User talk:SlimVirgin/draft

Support and Oppose
HBH's RFC effectively proposed that sourcing to the Daily Mail should be restricted but to an extent short of prohibition. It was oddly phrased to ask a question "should it be prohibited?" and then to put forward a response to the effect of "not fully". So a pedantic !vote would be to have answered the question yes/no and the response support/oppose. I don't think anyone answered in this way (I did not). Hence I think the support/oppose classification is unhelpful since we do not know for sure what each individual person thought was being proposed.

However, everyone provided an expression of their opinion beyond a bolded word. Many "support" !votes were qualified in a way to allow for some exceptions, others specified that no exceptions should be allowed at all (JRPG). By these standards I think most people in your "support without qualification" category can be separated into those favouring complete prohibition and those not. Likewise for the "oppose" votes. "Supports" such as from Betty Logan I really cannot tell whether she intended to support the question or the nominator's suggested response. Some opposes also leave me uncertain. Thincat (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * , I agree., this was a difficult RfC to close because of the way the question was worded, and because some people gave responses not entirely commensurate with their support or oppose positions. Are you willing to add to your close some words to reflect that nuance? SarahSV (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If you would like to challenge the closure of an RFC, the correct venue for this is WP:AN. I'd suggest starting a(nother!) new subsection to the existing discussion in order to formally challenge the outcome. With regards to redoing the wording, this was arrived at by discussion between the closers over the course of a couple of days, and I'm therefore unwilling to amend that wording unilaterally. Every response in an RFC is liable to be nuanced in one way or another, and thus a close that individually addressed every nuance of every !vote would end up being longer than the RFC itself. Yunshui 雲 水 15:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you for the response. SarahSV (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'd actively appreciate a challenge at AN, a formal review would be far better than the rather directionless commentary that's currently going on there. Yunshui 雲 水 15:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Readers may be interested to see the thread "Master list of banned sources?" on Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I am not sure that this draft page is the best place for this post so feel free to copy/paraphrase this elsewhere for more eyes if you so wish. DrChrissy (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)