Trusted
34,029
edits
Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Forum:Temporary forums/Inclusion debates speedround (view source)
Revision as of 17:20, 12 April 2023
, 12 April 2023→Gameplay-based ''LEGO Dimensions'' trailers
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
OttselSpy25 (talk | contribs) Tag: 2017 source edit |
||
| Line 696: | Line 696: | ||
::Let me just comment down here that, while I may have accidentally set the precedent for this with [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Subpages 2.0]] or something, I'm not sure this "speedround" format is the best fit for inclusion debates. Setting aside the fact that the consolidation of multiple very different stories may have depressed the number of responses a bit, my larger concern is that it's one thing to validate these stories, and it's another thing entirely to, yknow, actually ''edit the wiki'' and cover these stories once they're valid – and in this latter case we're unfortunately rather lacking. There are at least dozens of pages, probably hundreds, which still describe material as invalid because it came from non-narrative sources, and personally I'd like to see the impacts of that sweeping change before worrying about validating a single story like ''[[Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time (comic story)|Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time]]''. Maybe it's time to talk about extending the forum length. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | ::Let me just comment down here that, while I may have accidentally set the precedent for this with [[Tardis:Temporary forums/Archive/Subpages 2.0]] or something, I'm not sure this "speedround" format is the best fit for inclusion debates. Setting aside the fact that the consolidation of multiple very different stories may have depressed the number of responses a bit, my larger concern is that it's one thing to validate these stories, and it's another thing entirely to, yknow, actually ''edit the wiki'' and cover these stories once they're valid – and in this latter case we're unfortunately rather lacking. There are at least dozens of pages, probably hundreds, which still describe material as invalid because it came from non-narrative sources, and personally I'd like to see the impacts of that sweeping change before worrying about validating a single story like ''[[Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time (comic story)|Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time]]''. Maybe it's time to talk about extending the forum length. – [[User:NateBumber|n8]] ([[User talk:NateBumber|☎]]) 14:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC) | ||
::: Well with all due respect, I think the main difference is that validating things like ''Doctor Who and the Fangs of Time'' does not involve changing policy, while the topics in Subpages 2.0 in many cases were massive fundamental policy changes, such as allowing Charity stories to be covered in a special subsection. To be honest, as someone who was involved in Subpages 2.0, I completely missed how that specifically was on the docket until after the forum closed. | |||
::: We have this system now where we have six slots, and there's some expectation that all six should be running at all time. I personally think the best solution isn't to have these debates have an extra two weeks of no-one saying anything, but for us to have some accepted gap between closing one topic and opening another. Changing one rule on a Monday, another on a Tuesday, and a third Tuesday evening ''will lead us to not being able to handle the repercussions of changing so many rules at once''. And thus, spending a little leisurely time to a topic which does not require heavy man-power to change is not actually hurting site policy, it's helping it. So, yes, I would rather be discussing if ''Chute!'' Episode 9 should be valid right now than if we should change another site rule that will take us years to implement. | |||
::: And of course there are smarter ways to go about these things. If we, for instance, accepted that if we close Slot 3 on a Monday, Slot 3 can't be used again until a few days or even a week later, we then at least have a period where we can focus just on implementing whatever Slot 3 was about. Not to mention that even if we wanted to completely ditch doing validity discussions, all good amount of the actual policy proposals still lack OPs. | |||
::: I do admit that I went a little ham with this one, and if I had known how much trouble one or two of these topics would have been, I wouldn't have thrown them in like this. In the future I think I'll stick to 4-5 topics. But the idea of a speedround does not hurt the wiki, it is actually good that every debate we have doesn't fundamentally rewrite the way we're meant to go about things. [[User:OttselSpy25|OS25]][[User Talk:OttselSpy25|🤙☎️]] | |||
