Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
We know there's a decline in participation. The Wall Street Journal put it on the front page. A WikiMedia Strategy task force is looking at improving consensus-building processes. So this proposal is WP:BOLD but based on a premise of a known critical need. What do we need to do to achieve this? Ikluft ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I really love the templates! Nice job! -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think this will work. I don't think it will be tried. For one thing, people shouldn't need to learn templates just to engage in discussion.
On the other hand, your aim of dealing "spoilers" is good. Maybe that could be developed some other way. Maurreen ( talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I had been away from WP for a few years, and I'm wondering about something. Maybe you can fill me in. WP has processes for dispute resolution. But it seems like there might be some gaps.
What do you think? Maurreen ( talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The community has repeatedly rejected the use of support/oppose templates with icons like these. See the original TFD discussion. There have been other discussions and several different incarnations of the templates, all deleted. This should be discussed further before people are encouraged to use them in discussions. Mr. Z-man 06:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the templates for deletion, the discussion is here. Mr. Z-man 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see this wasn't deleted or rejected during the year and a half that I was away. Others have actually added links and done some tidying. I made clarifications so this does not depend on the deleted templates. I changed the heading from a brainstorming stage proposal to an essay. As discussions come up where these are appropriate to use, I'll see how well the embedded instruction links work for getting others to use them as well. Others are also encouraged to do so. Let's see what usage it gets just from spreading it around. Ikluft ( talk) 03:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading this literally, I find it contravenes policy. Specifically, NPOV says small-minority views should not be mentioned in the article, but you won't get consensus, as defined in this essay, to do that if a proponent of such a view is editing. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this process, but I think it could be simplified.
Why not combine these two steps, and then "loop over them":
Example: There is only one step called "Editor posts a proposed resolution" and then all are iterating over this step. This would simplify the flow chart (image on the right side), too.
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the essay is useful AND I’d like to see the historical/rejected template section and its references in the sections that precede it removed or marked historical. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Essays Low‑impact | ||||||||||
|
We know there's a decline in participation. The Wall Street Journal put it on the front page. A WikiMedia Strategy task force is looking at improving consensus-building processes. So this proposal is WP:BOLD but based on a premise of a known critical need. What do we need to do to achieve this? Ikluft ( talk) 12:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I really love the templates! Nice job! -- JokerXtreme ( talk) 14:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think this will work. I don't think it will be tried. For one thing, people shouldn't need to learn templates just to engage in discussion.
On the other hand, your aim of dealing "spoilers" is good. Maybe that could be developed some other way. Maurreen ( talk) 01:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I had been away from WP for a few years, and I'm wondering about something. Maybe you can fill me in. WP has processes for dispute resolution. But it seems like there might be some gaps.
What do you think? Maurreen ( talk) 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The community has repeatedly rejected the use of support/oppose templates with icons like these. See the original TFD discussion. There have been other discussions and several different incarnations of the templates, all deleted. This should be discussed further before people are encouraged to use them in discussions. Mr. Z-man 06:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I've nominated the templates for deletion, the discussion is here. Mr. Z-man 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
I see this wasn't deleted or rejected during the year and a half that I was away. Others have actually added links and done some tidying. I made clarifications so this does not depend on the deleted templates. I changed the heading from a brainstorming stage proposal to an essay. As discussions come up where these are appropriate to use, I'll see how well the embedded instruction links work for getting others to use them as well. Others are also encouraged to do so. Let's see what usage it gets just from spreading it around. Ikluft ( talk) 03:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Reading this literally, I find it contravenes policy. Specifically, NPOV says small-minority views should not be mentioned in the article, but you won't get consensus, as defined in this essay, to do that if a proponent of such a view is editing. Peter jackson ( talk) 11:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I am new to this process, but I think it could be simplified.
Why not combine these two steps, and then "loop over them":
Example: There is only one step called "Editor posts a proposed resolution" and then all are iterating over this step. This would simplify the flow chart (image on the right side), too.
What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guettli ( talk • contribs) 05:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the essay is useful AND I’d like to see the historical/rejected template section and its references in the sections that precede it removed or marked historical. —¿philoserf? ( talk) 19:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)