Talk:Post-Flash Site Update

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 16:58, 7 March 2021 by It's dot com (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Page Name

Despite the fact that this update occurred on December 31, 2020, I'm wondering whether the page name should be 2021 Site Update. The update occurred late in the day and was made specifically because Flash was discontinued in 2021. — It's dot com 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention it did happen in 2021 across the Atlantic. I think a better name would the focus on it being the Ruffle and/or HTML5 update Guybrush20X6 08:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, this is a tough one. While it's true that everything happened awfully close to 2021 and Adobe's official wording of "after December 31, 2020" is vague at best, Wikipedia and some media outlets consider the EOL date to be December 31, 2020 or "end of 2020" (even though the January 12 date is also important). But the change itself happened on Dec 31 and that was my rationale for choosing that year for its title. EC Update: taking the year out of the name wouldn't be a bad idea. "Ruffle Site Update" isn't entirely accurate "Ruffle and/or HTML5 site update" might be a tad long ;) but "HTML5 Site Update" might work. Earlier while writing my response i thought of "Flash End-of-life Site Update" would be accurate but too wordy. If it wasn't for the 2020/2021 contention I'd be fine with the year. --Stux 09:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Given that it was barely in 2020, and that mentioning the date doesn't really tell us anything anyway, I'm onboard with a non-date approach. Further given that they likely never would have updated if Flash hadn't died, I like Flash EOL Site Update or Flash End-of-Life Site Update (it's long but maybe it's not that long), because that's why the update happened. I also moderately support HTML5 Site Update. I don't think Ruffle should be mentioned, since it could be swapped out for a better emulator tomorrow and the typical user wouldn't know the difference. — It's dot com 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
How about Post-Flash Update? That's what the Chaps call it here. Lira (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I like the "Flash End-of-Life Site Update" option. "Post-Flash Update" would be fine too assuming we don't plan to create an article on the Post-Flash Update page itself. "HTML5 Site Update" seems a bit weird to me, like it's a bit off the mark in terms of putting a name to the update. DEI DAT VMdatvm center\super contra 19:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
"Post-Flash Update" sounds good (albeit potentially confusing since it's also the name of a page on the site). "Flash End-of-Life Site Update" is good too, but it's a bit long, so what about "End of Flash Update"? Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 20:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I think we should document the Post-Flash Update page here instead of on Index Page Messages. That way we can name this article "Post-Flash Update" and there's no need to disambiguate. Lira (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting idea. I'd somewhat prefer keeping the Post-Flash Update page on Index Page Messages, since that will allow us to keep all the pages together if there are more in the future, but I'd still be willing to move it here so we can change the title. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 21:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the Post-Flash Update page belongs on Index Page Messages, as it's not an index page message, it's just linked from one. I hadn't considered the possibility of there being more pages like that in the future, but if there are, they probably won't belong on Index Pages Messages either. Lira (talk) 21:25, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I like Post-Flash Update as well, especially because it comes from an official source. — It's dot com 21:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Post-Flash Update as well as per the above. Not only is it official but it's even only linked directly from this page. The Index Page Messages section can be updated to link to it here using the {{see}} template or something similar. So, I'm on board with shuffling things around. --Stux 09:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like there's consensus for "Post-Flash", but it just occurred to me that one other thing to consider is whether "Site" should be kept in the name—i.e. Post-Flash Site Update. Here's how the two choices might look in context:
If someone didn't already know what that first line was referring to, they might ask themselves "Post-Flash update? Update to what?" We could clarify as shown on the second line, but that ends up leaving several important words out of the link. Having "Site" be in the name might be better. — It's dot com 15:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I considered that as well. At first I thought it might get confusing if "Post-Flash Update" and "Post-Flash Site Update" referred to two different things (the page on the site and the update itself, respectively), but if they're going to be on the same page, it doesn't matter that much. I say move to Post-Flash Site Update. Gfdgsgxgzgdrc 22:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Seconded Guybrush20X6 23:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's a very good point I hadn't thought about! I prefer Post-Flash Site Update because it follows the current page's naming pattern and as such would also make updating existing link text easier as shown in the example above: we simply have to switch the "2020" in 2020 Site Update for "Post-Flash" without having to change anything else. --Stux 06:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the name is settled, so last night I moved the page and had The Cheatbot update the links. — It's dot com 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved the update notice from the website to this page and also updated the redirect. --Stux 10:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
Personal tools