User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Comments and discussion section

Comments as a separate section (Archive 30)

I just wish to enquire, is there any reason why the comments part (when an RfA gets long) shouldn't be a separate section? On R. Fiend's RfA, he changed it so that it was and Ceropia changed it back. Just wish for clarification, thank you. --Celestianpower ^hab 22:33, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

They are not separate sections so as to not spam the TOC. IIRC, I've seen they changed to separate sections when the RfA gets really long. --cesarb 22:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

So is it okay in R. Fiend's case as he asked for it? --Celestianpower ^hab 22:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's not needed; it's not that long. You should ask a bureaucrat, since they are usually the ones to "manage" the RfA page (oh, wait, isn't Cecropia a bureaucrat?) --cesarb 03:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Question, please, on how to correctly add comments to an RfA ? (Archive 57)

Sorry to interject this dumb question here, but I am still fairly new, and don't know where else to ask it. I noticed that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zpb52 contains numerous comments in the voting sections. I commented a strong oppose in a previous RfA, which another editor moved (away from my vote, and to the bottom of the page, under comments). [1] The follow-up I received on my concerns was after the RfA closed (from an editor who took difference with me on my talk page). [2] For the future, I would like to understand the correct usage of comments supporting one's vote: should my comments have been moved to the bottom by another editor, or do comments belong in the voting section, as in the RfA referenced above? TIA. Sandy 23:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't move a comment without asking the commentor first, but I understand why someone moved your comment - it was LONG! Generally, you should use no more than a couple of lines explaining your support or oppose vote and elaborate further, if necessary, in the comments section. (You could also say "See Comment below".) Otherwise, long comments would clutter up the Support and Oppose sections. —Cuivi é nen^T|C|M, Thursday, 18 May 2006 @ 02:08 UTC

LOL - Ok, thanks for the info. If there's a next time, I'll aim for brevity, and squeal if someone moves my comments without asking. Thanks again. Sandy 02:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I want a comment section (Archive 68)

So I can comment without supporting/opposeing or being neutral. Like I can on AFD. The current one appears to be for the various edit count things only.Geni 22:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. While we're at it, could we agree to remove all that clutter such as stats and q&a to the end? This is about whether the guy is fit to be an admin, not the output of some bloody computer program and not what he has to say about himself on the hustings. You actually have to look at his edits in detail, there's probably no other way, and putting all that clutter at the front gives completely the wrong impression. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is a comment section, but like Tony said, alot of clutter is there. Yank sox 22:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, Geni, what sort of comments are you thinking of that couldn't be covered in a reply to a support/oppose/neutral, or in a question to the candidate, or on the candidate's talk page, or on the rfa's talkpage? I understand what you mean about the current comments section, and I'm not rejecting the idea of de-cluttering it; I just can't think of an example of a comment that doesn't already have a reasonable place (or two, or three.) Picaroon9288 01:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

things simular to nomination statements. Info that I think is important in a particular case. Basicialy where I want to say stuff while resevering judgement on the candidate.Geni 02:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Part of the redesign I proposed was to move the comment section to the top. This certainly was not to move up the edit counts and statistics, it was to encourage its use for discussion. (Until recently, of course, it was much easier because we didn't have huge tables of edit counts, just a line, but now edit counts are on the talk page, so it should be easier.) Feel free to comment in the comments section; if you start doing it, hopefully others will also. --Rory096 05:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a consensus building excersize. You can drop all the sections except comments! ;-) Use that section, folks! Kim Bruning 08:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've used the comments section a couple of times to make comments. See the RfA for Runcorn. If you put your comment at the bottom of the section it sits nicely directly above the support section, in the current design. Tyrenius 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)