Wikipedia talk:Discussions for discussion

Replace WP:ANRFC with this

I would recommend being even more bold. While I appreciate the initiative, I don't think another discussion board will take off soon, especially when it has significant overlap with the existing WP:ANRFC page. This has potential as an improvement to that process, and I think framing it as a replacement rather than parallel process will increase its chance of adoption and solve a ton of problems at once. What about something like "requests for closure discussion" where editors can post a discussion needing closure and uninvolved editors could comment on the discussion similar to a WP:CRATCHAT? It keeps the low overhead to posting that ANRFC has, but adds all the benefits of this proposal. — Wug·a·po·des 00:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, if this replaced ANRFC, what would you suggest people do for discussions where consensus is reasonably clear, but there is enough contentiousness that they need someone uninvolved to come in and give them a formal stamp? A good portion of ANRFC requests are in that category, but they don't really need discussion so much as just one uninvolved experienced/respected editor to come along. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: what would you suggest people do for discussions where consensus is reasonably clear, but there is enough contentiousness that they need someone uninvolved to come in and give them a formal stamp? Close it and remove it from the list just like before. That could even be its own "requests for rubber stamp" section like SPI's quick checkuser requests or uncontroversial technical move requests. In my mind, the existing use of ANRFC would become a side-effect of this page's wider goal of centralizing discussions about (RfC) closures. — Wug·a·po·des 01:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO listing a discussion in a rubber stamp section would itself be contentious and objected to by whoever's tendentiousness requires the rubber stamp. Probably a better approach would be to have the default assumption be that a close can be carried out simply by an uninvolved editor (essentially the status quo at ANRFC), with a separate section for the discussion of particularly thorny cases (and listed requests could be moved there at a would-be closer's discretion) _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a much better description and organization than my idea. Mainly I'm pushing for the marriage of these two ideas. I think part of the problem with ANRFC---why it is often backlogged and why some requests sit for weeks---is that someone sees a request, skims the discussion, realizes they don't have time or knowledge or whatever, and leaves without closing it. We then wind up with a lot of duplicated effort and nothing to show for it. What if it were set up so that, if you decide you don't have time to make a formal close, you can still give your impressions based on reading the discussion. If enough people do that, closing the discussion actually becomes easier because a lot of the close was already written and is backed up by a rough consensus here. It's like a panel closure, but more organic---no need to search for volunteers with sufficient clout or having secret closer email discussions. That doesn't need to be every single discussion here though, and if someone can close it, they should. — Wug·a·po·des 04:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving aside for a moment the question if this page is a better approach, I don't see much point in closing down the request for closure noticeboard to replace it with this one. I'd as soon just repurpose the request for closure noticeboard and change its process to match. (On a separate note, I'm not clear yet if this page would just become an extension of the discussion in the RfC, and so not be able to serve its intended purpose.) isaacl (talk) 03:28, 15 September 2020

I considered the topic of what to do with this page as separate from the RfC (I'm not really sure which one, I got here from Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Let's_talk_about_problem_AfDs but maybe anon is talking about Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Process_for_challenging_closes?). I'd be fine with someone moving this thread to one of those pages though, just let me know if the venue changes. While I framed it initially as replacement, what really should happen is a "repurpose" of the page as you suggest. A list of closure requests is definitely useful and something we would want retained no matter what, but in its current state ANRFC is essentially just a way to keep requests for closure off admin watchlists by taking them off of the main AN board. — Wug·a·po·des 04:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Launch discussion

Just plopping here for the record, discussion about the launch of this page took place at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting for the record that it's now at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#Wikipedia:Discussions for discussion. jp×g 01:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One observation

We have a test of the waters now, thanks to Wugapodes. A decision I had when I clicked through to the discussion was whether I wanted to help close it or just !vote in it. I opted for the former, but if this page becomes popular, some people might opt for the latter, making this a way to increase the visibility of discussions. Not sure if that's good or whether it might distract from the intended purpose. And some people might try to do both, which feels inappropriate; see again Zero0000's proposal at the pump discussion that participants not be allowed to !vote here. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a general statement to this effect, though I hesitate to phrase it as an outright ban without substantial community support for such a step. It would be unusual on Wikipedia. BD2412 T 01:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

I'm just surprised this exists. I'll add it to my watchlist, but it could do with some advertising. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I feel vaguely satisfied that I'm commenting on a discussion about discussions for discussion. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts for Discussion hatnote

There’s currently a hatnote on this page that states:

"Wikipedia:DfD" redirects here. Not to be confused with Wikipedia:Drafts for discussion.

Unless there are any reasons for keeping it that I’m not aware of, I think I’m going to boldly remove this hatnote, as the Drafts for Discussion page redirects to MfD, which I don’t see being ambiguous with the WP:DFD redirect. I’m just opening this here beforehand, in case there’s something I’ve missed that would cause this to be an issue.

A smart kitten (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@A smart kitten, if an editor didn't know where drafts were discussed, they could plausibly try DfD as a shortcut. — Qwerfjkl talk 21:46, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Qwerfjkl, Wikipedia tends to create an expectation that the "X" in an "XfD" acronym will correspond to the relevant namespace. BD2412 T 22:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerfjkl and BD2412: thanks for the advice! I’ll leave the hatnote as is. Best, A smart kitten (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]