Timeline for [actors], [cast], and [casting]
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:46 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.scifi.stackexchange.com/ with https://scifi.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 13, 2016 at 18:18 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | @SQB So you went ahead and removed the [cast] and [casting] tags anyway? | |
| Jan 13, 2016 at 18:10 | vote | accept | Rand al'ThorMod | ||
| Jan 7, 2016 at 15:16 | comment | added | SQB | Questions with the word 'actor' but without the tags actors or actor-identification can be found through this query | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 13:46 | answer | added | Murch | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 12:46 | comment | added | Aith |
I noticed that the movies Stack uses casting when talking about this exact thing (tagged 77 times) and though I know each Stack is unique, the fact that a movies-oriented Stack uses casting to identity/label the same question types we are talking about kind of makes me want to stick to the same schematic. It seems to be working for them; maybe it would work for us? Note: They do have an identify-the-actor sort of tag, too, for the ID-ing questions, but otherwise don't seem to utilize any other 'actor'-related tag.
|
|
| Jan 7, 2016 at 12:31 | comment | added | SQB | I fully agree with your proposal. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 2:56 | answer | added | user31178 | timeline score: 7 | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 2:44 | comment | added | Thaddeus Howze Mod | The cast seems superfluous given your current considerations. I think keeping it simple is probably best. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 2:06 | comment | added | KutuluMike | In my opinion, your suggestions are clear and straighforward enough to be 3 separate answers in that post (one per tag with rules on what to do with that tag). But if you really think it's better to do all 3 at once, perhaps a separate post is better. As far as the FGitW, I'm trying to encourage people to revisit it often to keep voting, we'll see how that goes. It if doesn't work, we can always adapt later. | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:56 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | @MikeEdenfield I haven't fully got my head around the structure of all your meta posts about tag cleanup, so I wasn't sure where this would fit. Also FGitW comes into play - a new answer to one of those posts might get hardly any attention. But if you think I should, I'll delete this and repost as an answer somewhere (you'll have to tell me where). | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:49 | comment | added | KutuluMike | is there a reason these weren't proposed on the thread with all the others? it's not just for deleting tags. (Just trying to keep everything together as much as we can.) | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:07 | comment | added | Rand al'Thor Mod | PS: It'd be nice if nobody went and 'cleaned up' these tags until we have a community consensus here :-) | |
| Jan 7, 2016 at 1:07 | history | asked | Rand al'ThorMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |