On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:10 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
The discussion had plenty of participation but in hindsight maybe an RFC template should have been put on the discussion.
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there...
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like
a
minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days
since,
what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless
in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
We should codify against this somewhere. AFAIK, it's still an unwritten rule. But this is the second time a discussion about a significant change has been closed by someone who voted for it (the first being flagged revisions). The first time could be seen as Jimbo's prerogative, but SilkTork, AFAIK, doesn't have a similar power. It's indicative of a problem regarding process.
I should point out I find it funny that the discussion partially about closing AfDs early got closed early itself. Twelve days is a weird number; RfCs themselves tend to go on two to four weeks. Hopefully, though, SNOW should still be accepted, if its users use it diligently; not willy-nilly.
2009/4/11 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem
like
a
minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days
since,
what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system.
Pointless
in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what
they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything
there...
-- -george william herbert george.herbert@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Will sceptre@tintower.co.uk wrote:
We should codify against this somewhere. AFAIK, it's still an unwritten rule. But this is the second time a discussion about a significant change has been closed by someone who voted for it (the first being flagged revisions). The first time could be seen as Jimbo's prerogative, but SilkTork, AFAIK, doesn't have a similar power. It's indicative of a problem regarding process.
I should point out I find it funny that the discussion partially about closing AfDs early got closed early itself. Twelve days is a weird number; RfCs themselves tend to go on two to four weeks. Hopefully, though, SNOW should still be accepted, if its users use it diligently; not willy-nilly.
2009/4/11 Risker risker.wp@gmail.com
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
>
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem
like
a
minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days
since,
what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system.
Pointless
in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what
they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting
this
change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything
there...
Perhaps someone who's neutral can reopen and reclose on a pro forma basis, but I think that the closing was a fair judgement of the poll results and discussion and an accurate call.
I have no objection to correcting the pro forma aspect, but I think that no harm was done in that. It's relatively easy to tell a 3:1 SNOW result, and a proponent calling the discussion isn't calling the results into disrepute. Closer results are a different thing.
We should strive to avoid conflicts of interest real or apparent, but a little imperfection when it's not ambiguous helps keep the gears turning.
Risker wrote:
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which policy changes are made.
Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I understand many people prefer the "consensus model".
But even if we stick to the consensus model, we perhaps should have a regularised means for closing the discussion and ruling where consensus lies. When we have an afd, an uninvolved admin closes. When the community considers adminship, a crat calls consensus.
Is there a need for the selection of a group of trusted users who can be called upon to to declare (after discussion) when a policy change has consensus has been made?
Perhaps we should have [[Wikipedia:Requests for policy change]], where an uninvolved crat or arb, or new class of user, closes the debate.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 3:03 AM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Risker wrote:
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
It is really about time that Wikipedia regulated the means by which policy changes are made.
Personally, I've long been in favour of a policy making body. However, I understand many people prefer the "consensus model".
But even if we stick to the consensus model, we perhaps should have a regularised means for closing the discussion and ruling where consensus lies. When we have an afd, an uninvolved admin closes. When the community considers adminship, a crat calls consensus.
Is there a need for the selection of a group of trusted users who can be called upon to to declare (after discussion) when a policy change has consensus has been made?
Perhaps we should have [[Wikipedia:Requests for policy change]], where an uninvolved crat or arb, or new class of user, closes the debate.
Agreed that someone uninvolved should close. Have suggested bureaucrats before. No comment (for obvious reasons) on whether arbs should close such discussions. I think the person or group closing the discussion should be selected ahead of time, as otherwise you can get a group of people jostling to close the discussion who deliberately stayed out in order to close it. Either that, or a semi-regular group start closing such discussions. At a minimum, a new post at some noticeboard saying "discussion has ended, we need someone uninvolved to close it" would work.
Carcharoth
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:42 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Oh, and discussion closed by someone who participated. Just as an aside.
Risker
2009/4/11 George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com
wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem
like
a
minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days
since,
what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system.
Pointless
in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what
they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything
there...
I am not particularly concerned by the closing administrator not being neutral - he read the tea leaves in the poll results fairly, and the results seemed fairly unambiguous (3:1 support for extension).
I am however concerned that nobody had posted pointers out anywhere. I went back through AN and Village Pump archives and found nothing.
With that in mind, I started this notice on AN:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_n...
If there are any significant objections, I recommend a new thread on the AFD talk page to reopen and revisit the issue, with more visibility to others in the project.
On reflection, I do not myself find that I object to the results of this, so I'm not going to file an objection myself. However, I believe we need to make fair notifications more widely, and offer a chance for objections from the wider crowd before this is settled and done. I have in the past and still today object to side-room actions to change policy without wider discussion and attention. We can get ourselves in a lot of trouble just by not noticing something, even if all the key players watchlist all the key policies.
