Forum talk:Temporary forums

Space for comments?
Is it possible or something we want to do to have a space for comments on proposed threads? Many of these I think are fantastic ideas that I'm not sure we can discuss in 3 weeks, or in a few instances I think a different user should write the opening post due to their particular work on the topic. I'm just not sure a simple up/down system is the best way to approach this. Najawin ☎  04:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * My concern is that I don't want the proposal system to become a means of debate. The stuff you're proposing to discuss seems fine but I feel that this could easily spiral into debate about the actual substance of the proposal. One idea I have been thinking about, though, and that could act as a solution for your idea, is something like Tardis:Community discussions which would act like a communal talk page. It could be used to discuss smaller, non-policy affecting things. This could include, for example, the design of a new (and uncontroversial) template, discussion of how best to tackle coverage of a new release, or discussions related to thread proposals like you propose (as long as these discussions do not end up about the substance of the proposal). Thoughts? Bongo50   ☎  09:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You're quite right, and it's a worry I had. I'm not sure how to resolve it, except to appeal to everyone's better nature. (lol) T:Cd sounds like a natural part of the old forum system, and hopefully we won't need to get it up and running, since this is just a temporary measure. :> Maybe wait a week? Or we could encourage everyone to move over to discussions and use that? It's woefully underutilized. Najawin ☎  14:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

New Thread?
Isn't it about time at least one of the four vacant slots for threads be opened up? There has not been much activity on the Subpages thread in the last 48 hours and The Master Split is pretty much in near unanimous agreement, just waiting for any dissenting voice to crop up. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  13:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I too am cheered to see the apparent consensus regarding the Master split, but surely it's responsible to give at least the Tardis:User rights nominations customary 1 week minimum as an opportunity for any possible dissenters to weigh in. All things considered I think the admins are doing a good job spacing things out: given the 3 week pacing, it makes sense to open 2 on the first day, 2 more at the 1 week mark, and 2 more at the 2 week mark. That way, going forward we'll have 2 new threads and 2 closures every week, rather than 3 weeks of quiet and 6 major proposals approved all at once, which just sounds like sheer chaos! – n8 (☎) 17:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the three week deadline and was by no means suggesting that the Master thread should be wrapped up immediately, I was just pointing out that the threads are not exactly hectic spots now. And I did not know there was a plan for 2 new threads every week. If so, that makes sense to me now. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  17:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That was just my proposal / interpretation; I don't know if that's the plan, or if there is any plan. – n8 (☎) 19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Urgency?
I was wondering if there's any room to making a case for urgency on a suggested thread's creation? I ask because I strongly feel that my Content Warning tag is something that has been needed for a while now, and could do with being figured out sooner rather than later. WaltK ☎  17:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also applies to the derogatory language pages. While the majority of threads are about streamlining the wiki experience, these are about ensuring the safety and mental health of our readers, thus making them more immediately needed. WaltK ☎  17:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Non-narrative fiction
In light of the recent thread conclusions I see that a thread proposed by me (validity debate for non-narrative fiction) is now at joint top with one other (spoiler policy). I guess it's on me to make some kind of opening statement. I can't promise much but if an admin could make the appropriate preparations then I can get the ball rolling. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  19:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Regarding the spoiler policy proposal, I've written up a starting post at User:NateBumber/Sandbox/1. – n8 (☎) 20:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * With me, I have a lot of examples of non-narrative fiction I can give and why covering them as valid sources would be beneficial in many ways, but I am not sure where to start in regards to writing an opening post. Perhaps us, and a few other editors, could collaboratively begin a draft for the opening post in a sandbox? 21:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Back when we started that discussion in the old forums, I started a list at User:Chubby Potato/Sandbox/Non-narrative fiction. However, I intend to soon revise this list such that it will be more helpful for a wiki discussion in 2023 rather than in 2020. That is, update my notes and categorization less on narrativity itself and more on the nature of the sources for coverage. Hopefully this can help the discussion. Chubby Potato ☎  21:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and wrote one up at User:Najawin/sandbox. It is, perhaps, excruciatingly in depth. If you're fine with it being used User:MrThermomanPreacher it would just be down to an admin pushing it live. Najawin ☎  21:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Go right ahead. MrThermomanPreacher ☎  22:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The next thread
Currently the proposal at the top of the list, based on time and amount of support, is my thread about re-examining how we look at the concept of validity. (Thank you all for your support.) As you might guess there's a lot to this idea, so I'm still working on an opening post. Additionally, I think the current discussion about narrativity should be concluded first, since it shares some of the same ideas, and the outcome of that will affect what I want to say. As such, I just want to make clear that the admins can choose the next threads in line, whether they are tied in support or have slightly less, until my starting post is ready. Chubby Potato ☎  21:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussions Announcements
So given the recent kerfuffle, does anyone have comments on the idea of me posting a notice in discussions when there's a new thread up? We get more feedback from people who don't generally edit, alert people that a conversation is going on, broader perspective, etc. And hopefully avoid these (very very minor) situations. I posted a single notice when the temp forums went live in the first place, haven't posted anything since. Najawin ☎  15:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure! Go ahead. Scrooge MacDuck ⊕ 15:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

