15,198
edits
User talk:LobStoR: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Username rename (MaJoR => MayImilae)
(Username rename (Jhonn => mbc07)) |
(Username rename (MaJoR => MayImilae)) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
::In any case, I'd like to keep Talk pages to current/relevant discussion and put irrelevant content in the bin. I understand that page deletion has an adverse effect on page histories, and will accept tagging ongoing relevant discussions with a category to avoid deletions. I'd like to keep the irrelevant discussion out of search though, and would prefer to continue to blank irrelevant discussion to do so (though I'm not resilient to disputes/reversions, as "relevance" can be a sticky subject). I'm OK with use of archive pages to preserve irrelevant discussion, if we can't agree on the former direction.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] 06:52, 23 June 2011 (CEST) P.S.-Thanks for all you're recent assistance on the wiki, it's very appreciated. | ::In any case, I'd like to keep Talk pages to current/relevant discussion and put irrelevant content in the bin. I understand that page deletion has an adverse effect on page histories, and will accept tagging ongoing relevant discussions with a category to avoid deletions. I'd like to keep the irrelevant discussion out of search though, and would prefer to continue to blank irrelevant discussion to do so (though I'm not resilient to disputes/reversions, as "relevance" can be a sticky subject). I'm OK with use of archive pages to preserve irrelevant discussion, if we can't agree on the former direction.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] 06:52, 23 June 2011 (CEST) P.S.-Thanks for all you're recent assistance on the wiki, it's very appreciated. | ||
:Since you guys are actively talking about this, I wanted to give you a headsup. In the previous windwaker discussion, it was debated whether the older revisions element should be removed. A decision was reached- erm, no objections were raised, to keep it till 3.0 comes out, because 2.0 still uses the method described in older revisions. So I left the relevant bits in the talk after blanking. It is not exactly active discussion, but a useful bit of information nevertheless. Should it stay? {{diff|Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker|19393|19105|Talk:The Wind Waker}} -- [[User: | :Since you guys are actively talking about this, I wanted to give you a headsup. In the previous windwaker discussion, it was debated whether the older revisions element should be removed. A decision was reached- erm, no objections were raised, to keep it till 3.0 comes out, because 2.0 still uses the method described in older revisions. So I left the relevant bits in the talk after blanking. It is not exactly active discussion, but a useful bit of information nevertheless. Should it stay? {{diff|Talk:The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker|19393|19105|Talk:The Wind Waker}} -- [[User:MayImilae|MayImilae]] 01:46, 24 June 2011 (CEST) | ||
:I'd prefer things be handled as you have. Purge the irrelevant bits and preserving the relevant ones until post the release of 3.0. Presumably post the release of 3.0 such will be purged, when it will no longer be relevant. Hopefully the discussion here will resolve whether these purges are appropriate or should be handled in a different manner. I lean toward purging irrelevant discussion, as you have done, and am hoping for agreement on such.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] 03:30, 24 June 2011 (CEST) | :I'd prefer things be handled as you have. Purge the irrelevant bits and preserving the relevant ones until post the release of 3.0. Presumably post the release of 3.0 such will be purged, when it will no longer be relevant. Hopefully the discussion here will resolve whether these purges are appropriate or should be handled in a different manner. I lean toward purging irrelevant discussion, as you have done, and am hoping for agreement on such.[[User:Kolano|Kolano]] 03:30, 24 June 2011 (CEST) | ||