391
edits
User talk:LobStoR: Difference between revisions
m
template links
(→Preserving Blank Talk Pages?: i think we've agreed) |
m (template links) |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
::Some examples from the recent deletions... | ::Some examples from the recent deletions... | ||
::* | ::*{{diff|Talk:Skies of Arcadia Legends|3555|2330|Talk:Skies of Arcadia Legends}}: Discusses a gap in revisions related to the suggested configuration, which was addressed within the page. Any further discussion regarding that config is irrelevant to the former gap in documentation, so it's unclear preserving it has value. | ||
::* | ::*{{diff|Talk:FIFA Soccer 2002|18903|15822|Talk:FIFA Soccer 2002}}: Discusses naming conventions for multi-region titles with varying names. Discussed conventions were implemented and are now documented elsewhere. History of the convention's discussion may be informative, but the relevant convention is covered elsewhere. | ||
::* | ::*{{diff|Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee|17742|17706|Talk:Super Smash Bros. Melee}}: Discussion around an apparently erroneous configuration entry. Useful during the phase while the error was confirmed, but just related to apparently false information otherwise. | ||
::* | ::*{{diff|Talk:Metroid Prime|2426|2425|Talk:Metroid Prime}}: Thanks around corrections to a series of problematic edits. Useful for the period of time the editor was likely to notice it. Beyond such, it's nice to be thanked, but I don't need such preserved on the wiki and it's not useful to others stumbling onto it. | ||
::* | ::*{{diff|Talk:Dragon Ball: Revenge of King Piccolo|3550|942|Talk:Dragon Ball: Revenge of King Piccolo}}: Discusses config issues now addressed in the recommended config, only relevant for historic purposes. | ||
::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? | :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:MaJoR|MaJoR]] 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) | ||
::I think we've all agreed. I can live with blanking or summarizing talk pages (just not deleting). This weekend when I have a spare moment I'll throw together a basic "open discussion" template+category that we can slap onto any active talk pages. {{:User:LobStoR/sig}} 04:02, 24 June 2011 (CEST) | ::I think we've all agreed. I can live with blanking or summarizing talk pages (just not deleting). This weekend when I have a spare moment I'll throw together a basic "open discussion" template+category that we can slap onto any active talk pages. {{:User:LobStoR/sig}} 04:02, 24 June 2011 (CEST) | ||