This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rossami (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 4 December 2005 (→Votes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:15, 4 December 2005 by Rossami (talk | contribs) (→Votes)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
- This is done by the bolding most people use. AfD works fine with this format. I see no need to change it here. Reading the discussion is vastly more important. -Splash 20:06, 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)
We have tried similar structures in the past. It was a crashing failure. Despite our best intentions, it devolved into a mere vote because the comments lost their sense of chronology. You could not easily tell when a new fact was added to the discussion and whether it changed the tenor of the debate. (Sure, you could attempt to line up every timestamp but that's just not reasonable.) Even the bolding at the front of the comment is, in my opinion, problematic. It locks the writer into an opinion which they must then justify. I prefer a reasoned comment culminating in an opinion. But the current format is at least functioning. The segregated voting you propose never functioned. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 4 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)