"tl;dr" versions of conclusions
I have to say the sections at the end of concluded threads are incredibly wordy. While this is good for people who want in-depth explanations for the conclusions, for people like me who'd rather just have a straight-to-the-point "this is what you can now do on wiki pages" bit, it's a bit of a chore to read. Could the mods consider making condensed versions of conclusion posts in future? WaltK ☎  18:46, 17 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Even for me, who often does read the whole conclusion, would benefit from a "tl;dr" summary at the very end for future reference. 19:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Shalka Validty OP - done!
I have completed an OP for the "Validity debate: Scream of the Shalka" thread, which currently second place in the list. As the first place doesn't, as far as I know, have an OP, could an admin launch this thread? (As there are 2 unused slots at the moment).

OP - User:Cousin Ettolrhc/Sandbox/Shalka validity OP

Cousin Ettolrhc ☎  14:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Allowing others to procede
Due to some... circumstances... I've been away from the Wiki for a while so I haven't been able to draft up opening posts for the two threads I have proposed which have reached the top of T:TF. While they wouldn't take long to write up, as the image policies thread is drawing to a close and a new thread will be launched shortly after, I won't have the time to write the OPs now. So, if anyone else wants to go first, go ahead, or if an admin will permit, allow my thread on trailers to be launched, though I understand if another thread will take precendence.. 21:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Getting rid of "Verdict" on Proposed threads
So, I've been thinking about the proposed threads section of T:TF. Two things bother me: that there's a column labeled "Verdict" despite that not making sense, and that there's no column for OPs. It seems that posts with OPs are almost universally preferred now, yet looking at the forum there is no way to tell what has an OP yet. Am I meant to hunt for every sandbox on the wiki?

I suggest we change "Verdict" to "OP status" and have it be a simple "Ready" or "Not ready". "Ready" debates can have a link. That way, one can very easily sort by most votes and see what OP is next in the debate. OS25🤙☎️ 02:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I like this idea. (I also like larger changes to the format, as evidenced by my thread in the docket. But this is a minor change that would do a lot of good.) Najawin ☎  03:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * This makes a lot of sense to me. I'm going to go ahead and change the "Verdict" column to an "OP status" column. Bongo50   ☎  18:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Opening post requirement
I think we need to re-word the requirement for an opening post draft, I know not every post is going to require the lengthy (and well researched) posts we've seen for some of the last few that have taken up the slots. But there's a lot of topics that have been suggested that don't have any anything in the OP status column.

I also worry somewhat that those topics that have lots of supporters, that there's additional burden on admins / from other users to create, and indeed write an opening post for a topic that they may not have the knowledge of or the direction that the user who proposed the thread was going for. --Tangerineduel / talk 15:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)