Talk:Requests for comment
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Please remember to:
For older conversations you can see the archive index. Archives: 1 |
 |
Contents
Timestamping[edit]
There's a lot of old stuff here. It would be pretty great if someone wrote a bot to put "(last updated: xxxx)" next to each open item. — Scott • talk 17:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"open"[edit]
There seems to be a fair amount of RfC's that is marked as open, but really hasn't seen any significant activity in the past year or so. Would it be OK to close everything that hasn't seen significant activity in the past year as a rule of thumb? Effeietsanders (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Effeietsanders. On Requests_for_comment/Closure_of_old_RFCs we decided that RfCs with no activity for the last 2 years could be closed as inactive. I'd not mind setting an even shorter period of one year or even 6 months for that matter. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I have closed a few, and suggested to close a few others. If no significant discussion happened, I think 6-12 months is more than fair, but I can see how some topics may be treated differently. Not all discussions move at the same speed. My measure would be: "no way this is still going to lead to a constructive outcome". If people disagree with that assessment, and see real value in reopening, feel free. But only if you actually take up the challenge, and revitalize the conversation. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree. Not all discussions move at the same speed but once they ain't moving no more the only sensible solution is to close them. Having RFCs open forever does no good. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I have closed a few, and suggested to close a few others. If no significant discussion happened, I think 6-12 months is more than fair, but I can see how some topics may be treated differently. Not all discussions move at the same speed. My measure would be: "no way this is still going to lead to a constructive outcome". If people disagree with that assessment, and see real value in reopening, feel free. But only if you actually take up the challenge, and revitalize the conversation. Effeietsanders (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
