| abstract
| - I'm not even really sure what it's for. I prefer to have discussions devolved to the talk page of the article I'm interested in, or within the relevant cat team. Keep in mind i'm new to Wiking and very happy to be wrong. -- Hammersmith 17:00, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) Well, discussions regarding a specific page should indeed be directed to its talk page, and general questions about categories (for example) should be referred to the category team's page, and so on. So this would be more for general discussion – I'm not sure, but maybe even off-topic stuff. Anyways, this would be the place that someone should come to in order to suggest a general format change such as having pink text and a black background and deep red links. Or a new policy on something that hasn't been discussed but would affect several pages. Oh, and if it got enough discussion here, we might make a new page dedicated to that topic for the text of our discussion along with the concensus if any had been arrived at. Schmidt 17:24, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) Hey that sounds very sensible. Then let's archive the negative commentary above this so that other new Wikers don't get confused about it, like I did? --Hammersmith If you're talking about the discussion regarding SilverSide, well, I happen to think it's very relevant, or it was at one time. The reason here is that he did in fact make sweeping changes across the board. I guess its relevance is just about petered out, so it could be archived, for all I care, but it should be archived because it's no longer very relevant, not because it's negative. Schmidt 17:49, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) To answer all the above comments in one fell swoop (I love that phrase) this page is for exactly that kind of thing: getting across messages to the entire community for discussion. I am debating archiving all this to the forums as posts, then redirecting this to the forums page; I dunno. The idea was copied from Wikipedia, and all it really does is act as a 'General Chat' area and a place to put important (and not-so-important discussions that don't fit elsewhere; for instance, we don't have a 'WoWWiki:Members complaints' page to complain about the actions of individual members, so the discussion about me was haphazardly thrown here. Think of this as the User_talk: page for the entire community, kind of? Only real question is if people use the forums... if they will, then this will be deprecated in favor of them, I guess. P.S. All the non-active conversations above were archived by me, just now. -- ℑilver§ℑide 20:01, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) Schimdt, actually, I meant the negatively-toned comments about this page, not the debate on Silverside's behaviour. I agree the discussion on Silverside was important at the time (and it has made me judicious about what changes I make without community agreement). So, all being said, now Silver has archived the content and this page has a more clear meaning, I'm happy. I even edited the topmost titling on the page to reflect this understanding. Silverside, the forums you had set up have a big banner saying you are on 'wikibreak'. Plus there are no posts. So, I assumed the forums are not being used at all. -- Hammersmith 22:15, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) (Pretend this is indented even farther than the last one, but it is not cause that was getting absurd) Just so you know, I think you meant sparing instead of judicious up there, as in "a judicious amount of orange juice" is not only filling a glass but perhaps even spilling over a bit, but "a sparing amount of orange juice" would be just a bit, perhaps a drop or two. Damn I want some OJ! That makes me think, is there official policy on swearing here? I would think that not swearing on articles is common sense, and I cannot even think of an occasion where that would happen, but how about on discussion pages? ANYWAY, about the forums, they are free for use or no use I just host them. Since there are no posts, why don't you post something? Somebody has to start (-: And, what big banner? I posted about it, but I don't think I set any global notification and if I did I do not see it... -- ℑilver§ℑide 23:46, 30 Dec 2005 (EST) SilverSide is right. Certainly you don't want to change too much, but judicious doesn't exclude a lot of changes, if in fact the changes are judicious. Just remember that if you're making radical changes, you might want to clear it with the people who at least visit the page. It doesn't need to be cleared through everyone, just the people who care about that page. If it's a simple change you would make, just make it. If a page includes a fairly small note about something that a player had an experience with, it would be judicious to just delete it and try to put it inline with the other text so it won't look like a sidebar or anything, unless it's important enough; then it would better go in the discussion page, IMO. I made a link to the forums at the top of this page. Schmidt 01:38, 1 Jan 2006 (EST) Thanks Schmidt, that makes sense and - fortunately - is what I had thought too. BTW chaps, judicious means "having, showing or done with good judgment or sense" which is quite the opposite of ill-advised or gratuitous. ;) -- Hammersmith 05:39, 1 Jan 2006 (EST) He's right, sadly: adjective having, showing, or done with good judgment or sense : the efficient and judicious use of pesticides. DERIVATIVES judiciously adverb judiciousness noun ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French judicieux, from Latin judicium ‚Äòjudgment‚Äô (see judicial ). USAGE See usage at judicial . Anyway, yeah... -- ℑilver§ℑide 16:08, 1 Jan 2006 (EST)
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)