2009/4/11 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>

> <snip>



>
> The nominal time has been five days "or so" for quite a long time, but
> discussions have often been left a day or two longer due to lack of
> interest, or no-one being around to close it, or what have you. I
> remember it used to be routine for there to be a day's backlog or more
> of unclosed discussions.
>
> In recent years, it's become more and more common to explicitly extend
> the discussions for particular articles, because they hadn't received
> many comments - to pick a random day, April 5th, there were 92
> discussions, of which just over 40 had been relisted for a second
> five-day period, and one which had been relisted *twice*. So that's
> (roughly) half the articles getting five days, half getting ten.
>
> <snip>

The relisting at day 5 is a feature, not a bug.  It brings the discussion
back to the top of the list two days earlier than it would if waiting 7
days, thus more likely to draw the attention of other editors.  The fact
that somewhere between a third and a half of AfDs need relisting tells us
that the problem isn't the length of time an article is on AfD, it is that
there aren't enough eyes on AfD.

My greater concern is that the discussion to change the length of time an
article is on AfD was held on an obscure page that few watch. It's just a
little to "inside baseball" from my perspective, and several of the
participants in the discussion are well acquainted with other locales where
it is pretty traditional to advertise discussions that will affect the
project as a whole (as opposed to only a particular wikiproject or narrow
area).

Risker
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l

Reply via email to