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there...
When I wrote the draft for and proposed the IP blocking exemption policy, a little more than a year age, I know that I publicized it in many, many places. Did not take much work, I think we should try to remember to do these things in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption/Archive_1#Pre...
Note the many places it was cross posted.
Best, Jon
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:59 AM, Jon scream@nonvocalscream.com wrote:
George Herbert wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 9:18 PM, doc doc.wikipedia@ntlworld.com wrote:
Al Tally wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in
my
view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've
been
practising for years.
Wow. Where was this advertised? I missed it.
AdD really does seem a law unto itself. Is 45 people supporting this change really enough?
The same can be asked for any proposed policy change. Considering the current size of the project I don't think it's possible to involve enough of the community in any such discussion no matter how it's announced. Remember the spoiler thing a few years ago? Most editors had no clue about the change until spoiler tags were being mass AWBed out of articles.
Pointers on AN? The policies part of the village pump?
If it was there and I missed it, my bad. If there wasn't anything there...
When I wrote the draft for and proposed the IP blocking exemption policy, a little more than a year age, I know that I publicized it in many, many places. Did not take much work, I think we should try to remember to do these things in the future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:IP_block_exemption/Archive_1#Pre...
Note the many places it was cross posted.
Good list. I think it is more than time to write a Wikipedia namespace page that gives advice for those proposing to run such discussions to have a logical checklist of places to post to, or at least links to places that might give them ideas of where to post. The point about making an explicit note of where notices have been left allows those arriving at a discussion to assess how broad a cross-section of the community the poll/discussion/vote is reaching.
I was going to start such a page, but was stuck on a name for it.
WP:ADVERTISING sounded wrong WP:CANVASS is taken by the warning against the wrong sort of approach WP:DISCUSSION goes to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines WP:OPINION goes to Wikipedia:Describing points of view WP:NOTICE goes to Wikipedia:Software notices WP:NOTIFICATION is free - I'll redirect it to Wikipedia:Advertising discussions (which I will write)
While doing that, I found Wikipedia:Survey notification, which looks like fork of WP:CANVASS.
Incidentally, one of the downsides of notifications posted at AN and ANI is that they are only there until the bots archive them (that's only a day for ANI) unless someone replies (unlikely) or various tricks are used to ensure archiving doesn't take place until the poll is over (or for a set period like 3 or 4 days).
Even widespread advertising won't always work. See comments made here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committ...
Anyway, my proposed process guideline is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advertising_discussions
I guess I should now try and work out where to advertise it for approval...
Carcharoth
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Incidentally, one of the downsides of notifications posted at AN and ANI is that they are only there until the bots archive them (that's only a day for ANI) unless someone replies (unlikely) or various tricks are used to ensure archiving doesn't take place until the poll is over (or for a set period like 3 or 4 days).
Perhaps the archive bots can be coded to not archive any thread with this HTML comment...
"<!-- sticky -->"
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
Incidentally, one of the downsides of notifications posted at AN and ANI is that they are only there until the bots archive them (that's only a day for ANI) unless someone replies (unlikely) or various tricks are used to ensure archiving doesn't take place until the poll is over (or for a set period like 3 or 4 days).
Perhaps the archive bots can be coded to not archive any thread with this HTML comment...
"<!-- sticky -->"
That would require manual archiving.
Better, IMO, to have a set "notice" period for each venue, and to "post-date" the notice, so the bot archives it at the end of that notice period. It's easy to fool bots like that! :-)
You could code the "notice period" into the bot as well. So both methods would work.
Carcharoth
2009/4/11 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
I agree that in terms of number of people who'll encounter it it's a fairly wide-ranging change, but I wouldn't get too carried away calling it "significant" - it's about as limited as a change can be.
No change in policy, no change in how the discussions are carried out, or what goal they're aiming for, or who participates, or what standards of proof are used... instead, just how long we get to talk about it. The only person who really needs to worry about the closing date of a discussion is the person who closes it; everyone else will do what they always did.
The change itself is also a bit of a red herring, since practice doesn't always fit with the apparent policy here.
The nominal time has been five days "or so" for quite a long time, but discussions have often been left a day or two longer due to lack of interest, or no-one being around to close it, or what have you. I remember it used to be routine for there to be a day's backlog or more of unclosed discussions.
In recent years, it's become more and more common to explicitly extend the discussions for particular articles, because they hadn't received many comments - to pick a random day, April 5th, there were 92 discussions, of which just over 40 had been relisted for a second five-day period, and one which had been relisted *twice*. So that's (roughly) half the articles getting five days, half getting ten.
Conversely, over the same period, there's also been a sharp growth in people using the "snowball" argument to close a discussion early - so a proportion of those five-day debates will actually be closed in a day, two days, three days.
