Difference between revisions of "BattleTechWiki:Requests for comment/Archive"
Sarna News
(→20 July 2010: done) |
(cleanup & sub-pages) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
=Requests for Comments:= | =Requests for Comments:= | ||
| − | |||
''Add comments here (above the previous entry)'' | ''Add comments here (above the previous entry)'' | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | ==02 February 2011== | |
| − | : | + | *Subpages: Some articles contain hefty amounts of tables, and I'm in two minds about it: On one hand, those tables contain good hard data; on the other hand, I prefer a nicely written summary as an article. I've been thinking about shoving such content into sub-pages. Comments on the general idea please: Do we want sub-pages or do we want to avoid them? (Discussion sparked by [[Talk:Dropships - Transportcapacity]].) [[User:Frabby|Frabby]] 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
| − | : | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | : | ||
| − | : | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==10 August 2009== | ==10 August 2009== | ||
*[[Policy_Talk:Manual_of_Style#Past_tense_in_articles_about_vehicles.3F]]: Discussion as to whether all articles should be written from a past tense or a tense dependent upon the article content. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | *[[Policy_Talk:Manual_of_Style#Past_tense_in_articles_about_vehicles.3F]]: Discussion as to whether all articles should be written from a past tense or a tense dependent upon the article content. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC) | ||
| Line 81: | Line 38: | ||
==23 July 2009== | ==23 July 2009== | ||
*[[Policy:Verifiability]]: asking for a consensus review by BTW editors for this policy candidate. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | *[[Policy:Verifiability]]: asking for a consensus review by BTW editors for this policy candidate. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche]] <sup>([[User_talk:Revanche|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Revanche|contribs]])</sup> 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Revision as of 20:26, 1 February 2011
The Request for Comment forum allows Editors to introduce an issue that may have sprung up either in a high-traffic area (ex: Project:BattleMech) or somewhere more obscure (ex:2418), but may require a third, fourth or even twenty-third opinion. This allows a community consensus to be formed through discussion and may affect more than just the article being discussed.
Useage: Under a dated section, introduce a new entry with an asterisk (*), right under the "Requests for Comments" section head (i.e., in reverse chronological order). Start it off with a link to the discussion page of the article in question, and a very brief summary of the issue being discussed. Remember to sign the entry (with four tildes: ~~~~). Please do not add an opinion to the summary here.
Acceptable Example:
- Policy Talk:Notability: discussion as to what shall be done with articles deemed non-notable. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)
Unacceptable Example:
- Policy Talk:Notability: Some spammer wants to create an article about himself, just because he wrote some fan-boy story about Peder Smythe. Let's 'explain' to him why that won't fly. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 12:55, 19 December 2007 (CST)
Contents
Requests for Comments:
Add comments here (above the previous entry)
02 February 2011
- Subpages: Some articles contain hefty amounts of tables, and I'm in two minds about it: On one hand, those tables contain good hard data; on the other hand, I prefer a nicely written summary as an article. I've been thinking about shoving such content into sub-pages. Comments on the general idea please: Do we want sub-pages or do we want to avoid them? (Discussion sparked by Talk:Dropships - Transportcapacity.) Frabby 00:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
10 August 2009
- Policy_Talk:Manual_of_Style#Past_tense_in_articles_about_vehicles.3F: Discussion as to whether all articles should be written from a past tense or a tense dependent upon the article content. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- Talk:Draconis_Combine#House_Kurita: regarding breaking Kurita family data out from the Draconis Combine article. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 13:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
04 August 2009
- Talk:Free Worlds League: regarding the use of more academic-style of providing research sources and citations. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Category talk:Inner Sphere Commands: asking for consensus opinion regarding the creation of articles with no content. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 14:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
25 July 2009
- Category_talk:Characters#Only_Sub-Categories.3F: asking for consensus opinion regarding removing all characters from the main Characters category (and into appropriate sub-categories). --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
23 July 2009
- Policy:Verifiability: asking for a consensus review by BTW editors for this policy candidate. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
19 January 2009
- Talk:Concord of Kapteyn: Proposal for a new category covering laws, treaties, etc. --Scaletail 20:20, 19 January 2008 (CST)
20 December 2007
- Talk:Elemental: Regarding the status of the cleanup tag on the article. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 07:31, 20 December 2007 (CST)