My proposals
- I am quite satisfied with the m:9/11 wiki move proposal argument style and I propose it here for all deletions.
- I also propose the merging of
Wikipedia:Requested moves and
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (Articles for deletion). Perhaps a system that takes care of both moves (renames), deletion and keeps would be more productive.
- Articles for deletion is misleading, this is not a page where only deletions are determined. Many (if not most) end up as keep or move/rename as well as delete. Also the process is more like a vote which is easily infested by "vote only accounts" and other nonsense
You are welcome to make alternative proposals. Also please explain why you support or oppose a particular view point. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(1/0) Argument style Information
(1) Use a Argument style more like m:9/11 wiki move proposal
- 9/11 style voting makes counting easier and concensus gathering more productive as all alternative views are more organised. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I vehemently oppose that voting style and I predict that the reason will rapidly become apparent here as well. I oppose it because it chops up the discussion and polarizes the discussion. Incidentally, we have tried moving some particularly contentious deletion discussions into this format several times. In every case I know about, they were abject failures and the consensus was "let's never do this again". Here's why:
- It makes it almost impossible to trace back the evolution of the discussion and to identify claims and counter-claims. It disrupts the dialog that we use to evaluate claims and facts. It becomes far more difficult to determine the consensus at the end of the discussion. (Yes, in theory I could reconstruct the chronology of the discussion from the date/time stamps in the signatures. But if I have to reconstruct the chronology anyway, why bother sorting the discussion?)
- In a perfect discussion, I should make a rational and detailed analysis of facts at hand, then make my conclusion. This model requires me to decide "keep" or "delete" or something else before I even start typing. Once I've locked into which section to edit, you're now forcing me to fight the natural tendency to rationalize my first impression rather than really analyzing the issues. This creates a predisposition to polarized discussions.
- The page-move voting structure works well for page-moves where there are a very few pre-defined alternatives and very few disputable facts to evaluate. Deletion discussions, on the other hand, are far more fluid since (as you point out further down) they are a full and rich discussion of the fate of the page. I do not consider a viable approach for deletion discussions. Rossami (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, per Rossami. The use of this style of 'discussion' has led to polarizing effects in RfA, I believe, and would do the same or worse here. AfD is a discussion, not a vote, or so I'm told. -- nae'blis (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(1/0) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requested moves merge Information
If you have a better title please propose it under "Merge under a new titile". Please do not "vote" oppose to individual "proposed titles". (Proposal with most concensus "wins" unless there is a concensus against the merge of course. -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(1) Proposed title: Wikipedia:Article Concensus Proposals
- 'Articles for deletion' and 'Requested moves' seek the same thing: to gather a concensus for a particular view point (move/delete/keep). No reason why should this not be made under one title. This should reduce the backload of AfD as more admins would be watching over it and the whole process would be more organised (and hence less time consuming to people reviewing it). -- Cool Cat Talk| @ 02:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
(0) Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and Wikipedia:Requested moves seperate
- While I support the streamlining of move/delete as a concept, I don't think this is the time or way to do this right now. The two processes have very different methodologies right now, and while they could probably benefit from some cross-pollination, it should be gradual rather than a train-wreck. -- nae'blis (talk) 15:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)