Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Requests for comment/Resysopping practices page. |
|
| Archives: 1 |
|
|
Closure
In keeping consistent with the previous two resysopping and recrating RfCs closures, I have offered to close this RfC when the time comes.—cyberpower ChatOffline 21:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have no objection to you closing it. I also mentioned it to Ironholds given his prior experience closing complex RFCs. MBisanz talk 22:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- First, I have no objection to a closure by cyberpower. However, to MBisanz, if this gets any more complex (or recieves a large number of replies), would it be too horrible to have a multi-closure? By cyberpower and Ironholds for example? gwickwiretalkedits 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. As a matter of fact it's always good to coordinate and get a second set of eyes on closing complex RfCs. I have no objection to closing in conjunction with someone else.—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fine with me to have multiple closers. I would also suggest that you may want to close some of the options that have absolutely no support once it is clear that they have no chance of passing and only wait until the end of the for those areas where there is active discussion. MBisanz talk 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I do that by default. :)—cyberpower ChatOffline 00:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- Fine with me to have multiple closers. I would also suggest that you may want to close some of the options that have absolutely no support once it is clear that they have no chance of passing and only wait until the end of the for those areas where there is active discussion. MBisanz talk 23:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- No. As a matter of fact it's always good to coordinate and get a second set of eyes on closing complex RfCs. I have no objection to closing in conjunction with someone else.—cyberpower ChatOffline 22:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- First, I have no objection to a closure by cyberpower. However, to MBisanz, if this gets any more complex (or recieves a large number of replies), would it be too horrible to have a multi-closure? By cyberpower and Ironholds for example? gwickwiretalkedits 22:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Would anyone oppose moving those that have been SNOW closed to a subpage of "failed" after about 24 hrs, to allow new proposals to be proposed without making this page long/large in size? gwickwiretalkedits 23:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- I was actually thinking of collapsing them.—cyberpower ChatOffline 23:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
- That works as well. Thanks. gwickwiretalkedits 23:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Bolding of section names in the Table of Contents
Howdy all. Was it intentional to have the names of sections 2 and 3 be bolded in the Table of Contents? It isn't a big deal, I'm just curious. I don't typically see them bolded like that.--Rockfang (talk) 07:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Closing
I will officially close this RfC if there are no further comments in the next 16 hours.—cyberpower ChatOffline 23:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
- Go for it (don't let my snow section-close stop you!) – Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that the community was not asked whether we need any further guidelines here are all. I'd hate an a/b/c/ choice survey to be used as justification for codifying crat practices. If that happens, the survey has simply assumed its own conclusions.--Scott Mac 09:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Noted. I'll begin the close sometime tonight. I don't have anytime today to do it.—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind that the community was not asked whether we need any further guidelines here are all. I'd hate an a/b/c/ choice survey to be used as justification for codifying crat practices. If that happens, the survey has simply assumed its own conclusions.--Scott Mac 09:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC)