CZ Talk:Article Inclusion Policy: Difference between revisions
imported>Joe Quick (suggestion) |
imported>Johan Förberg |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==suggest a rephrase== | ==suggest a rephrase== | ||
I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I suggest the first paragraph be slightly rewritten as follows: <blockquote>An article may be deleted by editorial decision in cases where all three of the following criteria are met: a) the aricle has significant weaknesses; b) deleting its content would remove nothing of importance from the project; and c) it is unlikely to be improved as there is no active interest from any member of Citizendium in developing it.</blockquote> I adjusted the grammar for the list and removed an unnecesary introductory phrase: it should be obvious that this is a policy, since it is in CZ: space and has been confirmed by the Editorial Council. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I suggest the first paragraph be slightly rewritten as follows: <blockquote>An article may be deleted by editorial decision in cases where all three of the following criteria are met: a) the aricle has significant weaknesses; b) deleting its content would remove nothing of importance from the project; and c) it is unlikely to be improved as there is no active interest from any member of Citizendium in developing it.</blockquote> I adjusted the grammar for the list and removed an unnecesary introductory phrase: it should be obvious that this is a policy, since it is in CZ: space and has been confirmed by the Editorial Council. --[[User:Joe Quick|Joe Quick]] 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Joe, this is the exact wording of the motion which we passed. I agree that we should paraphrase the policy and explain it to users in an accessible way. I also think the the exact, binding text of the Regulation should be included in some way, perhaps as an aside? I don't think we should just change the text of the reg without noting that this version has been changed from the actual text which was passed by the EC. | |||
:Good critique is, good. [[User:Johan A. Förberg|Johan A. Förberg]] 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:19, 7 December 2010
Inadequate?
In the resolution itself, "inadequate" is struck through, which I interpret as an intention to drop the word from the final phrasing. Yet here, it is still there. Thanks for clarification. --Daniel Mietchen 05:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
suggest a rephrase
I don't mean to criticize anyone, but I suggest the first paragraph be slightly rewritten as follows:
An article may be deleted by editorial decision in cases where all three of the following criteria are met: a) the aricle has significant weaknesses; b) deleting its content would remove nothing of importance from the project; and c) it is unlikely to be improved as there is no active interest from any member of Citizendium in developing it.
I adjusted the grammar for the list and removed an unnecesary introductory phrase: it should be obvious that this is a policy, since it is in CZ: space and has been confirmed by the Editorial Council. --Joe Quick 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Joe, this is the exact wording of the motion which we passed. I agree that we should paraphrase the policy and explain it to users in an accessible way. I also think the the exact, binding text of the Regulation should be included in some way, perhaps as an aside? I don't think we should just change the text of the reg without noting that this version has been changed from the actual text which was passed by the EC.
- Good critique is, good. Johan A. Förberg 23:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)