Jump to content

User:Proteins/Sandbox4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Proteins (talk | contribs) at 00:26, 24 October 2008 (test both spaced and unspaced). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Academic test

This is spaced, undented text.

This text is indented once.
This text is also indented once.
This text is once again indented once.

This is unspaced, undented text.

This text is indented once.
This text is also indented once.
This text is once again indented once.

Spaced, multi-indented real-world text

In light of the ongoing discussions, and considering I've seen multiple instant re-noms lately (within three or four days, sometimes within only one day after archiving), I added this to the FAC instructions. Please review my addition. It takes four edits minimum to remove a premature re-nom, and usually results in a longer discussion with an angry nominator; having something in the instructions may help. There have always been exceptions: as an example, suppose I were to misread a nomination and completely miss Supports (haven't done that yet, but it could happen); then we would allow a re-nom right away. There could be other extenuating circumstances. I read the discussions and concerns about FAC being stretched thin above as asking for more time between noms to better address issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vague "several weeks at least" be replaced with a concrete, say, "two weeks at least"? --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think two is "several"! The moment you add a number, you can forget about "at least". It might be worth adding that the Director and delegate can remove any nomination that is clearly not ready, or not sufficiently changed since the last FAC. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Thats my point "several" should be defined in terms of time. Also, maybe a peer review can be made compulsory before the next FAC.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Or it could be dealt with case-by-case, in which articles can be renominated once the issues from the previous FACs are sufficiently addressed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Compulsory peer review has been disapproved by the FAC community many times, for good reason. Almost everything at FAC, in fact on Wiki, is dealt with case by case; the wording should allow that flexibility. I don't disagree with Johnbod's suggestion, although I can't envision every doing that except in the cases already allowed (significant contributors not consulted and premature re-nom), so I'm not sure we need it. If a FAC is clearly badly unprepared, a few quick opposes will solve that; I archive almost daily. Actually, "several" probably should have been "two". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)