Talk:Vote unitarity: Difference between revisions
→Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity": POV articles would only allow one viewpoint
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity": I don't have a problem with articles like this) |
Psephomancy (talk | contribs) (→Possibly moving this article to "User:Dr._Edmonds/Vote_Unitarity": POV articles would only allow one viewpoint) |
||
Line 7:
I don't really have a problem with articles like this being in the main namespace. There are already a bunch of articles about concepts that were invented here or on the mailing list, as Dr. Edmonds points out. (Though [[PLACE FAQ]] would be equally legitimate by that logic, and he wants that one removed?)
My proposal for an Advocacy: namespace or template was actually for even more blatantly biased articles, like "Why you should choose Method Z instead of Method Q" or "Why Criteria X is more important than Criteria Y", where edits are only welcome if they are "friendly" = from people who agree with the premise. This article isn't like those, since it makes sense for anyone to contribute to it, even those who disagree with something and want to insert criticism of it.
Maybe the article should just say in the text that it's a new concept, who invented it, and where it has been discussed so far? Some other articles do that. — [[User:Psephomancy|Psephomancy]] ([[User talk:Psephomancy|talk]]) 15:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
| |||