Talk:Weekly Fanstuff 2010 - Revision history

Defender1031: /* Separate Articles */ and i suppose we'll revisit the question of the existence of these pages at that point.

Defender1031 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:39:21 GMT

Separate Articles: and i suppose we'll revisit the question of the existence of these pages at that point.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:39, 1 January 2013
Line 14:		Line 14:
	::Also note, my comment wasn't saying I'm necessarily in favor of removing them, just that if we DID do that the template should still note those years somehow. I'm actually on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that it's not really hurting much to have them, but on the other, TBC don't show any sign of coming back to do H*R, a single blurry photographic twitvidence notwithstanding. Even if they do make more in the future, it's unlikely that they'll do the weeklies anymore. Do we really want to have to make a new updates page every single year forever just to say "and then, once again, absolutely nothing happened"? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		::Also note, my comment wasn't saying I'm necessarily in favor of removing them, just that if we DID do that the template should still note those years somehow. I'm actually on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that it's not really hurting much to have them, but on the other, TBC don't show any sign of coming back to do H*R, a single blurry photographic twitvidence notwithstanding. Even if they do make more in the future, it's unlikely that they'll do the weeklies anymore. Do we really want to have to make a new updates page every single year forever just to say "and then, once again, absolutely nothing happened"? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	:::As I was creating the articles as part of the annual checklist, I had the same thought. I went ahead and created the articles because dealing with this once a year is not that big a deal. I say we give it one more year, and if they don't do anything by then, then we stop making a new article for each new year. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		:::As I was creating the articles as part of the annual checklist, I had the same thought. I went ahead and created the articles because dealing with this once a year is not that big a deal. I say we give it one more year, and if they don't do anything by then, then we stop making a new article for each new year. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
		+	::::That sounds re-zon-able. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's dot com: /* Separate Articles */ reply

It's dot com — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:34:46 GMT

Separate Articles: reply

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:34, 1 January 2013
Line 13:		Line 13:
	: I'd rather keep them for completeness' sake. They keep everything simple and organized and it's not really hurting anything to have them. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		: I'd rather keep them for completeness' sake. They keep everything simple and organized and it's not really hurting anything to have them. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	::Also note, my comment wasn't saying I'm necessarily in favor of removing them, just that if we DID do that the template should still note those years somehow. I'm actually on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that it's not really hurting much to have them, but on the other, TBC don't show any sign of coming back to do H*R, a single blurry photographic twitvidence notwithstanding. Even if they do make more in the future, it's unlikely that they'll do the weeklies anymore. Do we really want to have to make a new updates page every single year forever just to say "and then, once again, absolutely nothing happened"? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		::Also note, my comment wasn't saying I'm necessarily in favor of removing them, just that if we DID do that the template should still note those years somehow. I'm actually on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that it's not really hurting much to have them, but on the other, TBC don't show any sign of coming back to do H*R, a single blurry photographic twitvidence notwithstanding. Even if they do make more in the future, it's unlikely that they'll do the weeklies anymore. Do we really want to have to make a new updates page every single year forever just to say "and then, once again, absolutely nothing happened"? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
		+	:::As I was creating the articles as part of the annual checklist, I had the same thought. I went ahead and created the articles because dealing with this once a year is not that big a deal. I say we give it one more year, and if they don't do anything by then, then we stop making a new article for each new year. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Defender1031: add header and note that my comment didn't endorse either side.

Defender1031 — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:20:16 GMT

add header and note that my comment didn't endorse either side.

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:20, 1 January 2013
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== Separate Articles ==
	Since it was reverted, I might as well discuss this:		Since it was reverted, I might as well discuss this:

Line 11:		Line 12:
	Now that [[Weekly Fanstuff 2012]] and [[Sketchbook 2012]] have been created, I'd like to revive this issue. Should we go along with Heimstern's suggestion to delete all six of these articles and add a note to the main articles (even though they already have a similar note)? What about DeFender's suggestion to note it in the template? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		Now that [[Weekly Fanstuff 2012]] and [[Sketchbook 2012]] have been created, I'd like to revive this issue. Should we go along with Heimstern's suggestion to delete all six of these articles and add a note to the main articles (even though they already have a similar note)? What about DeFender's suggestion to note it in the template? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
	: I'd rather keep them for completeness' sake. They keep everything simple and organized and it's not really hurting anything to have them. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		: I'd rather keep them for completeness' sake. They keep everything simple and organized and it's not really hurting anything to have them. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
		+	::Also note, my comment wasn't saying I'm necessarily in favor of removing them, just that if we DID do that the template should still note those years somehow. I'm actually on the fence. On the one hand, I agree that it's not really hurting much to have them, but on the other, TBC don't show any sign of coming back to do H*R, a single blurry photographic twitvidence notwithstanding. Even if they do make more in the future, it's unlikely that they'll do the weeklies anymore. Do we really want to have to make a new updates page every single year forever just to say "and then, once again, absolutely nothing happened"? {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 06:20, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

