Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo/archive2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I do not think that re-nominating the article so soon was the right thing to do. Editing an archived nomination is also very uncommon, to say the least. Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself. Lupo 07:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Lupo, I asked for clarification on your talk page, but, since you have not answered, here's a reprint below.--GordonWattsDotCom 19:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
- Neither am I; I replied here. Thx.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:03, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
3 Questions: Meta, Re-nom, and which-page-is-which?
Here you say:
I do not think that re-nominating the article so soon was the right thing to do. Editing an archived nomination is also very uncommon, to say the least. Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself. Lupo 07:59, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I have questions about this:
- First what is a "meta-comment" (diff) (hist) . . N Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Terri Schiavo; 07:59 . . Lupo (Talk) (Meta-comment)
- Second, I address re-nomination: I fixed the past problems --also Schiavo was suggested as a Featured Article in the Last Two peer reviews. It improved since then, and then more with recent edits. The "Edit war" is temporary," and does not reflect on quality.
- You say: "Discussion about a nomination is to be done on the talk page of the FAC nomination, not within the nomination itself." What is the difference between the two? I discussed it on the nomination talk page -what other pages are there?