in reply to Re^5: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
in thread [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Ok, without getting into a spitting contest about who misunderstands what, let me try to boil this down:

Sections are not topical.

Sections are not topical (with the exception of PMD). They have never been topical. And the trend over the years, which reflects and reinforces this fact, is for sections to be removed (deprecated/disabled) rather than created. Look at the existing sections: SoPW, Meditations, CUFP (which is what Snippets and Catacombs were deprecated to), Obfu, Poetry, Tutorials, Categorized Q&A, and News. How are any of these topical? They're not. So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema.

I reckon we are the only monastery ever to have a dungeon stuffed with 16,000 zombies.
  • Comment on Re^6: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Jun 07, 2015 at 15:42 UTC
    So introducing a new section based on topicality (even if it's "O.T.") breaks the schema.

    So?

    The "schema" is important why?

    There's all that stuff up there which is for the 'topic':Perl; and this bit over here for:anything else.

    With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]

      Your illogic speaks for itself.

[reply]
        Your illogic speaks for itself.

        That's a coy way of saying that you haven't got a counter argument.

        With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I'm with torvalds on this
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice. Agile (and TDD) debunked
[reply]
Re^7: [OT] How about an Off Topic Section?
by ww (Archbishop) on Jun 08, 2015 at 20:13 UTC
    "... Obfu, Poetry, Tutorials, Categorized Q&A, and News.

    Those are not (he asks, incredulously!) "topical?"

    What then are the constraints on your definition of "topical?"


    Spirit of the Monastery


[reply]
[d/l]

      Really? If I say "I've written a poem", you can tell what the poem is about? If I say "Hey, I have a bit of news", you know what the news is about? If I say "Please review the tutorial I just wrote", you know the subject of the tutorial?

[reply]

        uh.... no, no and no.

        But, in each case, I can identify a broad general subject matter: something that (traditionally) relied on rhyming or rhythm; note-worthy information (usually fresh), and a teaching document of some sort; IOW, poetry, news and a tut.

        And I do think that "topic" is accurately aliased as "broad general subject matter" FWIW (not very much, I fear) an online Roget's-sourced Thesaurus ( http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/topic )seems to support that reading, with:

        Concept Thesaurus for word topic
Synonyms - noun
    subject of thought
    subject 
    ....

        Nonetheless I emphatically agree with you that most suggestions for new topics (e.g., Perl 6; javascript; etc) are too narrow and -- when relevant to Perl (regardless of the trailing number) -- questions, tuts, news items are fine for SOPW, Tutorials or Perl News. I just am not happy with your version of the meaning of "topic."

        Spirit of the Monastery

[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion