Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Discussion

It says "RIsker". Shouldn't it say "Risker"? Hey Mid  (contributions) 09:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, fixed.  Skomorokh   11:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Another discussion option?
There is no option for discussing the candidates, and voting rationales, en masse. I was tempted to WP:Boldly create one, but upon a couple of dry runs in preview mode thought it best to determine that there was a need and have those disposed to organising these pages to include it as required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why you don't want to use the rather modest-traffic main election talkpage? If so, Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates is available.  Skomorokh   14:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Other than my belief in that "modesty" is not a virtue? Yes; those pages are orientated toward process and procedure and not upon the general character of this years batch of candidates - whereas the individuals are given this opportunity on the main page attached to this one. An option would be for me to copy and paste my thoughts on this matter on each individuals page, but this would be rather unweildy and not specific to any one candidate. I suggest a transcluded page where comments on the suitability of the group of candidates would be best, provided under those for the individuals? LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * There are already too many pages to follow, too much sprawl and bureaucratic scope-creep. The main election talkpage is underused ("modest-traffic"), and not at all restricted to process and procedure, more of which would seem to be on the way if we set up yet another page. I'm not going to stand in your way if you want to go ahead with that, but I would urge you to look for ideas at the election talkpage because, surprise surprise, practically no-one else will notice our conversation here. Regards,  Skomorokh   15:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * ... too much sprawl and bureaucratic scope-creep ... : you got that right! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)