Article vs Talk page
Please bring these arguments up in the section discussing why this should be done - if you haven't already. This section is for "Why Not" (or with your retitle: "Reasons Not"). That's why I separated out the section from the one above it (before you moved it to the other page). BrianH 20:03, 11 December 2009 (EST)
- Don't be afraid to reorganize if you think there's a better way--you don't have to ask. I'll be more likely to just follow suit with a good idea or a compromise in organization than to pick a fight! To me, reorganization is the very raison d'etre of a wiki. It's why it can produce content quickly, with everyone doing what they do best. Assume good faith and all that...
- My vague idea was that the article would represent consensus matters, with sufficient derivation to be far clearer to any newcomer than reading the talk pages. It's a little tricky when the page is about a "proposal" I guess during the pro/con hammering-out phase. The derivation can end up sounding like it includes all the pros and none of the cons. But I wanted to just keep any statements that would need attribution out of it. If we agree on something being a pro or a con, that's the ideal situation to start from... Fork 02:07, 12 December 2009 (EST)
Barnstar of Diligence
Wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation for the time you are taking in these discussions. I'm also very grateful you are doing so in a medium that is outside the inner sanctum of Rebol-oriented tools. If more in the Rebol community were so willing, then I'm sure that by now there would be a very comprehensive repository of information refined from it.
So I'd like to award you the Barnstar of Diligence.
|The Barnstar of Diligence|
|Awarded to BrianH for his forward-thinking attitude and dedication to sincere technical engagement on this wiki. Fork 02:07, 12 December 2009 (EST)|