It's dot com: reply

It's dot com — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:10:37 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:10, 1 January 2013
Line 10:		Line 10:

	Now that [[Weekly Fanstuff 2012]] and [[Sketchbook 2012]] have been created, I'd like to revive this issue. Should we go along with Heimstern's suggestion to delete all six of these articles and add a note to the main articles (even though they already have a similar note)? What about DeFender's suggestion to note it in the template? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)		Now that [[Weekly Fanstuff 2012]] and [[Sketchbook 2012]] have been created, I'd like to revive this issue. Should we go along with Heimstern's suggestion to delete all six of these articles and add a note to the main articles (even though they already have a similar note)? What about DeFender's suggestion to note it in the template? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
		+	: I'd rather keep them for completeness' sake. They keep everything simple and organized and it's not really hurting anything to have them. — [[User:It's dot com\|It's dot com]] 06:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RickTommy at 06:04, 1 January 2013

RickTommy — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 06:04:49 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 06:04, 1 January 2013
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::::I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		::::I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::::If we do remove them, I'd change the template to just say "None in 201X" in those spots without a link. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		:::::If we do remove them, I'd change the template to just say "None in 201X" in those spots without a link. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
		+
		+	Now that [[Weekly Fanstuff 2012]] and [[Sketchbook 2012]] have been created, I'd like to revive this issue. Should we go along with Heimstern's suggestion to delete all six of these articles and add a note to the main articles (even though they already have a similar note)? What about DeFender's suggestion to note it in the template? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 06:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Defender1031: reply

Defender1031 — Thu, 03 May 2012 09:57:56 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:57, 3 May 2012
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::::I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		::::I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
		+	:::::If we do remove them, I'd change the template to just say "None in 201X" in those spots without a link. {{User:DeFender1031/sig}} 09:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer: fix indentation

Heimstern Läufer — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:38:24 GMT

fix indentation

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 3 May 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
-	:I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)	+	::::I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer: comment

Heimstern Läufer — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:38:06 GMT

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:38, 3 May 2012
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
		+	:I would think we could add a note to the main articles for sketchbook and fanstuff saying "There have been no additions since 2009" and that ought to suffice. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 08:38, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

RickTommy at 05:45, 3 May 2012

RickTommy — Thu, 03 May 2012 05:45:40 GMT

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 3 May 2012
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Is there a particular reason we have separate articles for the 2010 and 2011 Weekly Fanstuff (and Sketchbook)? They were both years with no new fanstuff or sketches, and their articles have almost the same content (or lack thereof), and I don't see the point in having two almost identical articles (and especially not two pairs of them, either). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)		Is there a particular reason we have separate articles for the 2010 and 2011 Weekly Fanstuff (and Sketchbook)? They were both years with no new fanstuff or sketches, and their articles have almost the same content (or lack thereof), and I don't see the point in having two almost identical articles (and especially not two pairs of them, either). {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

-	:Anyone? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it back to ~~two articles~~. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)	+	:Anyone? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it back to one article. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
	::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
		+	:::I agree with deleting them, too. But just one problem: how are we then supposed to note that there was no fanstuff or sketches in 2010 or 2011? {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 05:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer: comment

Heimstern Läufer — Thu, 03 May 2012 03:51:44 GMT

comment

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:51, 3 May 2012
Line 4:		Line 4:

	:Anyone? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it back to two articles. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)		:Anyone? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it back to two articles. {{User:RickTommy/sig}} 03:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
		+	::I don't really like the idea of merging them; the new title looks pretty unwieldy and doesn't agree with the template, which shows two separate years. On the other hand, I have this question: Why do we need these articles at all? I know they're linked from the template, but why do they need to be if there's no content? My preferred solution would be to just delete these really not-very useful articles. {{User:Heimstern Läufer/sig}} 03:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)