HRWiki talk:Inclusion guidelines

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Revision as of 21:50, 26 January 2007

This seems like a very good list but that thing about 5 lines is troubling me... --Dacheatbot · Communicate 01:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of articles with fewer than 5 lines. I think 4 would be better. But good job combining all that. TheYellowDart—(t/c)

For example, A while back I made a little article called Bees and it has 1 line. It also has 13 instances and is a good running gag in my opinion. Under that rule, it would have been deleted. --Dacheatbot · Communicate 01:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That's just my personal rule. We can make it longer or drop it or whatever; I just decided to put it there for the heck of it and see what everyone else thought. -Brightstar Shiner 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have more to say when I have time to look each specific line over carefully, but I wanted to go ahead and post to say good work. On first reading these guidelines look well thought-out, researched, and reasonable. — It's dot com 13:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that they finally apply to what we've been dealing with for years. — Lapper (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

All three-and-a-half of them, of course. -Brightstar Shiner 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Lines of text

First, nice initiative for the policy, Brightstar. That conversation was too important to leave behind. Now, about the "three lines of text" point: Some pages are just lists that do not go in to great length about ordinary subjects. Most of those page are general item lists (Like Bees mentioned before) and lists like Secret Pages. Also, there need to be a better definition of 3 lines. In what resolution? With or without image? On the monospaced edit box? I generally like to see the article as a whole, but if the community want keep this then it should be standardized. — Elcool ^(talk)_(contribs) 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, we can trash that rule and put something better in if we want to. I only put it in to see what people thought of it. My thought behind that guideline was to have some sort of standard for the amount of information known about the page's subject (i.e. how minor it is). For example, take Marzipan's Purse or Stalker Spray. Those were extremely unimportant items and their once-existing articles could only tell about three lines' worth of information about either of them. They were deleted on the grounds of being (way) too minor. See my point? We can revise the rule to not mention lines or we can just get rid of it. It's whatever the community decides. -Brightstar Shiner 21:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if we merge it with #8 to say something like: Generally, if all information known could easily be included in a few lines on any other page or page section on the wiki, it isn’t worthy of its own page. A page should not exist if it doesn’t offer a unique opportunity to expand on its topic in ways that aren't possible in other pages. The wording could still use some work, but I think the point of both items is that if the information is not something that there's a lot to expound on and not just be included another page. The Smoke Detector is a good example of this. Interesting that it's been seen in 3 emails (one in each era), but really just a part of the living room, can be easily included on that page. - ISTC 21:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)