Theory:Discontinuity pages: spelling and grammar: Difference between revisions

The discontinuity pages are a sort of weird hybrid, halfway between a conversation (like a Forum or Talk page) and an article.  

:They are something of a weird hybrid. But they are theories rather than opinions, so I think they should be edited to at the very least be ''readable''.  

::My opinion is that the discon pages aren't a hybrid in any sense. They're forum pages, and therefore explicitly ''discussions''. I admit to editing a couple of lines when I transferred some stuff over — simply because they were god ''awful'' or because they were repetitive after separating the initial statement and the response from each other. But I kept a lot of horrible, horrible grammar and spelling in. The whole point of the move, from my perspective, was so that we could put those discussions in an area where copyediting was less of an issue.   Perhaps more explicitly, I thought we were tucking those sections away in a '''zero''' maintenance zone.  

:: I'm also not sure I'm seeing TD's point above. How is a theory different than an opinion, exactly? And I'm really confused by the intimation that the discon sections aren't in The Howling. Of course they are. That was surely the point of the exercise. They are in an area where people can say whatever they want.   We should ''not'' get into the business of watching these sections like a hawk for grammatical errors and confusing wording.   To my mind, they are — like every part of the Howling — little admin-less areas for our users to play in however they want — provided they don't actually commit vandalism. Now that the TV pages are in — and let's face it, that was the bulk of pre-existing discon commentary — I think we just step back and let them evolve naturally. It's made explicitly clear on the story page and on the discon page (through the use of [[:Template:discontinuity]]) that users are entering into a ''discussion'' and navigating away from the article proper. That should be all the action we need take, except in the case of true vandalism. '''[[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>]] 19:06, 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)