Template talk:Consensus

"Closing" discussions

Swept in from the pub

Following up from the brief discussion above about helping to make the consensus-building process more productive, Wikipedia has a process of "closing" discussions and including a summary of the decision once consensus has been reached, be it "no action", "change X", etc. See w:Template:Archive top for the template used, w:Talk:Austrian School#RfC Krugman critique about inflation for an example, and w:Wikipedia:Closing discussions for their policy. While I'm not suggesting we adopt their exact policy, the advantage I see to implementing a template that summarizes a discussion and marks it as "closed" here are:

1. It would be easier to quickly determine what the agreement of a discussion was when reading talk pages.
2. It would be easier to find discussions that had not reached an agreement.
3. There would be a process in place to encourage discussions to be pushed to some sort of closure.
4. It would be easier to determine when to update a policy page, since a "closed" discussion would indicate agreement for action (or lack thereof).

At least a few people seem to feel that our discussion process is clunky, so this seems like a potential way to make it a bit less so. If we implemented this "closing" process someone could still revisit an issue later, and I'd suggest that any template we use for "closed" discussions clearly notes that the issue can be re-opened in a new thread. If there is interest we can try this out on a single talk page - I'll volunteer to do a review of discussions and flag some of them with an appropriate summary of consensus so that we have an sample of what this would look like. Additionally, if any other suggestions are available, or if any Wikipedians can comment on how well this process works there, the feedback would be helpful. -- Ryan • (talk) • 05:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with ever using a word like "closed" on a policy discussion. I'd propose instead that discussions be given a "Summary of consensus (or arguments) to date" and left open. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully support the premise behind closing discussions. I don't think a template would be necessary, however. Rather an informal Closed at the end of the discussion with the consensus. Adding new ideas or opinions to 5-year old discussions half way up a talk page is never a good way of obtaining comments, as most users will look for recent discussions at the bottom of the page. It's another reason to turn our Pub into a wiki 'forum' sort of format as I suggested above, whereby active discussions are pushed to the top, rather than new discussions. This means contentious and popular issues are recognised and not lost to oblivion. I think "closing" discussions is a much, much better idea than simply sweeping it to a talk page, never to be seen again. JamesA ^>talk 06:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Ikan - I tried to think of an alternative to "close" that would indicate that the current thread has reached a consensus, but couldn't think of one, so any alternative name suggestions would be welcome. I'm imagining a process that will be somewhat like how we currently handle VFD discussions (but without the explicit 14 day time period) - if we can say "this is the agreement" we mark the discussion thread "closed" (or whatever word is chosen), just as we do with a VFD nomination, and include a note that if someone wants to revisit the issue in the future that a new discussion thread should be started, just as an article would be re-nominated if it was kept after a VFD but there was a new reason to delete it. Addressing your comment about leaving discussions open for new comments, if someone needs to add something to a recently closed discussion then that's an indication that it should not have been closed and should be "re-opened", and for very old discussions James noted it is usually more productive to start a new thread - from experience, I've often found it to be a poor use of resources responding to someone who comments on a thread that is years old and out of date with current practice. -- Ryan • (talk) • 06:58, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand the point about live discussions way up a page. I just think the word "closed" would tend to chill new thoughts. I'd propose an alternative procedure and wording: "There appears to be a consensus on the following point(s). Does anyone object?" Then if no-one objects within a day or two, "Consensus reached for now. If you would like to reopen this discussion more than [time period - I'd suggest 2 or 3 weeks] from the date of this comment, please start a new thread." We can talk about the precise wording or procedure, but words like "consensus," "agreement" and "acceptance" just feel better than "closed." Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing discussions is a bad idea. Creating multiple new sections for the same topic is silly; it's much better to have all of the discussion on a particular topic under one heading on the talk page. Anything else is confusing and requires a ton of back links to follow properly. Deletion/promotion discussions are finite, which is why we archive them, but anything else is open to change; we should never be cutting off discussion just because someone decides the discussion is "closed". LtPowers (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you suggest an alternative that would help to improve our consensus-building/discussion process, per the issues raised by multiple users in the thread above? There are obviously individuals who feel that our discussion process is in need of improvement (I'm one of them), so while I understand that you don't like the proposed idea and find it "silly", any constructive feedback on changes you would accept would be appreciated. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

If some sort of change is deemed necessary, there are some much less disruptive suggestions made above, such as simply summarizing the current state of the discussion. I personally make it a practice to start a new subsection when re-opening an old discussion; we could encode that as a suggestion as well. In general, though, I think it's a very bad idea to keep adding new layers of bureaucracy and process, because it will serve to make discussions harder to enter, harder to follow, and take time away from improving the travel guides. LtPowers (talk) 19:33, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think just changing the name from the discussion-killing "closed" to something like this might resolve concerns:

--Peter ^Talk 20:12, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. The date would be there (as long as the "non-closer" remembered to sign their summary) and as long as the summary was accurate, it would be a lot easier for users to scan to see what the current consensus was.

