Wikipedia talk:Rough consensus

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 5 December 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

Proposed Guideline

NO CONSENSUS

There was no consensus to promote this to an official guideline. —Darkwind (talk) 06:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think that this page is important advice not currently well documented elsewhere. I think it describe common good practice. Discussions are generally closed per rough consensus, not consensus. Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus is good for what it is, but it is limited to admins closing deletion discussions. In practice, admins and non admins must make reasonable rough consensus calls to close many discussions, including WP:RMs and WP:RFCs. The content is based on Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus, and I think it contains nothing contentious. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick close is suggested here as this RFC does not appear to actually be a proposal at all. What is being asked for and why? I would point out that the page does indeed state that experienced non-admin may close discusssions with a rough consensus, I have done it and many others have done it. What is the issue being discussed here?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:05, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is to formally tag the documentation as {{guideline}}. It is to document a current practice well supported by wide, community consensus. The issue is the question of documenting practice, to update policy and guidelines with developing practice. It is not proposing to change any practice.

Why? Historically, calling a rough consensus was role limited to admins. That has most definitely changed, years ago. This page affirms that change.

It is also important to maintain clarity between consensus and rough consensus. Relatively new Wikipedians observe non admin closes applied and respected where there is not quite a full consensus, and this can be confusing to their understanding of consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose. What administrators actually do, or actually should do, is discount and ignore ill-founded arguments, as this page acknowledges, and that really can go against even rough consensus. To describe this as "rough consensus" does violence to the English language. --greenrd (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; I can't say I agree with much of what the proposer has said here. Greenrd has put it quite neatly. Sometimes rough consensus must be refuted if it's based on misconceptions. 95.44.233.103 (talk) 13:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support If I'm understanding correctly, the 2 "opposes" misunderstood the current situation as they seem to be taking issue with the wording itself. . (or maybe I'm confused). As I understand it, this text is an exact copy of what is currently under administrator guidelines. In reality it applies to all closers, not just administrators, and SmokeyJoe is proposing copying (and presumably eventually moving) it into a separate place that applies to all closers rather than just administrators. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The essay is redundant and badly written. The guidelines for closing deletion discussions are already exactly that - guidelines. I don't see why we need to add more documentation on top of what's already written clearly elsewhere. If we're going to change the guidelines for closing RFCs, we should change them there, not here. Krakatoa Katie 04:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I support what this page says. I oppose giving it the weight and authority of a guideline. This page has not yet been considered and revised enough to meet the standards of a guideline. It could be a guideline someday. There is no rush for this - I proposing thinking about it for a few years. People can try it out in the meantime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; I'm not sure precisely what this adds, outside of words. Ironholds (talk) 04:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Support I appreciate that the thrust of the proposal is to document current practice. In doing so it seeks to generalise an existing guideline for deleting articles, applying the same principle of rough consensus, which seems eminently sensible. However, much of the actual text of the page still reflects its origins as dealing principally or solely with deletion, and in its present form is unsuitable to describe the operation of rough consensus to other proposals, such as move, merge etc. It's simply not ready yet for use as a guideline with the intended scope. I'd suggest the proposer thoroughly edit the page to provide a usable guideline for rough consensus that specifically mentions and deals with each of its intended scopes. Such a page would receive my unqualified support. yoyo (talk) 05:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.