Talk:Weekly Fanstuff 2010

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Separate Articles

Since it was reverted, I might as well discuss this:

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). RickTommy (edits) 08:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? Unless anyone objects, I'll change it back to one article. RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 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? RickTommy (edits) 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. Heimstern Läufer 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. — Defender1031*Talk 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? RickTommy (edits) 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. — 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"? — Defender1031*Talk 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. — It's dot com 06:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
That sounds re-zon-able. — Defender1031*Talk 06:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Personal tools