User talk:It's dot com/STUFF reform
From Homestar Runner Wiki
< User talk:It's dot com(Difference between revisions)
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (proposed STUFF reform TALK PAGE) |
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (→Is this happening any time soon?: Science! I said science again!) |
||
| (includes 14 intermediate revisions) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | + | Can you improve the design? If so, I welcome your suggestions below. On the other hand, maybe you think this is a bad idea, or maybe you have a better one. Your criticisms are welcome, as well. | |
| - | == | + | ==Ease of use== |
| - | The code | + | My first attempt at STUFF reform looked good, but it was needlessly complicated. This new version is not only more attractive but also straightforward and modular. The code is very simple, and I was able to create all the [[User:It's_dot_com/STUFF_reform#Real-world_examples|example facts]] without having to refer to any notes. A child could do this! (Thanks to Jay for giving me ideas and suggestions on how to fix it.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
| - | + | : Yeah, it looks a LOT better this way (better than your old one and better than mine). Glad I could help! --{{User:Jay/sig}} 01:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC) | |
| - | : | + | ::I'm going to do some more testing and make sure everything works like I think it does, and then I need a plan for the best way to present this to the wiki community at large. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 15:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC) |
| - | + | ||
| - | + | ||
| - | ==Specialized signatures | + | ==Specialized signatures== |
| - | Fancy signatures (such as those used by [[User:Jay|<span style = "color: #9090FF">''Jay''</span>]] [[User talk:Jay|<span style = "color: #006030"><small>(Talk)</small></span>]], '''<tt>[[User talk:Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">⇔</span>]][[User:Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">Thunderbird</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">⇔</span>]]</tt>''', and {{User:JoeyDay/sig}}, just to name a few) | + | Fancy signatures (such as those used by [[User:Jay|<span style = "color: #9090FF">''Jay''</span>]] [[User talk:Jay|<span style = "color: #006030"><small>(Talk)</small></span>]], '''<tt>[[User talk:Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">⇔</span>]][[User:Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">Thunderbird</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Thunderbird L17|<span style="color:#CC9900; text-decoration:underline">⇔</span>]]</tt>''', and {{User:JoeyDay/sig}}, just to name a few) now work just fine (thanks to Jay for the suggestion). Users should sign using only 3 tildes (<code><nowiki>~~~</nowiki></code>) so that only their names are displayed. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) |
| - | + | ||
==Votes to Revise== | ==Votes to Revise== | ||
| - | + | We now have a coherent method to revise facts (thanks to Jay for the idea). The revised fact goes after the votes for the main fact, and it has its own votes. (The specifics of this method still need to be ironed out, but at least we do have a plan.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | |
| - | + | ||
==Delteated== | ==Delteated== | ||
Some of my favorite decline votes are '''Delteated''', '''This Decline is part of a balanced breakfast''', and '''And I really don't like him at all''' (quoting the song by Marzipan). What will happen to these? | Some of my favorite decline votes are '''Delteated''', '''This Decline is part of a balanced breakfast''', and '''And I really don't like him at all''' (quoting the song by Marzipan). What will happen to these? | ||
:Well, they'll be gone. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in the name of progress. (As a side note, however, when I was doing research for this item, I noticed that some people really aren't as clever as they think they are... and some people's decline votes are just weird and long.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | :Well, they'll be gone. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in the name of progress. (As a side note, however, when I was doing research for this item, I noticed that some people really aren't as clever as they think they are... and some people's decline votes are just weird and long.) — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Comments About The Page== | ||
| + | Let me be the first to say thank you to Dot Com, for all the work and thought he's put into this. I for one, think it's excellent. <span style="color:gray">It is a bit complicated to add a vote, which could be a problem, but</span> if all users can become adept at using this format, I think it'll be a vast improvment. <span style="color:gray">I'm kinda bummed that the specialized siggies don't work, maybe try asking our [[User:JoeyDay|<span style="color:gray; text-decoration:underline">resident coder</span>]] for any ideas on how to fix this, but</span> all in all I'm very impressed with Dot Com and what he's put together here. Here's a vote for putting Dot Com at the helm of the page, he seems to have his course set right. {{User:Thunderbird L17/Siggie}} 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | :It is now a piece of cake to add a vote—and the specialized signatures now work just great.— [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Name Signing == | ||
| + | If this new format is used, I'm not going to make my points be anonymous. I'ld sign my name right after my comment. Just wanting you to know that, because with the way you made it, there's no nametags after the comments and stuff. -- '''''[[User:Joshua|<font color=green>Joshua</font>]]''''' 11:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I did that on purpose, because I think that signing the arguments makes people feel like they have to chime in with their two cents, even if they don't really have something to say. Without signing, I think the arguments can speak for themselves, subject to the following proposed guidelines: | ||
| + | :#Do not delete arguments; only add them. | ||
| + | :#You may ''revise or merge'' arguments, as long as the substance of the argument(s) does not change. See (1) above. | ||
| + | :#Do not add arguments that offer nothing new; i.e., do not merely second someone else's thought. | ||
| + | :[[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 15:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I like this idea. Not attributing arguments to any one person feels more like the wiki way. — {{User:JoeyDay/sig}} 20:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Is this happening any time soon? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | So..... are there any plans to do anything with this soon? I'd sure like to get rid of STUFF. In particular, I'm really sick of "witty" responses to fun facts. Instead of just "Decline," it seems like half the people put "Decline! I hate you! This fun fact is the worst ever and you are stupid! Declininating the countryside like Trogdor! This is even stupider than that one fun fact I mocked five minutes ago!" <small><tt>[[User:Homestar Coder|<span style="color:#8B0000;">Aurora the Homestar Coder</span>]]</tt></small> 04:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :You've hit the nail right on the head. My main impetus for attempting STUFF reform was due to all the personal attacks (which I too am sick and tired of) and to a lesser extent the "clever" votes (which are usually anything but). As far as implementing the design, I don't have a timetable for that. I got a pretty good response from the few users who saw the design when I first made it, but the entire community hasn't had a chance to weigh in. I'm thinking after Memorial Day I'll clean it up just a bit more and then put a link to it on the STUFF page itself where everybody can see it, and, assuming it goes over well, we could go live shortly after that. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 14:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
Current revision as of 14:33, 28 May 2005
Can you improve the design? If so, I welcome your suggestions below. On the other hand, maybe you think this is a bad idea, or maybe you have a better one. Your criticisms are welcome, as well.
