Template talk:ACE 2008 guides

Some are not more equal than others[edit]

This template should be available for all editors, or else it should be deleted. We do not have a guideline called Wikipedia:Some are more equal than others. Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue we probably should remove the link to "Ameliorate! (voter guide guide)", as it's clearly a very different species than the other members of this set. All the others discuss candidates, whereas that discusses people who have written guides about candidates. Just my two cents. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Alecmconroy. It has no place here. I already removed it, but got reverted. Al Tally ^talk 23:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur that Ameliorate's guide should be removed. Alternatively, we could create a "metaguide" section of the template, where we put links to the "guides to the guides" or "humor guides". --El on ka 00:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ameliorate! removed his own guide from the list. I think that's case closed on the issue of whether it belongs :) Wizardman 00:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see a couple of guide authors have removed a meta guide. That does not seem right. Guide authors should not remove competing or critical opinions. As was suggested above, a metaguide section would be appropriate if it is helpful to distinguish the different types. Jehochman ^Talk 07:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only restored the original format from your "ugly design", and the page is not critical of the guide works, but ridiculed "the authors". Elonka rightfully removed the user's entry per the above consensus here. Seek a consensus. --Caspian blue 07:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking a consensus. The "Ugly" design was suggested above, but if you want to create something more beautiful, go for it. Censoring somebody's opinion is not the right thing to do. Ameliorate! has as much right to state their opinions as you do. If you disagree, just post a note on the guide's talk page to register your objections. If you think it's an attack page, make a case for deletion or partial blanking; don't just unilaterally remove it. Jehochman ^Talk 07:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I did not remove the entry at all, but made the template go back to the better design than yours. Check the diffs. There are ONLY unilateral edits disregarding the current consensus; those are yours.--Caspian blue 07:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe we had a bit of an edit war over whose guides should be on the guide to the guides template. :) That said I have to put my opinion in anyway... Ameliorate's is a different species than Caspian's and probably those two didn't need to be broken out separately. Just a (meta) after Caspian's is enough. A's removing his own seems definitive on inclusion though. (I'm either hurt or relieved that A had no opinion on mine! Not sure which.) THAT said I think anyone who doesn't have the guide template on their guide shouldn't be listed (no dead end pages you have to backtrack from) :) How's that for a new controversy? ++Lar: t/c 16:52, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we really need is a guide to the guides to the guides page, where we guide users to the guides to the guides are useful as guidance and we guide others to the guides to the guides that are less useful as guidance. but then...Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of whether to include someone's guide who doesn't link back, I'd say yes, that if it's a useful guide, let's link it. I'm interested in what other people are thinking.

As a separate question, what do others think about including this template on the "voting" pages when they go live? Right now the guides are apparent to those who keep very up-to-date on such things, but I'd guess the majority of the wiki has no idea that they exist. Or to put it another way: I assume that when voting goes live, that an announcement is going to be posted at the top of everyone's watchlist pages. Should a link to these guides be included with that announcement? Or should we keep it as what it is, an organized way of collating notes among a relatively small group of editors? --El on ka 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even too fond of linking them in the "See also" section of the election's main page, and certainly think "guide" is a misnomer. But I guess I prefer keeping it as what it is to the announcement suggested by Elonka. I don't think this selection of editors' opinions should be highlighted.

From last year, I recall voters adding a link to their votes, a link to userspace, explaining their rationale for support/oppose/abstain. I thought that was a good idea, and suggest that the authors link to their guides in a similar fashion, next to their votes/signatures. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors should be encouraged to read the candidates' statements, and their answers to the questions. We should not encourage voting blocks, nor should we place editorials on the official voting page headers. Jehochman ^Talk 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good idea I saw in linking next to one's signature on a vote page is that it gives the candidates a chance to read the reasoning behind a particular vote, and possibly even learn something, while other interested readers might get something out of it too. I think this would be both helpful and fair. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Sluzzelin. So, let's not make a big deal about the guides, but anyone who chooses, can link to their guide from their vote for more information. That's in line with how we've done things in the past. --El on ka 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

I'm a bit concerned that on a quick glance, it makes it look like the people with the guides in this tempate, are the candidates. So to someone not familiar with the elections, it might look like the guides here are "voting guides on each of the following candidates". To address this, how about we add the names of all the (active) candidates to the top of the template, with links to their voting pages? I think that would make it more clear who the actual candidates are. --El on ka 17:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]