Template talk:Rejected

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK, do we actually have anything that has been superceded? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Things like Quickpolls, no? I think we should include "ignored" ;-) Grace Note 00:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Somewhat doubtful, but WP:ASS superseded the "limit to VFD nominations" thingy. However, supersession should probably not be tagged by this. Radiant_>|< 14:03, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New discussion

  • Reword and doc. The previous language shut the door too firmly on a rejected proposal. While sometimes we may want to nail the door shut, if not shove the entire thing into the river, it's important that we permit others to entertain the possibility of so editing a proposal that it meets community needs. John Reid 05:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Not a bad idea, however I would suggest amending the wording to clarify that a proposal does not need "consensus to reject" to be rejected. >Radiant< 15:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Should we make a distinction between proposals which have been explicitly rejected (ie. there was a consensus to reject them) and proposals which are simply inactive? This is the old version from a few days ago, which would seem directed at the second case. The current form of the template seems directed at the first case. --bainer (talk) 01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I'd say no. A proposal needs consensual support to be accepted and thus is rejected when it has no such support. We already have {{historical}} for inactive proposals, I don't see the need for more templates. >Radiant< 09:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I agree that the reject tag is too strongly worded or is too easy to apply. I think too many proposals have been slapped with {{rejected}} when {{No-consensus}} would be more appropriate, probably because {{No-consensus}} asserts "inactive". I think {{rejected}} is fine, but {{No-consensus}} needs rewording. SmokeyJoe 12:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{No-consensus}}

I suggesting a change to the wording of {{No-consensus}}. The "inactive" word is silly. There is typically great activity associated with a failing consensus. Therefore, "inactive" effective prevents the use of {{No-consensus}}, and it steers frustrated debaters to opt for the more dramatic {{rejected}}. It is also silly because a label is not required as the level of activity is plain to see in the history and the talk page. SmokeyJoe 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

For new wording I suggest:

This is a proposal has failed to achieve a consensus. If you want to revive discussion regarding the subject, please use the talk page. If discussion is inactive, consider seeking broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

SmokeyJoe 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes are unclear to less experienced users

My purpose for making the source of the tag's authority more clear is that it was misunderstood in several applications. I'm all for brevity, but sometimes it goes to far. I think that the current version makes it very clear where someone should go to see the actual policy. I would like a more specific description, but am willing to compromise for the sake of brevity. --Kevin Murray 18:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the objection is to having the tag be more specific in citing its source of authority, the policy page. I have found that less experienced users have had less objection to the rejection process if they understand the policy. My original attempt months ago was to have a more involved quote within the template, making the authority crystal clear. However, that size of template encountered a lot of opposition. I'm marginally satisfied with having a clearer link to the policy. Please consider my position. --Kevin Murray 19:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't not considering your position. Indeed, I merged your intentions with the existing text, and hopefully it's clearer for all. But removing the link to a specific spot on the policy page, to just generally linking to the policy page just leads to confusion. I think even the newest of newbies knows how to scroll up or down a webpage for further information. And just as I'm considering your position, I'm attemnpting to consider others' concerns of length. - jc37 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that linking to the actual spot is better. Still I don't see a disadvantage to making it very clear where the link goes. --Kevin Murray 19:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I put your link into my format so that the link goes to the section of the policy page. Should it go directly to the rejection paragraph? --Kevin Murray 19:36, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes. (see below) - jc37 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification

Let me make sure what we're talking about. You want added:

Per [[Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#How are policies started?|Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines]]:

Rather than simply having that link on the word "rejected"?

This seems minor, and I would think having the link on the word "rejected" would actually be more clear, and less "wordy". (And Radiant! - and others - may laugh at hearing me say that : )

What other reasons do you have for wishing the link drawn out rather than direct linking?

(Note, I added syntax at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#rejected, so that we can now link directly to the appropriate text.) - jc37 19:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I must have been unclear above. I just linked to where you had it linked in the prior version. This is much better. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Until you pointed it out above, I did not notice the more specific target of the other link. I think that the more specific targeting and more specific explanation of the link is a great combination. Thanks. As to being wordy, I think that these are a few words well spent. --Kevin Murray 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why? Are we presuming that users don't know how to click on a link? And just to be clear, adding the "Per..." phrasing splits up the initial statement from its definition, which is actually "less clear" in sense and tone. - jc37 20:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that they don't know how to click on a link. I'm saying that the target of the link is unclear. I'm OK with another form of linking which is explanatory but less disruptive to the flow. --Kevin Murray 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Try:

  • This proposal has been rejected by the community. A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Further explanation is available at: Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines
  • Which is "too wordy" again. You said above: "I'm OK with another form of linking which is explanatory but less disruptive to the flow." So how about:
  • This proposal has been rejected by the community. A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not.

We have a direct link to "rejected" which shows why the word is even used. We have direct correlation between the word and the definition. And the definition is clear. Why do you feel that we need the words "policies and guidelines" directly in the text? - jc37 20:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually let's move the link out of the bolded text. And by doing so, really make it clear where this definition comes from.

  • This proposal has been rejected by the community. A rejected proposal is any for which consensus to support is not present, and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not.

This should resolve it? - jc37 20:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Initially I'm not satisfied, but let's allow some time to think. It is better and may be a good compromise. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 21:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Grammar nitpick: the clause "regardless of discussion" should apply to consensus not being present, but it appears to apply to being unlikely to form. >Radiant< 08:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion of change from "rejected' to "failed"

The discussion supporting recent edits changing the wording from "rejected' to "failed" is at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines. --Kevin Murray (talk) 13:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where to link "failed"

Kevin, I disagree that the linking the first instance of "failed" in the template is better. Linking via the second instance ("A failed proposal") is less cryptic (it's clear that it will link to an explanation of failed proposals) than the first "... failed to attain consensus", and I feel emphasizing it in the way you advocate in the first line disrupts the flow of that sentence.

Hopefully you will see what I'm saying; if not, oh well.--Father Goose (talk) 05:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I like having the link early in the sentence and in bold, as it ties to the title of the template rather than having the first blue link being consensus. If you really see a benefit otherwise, just have two links. I left the other link in originally to avoid stepping on your toes. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)