Contents |
[edit] Ease of use
My first attempt at STUFF reform looked good, but it was needlessly complicated. This new version is not only more attractive but also straightforward and modular. The code is very simple, and I was able to create all the example facts without having to refer to any notes. A child could do this! (Thanks to Jay for giving me ideas and suggestions on how to fix it.) — It's dot com 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, it looks a LOT better this way (better than your old one and better than mine). Glad I could help! --Jay (Gobble) 01:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm going to do some more testing and make sure everything works like I think it does, and then I need a plan for the best way to present this to the wiki community at large. — It's dot com 15:13, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Specialized signatures
Fancy signatures (such as those used by Jay (Talk), ⇔Thunderbird⇔, and 
Joey (talk·edits), just to name a few) now work just fine (thanks to Jay for the suggestion). Users should sign using only 3 tildes (~~~) so that only their names are displayed. — It's dot com 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Votes to Revise
We now have a coherent method to revise facts (thanks to Jay for the idea). The revised fact goes after the votes for the main fact, and it has its own votes. (The specifics of this method still need to be ironed out, but at least we do have a plan.) — It's dot com 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Delteated
Some of my favorite decline votes are Delteated, This Decline is part of a balanced breakfast, and And I really don't like him at all (quoting the song by Marzipan). What will happen to these?
- Well, they'll be gone. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in the name of progress. (As a side note, however, when I was doing research for this item, I noticed that some people really aren't as clever as they think they are... and some people's decline votes are just weird and long.) — It's dot com 04:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Comments About The Page
Let me be the first to say thank you to Dot Com, for all the work and thought he's put into this. I for one, think it's excellent. It is a bit complicated to add a vote, which could be a problem, but if all users can become adept at using this format, I think it'll be a vast improvment. I'm kinda bummed that the specialized siggies don't work, maybe try asking our resident coder for any ideas on how to fix this, but all in all I'm very impressed with Dot Com and what he's put together here. Here's a vote for putting Dot Com at the helm of the page, he seems to have his course set right. ⇔Thunderbird⇔ 05:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is now a piece of cake to add a vote—and the specialized signatures now work just great.— It's dot com 20:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Name Signing
If this new format is used, I'm not going to make my points be anonymous. I'ld sign my name right after my comment. Just wanting you to know that, because with the way you made it, there's no nametags after the comments and stuff. -- Joshua 11:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
- I did that on purpose, because I think that signing the arguments makes people feel like they have to chime in with their two cents, even if they don't really have something to say. Without signing, I think the arguments can speak for themselves, subject to the following proposed guidelines:
- Do not delete arguments; only add them.
- You may revise or merge arguments, as long as the substance of the argument(s) does not change. See (1) above.
- Do not add arguments that offer nothing new; i.e., do not merely second someone else's thought.
- It's dot com 15:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Is this happening any time soon?
So..... are there any plans to do anything with this soon? I'd sure like to get rid of STUFF. In particular, I'm really sick of "witty" responses to fun facts. Instead of just "Decline," it seems like half the people put "Decline! I hate you! This fun fact is the worst ever and you are stupid! Declininating the countryside like Trogdor! This is even stupider than that one fun fact I mocked five minutes ago!" Aurora the Homestar Coder 04:18, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- You've hit the nail right on the head. My main impetus for attempting STUFF reform was due to all the personal attacks (which I too am sick and tired of) and to a lesser extent the "clever" votes (which are usually anything but). As far as implementing the design, I don't have a timetable for that. I got a pretty good response from the few users who saw the design when I first made it, but the entire community hasn't had a chance to weigh in. I'm thinking after Memorial Day I'll clean it up just a bit more and then put a link to it on the STUFF page itself where everybody can see it, and, assuming it goes over well, we could go live shortly after that. — It's dot com 14:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