All that considered, I'm not sure changing the nominal time from five days to seven is actually going to make much if any difference in practice!
2009/4/11 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
<snip>
The nominal time has been five days "or so" for quite a long time, but discussions have often been left a day or two longer due to lack of interest, or no-one being around to close it, or what have you. I remember it used to be routine for there to be a day's backlog or more of unclosed discussions.
In recent years, it's become more and more common to explicitly extend the discussions for particular articles, because they hadn't received many comments - to pick a random day, April 5th, there were 92 discussions, of which just over 40 had been relisted for a second five-day period, and one which had been relisted *twice*. So that's (roughly) half the articles getting five days, half getting ten.
<snip>
The relisting at day 5 is a feature, not a bug. It brings the discussion back to the top of the list two days earlier than it would if waiting 7 days, thus more likely to draw the attention of other editors. The fact that somewhere between a third and a half of AfDs need relisting tells us that the problem isn't the length of time an article is on AfD, it is that there aren't enough eyes on AfD.
My greater concern is that the discussion to change the length of time an article is on AfD was held on an obscure page that few watch. It's just a little to "inside baseball" from my perspective, and several of the participants in the discussion are well acquainted with other locales where it is pretty traditional to advertise discussions that will affect the project as a whole (as opposed to only a particular wikiproject or narrow area).
Risker
When AfD was first used, there was no particular set period of time to wait. Some articles which went through AfD (not talking speedy here), were flagged and deleted within only 12 hours or so. Not that I particularly remember one such incident or anything....
Will Johnson
-----Original Message----- From: Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 6:10 pm Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] AFD has gone to a 7 day cycle
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
-- Alex (User:Majorly) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created? It's a fairly entrenched system. Pointless in my view to extend by 2 days. People will simply not remember what they've been practising for years.
I noticed it on the CENT template on someone else's talk page. Which reminds me, I should put the CENT template on my user page.
Carcharoth
2009/4/11 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created?
No, it was seven days for ages. Then it got taken back to five as a way to deal with the huge load. This proposal restores the old time.
- d.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 11:19 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/11 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:05 AM, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created?
No, it was seven days for ages. Then it got taken back to five as a way to deal with the huge load. This proposal restores the old time.
{{citation needed}} :-)
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Carcharoth carcharothwp@googlemail.com wrote:
{{citation needed}} :-)
When votes for deletion was first introduced, there was no fixed time for discussion. Things got listed, and if an admin agreed, it would get deleted. There were no criteria for speedy deletion as we know them today, though they were forming.
The one week timeframe was introduced in August 2002 (by the Cunctator, though it seems to have stuck):
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion_archi...
The timeframe was a minimum for discussion; in practice it seems that some nominations could stay listed indefinitely until an admin got around to making the decision.
The one week timeframe was moved into the deletion policy in July 2003:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&diff...
As the whole thing was conducted on a single page at the time, things started to get too crowded with all nominations staying there for a week. There were some discussions through 2003 about shortening the time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion/lag_time
From the beginning of October 2003 it was apparently a six-day
timeframe, but by the end of the month it was five days:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_policy&diff...
Note also the franchise requirements at the time, and the high thresholds for deletion (at various times either 3/4 or 2/3 majority required for deletion).
Beginning April 2004, the problem of VFD growing ever larger (the main reason for going down to 5 days) was partially solved by having each discussion on its own subpage (the current day-log system came in on Christmas 2004).
So there you go, a little policy history lesson :)
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
I wonder when the plan to inform the community was? It might seem like a minor change, but it's a significant one. AFD/VFD has been 5 days since, what, when it was created?
No, it was seven days for ages. Then it got taken back to five as a way to deal with the huge load. This proposal restores the old time.
Are you sure? I checked back to 2004ish, back when we were still using a single discussion page, and I'm sure it seemed to be about five then.
2009/4/11 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
No, it was seven days for ages. Then it got taken back to five as a way to deal with the huge load. This proposal restores the old time.
Are you sure? I checked back to 2004ish, back when we were still using a single discussion page, and I'm sure it seemed to be about five then.
Possibly my history file has been corrupted.
- d.
On Sat, Apr 11, 2009 at 2:12 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2009/4/11 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
2009/4/11 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
No, it was seven days for ages. Then it got taken back to five as a way to deal with the huge load. This proposal restores the old time.
Are you sure? I checked back to 2004ish, back when we were still using a single discussion page, and I'm sure it seemed to be about five then.
Did that include VfD?
Possibly my history file has been corrupted.
Or you are thinking of a different process? MfD? RfA?
Carcharoth
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ron Ritzman wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_t...
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I missed this one. I think 5 days was fine.
Jon