Template talk:commentary
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Needed?: Reword.) |
m (→Needed?: Meh, that last line isn't needed.) |
||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:I think we have done fine without this template so far. However, should the community wish to use this, then we need a different image, as different people can do the commentaries, not just TBC.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | :I think we have done fine without this template so far. However, should the community wish to use this, then we need a different image, as different people can do the commentaries, not just TBC.{{User:Loafing/sig}} 06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
::I agree that it is unneeded, for the reasons already stated, however [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template%3Acommentary&diff=567537&oldid=567526 this edit summary] (YK "TBD. Most new templates, especially ones replacing long-standing parts of the site, and not created by a sysadmin, should inherently be discussed, IMO.") is an inappropriate attitude. After a while, patterns tend to emerge and it makes sense for identical parts of the site (which this isn't) to be turned into a template. Furthermore, in matters of general wiki functioning, which this is, the rank of "sysop" does not apply, as the community has equal say in these sort of things. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ::I agree that it is unneeded, for the reasons already stated, however [http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php?title=Template%3Acommentary&diff=567537&oldid=567526 this edit summary] (YK "TBD. Most new templates, especially ones replacing long-standing parts of the site, and not created by a sysadmin, should inherently be discussed, IMO.") is an inappropriate attitude. After a while, patterns tend to emerge and it makes sense for identical parts of the site (which this isn't) to be turned into a template. Furthermore, in matters of general wiki functioning, which this is, the rank of "sysop" does not apply, as the community has equal say in these sort of things. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC) | ||
| - | :::True to your name, I understand why you'd defend him... however, I probably shouldn't have said "sysop", but rather "'long-standing member with a good reputation', not 'someone with a history of vandalism'". Seriously, a major change like this should be discussed no matter *what*, but never mind. Besides, as the "IMO" should've suggested, it's just my opinion | + | :::True to your name, I understand why you'd defend him... however, I probably shouldn't have said "sysop", but rather "'long-standing member with a good reputation', not 'someone with a history of vandalism'". Seriously, a major change like this should be discussed no matter *what*, but never mind. Besides, as the "IMO" should've suggested, it's just my opinion. -{{User:YK/sig}} 18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:02, 30 May 2008
Needed?
This is an interesting idea, but it's poorly laid out, and I'm not sure it's really all that helpful, especially considering the wording sometimes needs to be tweaked. (Some DVD toons have *two* commentaries, after all...) That said, I'm mostly neutral on this, because it *could* be helpful if set up right, so I marked it TBD to see what others think. -YK
06:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think we have done fine without this template so far. However, should the community wish to use this, then we need a different image, as different people can do the commentaries, not just TBC. Loafing
06:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that it is unneeded, for the reasons already stated, however this edit summary (YK "TBD. Most new templates, especially ones replacing long-standing parts of the site, and not created by a sysadmin, should inherently be discussed, IMO.") is an inappropriate attitude. After a while, patterns tend to emerge and it makes sense for identical parts of the site (which this isn't) to be turned into a template. Furthermore, in matters of general wiki functioning, which this is, the rank of "sysop" does not apply, as the community has equal say in these sort of things. — Defender1031*Talk 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- True to your name, I understand why you'd defend him... however, I probably shouldn't have said "sysop", but rather "'long-standing member with a good reputation', not 'someone with a history of vandalism'". Seriously, a major change like this should be discussed no matter *what*, but never mind. Besides, as the "IMO" should've suggested, it's just my opinion. -YK
18:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
- True to your name, I understand why you'd defend him... however, I probably shouldn't have said "sysop", but rather "'long-standing member with a good reputation', not 'someone with a history of vandalism'". Seriously, a major change like this should be discussed no matter *what*, but never mind. Besides, as the "IMO" should've suggested, it's just my opinion. -YK
- I agree that it is unneeded, for the reasons already stated, however this edit summary (YK "TBD. Most new templates, especially ones replacing long-standing parts of the site, and not created by a sysadmin, should inherently be discussed, IMO.") is an inappropriate attitude. After a while, patterns tend to emerge and it makes sense for identical parts of the site (which this isn't) to be turned into a template. Furthermore, in matters of general wiki functioning, which this is, the rank of "sysop" does not apply, as the community has equal say in these sort of things. — Defender1031*Talk 15:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
