HRWiki talk:Open Discussions

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Proposed Rename

"Bad Bad Guy's Own Personal Discussions" - 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. - 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? - 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)
None of the previous post is true. Yes, it's failing, but it has yet to completely fail and it is certainly not our last hope. — It's dot com 00:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it was a reference to Babylon 5... i knew no one would get it. The point i was trying to make is that i think the experiment failed. — Defender1031*Talk 00:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Well, both engines are down, the main gun is offline, and the shield is not operational, but I think we can still save her!

(Sorry for the strangely long title, but it's late and I'm in a creative mood) In my humble opinion, this page in its current incarnation has failed. It has not successfully replaced HRWiki:STUFF, and it is woefully out of date. I've got a few ideas as to why it has failed, and a few ideas as to how to fix those issues.

  1. The page is not updated when new discussions are commenced: There are main issues causing this problem, the lack of publicity for this page, and the inconvenience of having to add to it when a discussion is held. I think there are not a lot of users that even know this page exists (it's only linked to in a couple of places). A user who begins a discussion might not know to post an entry here, and a user looking for things to weigh in on might not know to check here. Also, people usually are alerted to discussions via Recent Changes (which is an issue for discussions that have reached an impasse or died off), so many users might not feel the need to take the extra effort to edit this page. One way to fix this would be to make this page into a category (like Category:Articles for Discussion), the issue there being that we can't link or describe the specific discussion being referred to. Another way would be to advertise the page a bit more, maybe add it to the welcome links or other appropriate pages.
  2. Discussions usually don't last long enough to warrant an entry here: When a fun fact gets disputed, the situation is usually resolved quickly, by a couple of users involved in the dispute. The only time I can think of when a main namespace article had a lasting discussion over a fact would be when the transcript is unclear (The Reddest Radish happens to be on this page for that reason). There was a reason STUFF was decommissioned, and it was because we realized talking it out was easier than we thought it was. There really is no solution to this one, and you could even argue it's not a problem, but it does make me wonder whether this page is really necessary.
  3. None of these discussions have been resolved as a result of this page: This is the big problem I see with this page; It doesn't really help us reach a consensus. All it does is encourage other users to weigh in on the conversation, but if you see #2, conversations usually will be resolved within two hours. While it is true that there are a lot of discussions still left open, most of those discussions were abandoned due to an impasse, a situation which won't be helped by listing the discussion on this page. Once again, there really is no solution to this problem.

So there's my... um... five cents on this page. I think, when it comes down to it, this page is about as unnecessary as STUFF was. Most of the discussions we have on this wiki are not grandiose enough to deserve being listed on a separate page, and this page isn't really doing much to help resolve discussions. Ultimately, this page is a failed experiment, but we did learn from it. --Mario2.PNG Super Martyo boing! 07:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal tools