Mind you, if certain users didn't take it upon themselves to needlessly remove useful information from how-to-do-it and policy pages, we wouldn't have to spend such a long time scanning discussion pages rather than the articles themselves...

I opine that we should remove the experimental tag from this template and start using it right away. -- Alice^✉ 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, Peter. Excellent template and phrasing. Much better than using the word "close." Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

An excellent idea and definitely one to be implemented soon! --Nicholasjf21 (talk) 00:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to try this out as an experiment on one existing talk page to solicit additional feedback - I think in addition to a "summary" line it would also be helpful to have a few standard "status" choices - consensus reached, discussion ongoing, no action to be taken, etc. Since this could potentially be a big impact on how discussions are done on this site it would be good to try it out slowly to ensure that it's actually useful rather than just another idea that is discussed, sees some limited initial use, and then fades into obscurity. I was hoping to do a test implementation this weekend but never got around to it, but will try to get to it in the coming days if no one does so first. -- Ryan • (talk) • 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Consensus|type=ongoing|We haven't yet finalised any specifics regarding implementation and usage. [[User:JamesA|<font color="#4682b4">James'''A'''</font>]] ^{[[User talk:JamesA|<font color="#191970">'''>talk'''</font>]]} 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)}} I've taken Peter's idea a step further and used some of the suggestions of Ryan, including a new type= parameter that sets whether there has been consensus, noconsensus, ongoing discussion or noaction. That can be easily reverted if we decide only one parameter is required. JamesA ^>talk 06:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at a lot of discussion threads, I think for now the most useful thing to do is to implement Peter's template for discussions that ended with a consensus ONLY. I'd suggest it be placed at the top of discussion threads that have reached consensus and take two parameters:

1. A summary of the consensus reached. This parameter would be required.
2. An optional parameter indicating any action taken, or that needs to be taken - for example, renaming a page, changing a heading, updating a policy, etc.

For other types of discussions (ongoing, etc) contrary to my prior suggestion of categorizing discussions by type, I'm not sure how to do a useful implementation of that idea given that discussion threads I looked at wandered between topics, were newbie questions, ended with pointers to other discussions, etc, and didn't lend themselves well to any sort of simple categorization.

Assuming people are OK with trying out the consensus template as-is, I'd suggest we clean up the numerous examples of its usage that have already popped up on the site to get any further feedback, and if people are OK with it then we can begin using it as discussions come to agreement. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

OK with me. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:56, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

See the following for some usage examples. Feedback appreciated.

• Wikivoyage talk:Article templates#'Contact' section
• Wikivoyage talk:Script policy#Allowing global bots

-- Ryan • (talk) • 18:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

If we are going to use a template like this, it should be signed and dated. Otherwise, no one knows who determined the consensus, and when, without digging through the history. LtPowers (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've got two concerns with the signature proposal:

1. "Signing" the summary discussion would discourage anyone else from editing the summary since someone else's name is on it, and I think we want the consensus summary to be editable.
2. If it isn't clear that the discussion has reached a consensus then this template shouldn't be used. As a result, it should be irrelevant who adds it to the thread.

If we wanted to start a process similar to Wikipedia where an uninvolved third party was asked to read through and close a discussion then a signature would make sense, but per your comment above ("I think it's a very bad idea to keep adding new layers of bureaucracy and process") I thought we were just going to use this template as a UI tool to make it easier to determine outcomes of talk page discussion threads when there was a clear consensus? -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the use of this template in the few times it has been used so far isn't going as well as I'd hoped. But certainly being signed and dated must be a requirement. --Inas (talk) 22:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Dating is more important than signing; perhaps Ryan is seeing the consensus summary as more like our policy-page text (as a distillation of consensus, editable by anyone, and not attributed to a specific user) than as a part of the discussion. I can understand that perspective, but I think it causes a few problems. Primarily, if someone re-opens discussion, it becomes unclear to a later reader whether the consensus summary was added before or after the new discussion. And without a signature, he or she cannot go and ask. LtPowers (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I find it necessary each time to check who added the template for it to be useful, as some users' understanding of how our consensus process works is much more reliable/trustworthy than others'. I definitely think the template should be signed and dated. --Peter ^Talk 16:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree - signed and dated per Peter F. It is no effort to do it and there is no obvious reason why anyone would not wish to sign it like any other contribution to a talk page. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that we make the signing field something like "added or updated by" and that we allow multiple signatures? It should be allowable for anyone to update the summary message, but it seems inappropriate to change a message that someone else signed. -- Ryan • (talk) • 17:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

How about "last updated by" to make it clear that anyone can change it. That would take care of my concerns regarding knowing who is doing the summarizing. --Peter ^Talk 18:12, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I've added an "added" and "updated" param. Is that what you were thinking of, or is further tweaking needed? -- Ryan • (talk) • 00:42, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Implemented

Given the lengthy discussion in the pub (now moved to this talk page) and the lack of further comment, I've removed the "experimental" tag for this template. -- Ryan • (talk) • 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)