History subforum?

[phongn]

I've been hearing some rumbling about this by the proletariat - any thoughts by the Senate as to if such a subforum would be needed or wanted?

[Edi]

No objection here.

Those threads tend to be split about evenly between Off Topic and SLAM depending on content but they do not necessarily truly belong in either one. It is also not uncommon for people to want to find specific threads related to history discussions and such a subforum would make it easier to find them.

I would like to hear more opinions on this, however.

[Surlethe]

I have had a PM about this from Stas Bush. I was going to dig through the Senate to see if there was any prior discussion, but there doesn't seem to be.

Here is a PM exchange I was sent that details what the proletariat would like to see:

Here's a PM exchange between me and PeZook on what the subforum could be:

We'd have to justify the forum's existence, though. What kind of role do you have in mind for it? Debate, pure data gathering, information requests?

I guess datamining, trivia, alt-history topics (not the science fiction ones), and debate on historical themes.

There have been lots of threads which could fill the forum:
1) Commemoration of dates or individuals - usually spawns historical threads
2) History what-ifs
3) Book / article about history topics, also frequent in OT
4) Visits to museums and historical sites (dunno about that but me and Shep do that)

A FAQ on frequent common and military history could be good - instead ofhaving all those "WWII question - was Nazi Germany uber haxxors" and "Could Hitler conquer the world1111!!11" threads we'd have a concise FAQ, say, on WWII topics - I believe that could be useful to many board members.

This one's an excellent idea ; Common myths could be debunked easily.

How about book reviews? There's plenty of shit on the market, and if someone wants to seriously study history, he could probably use some pointers as to which books are worht reading.

Well, that's what I thought. I mean, there are already several history book reviews by me and Shep in OT, and other members also post these from time to time.

So those could go into History easily, and be far more accessibel to people. In the HAB we have a reading list and book recommendation list which are fairly good, but there's no such public avenue, so the history book thingies circulate either in the HAB or in OT, where they're easily lost among other threads.

History could've easily become a public review repository.

Just some guidelines for posting (for example, header tags like [XX] [19XXs] to designate the time period, [Review], [Discussion], or [What if] to determine between the thread types

I personally am in favor of a history subforum; I have found myself more and more interested in historical topics, especially to understand current affairs and sociological and political currents. I would certainly use a dedicated forum to discuss these issues.

[Coyote]

At first I was against this, thinking that the OT forum was good enough, but a dedicated section for History in particular would be a good place to keep track of the many, and varied, historical discussions for later searching.

Especially if it has a FCT-- frequently covered topics-- sticky of some sort. It becomes weary addressing yet another "Germany Winz!" thread where underlying principles of the Nazi system are handwaved away-- "What if the Nazis were friends with the Jews and the Slavs! Conquers beginz!" or other historical fallacies and pointless wankery were dealt with.

I think it would be very educational. Major turning points in history could be addressed with serious discussion and better RAR-scenarios that are more interesting and honest.

[Surlethe]

I've received two PMs. One was cautioning:

One of the thing that set SDnet apart was simple clean interface, Although many of the new ideas bear merit they are dividing our focus toggling between more and more firefox tabs ! It is getting hard to keep track as it is. Do we really want SDnet to look like other big forums where there are dozens and dozens of sub forums ?

The other was encouraging:

There could also be a lot of interesting stuff posted there; like the list of ships needed to invade Normandy on D-Day, US nuclear weapons production histories; Soviet Tank production 1941-1945; stuff that would be of value.

Really, I can imagine the History subforum being of high quality value, since SDN tends to attract a higher caliber of poster.

[Noble Ire]

I am wary of the addition of too many sub-forums. I agree with first of the posters that contacted Surlethe; boards with too many sub-forums tend to appear cluttered and unprofessional, as well as being more cumbersome to navigate. I am also concerned that too percise a demarcation of topics into individual sub-forums might intimidate newer users and stifle discussion (think of how often even older members place topics in the wrong forum as things are now).

[Coyote]

In regards to the increased specialization and sub-forums, it is a good point, but in counter I'd say that --given the rather large population here-- increased specialization of subject interest is a given. There are a lot of people who prefer certain forums while completely avoiding others, and the existence of a lot of private forums is evidence that specialization is a attractive feature.

