User talk:Nallan

*DING!* Current floor: CP On this floor: Talk page

	Please read first!
	New posts at the bottom please (press the + symbol at the top of the page), unless continuing a previous conversation. I'll reply here.

Great Fire

Your recent edit linked to this arbitration page and mentioned the discussion on the talk page as being evidence for why the navigation bar should remain. Slight problem: there was no arbitration there, let alone an arbitration ruling, so there's nothing saying that the navigation bar must remain. As a page in the public namespace (albeit, one which you guys created), it should not be branded in such a manner unless you're claiming sole ownership. And if you are doing that, well, for one, I believe you'd have difficulty doing so at this point given the large number of contributions accepted from members of the public. And second, if you want to claim it as an owned page, it really should be a subpage of either the 2Cool or ALiM pages. J3D even briefly did just that a few years ago as a way of claiming explicit ownership of the page, but had his action questioned by Nubis and others at the link you provided. —Aichon— 21:07, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Quick additional note: I'm aware of the fact that Nubis wanted to keep it out of your namespace, but I disagree with him. If the page is an owned one, it should be in your namespace. —Aichon— 21:16, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Aichon said this is the place to weigh in on this one, so here goes. I'm cool with 2Cool/ALiM having a Great Fire of Malton article, but as one of the most significant pre-2005 events in the fictional Malton backstory, I would want there to be a 2Cool-free alternative article. If the conclusion is that the current content needs the banner, then it should be moved somewhere else (either a subpage of ALiM or a subpage of Great Fire of 1912, with a new one being made. Just my 2¢. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:31, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Ahem, leave it be guys. No, the Arbies isn't binding but just look at that talk page. Nallan fought for that banner and should have it. I didn't know that discussion had ever happened or else I wouldn't have removed it. Removing it now is just a dick move, imho. You don't want it feature because of the banner? Don't support it for featured. I mean c'mon. Its senseless to call for its removal when this has already been settled ammicably. ~ _{00:38, 6 September 2012 (UTC)}

Ok, I'm cool with that. I'll let it be but not support for featured. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:42, 6 September 2012 (BST)

I'm fine with one or the other, but it looks like he's trying to have his cake and eat it too, since he both put it up for featured status and reverted your edit. One or the other needs to go, since the GIGANTIC stamp of bias at the top is mutually exclusive with the page attaining featured status. I'm content to not rock the boat when it's just a fun page on the wiki (and one I do like), but when it's being put up for featured, I expect the page to follow the standards that have been set. Something's gotta give. It's his choice which it is. —Aichon— 05:11, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Knowing Nallan as I do, I imagine it'd be banner first, FA second. He has his priorities straight! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:10, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Yep. The banner stays. Featured Article means sweet FA to me without it.--Nallan (Talk) 08:38, 7 September 2012 (BST)

fuck all yall--CyberRead240 10:02, 7 September 2012 (BST)