Forum:SH Archive/Nominations

I have a couple of issues with the nomination rules. I actually meant to bring these up at the most recent Mofference, but the likely response would have been "SH it," and after two hours of voting, attendees were anxious to get back to sleeping/finishing ESB/what-have-you. So, here are the issues I'm having:

First (the simple issue), rule #7 on "How to vote" of WP:FAN states: "Per Inquisitorius consensus, no Inquisitor may use their Inqvote on their own nominations." This is misleading for a few reasons. It implies that an inquisitor can vote on their own nominations at all, which, as I understand it, is untrue. Also, WP:GAN and WP:CAN have no respective rule like this, again implying that a nominator can vote on their own nomination, which, again as I understand it, is untrue. If my understanding of the rules is flawed, then perhaps no change is needed. Otherwise, I suggest saying "Per [SH or whatever] consensus, no nominator may vote on their own nomination," on all three nomination pages. This eliminates the need to specify that an Inq can't use their Inqvote on their own nomination, an AC can't use their ACvote on their own nomination, etc.

My second (and more complicated) issue is in regards to rule #4 of the "How to vote" of WP:CAN, which states the following:

"There are several ways in which an article can receive the required number of votes. Within a 48-hour period of nomination, only EduCorps votes will count towards the total, although anyone may choose to vote in that window. If two members of the EduCorps support a nomination in that window, and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template 48 hours after the initial nomination.  The talk page will also be tagged with the CA template. When the 48 hours are up, any user's votes will contribute towards the total. If one EduCorps member has voted for an article after a week, three regular votes will be required. After the 48 hour period, an article can still also pass with just two EduCorps votes."

I think I understand, but I'm not sure. My interpretation is this: In the first 48 hours, anyone can vote, but only EC votes count, and the article requires two EC votes to pass. Between 48 hours and a week, the article can pass with two EC votes. After a week, one EC vote and three regular votes are required. There is something wrong here. If only EC votes count "within a 48 hour period," why is there no mention of the regular votes in the 48-hour to one week window? Obviously, I'm missing something. The rule as it is written currently is confusing&mdash;needlessly, in my opinion. It could be much clearer if it stated something along these lines: "Within 48 hours after the nomination, [a] votes count, and [b] votes are needed to pass. Between 48 hours and one week, [c] votes count and [d] votes are required to pass. After one week, [e] votes count and [f] votes are required to pass. If the above requirements are met and there are no outstanding objections, the article can be considered a "Comprehensive article" and be tagged with the template, and the talk page can be tagged with the CA template."

As you can see, I'm not suggesting any changes here, just better wording so new nominators are not confused as to what is required of their article. Again, if I am missing the obvious or if my interpretation of the rules is flawed, please let me know. Thank you!&mdash; Axinal  Convocation Chamber 01:58, April 8, 2011 (UTC)