11,455
edits
WiKirby:Proposals: Difference between revisions
m
→Change featured article requirement 3 (February 7, 2020 - February 21, 2020): Supporting.
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
#Lending my support. I think an abstract isn't always necessary if the details can be better covered in the main article. [[User:StrawberryChan|StrawberryChan]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC) | #Lending my support. I think an abstract isn't always necessary if the details can be better covered in the main article. [[User:StrawberryChan|StrawberryChan]] ([[User talk:StrawberryChan|talk]]) 20:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
#I support this proposal. After all, one of the writing policies states "Short articles and/or sections aren't bad if there's not much to talk about." Two policies shouldn't contradict each other, and I don't think length should be a requirement. {{User:Cowguy/sig}} 01:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) | #I support this proposal. After all, one of the writing policies states "Short articles and/or sections aren't bad if there's not much to talk about." Two policies shouldn't contradict each other, and I don't think length should be a requirement. {{User:Cowguy/sig}} 01:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
#Agree with literally everyone else for this particular proposal. Similar to what Cowguy said, short articles do not automatically mean they're bad. Sometimes there's not much to talk about, so trying to add more information would just be unnecessary fluff. – [[User:Owencrazyboy17|Owencrazyboy17]] ([[User talk:Owencrazyboy17|talk]]) 01:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC) | |||
{{Oppose}} | {{Oppose}} | ||
{{Neutral}} | {{Neutral}} | ||