Template talk:Recap

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Templates for deletion This template was considered for deletion on 2008 February 17. The result of the discussion was to keep.

Contents

[edit] Experimenting

This is a 5-day recap of the discussion above. Please see Template:Recap for important information about this notice, especially if you plan to edit its content.
This is not the place to make original arguments.

Summary of Delete rationale
  1: Because it sucks
  2: Because it really sucks

Summary of Keep rationale
  1: Because it's cool
  2: Because it's really cool
  3: Because it's fracking cool
  4: Because it's a really vorpally, frackingly cool article!!!

Additional comments: Relist to generate additional feedback


This template was originally posted by:

[edit] TO-DO LIST

This is the list of things needed to be done or incorporated into this template.

A technical recommendation: provide an overall summary line for free-form text at the very bottom. This could be used for a new comment like "This debate has seen an increase in activity lately due to some major improvements to the article; this reviewer recommends relisting it." Place a line at the top that says this template has been added to the discussion by <signature>.
A useage recommendation: the template documentation should provide some guidance on how to use the template, not just technically, but also philosophically. Some key philosophical points that I recommend are:
  • Do not put the template in place prior to the 5-day initial review period expiring, nor until the new 5 day review period expiring after a relist.
  • The template contents should not offer any new arguments, any judgements on the arguments, and should be expressed in a purely neutral manner. IE: do not summarize the comments of the keeps with well-worded phrases wikilinked to policies and leave all the typos and grammar errors of the deletes in place. Do not highlight errors in any comments like "(SIC)". It would be the most obviously neutral if this template was added by a user who did not participate in the debate (similar to a closing administrator's role).
  • The template should always be substed. Changes to the template should not change the contents of archived debates. The template should bear bold red wording "Error: always subst this template!" if it is used directly in the wikipedia namespace.

the foregoing copied from User talk:Jerry, an admin who liked the template and provided these excellent recommendations.

All done. I disagree with 5-day minimum and have posted a response at Jerry's talk page, but for now I've made 5 days the default "days" setting. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:43, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the minimum five-day bit. The point is that if a discussion is beyond the traditional five days, there must be a reason, such as it being so convoluted that nobody wants to deal with it. I don't think I'd use it under seven days. I think there needs to be a minimum guideline but users are free to do with it what they will. VigilancePrime (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contributors

[edit] Comments and Collaboration

Eq, is it possible to incorporate a :* [[USERNAME]] for the "in favor of" section and add :# at the start of each "argument" line? VigilancePrime (talk) 04:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I tried to do that but it doesn't seem to produce magic numbers and bullets the same way direct-editing a page does. I'll add some alternative, perhaps the • character for bullets. The numbers should be easy to add but I'll have to add them in manually in the code (1,2,3 instead of #, #, #). More than doable though. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:46, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)
Done those requests :) Equazcion •✗/C • 05:16, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)