![]() | This page 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. |
Hi all, looking at current DRV's and some recent ones, in more than half the cases, we get a flurry of input (that is all aligned to one viewpoint) in the first 2-3 days, then most DRV's sit inactive (with maybe one or two further comments) in the subsequent days waiting for 7 days to elapse when action can finally be taken. DRV does not suffer from a lack of participation like AfD and some other venues do, and more importantly, the quality of contributions is generally very well-thought out and well-expressed, which definitely helps in being more sure of the consensus when you are evaluating a debate.
I'm not very good with wording policy change proposals, so please don't kill or love this proposal based on the specific wording, but was thinking of proposing a slight change to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews, along the lines of:
'Overwhelming' is obviously the key word here...would 'unanimous' be better? (I don't think so, it's a version of vote-counting.) 'Near-unanimous'? (Probably not, for the same reason.) 'Obvious'? 'Unequivocal'? I don't know what the exact word I'm looking for is, although hopefully you can all pick up the sentiment of what I'm trying to convey. I guess it's a kind of snowball clause, just not as wishy-washy as that is written.
Is there any appetite for this potential change, based on what we're seeing? If there is, what is the feeling around the wording? Does this have any significant drawbacks I haven't envisaged? Keen to get everyone's thoughts on this. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 18:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"While a deletion review discussion should generally remain open for at least seven days, if there is sufficient participation to determine an overwhelming consensus, and discussion has slowed or stopped, the discuusion may be closed after a minimum of five days. After this period has elapsed, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists, and close the discussion."
Seems a bit wordy yet, but it's a start I guess. Thoughts? - jc37 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What's the harm in leaving it open another two days? Reyk YO! 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Step 3 to Inform the closing editor uses {{ DRVNote}} with a single parameter PAGENAME, however per the template's documentation that leads to the "An editor" being placed on the closing editors talk page, and missing the Nominator's name leads, per Template Documentation to insultment, per "NOMINATOR'S NAME is the name of the user requesting this review. You should use the first person pronoun "I" if you are the editor requesting the review or the user's name if someone else is. If this parameter is not specified, "An editor" will be used, which may be considered insulting if you are the user making the nomination. May I apologise if I've missed something here, and to several closer's I've insulted following the instructions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hi all, looking at current DRV's and some recent ones, in more than half the cases, we get a flurry of input (that is all aligned to one viewpoint) in the first 2-3 days, then most DRV's sit inactive (with maybe one or two further comments) in the subsequent days waiting for 7 days to elapse when action can finally be taken. DRV does not suffer from a lack of participation like AfD and some other venues do, and more importantly, the quality of contributions is generally very well-thought out and well-expressed, which definitely helps in being more sure of the consensus when you are evaluating a debate.
I'm not very good with wording policy change proposals, so please don't kill or love this proposal based on the specific wording, but was thinking of proposing a slight change to Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews, along the lines of:
'Overwhelming' is obviously the key word here...would 'unanimous' be better? (I don't think so, it's a version of vote-counting.) 'Near-unanimous'? (Probably not, for the same reason.) 'Obvious'? 'Unequivocal'? I don't know what the exact word I'm looking for is, although hopefully you can all pick up the sentiment of what I'm trying to convey. I guess it's a kind of snowball clause, just not as wishy-washy as that is written.
Is there any appetite for this potential change, based on what we're seeing? If there is, what is the feeling around the wording? Does this have any significant drawbacks I haven't envisaged? Keen to get everyone's thoughts on this. Cheers, Daniel ( talk) 18:40, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
"While a deletion review discussion should generally remain open for at least seven days, if there is sufficient participation to determine an overwhelming consensus, and discussion has slowed or stopped, the discuusion may be closed after a minimum of five days. After this period has elapsed, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists, and close the discussion."
Seems a bit wordy yet, but it's a start I guess. Thoughts? - jc37 19:31, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
What's the harm in leaving it open another two days? Reyk YO! 20:11, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Step 3 to Inform the closing editor uses {{ DRVNote}} with a single parameter PAGENAME, however per the template's documentation that leads to the "An editor" being placed on the closing editors talk page, and missing the Nominator's name leads, per Template Documentation to insultment, per "NOMINATOR'S NAME is the name of the user requesting this review. You should use the first person pronoun "I" if you are the editor requesting the review or the user's name if someone else is. If this parameter is not specified, "An editor" will be used, which may be considered insulting if you are the user making the nomination. May I apologise if I've missed something here, and to several closer's I've insulted following the instructions. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 10:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)