User talk:Masem/NoteRFC

I don't agree with section #2
I don't think anyone want's to change WP:NOT or WP:NPOV, that's ridiculous. What I have seen is the argument that WP:NOTE is a basic repeat of WP:RS, WP:NOT, WP:V, and others. I don't remember seeing anyone wanting to do away with WP policies. Where does that come from? padillaH (review me)(help me) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right now, for example, WP:V has this line: If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. If consensus agreed that we should have more expansive inclusion guidelines, this line would be very difficult to justify and would need to be removed.  Similarly, WP:PLOT would have to be rewritten if we do end up allowing for, say, individual episode articles without anything but plot.  This is not to undermine the policies, but to make them harmonious with each other and the consensus arrived here.  Remember, this RFC is not just a NOTE issue, though that's where it will have the most impact.  --M ASEM  16:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to NOT and NOR, because those two have been specifically mentioned as needing changes. It's just an example list, not intended to be exhaustive. Kww (talk)

section 2
I thought these were to be proposals (yes/no) not a request for input. As #2 reads, there is no yes/no question. Or at least I can't figure out how to respond. Hobit (talk) 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Gavin has been asked to turn this into a question but hasn't. The actual discussion is at the WP:N talk page. padillaH (review me)(help me) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes/No
Further to reply to Masem at WT:N, I agree that it will be easier to put questions that require only a simple yes/no response to enourage response. However, this appoach is flawed in the sense that simple yes/no response which is not supported by proposals for change is likely not to be feasible. There is therefore a presumption that a yes/no response is supported by some sort of justification/explaination, but that does not stop contributors from adding their views even if they are unsupported or are not feasible. --Gavin Collins (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)