HRWiki talk:Open Discussions
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(→Rename?) |
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (These two pages can link to each other, but I don't think they should be combined) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
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 [[HRWiki: Article cleanup|cleaning up FAs]] and [[HRW:DVD|DVD commentary transcriptions]]. Granted, some of this is already covered by [[HRW:PR]]. Any thoughts? {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 20:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | 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 [[HRWiki: Article cleanup|cleaning up FAs]] and [[HRW:DVD|DVD commentary transcriptions]]. Granted, some of this is already covered by [[HRW:PR]]. Any thoughts? {{User:Wbwolf/sig}} 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. -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 20:55, 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. -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 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. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
== Rename? == | == 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? -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | 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? -{{User:Brightstar Shiner/sig}} 21:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| + | :I don't think the scope should be expanded. — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:04, 2 June 2008
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. — It's dot com 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
