This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was approve policy on Trash Compactor discussions stipulated below. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the suggestions in Forum:Disputed Trash compactor closing was that we should discuss the rules for the "Trash Compactor", formerly the "Votes for deletion" page, more clearly. One rule some of us have been following was that admins should wait two weeks before declaring no consensus and closing a TC thread. However, the closest we can come to a policy defining this is Wookieepedia talk:Trash compactor# How long should the vote remain open?, which Darth Culator points out isn't much of a foundation for a binding policy, since there were only six people speaking on the issue, two of whom wanted less than two weeks, and two of whom haven't been editing lately.

Personally, I like two weeks as a guideline, but we frequently close TC threads earlier than that when (a) consensus is reached early (like when a questionable article gets ten users speaking for deletion within 24 hours), or (b) multiple options have been suggested (e.g. "delete", "keep", or "merge"), no consensus is formed around any one of them, but one option is clearly the least popular choice. In the (b) case, I personally think we are best served by closing the TC thread, then quickly starting a new one to see if consensus can be built after eliminating the least popular options. We also often let TC threads go on for more than two weeks, but I think this is more due to forgetfulness than anything.

Anyway, I'll write a proposal below. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Silly Dan's proposed "two week" policyEdit

Trash compactor discussions should, in general, last two weeks.

An admin may close a TC discussion earlier, if clear consensus has been reached in favor of keeping the article in question, deleting the article, merging two or more articles, or any other proposal advanced in the discussion.

If consensus is unclear, admins should wait at least two weeks before closing the discussion with a result of "no consensus." A "no consensus" result will default to keeping the article.

Admins may also close a discussion with a result of "no consensus" after less than two weeks, providing that the admin closing the discussion quickly starts a new TC discussion with a different or more clearly defined set of options which, based on the first discussion, are more likely to lead to a consensus.

Agree with Silly Dan's "two week" proposed policyEdit

1. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
2. I think this is a good default. Though if a major issue was being decided, it should be able to be dictated on a particular CT... this will close after 1 month, etc. as stipulated by the topic starter. - JMAS 19:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Sounds fair to me. --Imperialles 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Looks good. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 14:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
5. I don't know why we lost interest in this, but support. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 16:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Most TCs discussions last for about this time anyway. Unit 8311 17:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Havac 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 11:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Greyman^(Paratus) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Lord Hydronium 00:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
11. jSarek 02:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Hobbes^{(Tiger's Lair)} 02:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with Silly Dan's "two week" proposed policyEdit

DiscussionEdit

Perhaps there's something I'm missing from this. If so, this space can be used to propose alternate policies. Please note, first off, that I have not attempted to define consensus. This is still something left to the individual admin, plus any other admins or users who the closing admin might consult on IRC or on talk pages. In the past, though, I haven't run into anyone complaining when an admin interprets "approximately 2/3rds in favour" as "consensus or near-consensus." —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• I think we need to be a little more specific about when they can be closed early. First, I think there should be an absolute minimum for time and an overwhelming supermajority requirement, both defined numerically. These things can often start out very one-sided but change course after time. If something is to be closed early, we need to be very sure it reflects the whole community's opinion. -- Ozzel 02:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't it be better to just fix it at a minimum of two weeks, no exceptions? I can't see any problems with that, as it would broaden the base for decisions as much as possible, and we'd all benefit from having clear and simple rules. Also, conditions to close down a CT early could easily offend people on the losing side, pretty much no matter what they were. Captain Daal 11:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The problem is, one common scenario is for a TC thread to be opened for an article which is quickly determined to be a candidate for speedy deletion instead. In that situation, we typically get very few legitimate "keep" arguments and a lot of airtight "delete" arguments in the first couple of days. Why prolong the thread in those cases? —Silly Dan _(talk) 11:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Use some wording about overwhelming consensus after X days or 1 week. Maybe there's something in Wikipedia's snowball clause that'll be of use. -Fnlayson 18:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)