Bureaucrats, content-moderator, emailconfirmed, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Administrators, threadmoderator
85,404
edits
Theory:Discontinuity pages: spelling and grammar: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
Theory:Discontinuity pages: spelling and grammar (edit)
Revision as of 00:48, 4 June 2010
, 4 June 2010no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
:::And honestly, I don't know what the intention is, which is why I brought this up. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 19:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | :::And honestly, I don't know what the intention is, which is why I brought this up. --[[User:Falcotron|Falcotron]] 19:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC) | ||
:::::Ahhh, my apologies. For some reason I had it in my head that you were one of the people who actually participated in the discussion to move this discon stuff away from the story pages. But now that I actually think about it, you probably weren't. So, sorry for assuming the untrue. Okay, so how to encapsulate all this quickly? These discon pages were created basically by cutting the section from a story page and pasting it onto a new forum page. Because of this, we had no idea who had posted what. Obviously users hadn't signed their comments on a mainspace page, even though what they had typed was essentially just a post more akin to something on Gallifrey Base. Thus there was no other way to clearly distinguish between various points but through indentation. Would I be opposed to people now starting to sign their posts? Absolutely not. They can do whatever they want. I just don't want to have to police those pages '''at all'''. The discon pages are '''firmly''' a part of The Howling, and no one polices any other part of The Howling (or any forum) for spelling, readability, etc. To use a nice, vague homily, these discon pages are what they are. There's a guideline at the top of each page giving people an idea of how to have an orderly discussion, but if they don't choose to follow that, there's not much we can practically do. The point really is that they're no longer cluttering up the main article pages, and they're now in a place where lively debate can ensue without someone going behind and editing away points. Any theory/opinion/whateveryouwanttocallit should now be allowed to stand. The very last thing we want on these pages is a return to the kind of "edit warring" that went on before. If you don't agree with a point, fine; post your counterpoint. I think the concept works best if it's largely unmoderated. | |||
:::::As for how the "flow" of the conversation can work with just indentation, there's really nothing preventing someone from posting immediately under a point with which they disagree. What's there now is not set in stone. They don't have to post at the very bottom and say "I disagree with what was two points ago". They can create a new level of indentation at the spot they want to. '''[[User:CzechOut|<span style="background:blue;color:white">Czech</span><span style="background:red;color:white">Out</span>]]''' [[User talk:CzechOut|☎]] | [[Special:Contributions/CzechOut|<font size="+1">✍</font>]] 00:48, June 4, 2010 (UTC) | |||
