Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 March 19

Nominator's comment

Comment I have struck through the !vote by the nomiator. The nomination is their opinion and does not require reinforcement. Fiddle Faddle 08:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t strike through other’s comments. It’s not uncommon for a nomination to give a summary of their position in a brief comment below the nomination. –xeno^talk 12:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I thought I was following normal practice. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this specific case, the striking was OK. It's a bit of a quirk in the process, but at XfD specifically, it's usually unnecessary to add a separate bolded "delete" !vote below the nomination, and it risks giving the impression that there is more support for the proposal than there actually is. This is distinct from the practice at RfCs where it is common for nominators to elaborate on their rationales after giving a neutral presentation in the initial proposal. Mz7 (talk) 16:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mz7, you may be right. I've moved the sidebar here and left a brief explanatory comment. –xeno^talk 18:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: This is a sidebar; I don't want to distract from the main conversation: if the argument is that a viewing user will think there are two people (the nominator and the commenter with the same name immediately below it), then the same argument (that this viewer will think there is more support than there is) could be said in reverse: striking it will make that viewer think there is less support than there is, because that same inattentive user thinks the very first person to support the nomination has abandoned their position (being too inattentive to look at the stricken comment to see who was responsible for the striking). The correct course of action, if you're concerned about Locke Cole's bulleted comment, would be to ask them to kindly reformat, rather than striking their words which makes it seem like a position has been withdrawn though to be clear Fiddle Faddle, there's no worries from me about your good faith striking. –xeno^talk 17:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, Thank you for your comments on my striking. Fiddle Faddle 17:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks Xeno, these are all fair points, and I agree that most productive approach would've been to ask Locke Cole directly to reformat. I just wanted to provide a bit more context as to why Fiddle Faddle refactored the comment—I've seen experienced editors strike these sorts of "Delete as nom" !votes at XfD before, and it's not as clear-cut a WP:TPO violation as your comment made it out to be. Mz7 (talk) 17:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the context- if it has become fairly common practice, it should perhaps be mentioned in there somewhere as an exception to the guideline (I was relying on "Striking out text constitutes a change in meaning. It should be done only by the user who wrote it, or as otherwise provided in this talk page guideline.") –xeno^talk 17:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent, Xeno, and Mz7: For my part, I usually do this so that if I want to add additional thoughts on my nomination I can simply reply to my !vote to add them without getting into an issue of editing the nomination directly. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locke Cole, If I do that I preface it by "Comment" Fiddle Faddle 19:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly I'm an odd duck. :P —Locke Cole • t • c 06:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]