| Revision as of 18:55, 3 December 2005 editSplash (talk | contribs)33,425 edits →Votes: not a vote← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:08, 3 December 2005 edit undoRoySmith (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators92,600 edits →VotesNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| I think it would be easier to read through this stuff if we switched to a format similar to that used in RFA. Have three numbered lists, "Endorse", "Relist", and "Overturn". --] 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | I think it would be easier to read through this stuff if we switched to a format similar to that used in RFA. Have three numbered lists, "Endorse", "Relist", and "Overturn". --] 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | :Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| ::I understand it's not a vote, but it's no more not a vote than RFA is not a vote. We're asking people to assert their preference for one of three alternatives; we might as well make it easy to figure out which of those they are asserting. --] 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Archived to history == | == Archived to history == | ||
Revision as of 19:08, 3 December 2005
Votes
I think somewhere at the top of the page we should describe standardized wording for votes, particularly given that the rather contradictory verbs endorse (the deletion) and oppose (the undeletion request) amount to the same thing. Perhaps stick with, undelete and keep deleted. Marskell 14:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
- There is already a yellow box describing precisely that. In the change to Deletion review, the notion of reviewing a not-delete debate was introduced, and the old wording doesn't really fit that. -Splash 04:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
- Ah yes. To qualify then, we should follow the wording as presented. (And perhaps we should tidy the top of the page). Marskell 04:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it would be easier to read through this stuff if we switched to a format similar to that used in RFA. Have three numbered lists, "Endorse", "Relist", and "Overturn". --RoySmith 18:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- Not a vote. Is discussion. Splitting into votes not compatible with good discussion. -Splash 18:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
- I understand it's not a vote, but it's no more not a vote than RFA is not a vote. We're asking people to assert their preference for one of three alternatives; we might as well make it easy to figure out which of those they are asserting. --RoySmith 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Archived to history
(i.e. deleted)
If I trimmed any current threads, a firm spanking is always welcome. - brenneman 06:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)