Wikipedia talk:Articles for discussion/Proposal 2
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Colonel Warden in topic Initial drive-by thought
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of WP:Articles for discussion/Proposal 1 was copied or moved into WP:Articles for discussion/Proposal 2 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Initial drive-by thought edit
I wonder whether nomination/nominating is the best term here. I think initiation/initiating. In Nomination of deletion, deletion is the next step; with nomination for discussion, discussion is actually happening now, and the next step is the focus. Semantic, but maybe a significant-enough tweak that it sheds some of the AfD baggage and, hey, is perhaps a bit more accurate to boot. Regardless: I'll be bahck. --EEMIV (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose The idea seems to be to expand AFD by including any and all "major changes" to an article. The trouble is that Wikipedia editors are apt to consider any change to be a major change and will argue at length about them. See WP:LAME for a long list and consider recent examples such as Bradley/Chelsea Manning, Trayvon Martin, hyphen vs n-dashes, diacritics, &c. The proposal has obviously been crafted to address the endless wrangles about the treatment of fiction. It wouldn't do anything to resolve these as such arguments already take place at AFD, ad nauseam. All it would do is add other occasions for useless drama and devalue article talk pages completely. AFD would become even more of a ghost town - endless empty streets with tumbleweeds blowing down them, punctuated by the occasional intense gunfight as a posse rides through. Warden (talk) 17:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)