Forum:Use expiry countdowns in VFDs

Forums: Yew Grove > Use expiry countdowns in VFDs

This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 4 November 2009 by Degenret01.

Simple proposal, I think we should use the same expiry counters in VfDs like in featured images. VfDs don't often become anything other than a simple vote for keep or delete, so it'd be nice to have a countdown so admins know when its the right time to close a VfD. We could even make the template so it automatically categorizes VfDs, like "Active VfDs" and "VfDs awaiting closure" (once the timer expires). It would be set for two weeks.

How I imagine it being used:

==[[Lolcats]]==

I think this article should be deleted because Lolcats are overused and unfunny.

{{VfDcd|07:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)}} (players would just type ~~~~~ after the pipe)

'''Delete''' - As nominator {{Signatures/Lolcathater}} 07:19, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

'''Keep''' - Lolcats rock my socks {{Signatures/Psycho Robot}} 07:20, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Before the timer expires, if its possible, the VfD would be categorized as an active VfD, then once it reached 0, it'd be categorized as a VfD awaiting closure, then once admins closed it, the counter would be deleted and it'd be closed as usual (category:Closed VfDs would be added to Template:Vfd bottom. I think this is more efficient! So yea. GO!

Discussion

Support - as nominator. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 23:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Great idea. Some VfDs sit around for way too long because they simply go unnoticed by admins. Having every VfD active for the same amount of time would be much more desirable. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:36, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - VfDs don't always and shouldn't last the same amount of time and admins know how to determine when a consensus has been reached or if there is no consensus. We don't need a timer to do our job for us, especially when it won't always be very accurate at all. Also, if no admins are noticing a VfD that should be closed and you notice it then you are just as much to blame because you can always notify an admin. Andrew ^talk 23:40, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

But why shouldn't VfDs all last for the same amount of time? Wouldn't a short VfD have less time to get the opinionsof the whole community vs. a long VfD? The timer would normalize this, ensuring that all articles nominated get the same amount of scrutiny. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:47, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Very few people visit the VfD page so it sometimes takes longer to gain any sort of consensus or for there to be enough discussion for an administrator to determine that their is no consensus. Featured images are different because it's only for a picture that is featured on the main page for a short while. If a VfD passes then the page is permanently deleted unless there is a vote for undeletion, and that has only happened a few times ever. Andrew ^talk 00:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, if a consensus isn't achieved by the end of the two weeks, it could be extended just like the featured image votes. This would be more like setting a minimum time that all VfDs can run. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 00:15, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Um, we don't need a timer for that. I'm pretty sure everyone is good enough at basic math to know when it's been at least 2 weeks.. Andrew ^talk 00:17, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

There are a lot of things in the wiki we don't really need and I know that its easy to determine when its been two weeks, but I think this idea would make things at the VfD a bit clearer and user friendly, both for nominators and the admins maintaining them. http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 00:19, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Admins are the ones that determine consensus and we've been around long enough that we don't need a common sense feature. The only people that even participate in VfDs are people that actively participate in community discussion forums like the Yew Grove so they all know the ropes. Andrew ^talk 00:22, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Well admins are also the ones who add the featured images to the main page queue aren't they? I just think the system works really well there and would work well at VfDs... http://i631.photobucket.com/albums/uu33/Psycho_Robot/Sigs%20and%20Avatars/kitty.pngPsycho Robot talk 00:42, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I don't mind having VfDs closed after comments seem to be exhausted, but if there is still ongoing discussion, it seems sort of pointless to close discussion. My attitude is more active vs. inactive discussion where players are still trying to come to a consensus and formulate a concept. Premature closing of discussions is for me even worse than simply letting a discussion run its course. I admit that some VfDs do seem to sit around for a very long time and seemingly go unnoticed. BTW, there is nothing special about an admin closing discussions, and certainly a non-admin could in theory close discussions as well... if the consensus is obvious.

The only real tool that an admin brings is to semi-protect or protect the discussion page... or to delete the article/content if that is the consensus. Closure requests, if it really bugs you, can be brought to RuneScape:Administrator requests for attention and quick resolution/administration. If you do the "hard part" of fixing up the page to indicate it has been closed, the rest is easy. If you aren't sure about the consensus (or lack thereof)... let somebody much more experience handle the request. That should be true even for admins, particularly new admins just figuring stuff out for the first time. A VfD that goes on for a couple of months isn't necessarily the end of the world... if the discussion is active and constructive consensus building is taking place. --Robert Horning 01:17, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Alternate idea - How about we have a guideline that is based on the last time a contribution was made to the discussion. This would allow for active threads to stay open, and inactive threads to get closure. This would help clear VFD's that have been languishing in inactivity. I also suggest this for VFU's, move requests and, merge requests. Tollerach hates SoF 07:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Lol, there already is, I've got to look around next time... so I'm going to change to Oppose since I think the current system should be fine, two weeks isn't too long to wait after discussion stops. Tollerach hates SoF 12:54, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Robert and Andrew. Oil4 ^Talk 07:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - as per Oli. User:Stelercus/Signature 19:15, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - As mentioned above, I don't like the idea of closing discussions early. I've seen many good debates on VfDs, and I would hate to see such intelligent discussion forced to stop because of an expiry countdown. Featured images are just images, and there are rarely (if any) heated discussions as to whether an image should be featured on the Main Page or not.  Tien  23:34, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

As Psycho said above, "This would be more like setting a minimum time that all VfDs can run." This isn't looking to limit discussion, but rather ensure there is time for it to develop. Sure, we many not need a timer for this, but it could be a useful addition. --Aburnett ^(Talk) 23:57, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

We don't need it because we aren't stupid. We all know how to count to 14 so we all know when it's been at least 2 weeks. Using your same logic we should include these timers in RfAs, every Yew Grove discussion, User of the Month (because we all know it would be useful to know when the next month starts ), featured article nominations, and anything else that requires a vote because "it would be a useful addition". >_> Andrew ^talk 00:02, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

You do make good point, however I'm still not opposed to this action, simply Neutral. You never know though.... 14 is a pretty high number... --Aburnett ^(Talk) 00:06, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

12,13,17...wait..Andrew ^talk 00:08, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Andrew. Any time one drags on for too long, or reaches consensus, or is going nowhere, then a wikian could simply go here, and it can be dealt with simply by anybody who could close it. The timer would only be more space on a possibly laggy page for some users. Chaos Monk ^{Talk • Sign} 00:44, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - VfDs arn't much different from the Yew Grove, discussion wise. VfDs are for deleting pages and the Yew Grove is for everything else. That is the only difference, and as Yew Grove discussions should not have timers, neither should VfDs. — ^En_ig^ma 01:27, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Soldier and Enigma, since that's pretty much what I was planning on saying. Consensus happens when it happens. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 23:49, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per mostly everyone else that opposed. If no consensus is reached, then it needs to be on for longer. ~Muz^Talk 00:37, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose per Andrew and everyone else. User:C Teng/sig 20:50, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - Per everyone above. Kudos 2 U Talk! Edit count! Contribs! 22:33, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Closed, we will not add countdowns to VFDs.--Degenret01 08:22, November 4, 2009 (UTC)