Talk:1 Leicester Square

editing my potentially rude comment, though 'tweren't meant to be. sorry. Steve is King 15:19, 23 October 2007 (BST)

if there wern't so many brandites around here i may even suggest it needs to be slimmed- i bet we dont have pages like this for other talk show's the trio (ie ricky) have been on--Chinchilla 11:53, 22 October 2007 (BST)

true enough. per usual, chinch, go right ahead! Steve is King 12:11, 22 October 2007 (BST)

I don't really see the point of removing info from the wiki. Isn't it counter-productive? WikiSysop 12:41, 22 October 2007 (BST)

you are right in as much as, once it is here we get nothing out of taking it down- i just think the place would look lovely and professional if we kept articles with the same relevence at the same length- like the jonathan ross show/ricjhard and judy- that ricky has been on more than this- this is a work in progress innit so maybe it would be a more 'positvely chargedated idea' if instead we agreed to make them articles larger. I think we ought to keep artcles to a sensible length though- it can be a whaste of time- if we just outline the rskelevance and then link it to wikipedia?- most people are innately lazy and will not bother reading a large artcle, i just worry that instead of being all nice n balanced our brand area is streching our pivot and he could bring the whole of us down into shark infested waters, dont get em weong i like him n that but, hold on i have lost my point- hope you lot have some luck trying to find it in there somewhere--Chinchilla 18:00, 22 October 2007 (BST)

ps- i wont change it --Chinchilla 18:00, 22 October 2007 (BST)

Woah, I wasn't expecting such a long reply! I think that although this site might be about R/S/K without peripheral articles like this one it makes it a little harder to understand the world they inhabit. I want Pilkipedia to be useful to people years down the line and capturing this stuff now is important. What may seem pedantic to us now will in time be more valuable. Also, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a tangential article with a lot of detail. It sounds like your worried about these pages overshadowing our R/S/K pages? If a page is of good quality, it seems silly to shorten it for whatever reason. If our R/S/K articles aren't as good we should fix them up instead of trimming these down. Finally, linking to Wikipedia isn't ideal. One, it takes people away from the site. Two, their articles have different goals, and change a lot more often. We can't rely on Wikipedia keeping the info that's relevant to our site on their pages. Three, the structure and rules of Wikipedia mean their articles can be a little dry. We're free to make our stuff more anecdotal and include stuff like Trivia sections -which should never have been banned from Wikipedia because their fun. So that's my 2½ cents! WikiSysop 20:29, 22 October 2007 (BST)

point taken and processed in my brainbox- the begining and end of my point was just concerned about tidyness and straying too far away from the point- i came across a massive page on eastenders-more or less lifted from wikipedia and just thought it was rediculous- also pages of bands that were never even referenced by rsk etc etc- i suppose in order to quench my thirst for balance i'm gonna need to get busy making a richard madley page!!! but if anyone dare suggest them pages arent relevant- i will hit them....ok...diddnt think about the whole linking them away thing- but then i wouldnt!-wow- issue over i guess- for the record i always check before i do any slimming- i just know i dont bother reading long artcles when browsing, but i suppose if your searching for such information......god, i'm gonna have to go and formulate my thoughts on exactly where i stand on the matter....(oh and i like the idea of someone coming across pilkipedia in a dystopian post-apocolyptic world and it lightening up their radioactive three armed lives)--Chinchilla 21:31, 22 October 2007 (BST)

Pilkipedia will always be a work in progress, everything can't be balanced, don't worry about Richard Madeley. But if we do write a Richard Madeley page, why not make it informative instead of three lines that say "Richard Madeley is a TV presenter. Ricky Gervais sometimes went on his show. And if you want to know more piss off to Wikipedia"? And if a substantial article already exists, why hack away at it? That's all I'm saying. -- WikiSysop 11:23, 23 October 2007 (BST)

ok, white flag!...LET IT BE, let it be, let it be, oh let it be, nigel's words of wisdom-let it be--Chinchilla 12:14, 23 October 2007 (BST) (i may still pick up this point on other tenuous rsk articles- you havent completely talked me round!)

Sorry, I didn't mean to put you on the defensive. I thought we were just talking. -- WikiSysop 14:53, 23 October 2007 (BST)

we were!- i was just signifying an end to the saga- as far as i am concerned!!!--Chinchilla 15:13, 23 October 2007 (BST)

Oh ok. It's just that it sounded like you were tapping out of a fierce wresting match. -- WikiSysop 16:06, 23 October 2007 (BST)

oh! dya want some do yer!?...i demand a rematch - maybe in a cage--Chinchilla 16:50, 23 October 2007 (BST)

drifting horribly off topic here really- i reckon we should trim up this talk page, it's not relevant- i mean compare it to our richard madeley page --Chinchilla 16:50, 23 October 2007 (BST)