HRWiki talk:Emails from HRWiki Users
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(explain and delete) |
(reply) |
||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
::::Ok, so i, a casual visitor, visit and see much attention about a user who supplied an email. I wrote one, you know! I want to be recognized too. What's the bar? How do we decide which claims are notable? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | ::::Ok, so i, a casual visitor, visit and see much attention about a user who supplied an email. I wrote one, you know! I want to be recognized too. What's the bar? How do we decide which claims are notable? {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 01:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC) | ||
As this has been recently linked and will be visited, allow me to restate my position. We are a knowledge base for TBC's work on H*R. We are not a fan-appreciation society. (We have other avenues for that sort of thing.) This article is absolutely incongruous with the mission of HRWiki and as such I propose '''delete'''. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | As this has been recently linked and will be visited, allow me to restate my position. We are a knowledge base for TBC's work on H*R. We are not a fan-appreciation society. (We have other avenues for that sort of thing.) This article is absolutely incongruous with the mission of HRWiki and as such I propose '''delete'''. {{User:Qermaq/sig}} 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| + | :Not to mention that since proof is virtually impossible, it is very, very, very easily forged, which could compromise the encyclopediac value of our wiki. I agree with deletion and removal of all notes of this on main namespace articles. — {{User:Lapper/sig}} 04:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 04:51, 7 February 2007
Ok, I created this page to discuss this.
Do we, as a wiki, want to be in the business of officially attributing the emails written by various contributors?
I say no. We are in the business of documenting TBC's work, not our own. Adding FF's to a page saying "This One Guy wrote thius email!!1!!" is not encyclopedic, and is rather against what we are attempting here, IMO. Please add your thoughts. - Qermaq - (T/C) 
00:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree. This is talk page and/or userpage material. The casual visitor, of which there are many, has no desire to know this information.
Username-talk 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have desire to know this information. But I think that a fact in the trivia section will do unless we have maybe 10 to list here. SaltyTalk! 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Salty. The trivia section is good for me. I also believe that it's interesting for casual visitors. May make them more interested in the wiki. On the other hand, this list is kinda cool. Maybe we should move it to the HRWiki namespace? It falls into the same navel-gazing category as HRWiki:Articles about HRWiki. Loafing
01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Salty. The trivia section is good for me. I also believe that it's interesting for casual visitors. May make them more interested in the wiki. On the other hand, this list is kinda cool. Maybe we should move it to the HRWiki namespace? It falls into the same navel-gazing category as HRWiki:Articles about HRWiki. Loafing
- I have desire to know this information. But I think that a fact in the trivia section will do unless we have maybe 10 to list here. SaltyTalk! 00:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
As this has been recently linked and will be visited, allow me to restate my position. We are a knowledge base for TBC's work on H*R. We are not a fan-appreciation society. (We have other avenues for that sort of thing.) This article is absolutely incongruous with the mission of HRWiki and as such I propose delete. - Qermaq - (T/C) 04:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
