Talk:List of committees without wiki pages - Revision history

Tbroman at 04:30, 14 May 2011

2011-05-14T04:30:07Z

Xanderao at 04:26, 14 May 2011

2011-05-14T04:26:36Z

Tbroman at 18:40, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T18:40:47Z

Xanderao at 18:21, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T18:21:54Z

Tbroman at 17:27, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T17:27:12Z

Xanderao at 16:31, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T16:31:26Z

Xanderao at 16:31, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T16:31:05Z

Xanderao at 16:29, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T16:29:57Z

Xanderao at 16:29, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T16:29:33Z

Tbroman at 05:05, 13 May 2011

2011-05-13T05:05:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:30, 14 May 2011
Line 20:		Line 20:

	I did not change the purpose - it is separated by an extra line, but I was not sure what to call it so I left it blank. Maybe i will add a lore heading... [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 00:26, 14 May 2011 (EDT)		I did not change the purpose - it is separated by an extra line, but I was not sure what to call it so I left it blank. Maybe i will add a lore heading... [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 00:26, 14 May 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	That wasn't what I was referring to--I meant you added the words "Also Supported". This is technically changing the purpose, but as I said it's within the "margin of error". [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 00:30, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:26, 14 May 2011
Line 18:		Line 18:

	Yeah, I had thought of something similar as far as your "lost committees" idea. I thought maybe I'd leave it for a while, like until I was done being recsec, and then figure it out. As for the Bubblesaurus Committee, it was good, I liked what you wrote. Technically, you're not supposed to change the Purpose statement, but you were within the margin of error there. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 14:40, 13 May 2011 (EDT)		Yeah, I had thought of something similar as far as your "lost committees" idea. I thought maybe I'd leave it for a while, like until I was done being recsec, and then figure it out. As for the Bubblesaurus Committee, it was good, I liked what you wrote. Technically, you're not supposed to change the Purpose statement, but you were within the margin of error there. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 14:40, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+	I did not change the purpose - it is separated by an extra line, but I was not sure what to call it so I left it blank. Maybe i will add a lore heading... [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 00:26, 14 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:40, 13 May 2011
Line 15:		Line 15:

	That does make sense - but what do you think of the stuff I did for the bubblesaurus committee? Do you think that kind of stuff would be good for appropriate committees? I think it could work if it is not overdone... In any case I think we should set up a page/home for the so called "lost committees" where perhaps there were some worthy ones that just got forgotten along the way. [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 14:21, 13 May 2011 (EDT)		That does make sense - but what do you think of the stuff I did for the bubblesaurus committee? Do you think that kind of stuff would be good for appropriate committees? I think it could work if it is not overdone... In any case I think we should set up a page/home for the so called "lost committees" where perhaps there were some worthy ones that just got forgotten along the way. [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 14:21, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	Yeah, I had thought of something similar as far as your "lost committees" idea. I thought maybe I'd leave it for a while, like until I was done being recsec, and then figure it out. As for the Bubblesaurus Committee, it was good, I liked what you wrote. Technically, you're not supposed to change the Purpose statement, but you were within the margin of error there. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 14:40, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 13 May 2011
Line 12:		Line 12:

	If the bits of discussion directly relate to the committee and aren't simply a lot of "such-and-such Committee approves" then maybe. The Ad-Hoc Block Committee is a good example of where discussion can go on the wiki page. I think we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to create substantive pages for all of these--many committees are created once and never reported from again. Those probably don't deserve real pages. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 13:27, 13 May 2011 (EDT)		If the bits of discussion directly relate to the committee and aren't simply a lot of "such-and-such Committee approves" then maybe. The Ad-Hoc Block Committee is a good example of where discussion can go on the wiki page. I think we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to create substantive pages for all of these--many committees are created once and never reported from again. Those probably don't deserve real pages. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 13:27, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	That does make sense - but what do you think of the stuff I did for the bubblesaurus committee? Do you think that kind of stuff would be good for appropriate committees? I think it could work if it is not overdone... In any case I think we should set up a page/home for the so called "lost committees" where perhaps there were some worthy ones that just got forgotten along the way. [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 14:21, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:27, 13 May 2011
Line 9:		Line 9:

	So in that case, do you think the more interesting bits of discussion should go up there? Or should we just embellish with a bit of trolling? [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 12:31, 13 May 2011 (EDT)		So in that case, do you think the more interesting bits of discussion should go up there? Or should we just embellish with a bit of trolling? [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 12:31, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
		+
		+
		+	If the bits of discussion directly relate to the committee and aren't simply a lot of "such-and-such Committee approves" then maybe. The Ad-Hoc Block Committee is a good example of where discussion can go on the wiki page. I think we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to create substantive pages for all of these--many committees are created once and never reported from again. Those probably don't deserve real pages. [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 13:27, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:31, 13 May 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:


−	So in that case, do you think the more interesting bits of discussion should go up there? Or should we just embellish with a bit of trolling?[[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 12:31, 13 May 2011 (EDT)	+	So in that case, do you think the more interesting bits of discussion should go up there? Or should we just embellish with a bit of trolling? [[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 12:31, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-should i just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? or should there always be something more substantive?
+Should I just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? Or should there always be something more substantive?
 [[User:Xanderao|Xanderao]] 12:29, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I don't think that's really warranted. I mean, you could if you wanted to, but I'd prefer to have substantive things, more so than this. Tiny wiki pages look bad, in my opinion. By the way, remember to sign your posts on the discussion page by using 4 tildes (~x4) [[User:Tbroman|tbroman]] 01:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 13 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	should i just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? or should there always be something more substantive?	+	should i just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? or should there always be something more substantive?
		+	[[User:Xanderao\|Xanderao]] 12:29, 13 May 2011 (EDT)[[xander]]



	I don't think that's really warranted. I mean, you could if you wanted to, but I'd prefer to have substantive things, more so than this. Tiny wiki pages look bad, in my opinion. By the way, remember to sign your posts on the discussion page by using 4 tildes (~x4) [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 01:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)		I don't think that's really warranted. I mean, you could if you wanted to, but I'd prefer to have substantive things, more so than this. Tiny wiki pages look bad, in my opinion. By the way, remember to sign your posts on the discussion page by using 4 tildes (~x4) [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 01:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:05, 13 May 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	should i just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? or should there always be something more substantive?		should i just make a page for each committee with just this information and relevant tags? or should there always be something more substantive?
		+
		+
		+
		+	I don't think that's really warranted. I mean, you could if you wanted to, but I'd prefer to have substantive things, more so than this. Tiny wiki pages look bad, in my opinion. By the way, remember to sign your posts on the discussion page by using 4 tildes (~x4) [[User:Tbroman\|tbroman]] 01:05, 13 May 2011 (EDT)