Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
"be consistent"

Re^2: Appealing a consideration?

by sleepingsquirrel (Hermit)
on Feb 23, 2005 at 16:32 UTC ( #433746=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to Re: Appealing a consideration?
in thread Appealing a consideration?

A last thought. That node had been up for consideration for at least a week, maybe 2. Since apparently you'd noticed it, why did you wait until now, to complain?
Why would I complain earlier, when nothing had actually been done? I don't follow perlmonks politics closely, and quite frankly, I didn't think that there was a compelling reason to retitle, so I assumed that level headed janitors wouldn't change it. But now that its been put up again for consideration, you may take this node as an official complaint and plea not to change it. BTW, it was up for consideration for about 3 weeks and the last time I looked at it it had 8 keep/29 edit votes.

-- All code is 100% tested and functional unless otherwise noted.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Appealing a consideration? (reason)
by tye (Sage) on Feb 23, 2005 at 17:20 UTC

    Did I just miss it? Where is the reasoned argument?

    Is your argument just "It's my node, I'll name it any dang thing I want to and you can't stop me!" ?

    Do you have some reason why that is a good title for that node? I agree with jdporter that the title should at least mention "Haskel" and start with "Re:". The node doesn't embody "HaXml" and so should not be titled simply "HaXml". I think the title should make sense even when viewed out of context of the thread that it is in, which usually means that some fragment of the parent's title should appear in the title.

    Node titles are integral to navigation, searching, and other tasks at the site. I'm all for respecting creativity even in titles but not without restrictions (for example, Re^2: Considering nodes for re-titling (haznav)). The node title is not just used as a place for the author to select what title to put on the node. It has too many other uses that are too important to not have some restrictions.

    So if you have an argument as to why that node title is appropriate, then please make it. Please also listen to what others are saying about node titles.

    If you just want to get into a shoving contest without reasoned argument, then we can certainly go down that road. I'm sure we could modify the site code to enforce that "Re:" must appear on all replies, for example. I don't encourage such changes lightly, but I'd be for this particular one in part just to nix the quibbling over the point.

    Q re nodes' subjects also contains some good points.

    But I'd really like to hear what you have to say. Why do you think that node title is so good?

    - tye        

Re^3: Appealing a consideration?
by castaway (Parson) on Feb 23, 2005 at 20:43 UTC
    Because you'd been following recent considerations, and noticed that 'bad' ones were being made? Or so you claimed up there somewhere.

    Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself some in this thread. Anyway, the reason is, because afterwards its kind of daft, in my opinion. Say something about the consideration already, not about the retitling after the fact.

    I did say 'reasoned argument', so where is it?


      Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself some in this thread.
      Say something about the consideration already, not about the retitling after the fact.
      Am I supposed to parse some difference between the two? I guess I don't follow Monastery lingo that closely. Overall though, I think it basically boils down to a difference in philophsy. I'm from the school that maintains that the only acceptable reason for changing content is to protect us from an imminent threat of anarchy. As I'm learning (I've only been here a little over a year) Perlmonks has a different set of values, one which prizes searchability over the author's intent. That's OK, I guess (variety, spice-of-life, all that). We'll have to agree to disagree. (Although I think Ye Olde Anonymous had the right of it). As an aside, I would have considered "HaXml" all by itself, with no body, to be a perfectly acceptable answer to the OP. (After all, I don't think most monks need to be spoonfed links from Google).

      Anyhoo, I think I can speak for most of us when I say that this discussion is getting tedious and boring and unlikely to resolve anything. You can "consider" it my last word on the subject. ;-)

      -- All code is 100% tested and functional unless otherwise noted.

        In general, the words of the original poster inside the post are considered sacrosanct, their formatting less so, and the title still less so.

        Warning: Unless otherwise stated, code is untested. Do not use without understanding. Code is posted in the hopes it is useful, but without warranty. All copyrights are relinquished into the public domain unless otherwise stated. I am not an angel. I am capable of error, and err on a fairly regular basis. If I made a mistake, please let me know (such as by replying to this node).

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://433746]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others browsing the Monastery: (4)
As of 2020-05-29 02:01 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    If programming languages were movie genres, Perl would be:

    Results (166 votes). Check out past polls.