Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-02-23/Discussion report

"Proposal to replace FAC"
This section is very confusing. It seems to slide between two different issues - FAC, the process of choosing which articles are given the designation "Featured" and TFA, the process of choosing the FA to appear on the Main Page. Of course, the debate may be about both, but that's not clear from the text. --Dweller (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm being unfair. It seems it's the Proposal that's confusing, not your report. Ignore me. --Dweller (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Build the web
"A group of editors"? Please work on your neutral phrasing a little more. Also, copy-and-pasting one side of a disagreement - "historical seems more appropriate" - is a really poor show at fairly representing a discussion. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   04:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) How else should I describe a handful of editors? Cabal work better for you? 2) I copied a proposal. I tried to keep neutral by using other's comments from both sides. I felt the proposal was linked to enough that it could be included instead of using an interpretation on what the proposer was doing. I didn't say "The best part of the discussion was when an awesome proposal came into play. All those cabally editors who always whine about what other people do think it's stoooopid." Did I? You're always free to contribute to the Post, but please don't just come in stomping your feet about what everybody else did "wrong". It does nobody any good. This comment does not reflect the opinion of any other editor or entity of the Wikipedia Signpost, this editor claims full responsibility for their contributions. §hep  Talk  05:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A blockquote signifies just that, a quote. It isn't my position to modify the text of a proposal, that would present an unfair bias. §hep  Talk  05:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, "a group" of editors can be read as implying something like a gang. "Several", "some" or even "a few" editors are unambiguous. Regarding the proposal, the parenthetical part of the first quoted point is editorializing on its author's part, and could have been left out without affecting the factual content of the article at all. I would elide it myself, but jumping into your work and editing it doesn't feel right. I hope you'll do so.

I'm not "stomping my feet". Just pointing out that when you're writing news articles destined to be read by hundreds or thousands of people, you need to be extremely careful about how you represent disputes, even more so when quoting parts of one. I hope you can accept this as suggestions made in good faith. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   12:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a wiki, feel free to fix anything you see that could be upgraded. I hope my changes are sufficient? §hep  Talk  16:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks - that's great. The Signpost feels a bit more personal than encyclopedia articles, so I was being cautious. :) Best wishes. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)