Electowiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
→Advocacy article templates: new section
(→Using Electowiki to vet new concepts: adding header to new conversation, and replying to User:Psephomancy's suggestion we vet things here) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Advocacy article templates: new section) |
||
Line 103:
:Moreover, participating in wiki discussions about content is difficult, and in my experience, wikis are a good complement to an online forum, not a replacement for it. There are a lot of people on the [[election-methods mailing list]] that will quickly and helpfully reply to complicated inquiries, but don't feel comfortable replying on a wiki <code>Talk:</code> page.
:As I've said before, EM-list is not the only valid vetting forum. I think that any sufficiently open (and reasonably neutral) discussion forum will suffice. But it doesn't seem to make sense to let people introduce new concepts into the main namespace without first vetting that concept someplace else. -- [[User:RobLa|RobLa]] ([[User talk:RobLa|talk]]) 03:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
== Advocacy article templates ==
"My sense of things is that if we rely on a banner, the banner needs to identify a particular editor that is the lead signatory for the article."
I was thinking something like [[User:Homunq]]'s proposal, where the template would say something like "This article is written by '''PLACE proponents'''" and edits (other than uncontroversial typos, formatting, adding references, etc.) are only allowed by people who consider themselves to be in the "PLACE proponents" category. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 03:16, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
| |||