This wiki has been through a lot since I was gone.--Claire 16:55, 29 February 2008 (EST)
Layout[]
So this page looks pretty nasty. It was really just thrown together, and I'd like to clean it up, but I'm not sure what to do. SO.
We could maybe get rid of the level 3 headers (=== These ===) and just have a straight-up list. I left the headers in for quicker searching through the TOC, but if they're removed, it'll also consolidate the size of the page (which was the intent of including the {{hide}} template in the first place) as well as remove those distracting [edit] buttons which get blend with the [show] buttons and it's crazy. But then there's the question of how to organize them: chronologically, in the order of failure, or alphabetically for easier searching through (considering the page's purpose is to show potential nominators if what they're planning on nominating has failed previously and why)? Or should we go with a different plan entirely? Thoughts, comments, ideas? Once this page is cleared up, I'll apply the layout to other archives across the site (as well as a few other page ideas I've got). —Ando (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- It might be better if we stick with chronologically. It is more historical.Matt (Talk) 01:11, October 20, 2008 (UTC)
- 'Second with removing the 'edit' buttons, I just accidentally hit one instead of the 'show' button. I also agree with Matt about keeping them in chronological order, it'd be easier for people to find an article/picture if they are searching for it from a certain date. — Steve 01:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
- Huh... I was thinking that alphabetical order would be better (since, as I've said, the whole purpose of the page is to show potential nominators if what they're planning on nominating has failed previously and why), but hey, we can try chronological and see what works. I'm gonna do this now and see how it looks. —Ando (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
A Suggestion[]
As per the guidelines at the present, a good portion of the earlier failed nominations should not could as failed considering the emptiness and the "personal feeling" of the comments. Comments such as "Its an interesting picture, but I don't know..." should not count as an opposition, as it doesn't provide any insight as to why it is opposed. Thus, many of these pictures didn't receive the legitimate three votes needed for retraction, and should be able to go back up for consideration. User:Cipriano 119/sig 17:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- New rules are not retroactive. They don't apply to previous content that did or didn't get on in the old system. But anyone could certainly re-nominate stuff that previously failed.Matt (Talk) 20:03, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's good then. There were a couple worthy images back in the pack that I could see having a another run in the future... Just wanted to make sure that could work. User:Cipriano 119/sig 03:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)