I started this post
here.
This is also perhaps an example of what many of these queries achieve: they're simply forgotten. Yes, sometimes someone finds some more info. & they're sitting there ready to link up but that's equally the case for [solved] XNK or [solved] Margerita @C17, and the last presents the option of higher visibility in the form of starting a model thread. /shrug/
Are we saying that queries here should only be marked solved provided the name so discovered will never again need modification as a thread title? I doubt it/hope not.
& please don't
only read that last rhetorical question strictly literally. Although rhetorical it's also asking a question of you all: to think about the implications/ramifications; to think about the ways in which we think of/envisage mir queries, their processes, etc.
----
edit: late appendix, added here just so it doesn't get lost:
Quote:
Originally Posted by effCup
If we wait a bit longer something else might come along & then we'd either:
a) have another instance of JR
b) have two different two-part contenders to tie-break
c) have another unsatisfactory singleton
d) rinse & repeat
This seems like another example of what I've tried to write about here & here... & probably elsewhere. It may seem otherwise  but this is not meant as "having another go" at any of the current/past section mods.  My discussion of this topic has always tried to focus only upon processes/thinking/how MIR operates.
To repeat: the alternative here is to accept a two-part mag. name, start a model thread, & hope that raised profile may prompt further discoveries. In that scenario we must remain open to the possibility that we don't always get it "perfect" first/every time so that thread may require a later renaming, should evidence for such turn up.
That is an iterative & incremental approach rather than the "big bang"/master-plan-up-front approach (software dev. & construction metaphors), which treats errors as/makes them prohibitively expensive. |