Text and/or other creative content from this version of WP:Articles for discussion/Proposal 1 was copied or moved into WP:Articles for discussion/Proposal 2 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
{{ Cent}}
Why not rename this to "Articles for Discussion", and then fold
Wikipedia:Requested moves, all of the {{
Merge}} stuff, {{
Prod}}, and possibly some of
Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion into one process? I'm sure that there are one or two other process that could easily fit under an "articles for discussion" umbrella, as well. De-emphasizing deletion as the primary mechanism, even if it is only a "psychological" de-emphasis, certainly couldn't hurt anything though. Most importantly however, simplifying and centralizing 4-6 different processes into a single discussion forum could only help all of us as editors, I would think.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ω) 04:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
For reasons I've stated further down this page, I believe that deletion and merging discussions should be merged together into Articles for Discussion. I have no strong opinion either way regarding whether requested moves should be folded in or not, but PROD should remain separate. A listing at AfD typically results in lots of eyes seeing the article and often improving it. The same cannot be said of the merge and move procedures that are vastly under participated in. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I very strongly support the proposal that anyone could optionally move a disputed merge to AfD, retitled Articles for Discussion. I base this upon these reasons
I know that a step like this will cause everyone to wonder: what will happen to my favorite type of article, or my least favorite? Will it help me, or my regular opponents? I have not analyzed it this way myself as applies to what I personally like or dislike, for i really do not think that anywhere near as important as a major simplification of process. (I think it might, for example, keep fewer individual articles on aspects of fiction than I would really like. But it would be worth it, in order not to have to continue fighting each one.) I'd rather get a reasonable chance at a simple compromise than get my way if it takes continual arguing and party-formation. I do have some experience disputing at AfDs under the current system, and it is possible I will need to develop new skills--all the better , is what I say. It's time the wiki-debater specialists like me (& my habitual opponents) went on to other things. I'd really like the chance to consider a group of related questions together, with the question not delete/keep, but what can we do best with this set of articles. I recognize this may in one sense bring more matters to AfD--but this will be balanced by not having them elsewhere. And, I'd hope, by disposing of things more rapidly and easily. DGG ( talk ) 06:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC) A focus on individual article decisions
The level of research/subject area knowledge one needs to do when discussing mergers is qualitatively quite different than that needed for deletion. In the latter event, one considers notability guidelines, and most questions can be settled by googling: the relevant question is the relation of one concept to the external world. For merging, though, one must consider the mutual relation of two ideas – which requires more specialized knowledge. And merging can be a dialectal process – gradually moving paragraphs from one article to another, seeing what fits, getting feedback, and eventually reducing one ofthe articles to a redirect. Perhaps I am overreacting, but DGG's hope that discussing mergers at AfD will lead to "disposing of things more rapidly and easily," lead me to fear that merge discussions will degenerate into drive-by !voting with no follow-through by participants.
Finally, I am worried that by combining the discussion of mergers with that of deletions, mergers will seem like a tempting "third way." If some editors say "delete" and some say "keep," I do not want some well-intentioned compromise-minded soul to come by and say "merge, and you can both be happy." This will just create a mountain of tedium for the WikiGnomes who actually carry out these requests, who (as has been insightfully observed upthread), are rarely the !voters.
Comments:
While i'm appealed by DGG proposal, i think few points need to be clarified
-- KrebMarkt 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone object to this being closed in a week's time? – Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I see one discreet criticism above, which seems to be repeated among at least a couple "opposers", is that merger discussions are best discussed on the article talk page. Since this seems to be a common complaint I wanted to pull it out in hope of having a more detailed discussion about it (if there are other similar issues, it would probably be helpful to start a section about them as well).
One point that I wanted to make on this issue is fairly simple: The stance is that merge discussions should occur on the talk page, but my question is often which one? I've actually personally run into the problem of needing to choose an appropriate venue for a merger discussion in the past, and I've talked to others who have run into similar issues.
Additionally, there are many pages where the number of watchers is either minuscule, or most of those who are watching the page are inactive. We all know that listing an article on AFD increases viewership of the pages being listed, so utilizing a central discussion area logically would seem to help.
So, between the "meta" nature of merge discussions themselves (or split discussions, for that matter), and increased attention which would be given to those pages if the AFD system is used, I'm not clear as to what the downside would be.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law) 07:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
As I wrote above, the merger AfDs with process disputes that I remember often fall into two groups: actual merger nominations that are SK'd and relatively minor comments that have no effect on the outcome. I have seen derailed AfDs, but I think that obstructive process wonkery here is strongly associated with contentious topic areas and individual editors. Flatscan ( talk) 07:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
OK, most of the discussion seems to have died down. My take on this is that there's general support to move forward, with some caveats about implementation. With that in mind I wanted to start a discussion about possible implementation details, here.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law) 13:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
The downside is that in many cases, this new term will sugar-coat the reality of what we're really doing in most AfDs – i.e. debating whether to deep six an article. When something is sent to AfD, we're not debating whether it should be discussed; we're debating whether it should be deleted. Therefore, they are articles nominated for deletion, not articles nominated for discussion.
Other than that, it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. The merges/etc. can all be viewed via templating on one central page, just like AfDs. I wonder if there is some other nomenclature we can use that more accurately describes the nature of these debates, while still keeping the discussion structure that this proposal calls for. Tisane ( talk) 00:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A complete proposal should cover not only the consolidated process, but also details of the transition.
This list is neither necessary nor sufficient, it's just what I think should be covered. Flatscan ( talk) 04:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the need to replace Articles for Deletion with something that changes the scope of it's purpose. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Folks, y'all are over thinking this. There's nothing to really oppose here, since the proposal is to simply change the process to reflect how it is currently being used. These opposes seem to be opposing the entire AFD process, which is way beyond the scope of this discussion.
—
V = IR (
Talk •
Contribs) 02:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Coming into this new, I'm not sure why this is a controversial proposal. Proposed merges is pretty useless and should be put out of its misery. As well, there is a massive backlog of merge tags with discussions that never happened or never got closed, so that process kind of sucks too. I agree that the new name sounds kind of like a euphemism, and I don't think the rename is critical to the scope changing, so if there is opposition to the rename then just go forward with the scope change without the rename. It should be made clear that this process change doesn't forbid bold merges or talk-page discussed merges. Lets not oppose change simply because it's change. Some changes are good. Gigs ( talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
It would help to have a summary of what has already gained wide consensus.
Also, I think that getting rid of "deletion" in the name decreases clarity. Maurreen ( talk) 14:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change {{AfDNotice}}
to {{Before Afd}}
. Currently, {{AfDNotice}}
redirects to {{Before Afd}}
, but I'm planning to change it to redirect to {{Afd notice}}
instead, and don't want to change the display of this page.
Tamwin (
talk) 20:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)