HRWiki talk:Open Discussions

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 00:17, 4 November 2009

HRWiki Projects?

I like the idea of having a central place for a summary of the active discussions regarding specific pages. One question though is should ongoing projects should also be listed? For example, the Category: International welcome pages project seems to have fallen off since November. There is also the ongoing project cleaning up FAs and DVD commentary transcriptions. Granted, some of this is already covered by HRW:PR. Any thoughts? wbwolf (t | ed) 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I think that would be perfectly fine, seeing as some of the articles on this page are also listed in other places. The whole point of this project is to bring the forgotten to the limelight, but you'll probably need more than my opinion to get an "okay" for that idea. -Brightstar Shiner 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We have a page for projects. HRWiki:Projects. These two pages can link to each other, but I don't think they should be combined. — It's dot com 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename?

The scope of this page is changing. We're thinking of listing forgotten or unfinished projects here (since they tend to get dusty even faster than talk pages) and "discussions" doesn't seem to fit the bill any more. Any suggestions? -Brightstar Shiner 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the scope should be expanded. If we want to list discussions about projects, then that's fine, but, as I said above, we have a page to list the actual projects. — It's dot com 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a point. That's how I'm feeling with this, too. Unless there's a disagreement about the project about its scope or something, it shouldn't be listed here. -Brightstar Shiner 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Does "No Consensus" = "Not Important" Sometimes?

I just came across this open discussion, which is about the possible renaming of Irregular Loading Screens. My first thought was to put it here, but then I realized that 1. The discussion was three years old, 2. Only four users were involved, and 3. There was no real argument to change it other than, "Irregular sounds like a glitched loading screen." Do you think that sometimes no consensus and not much attention means that the issue isn't important enough to be put here? Just a thought. -Brightstar Shiner 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if a discussion is three years old, it's long dead and not really open. But I do agree there should be some sort of threshold on when a discussion is added to the Open Discussions page. I'm not really sure what that standard should be, beyond perhaps an ad hoc evaluation of the discussion. Certainly, debates on whether a page should be deleted would count. wbwolf (t | ed) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussions in Other Places

User:Bad Bad Guy/SBCG4AP Tables is clearly not a Talk page, but I still want it to be used for discussion purposes. Could I link to it from this page? BBG 19:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Discussion about article content should be in the Talk namespace. You should move your the comments to an appropriate talk page and just link to the page you made for reference. — It's dot com 20:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Could I move all the comments on that page or only my own? BBG 20:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't see anyone's but yours when I skimmed it. You should move all of the discussion. — It's dot com 20:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Rename

"Bad Bad Guy's Own Personal Discussions" -132.183.138.33 19:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't even edit the Wiki that often anymore, so that name would be a slightly epic fail. BBG 19:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a subtler point I'm trying to make. -132.183.138.33 23:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes. this page was intended to promote discussions that are still open but had become stagnant, not for every discussion that anyone started to go on here. — Defender1031*Talk 00:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

So is that BBG's fault? At least someone is trying to give this page a scope. 132, if you think you can do better, then do it. Thus far the experiment of this page is not going so well, and it may be time to consider a new approach. — It's dot com 00:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was BBG's fault. I was more highlighting the fact that although this page exists, no one else uses it. Said another way, if no one else uses it, does this page need to exist? -132.183.138.33 00:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Open discussions was the wiki's last, best hope for discussion resolution. It failed. — Defender1031*Talk 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)