| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the FPC urgents template. |
|
Question edit
The main objective of this template is to let reviewers know which nominations most urgently need reviews. It says that if a nomination is reasonably old and is neither obviously going to pass (i.e. consensus + 5 or more supports) nor obviously going to fail (i.e. at least 2 oppose votes and no supports outside of the nominator), it may be listed here. But is there any time limit for the nomination to be called as old as some nominators are adding their/some nominations just after 3 or 4 days from nomination? The herald 12:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- I'd say it depends on the number of nominations, and what's nearest the bottom, and how far they are from passing - a nomination with two votes that's a few days old is far more urgent than one with four, for instance. Equally importantly, it depends on how many nominations there are above it in the list - the first few nominations should never be on it, but if there's five nominations in a day, people might well not be scrolling down far enough to notice a not-particularly-old one, but if it's second in the list, it shouldn't be on here. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I say, let's put a time limit for a nomination to be added into the template, say, three days from nomination. Then we can call it as an urgent nomination. How's that? The herald 14:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- While that's a good limit, I suspect putting that in would encourage people to add not-yet-particularly-urgent ones three days in. I'd just remove anything added before that. I do kind of like seeing it used, though, so I'll sometimes throw in one I normally wouldn't if there's nothing more pressing and it isn't too ridiculous. I don't always check the dates on those carefully, so feel free to delete those. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well anyway, shall I incorporate the time limit into the template or shall we go for a consensus among frequent FPC nominators...? Asking for a consensus is a better option in this kind of situation (IMHO). The herald 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put it into the template; if you say a day it can be put on, people will add it the minute that day occurs. But I think we can take "at least three days" as a rough consensus. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well anyway, shall I incorporate the time limit into the template or shall we go for a consensus among frequent FPC nominators...? Asking for a consensus is a better option in this kind of situation (IMHO). The herald 14:48, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- While that's a good limit, I suspect putting that in would encourage people to add not-yet-particularly-urgent ones three days in. I'd just remove anything added before that. I do kind of like seeing it used, though, so I'll sometimes throw in one I normally wouldn't if there's nothing more pressing and it isn't too ridiculous. I don't always check the dates on those carefully, so feel free to delete those. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
- Can anyone fix Thomas Muller, please. It's a red link. Hafspajen (talk) 10:17, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I say, let's put a time limit for a nomination to be added into the template, say, three days from nomination. Then we can call it as an urgent nomination. How's that? The herald 14:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)