ErrolC: Move previous discussion from parent page + comment

2006-02-20T04:30:45Z

Move previous discussion from parent page + comment

New page

==6. Ranking==
Only Namers can rank names. So when you can rank them only applies to Namers.

If a non-Namer was to acquire the ability to rank Names then it depends on the write-up. But by default I would say no, they should rank it in 'normal time'.

[[User:Stephen|Stephen]] 15:52, 17 Feb 2006 (NZDT)
----
Non-Namers can learn Names however (see 6.9). I didn't think that there was any difference between learning and ranking for these purposes (learning being a subset of ranking).

However 6 intro, 6.9, and 17.2 are all consistent (if you take the 'alongside' in 6.9 to be different from 'additional'), so I'm thinking that the extra track was always intended for Namers only, and we should say no more clearly (e.g. don't use 'alongside').

--[[User:ErrolC|ErrolC]] 16:35, 17 Feb 2006 (NZDT)
----

Is there really ambiguity here -- given that only Namers can Rank Names anyway?

'''6.9 Names'''

Anyone can learn Names, but only Namers can Rank them beyond Rank 0.

[[User:Martin|Martin Dickson]] 16:44, 20 Feb 2006 (NZDT)
----

(Note I changed the text on the parent page when I moved it and the above comments ).
I've assumed that Namers can use their 'extra' track to learn names. Is this assumption wrong?
A strict interpretation of 'Ranking' would imply that you can't do anything else while learning a Name (see 17.2 Ranking Names pt4).
Either way, 17.2 should be re-worked.
--[[User:ErrolC|ErrolC]] 17:30, 20 Feb 2006 (NZDT)
----

Talk:Learning Names Wording - Revision history

ErrolC: Move previous discussion from parent page + comment