Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki talk:Masthead"
Sarna News
(This is a Family Tree?) |
m (→Family Tree: Removing question section, I now understand how this happened, question moot.) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:It's generally the way it goes on a wiki; paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. While the bureaucracy can be a pain-in-the-butt, it introduces a level of accountability necessary once a wiki hits 'critical mass'. We're not there yet, but it's a good idea to have archival mechanisms in place before stuff like this piles up. I'd suggest an archive using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Calendar_date ISO dates] e.g., 2006-22-11, or naming months (even then, will it be full name, or common abbreviations? What about Sep vs. Sept?, etc.); we do not want confusion about whether we're using mm/dd/yy or dd/mm/yy formatting. Either way, once we pick something it will need to be stuck to. Ideally, this is something that we'd put in our manual of style. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 01:22, 22 November 2006 (CST) | :It's generally the way it goes on a wiki; paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. While the bureaucracy can be a pain-in-the-butt, it introduces a level of accountability necessary once a wiki hits 'critical mass'. We're not there yet, but it's a good idea to have archival mechanisms in place before stuff like this piles up. I'd suggest an archive using [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Calendar_date ISO dates] e.g., 2006-22-11, or naming months (even then, will it be full name, or common abbreviations? What about Sep vs. Sept?, etc.); we do not want confusion about whether we're using mm/dd/yy or dd/mm/yy formatting. Either way, once we pick something it will need to be stuck to. Ideally, this is something that we'd put in our manual of style. --[[User:Xoid|Xoid]] 01:22, 22 November 2006 (CST) | ||
::I'd recommend going with year-month archives done numerically (ex: 2006-11). And, I agree, we should make sure that any 'staff' pages are archived in whatever manner it is decided upon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 01:40, 22 November 2006 (CST) | ::I'd recommend going with year-month archives done numerically (ex: 2006-11). And, I agree, we should make sure that any 'staff' pages are archived in whatever manner it is decided upon. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 01:40, 22 November 2006 (CST) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Latest revision as of 10:24, 15 March 2022
- Nic, I was thinking: should there be a policy of deleting completed Admin Requests? And, if so, should completed admin requests be archived on another page, such as Completed Admin Requests? Revanche 01:28, 18 September 2006 (CDT)
- It's generally the way it goes on a wiki; paperwork, paperwork, paperwork. While the bureaucracy can be a pain-in-the-butt, it introduces a level of accountability necessary once a wiki hits 'critical mass'. We're not there yet, but it's a good idea to have archival mechanisms in place before stuff like this piles up. I'd suggest an archive using ISO dates e.g., 2006-22-11, or naming months (even then, will it be full name, or common abbreviations? What about Sep vs. Sept?, etc.); we do not want confusion about whether we're using mm/dd/yy or dd/mm/yy formatting. Either way, once we pick something it will need to be stuck to. Ideally, this is something that we'd put in our manual of style. --Xoid 01:22, 22 November 2006 (CST)
- I'd recommend going with year-month archives done numerically (ex: 2006-11). And, I agree, we should make sure that any 'staff' pages are archived in whatever manner it is decided upon. --Revanche (admin) 01:40, 22 November 2006 (CST)