Sub-forums are good in that they are "issue-oriented" while still allowing for public participation. They are a nice and convenient halfway point between opening up another whole specialized forum (ie, ARSE) and creating a closed-off private forum (say, for example, women's relationship issues in particular at SOS/NBA). I suspect that a lot of the specialized and private forums that exist now would probably have been born as sub-forums, if we'd had/known of the ability earlier. For example, I could see HAB and Mecha Maniacs both being sub-fora of "Other Sci-Fi" had this capacity been used before.

When the village is small, people wander through the whole place. But once the village has grown to become a city, it is normal for people to stay in their preferred areas to address topics of individual interest.

[Simplicius]

Hm. I suppose I'm relatively neutral toward the idea right now - I see no strong reason to be against a History subforum, but my support is mild rather than enthusiastic.

On the one hand, too many subforums complicates browsing for us 'village' style readers (thanks for that, Coyote). I read the board like I do a newspaper, so consolidated topics are convenient. If there was suddenly a call for a number of new subforums, it might almost be worth adjusting the arrangement of primary forums instead.

On the other hand, this is only one new subforum we are considering, and a meritorious one at that. I don't expect it would be wasted, as there are a number of prominent posters who are interested in or very knowledgeable of history, and there are topics which have no other real home (e.g. historical RAR! threads, Shep's book excerpts) as well as discussions of history which might end up being moved or split with a History forum to which to move or split them.

One caution, though: I would hope this would be used as a forum for active discussion, rather than a mere archive of useful historical information. If it turned out to be the latter I suspect it would be largely wasted, as we members are busy enough between our real lives and our regular posting to be able to act as librarians or archivists as well.

If the administrative staff is willing to implement a History subforum; if the moderator staff is willing to police it (and relevant subjects) as necessary; if it would be a forum rather than a repository, then I have no substantive reason to oppose.

[Surlethe]

One caution, though: I would hope this would be used as a forum for active discussion, rather than a mere archive of useful historical information. If it turned out to be the latter I suspect it would be largely wasted, as we members are busy enough between our real lives and our regular posting to be able to act as librarians or archivists as well.

Archivable historical information should, I think, belong in the SLAM Library. The plebian proponents of this history subforum believe it should be an active venue of discussion, rather than a simple archive of historical information.

[fgalkin]

I've been supporting an idea of a forum dedicated to history for years now. Of course any such proposal gets full support from me.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Edi]

Another view from the gallery. One that has some good points.

So just sending a comment through you. For those worried about "too many subforums" (well, aside from the fact we hardly have any now) what about simply renaming N&P's Famous Threads subforum into this History one? FT doesn't seem to have gotten any steam behind it anyway, and N&P seems like a place to have a History subforum.

I suppose if Famous Threads ever got any traction it could be readded. For what it's worth, as I remember several of the threads nominated didn't seem to be from N&P anyway so having History take its place would also give a chance to decide if it was really wanted under N&P as opposed to somewhere else (such as OT or whatever). As it is though, Famous Threads is pretty much just an empty spot on the board now, so perhaps it wouldn't hurt to rename it to become the new History subforum.

Just my two cents worth.

If nothing else, we could have a history threads repository where threads with a lot of significant or relevant material could be retired after they become inactive, such archiving to be done after it has been requested from a moderator and the request specified (i.e. why the thread is significant, so we won't have every RAR scenario there afterward).

[Noble Ire]

Another suggestion from the general board populace:

Reading that history subforum discussion, yeah, I think it'd be better if it was more of an archive.

We don't want RAR threads about Randome Altarnate Realties wherein Nazi Germany is run by Opium Addicted Chinamen cluttering up the hippotheticel History Subforum and fucking up the signal to noise ratio.

It would be better if select threads (from OT, N&P, or SLAM) that the mods, the proletariat masses, and the powers-that-be find worthwhile are just archived in the History subforum.

Might necessitate giving someone the role of "forum archaeologist" since there are a few threads from long-ago that had cool discussions and warrant "preservation" in the History Subforum.

Although I still am wary of the proliferation of sub-forums in general, I do agree that an archive of historical disuccsions might be useful.

