On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Jon <scr...@nonvocalscream.com> wrote: > George Herbert wrote: >> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman <ritz...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc <doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Al Tally wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman <ritz...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days >>> >>>>> I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a >>>>> minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, >>>>> what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in >>>>> >>> my >>> >>>>> view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've >>>>> >>> been >>> >>>>> practising for years. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it. >>>> >>>> AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this >>>> change really enough? >>>> >>> The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the >>> current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve >>> enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's >>> announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors >>> had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed >>> out of articles. >>> >> >> >> Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump? >> >> If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there... >> >> >> > When I wrote the draft for and proposed the IP blocking exemption > policy, a little more than a year age, I know that I publicized it in > many, many places. Did not take much work, I think we should try to > remember to do these things in the future. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption/Archive_1#Prenotes > > Note the many places it was cross posted.
Good list. I think it is more than time to write a Wikipedia namespace page that gives advice for those proposing to run such discussions to have a logical checklist of places to post to, or at least links to places that might give them ideas of where to post. The point about making an explicit note of where notices have been left allows those arriving at a discussion to assess how broad a cross-section of the community the poll/discussion/vote is reaching. I was going to start such a page, but was stuck on a name for it. WP:ADVERTISING sounded wrong WP:CANVASS is taken by the warning against the wrong sort of approach WP:DISCUSSION goes to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines WP:OPINION goes to Wikipedia:Describing points of view WP:NOTICE goes to Wikipedia:Software notices WP:NOTIFICATION is free - I'll redirect it to Wikipedia:Advertising discussions (which I will write) While doing that, I found Wikipedia:Survey notification, which looks like fork of WP:CANVASS. Incidentally, one of the downsides of notifications posted at AN and ANI is that they are only there until the bots archive them (that's only a day for ANI) unless someone replies (unlikely) or various tricks are used to ensure archiving doesn't take place until the poll is over (or for a set period like 3 or 4 days). Even widespread advertising won't always work. See comments made here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/CheckUser_and_Oversight_elections/February_2009&diff=268381574&oldid=268380838 Anyway, my proposed process guideline is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions I guess I should now try and work out where to advertise it for approval... Carcharoth _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
