User talk:Fun Facts Avenger
From Homestar Runner Wiki
m (→I don't get it: fix odd wording) |
(One problem, many solutions, none that seem to help) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
Regarding fun facts, we need to err on the side of incompleteness rather than inaccuracy. Meaning it is better to delete questionable facts or notes rather than let them obscure the "choice cuts". I think the [[HRWiki:Select The Usable Fun Facts| STUFF]] system is bloated and sloppy, and these Gold Stars are a little arbitrary, but I am glad we are moving towards community standards and procedures. [[User:Drhaggis|<nowiki></nowiki>]]- [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] - [[User talk: Drhaggis|Talk]] 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (MST) | Regarding fun facts, we need to err on the side of incompleteness rather than inaccuracy. Meaning it is better to delete questionable facts or notes rather than let them obscure the "choice cuts". I think the [[HRWiki:Select The Usable Fun Facts| STUFF]] system is bloated and sloppy, and these Gold Stars are a little arbitrary, but I am glad we are moving towards community standards and procedures. [[User:Drhaggis|<nowiki></nowiki>]]- [[User:Drhaggis|Dr Haggis]] - [[User talk: Drhaggis|Talk]] 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (MST) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :Therein lies the problem. What solution should we take? I have my own ideas about making the pages a bit more readable while still letting people submit iffy Fun Facts - specifically, separating Fun Facts into smaller sub-sections (a little like was done in [[radio]]) - but the iffy Facts would still be there. And the separation really ought to be more objective than what is "boring", I'm afraid. --[[User:Jay|Jay]] 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (MST) | ||
Revision as of 08:40, 7 January 2005
Rock, Rock On, Mr. Avenger! May your mouse be responsive and your connection swift. - Dr Haggis - Talk 00:54, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
I don't get it
I can see categorizing the Fun Facts, but your categorizing seems totally arbitrary (I like this Fun Fact, so it gets a gold star. I don't like this one, so I'm putting it in the "Other things of interest" category.) And why did you give a star to the "fun fact" in part-time job speculating the meaning behind the buttons on Mrs. Bennedetto?! It didn't even belong on the part-time job page in the first place! --Jay 01:19, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
- I just checked the "Broaster" part, I don't mind that you removed it
- This is a wiki, and we've needed a gold star system for a while. I choose the things I like to give a star, but I don't own the star. Remove it, fine. We need fewer "Fun Facts". Fun Facts Avenger 01:23, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
- I suppose it didn't come off right, but I kinda meant to ask, "Is there any pattern to what does or does not get a star?" --Jay 01:26, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
- Well, I'm using the outline given in the STUFF page, but being a little more restrictive. Basically, I'm interesting in verifying the factuality of certain FFs (what the star's for), and moving boring facts into the "Other things of interest" section. Fun Facts Avenger 01:29, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
- I suppose it didn't come off right, but I kinda meant to ask, "Is there any pattern to what does or does not get a star?" --Jay 01:26, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
Regarding fun facts, we need to err on the side of incompleteness rather than inaccuracy. Meaning it is better to delete questionable facts or notes rather than let them obscure the "choice cuts". I think the STUFF system is bloated and sloppy, and these Gold Stars are a little arbitrary, but I am glad we are moving towards community standards and procedures. - Dr Haggis - Talk 01:31, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
- Therein lies the problem. What solution should we take? I have my own ideas about making the pages a bit more readable while still letting people submit iffy Fun Facts - specifically, separating Fun Facts into smaller sub-sections (a little like was done in radio) - but the iffy Facts would still be there. And the separation really ought to be more objective than what is "boring", I'm afraid. --Jay 01:40, 7 Jan 2005 (MST)
