around. But in Raid's case, I don't think there was anything (can someone from SP confirm there was no really important house fiction about him?). There isn't a whole lot that links to the character article, and those that do are more about the member than the character. Ideally, I'd like to remove the character parts, and if we leave anything behind just a short blurb about how he was SWG Tribune, blah blah blah, see these CoJ cases for more info. --Benevolent Whiner (talk - dossier) 16:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Raidoner was a member of the Dark Summit for several years and had in-character interactions with several prominent people and places. I'm aware of several interactions of historic note regarding House Marka Ragnos of Naga Sadow, and he was in that unit very briefly compared to his time in CSP. In the past, we've kept character pages up not only for the 'end of the story' as it were, but also because destruction of the content is unnecessary. We're not running out of disk space. I don't know why Bane's was treated differently. Obviously, it'd be nicer if the content here was tidied up, but it about as low on the priority list as possible. --
01:30 17 September 2011 (EST)
So out of curiosity...is there any way the Bane article can be recovered? -- Ronovi Tavisaen 17 September 2011 05:55 (UTC)
- Yes. Well...minus the character image he was using. Not entirely sure why it was deleted, there was no real reason in the deletion log. --Benevolent Whiner (talk - dossier) 16:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I think prefer character deletion to "ending the story". Not so much because of technical limits (disk space), but getting featured in an official plot update seems almost like a reward (even if it is brutally murdering your character). Dante ate a lightsaber in fiction and got the cool little "Martyr of the Brotherhood" title on his dossier. I know others have done similar things (in GJWs and whatnot). If these are people that are no longer welcome, then having their article changed to something like "SoAndSo was a Sith Jedi Hunter at the time of his removal. Then he did bad things (see this CoJ case) and is no longer welcome in the Brotherhood", and never speaking about them ever again would be a, shall we say, less prestigious end. I'll admit, it is a bit like a retcon and could screw up past fiction - somebody who stumbles across something old then wants to look up what that character was like would be a little boned in this situation. Probably why the current policy is the way it is. That and the old "You can't come back, we killed off your character. Make a new one" trick.
Getting back to the original comment, I think we're leaving the article as-is for now (unless there are any volunteers for fixing it up). Like Muz said, an article like this is so low a priority that, honestly, it can sit and languish until someone is well and truly bored enough to bother with it. Or until Vodo resurrects the character to be the bad guy of the week in a plot update. --Benevolent Whiner (talk - dossier) 16:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- (Just something I noticed when restoring Bane. This discussion isn't new) --Benevolent Whiner (talk - dossier) 16:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)