[Simplicius]

I really don't see an exclusively archival subforum being particularly populated. The present subforums set to that purpose are pretty sparse. Now I'll grant that they're new. But what that suggests to me is that members are thinking about the posting they're doing in the present more than they are thinking "Oh, this should go in Art Gallery" or "Here's one for Famous Threads."

If you limit a History subforum to being a repository, I don't think much will come of it. It won't be useful as an archive until it is replete with material, but it won't be replete with material until/unless two things happen: First, a person or persons sift through OT, N&P, and any other forum where history material might lurk, find worthy threads, review those threads for worthiness, and then move them or petition a moderator to review them and move them. Second, posters in OT, N&P, etc. keep a weather eye out for threads that should go into History as they go about their business.

The surest and easiest way to generate history-related content is to allow people to make it on the fly. It's much less work for a moderator to say "This is too stupid for History, off to OT or Testing" than it is for whole forums to be combed and recombed for material to be transferred. And if having a History subforum means a lot of extra work only to reshuffle existing content, I'm not sure it's worthwhile.

[Surlethe]

Disallowing ridiculous [RAR] threads would not be difficult; simply make a forum-specific rule to the effect that the forum is only for serious discussions which shed light on history. This excludes stupid "RAR Nazi Germany populated by Opium-addicted Chinese hippotheticle discussion" threads while still permitting interesting and historically illuminating alt-questions, such as "what if the US didn't enter WWI?" or the fascinating thread a while back where it was asked what if the US were the enemy in WWI.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think an active subforum, with clear moderator discression to remove threads which belong in HoS or OT due to their lack of scholarly content, could be both succesful and worthwhile.

[Surlethe]

Another PM of support:

Hey Surlethe,

Just PM'ing to throw my support behind the idea being put forward by you, Wilkens and Simplicius of a high-quality history subforum. I think there would be more than enough enthusiasm for it to work, as a considerable amount of historical material is turned over not only in the main forums but also in HAB.

Cheers,

tj

[Sea Skimmer]

You know I don’t think this is really necessary from a standpoint of current traffic volume in Off Topic; but then we have such a wide base of community interest in history I’m sure we can keep a dedicated history forum brimming with content. I just hope it doesn't become nothing but ten new RAR threads per day each with less connection to reality then the last.

[Simplicius]

For the record, RogueIce notes that his proposal to convert Famous Threads to History includes making it an active rather than archival forum. Just in case it was not clear.

[Edi]

I just hope it doesn't become nothing but ten new RAR threads per day each with less connection to reality then the last.

If some moron tries to make that happen, that sort of shit can be flushed to Testing.

[Surlethe]

Also for the record, Rogue 9 has asked that his support for an active (not archival) History forum be noted here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I certainly support a history subforum, rather obviously, as it's the subject I enjoy discussing most.

[RedImperator]

Speaking as someone with a BA in history, I fully support the idea of a history subforum.

[Surlethe]

I received another PM in support:

Hello,

I support a history sub-forum as well. It always struck me as weird having all of the historical questions and "what-ifs" in Off-Topic along with all kinds of random shit.

Could we stick some type of date threshold for it, though? Having a history sub-forum without it might make it kind of confusing to decide whether to stick a thread in News and Politics or the new forum, especially if it is something relatively recent (like the 1990s).

Thanks,

Guardsman Bass

It may be best to say that if the topic of the thread is a historical event, it goes in the History subforum, while if it's a current event or deals with an abstract political idea, it goes in N&P.

[Stravo]

My initial thought was that we just already have too many forums and it makes things a bit cluttered and gives the impression like we may be fragmenting forum folks into little niches.

But after reading some of the arguments here, the support from the members and seeing a prevalence of history related threads and thinking, "gee wouldn't it be nice if they weren't just lumped in with all the Off-Topic stuff" it makes me give my support for a History sub-forum but I would also add that it needs to be modded by one of our more vicious autocratic mods simply because it has the potential to become the RAR zone. A hammer needs to be brought down on that crap immediately or the subforum becomes a wretched hive of scummy spam.

[LadyTevar]

If you're wanting "Autocratic", then Dalton or SirNitram are ideal