177:
A's removing his own seems definitive on inclusion though. (I'm either hurt or relieved that A had no opinion on mine! Not sure which.) THAT said I think anyone who doesn't have the guide template on their guide shouldn't be listed (no dead end pages you have to backtrack from) :) How's that for a new controversy? ++
225:
assume that when voting goes live, that an announcement is going to be posted at the top of everyone's watchlist pages. Should a link to these guides be included with that announcement? Or should we keep it as what it is, an organized way of collating notes among a relatively small group of editors? --
176:
we had a bit of an edit war over whose guides should be on the guide to the guides template. :) That said I have to put my opinion in anyway... Ameliorate's is a different species than
Caspian's and probably those two didn't need to be broken out separately. Just a (meta) after Caspian's is enough.
305:
The good idea I saw in linking next to one's signature on a vote page is that it gives the candidates a chance to read the reasoning behind a particular vote, and possibly even learn something, while other interested readers might get something out of it too. I think this would be both helpful and
224:
As a separate question, what do others think about including this template on the "voting" pages when they go live? Right now the guides are apparent to those who keep very up-to-date on such things, but I'd guess the majority of the wiki has no idea that they exist. Or to put it another way: I
356:
the candidates. So to someone not familiar with the elections, it might look like the guides here are "voting guides on each of the following candidates". To address this, how about we add the names of all the (active) candidates to the top of the template, with links to their voting pages? I
144:
I am seeking a consensus. The "Ugly" design was suggested above, but if you want to create something more beautiful, go for it. Censoring somebody's opinion is not the right thing to do. Ameliorate! has as much right to state their opinions as you do. If you disagree, just post a note on the
35:
I'd argue we probably should remove the link to "Ameliorate! (voter guide guide)", as it's clearly a very different species than the other members of this set. All the others discuss candidates, whereas that discusses people who have written guides about candidates. Just my two cents.
248:
I'm not even too fond of linking them in the "See also" section of the election's main page, and certainly think "guide" is a misnomer. But I guess I prefer keeping it as what it is to the announcement suggested by Elonka. I don't think this selection of editors' opinions should be
252:
From last year, I recall voters adding a link to their votes, a link to userspace, explaining their rationale for support/oppose/abstain. I thought that was a good idea, and suggest that the authors link to their guides in a similar fashion, next to their votes/signatures.
116:
I see a couple of guide authors have removed a meta guide. That does not seem right. Guide authors should not remove competing or critical opinions. As was suggested above, a metaguide section would be appropriate if it is helpful to distinguish the different types.
127:
I only restored the original format from your "ugly design", and the page is not critical of the guide works, but ridiculed "the authors". Elonka rightfully removed the user's entry per the above consensus here. Seek a consensus.
195:
What we really need is a guide to the guides to the guides page, where we guide users to the guides to the guides are useful as guidance and we guide others to the guides to the guides that are less useful as guidance.
320:
I agree with
Sluzzelin. So, let's not make a big deal about the guides, but anyone who chooses, can link to their guide from their vote for more information. That's in line with how we've done things in the past.
279:
Editors should be encouraged to read the candidates' statements, and their answers to the questions. We should not encourage voting blocks, nor should we place editorials on the official voting page headers.
154:
As I said, I did not remove the entry at all, but made the template go back to the better design than yours. Check the diffs. There are ONLY unilateral edits disregarding the current consensus; those are
67:
Concur that
Ameliorate's guide should be removed. Alternatively, we could create a "metaguide" section of the template, where we put links to the "guides to the guides" or "humor guides". --
215:
In terms of whether to include someone's guide who doesn't link back, I'd say yes, that if it's a useful guide, let's link it. I'm interested in what other people are thinking.
145:
guide's talk page to register your objections. If you think it's an attack page, make a case for deletion or partial blanking; don't just unilaterally remove it.
206:
202:
22:
364:
328:
232:
74:
21:
This template should be available for all editors, or else it should be deleted. We do not have a guideline called
94:
Ameliorate! removed his own guide from the list. I think that's case closed on the issue of whether it belongs :)
186:
352:
I'm a bit concerned that on a quick glance, it makes it look like the people with the guides in this tempate,
198:
156:
129:
41:
310:
257:
173:
361:
325:
229:
71:
37:
307:
281:
254:
146:
118:
95:
26:
182:
56:
367:
331:
315:
284:
262:
235:
210:
189:
162:
149:
135:
121:
104:
77:
62:
45:
29:
358:
322:
226:
68:
54:
Per
Alecmconroy. It has no place here. I already removed it, but got reverted.
178:
357:
think that would make it more clear who the actual candidates are. --
23:Knowledge (XXG):Some are more equal than others
8:
7:
17:Some are not more equal than others
14:
1:
332:20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
316:20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
285:20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
263:20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
236:19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
211:17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
203:Short Brigade Harvester Boris
190:16:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
163:07:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
150:07:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
136:07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
122:07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
105:00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
78:00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
63:23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
46:23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
30:22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
368:17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
383:
313:
260:
201:
374:
311:
258:
197:
102:
59:
382:
381:
377:
376:
375:
373:
372:
371:
350:
96:
57:
19:
12:
11:
5:
380:
378:
349:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
294:
293:
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
270:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
250:
241:
240:
239:
238:
219:
218:
217:
216:
170:
169:
168:
167:
166:
165:
139:
138:
114:
113:
112:
111:
110:
109:
108:
107:
85:
84:
83:
82:
81:
80:
49:
48:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
379:
370:
369:
366:
363:
360:
355:
347:
333:
330:
327:
324:
319:
318:
317:
314:
309:
304:
303:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
296:
295:
286:
283:
278:
277:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
264:
261:
256:
251:
247:
246:
245:
244:
243:
242:
237:
234:
231:
228:
223:
222:
221:
220:
214:
213:
212:
208:
204:
200:
194:
193:
192:
191:
188:
184:
180:
175:
174:can't believe
164:
161:
159:
153:
152:
151:
148:
143:
142:
141:
140:
137:
134:
132:
126:
125:
124:
123:
120:
106:
103:
101:
100:
93:
92:
91:
90:
89:
88:
87:
86:
79:
76:
73:
70:
66:
65:
64:
61:
60:
53:
52:
51:
50:
47:
43:
39:
34:
33:
32:
31:
28:
24:
16:
353:
351:
249:highlighted.
171:
157:
130:
115:
98:
97:
55:
20:
199:but then...
38:Alecmconroy
348:Expansion
308:Sluzzelin
306:fair. ---
282:Jehochman
255:Sluzzelin
147:Jehochman
119:Jehochman
99:Wizardman
27:Jehochman
155:yours.--
58:Al Tally
158:Caspian
131:Caspian
312:talk
259:talk
207:talk
160:blue
133:blue
42:talk
354:are
253:---
179:Lar
365:ka
362:on
359:El
329:ka
326:on
323:El
321:--
233:ka
230:on
227:El
209:)
181::
172:I
128:--
75:ka
72:on
69:El
44:)
36:--
25:.
205:(
187:c
185:/
183:t
40:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
