Template talk:Mfdbacklog

Include only
I've commented out the adminbacklog categorization from the template, notwithstanding the name of the template, as this was intended only to indicate the discussions for which the time had run. Having one discussion that is five days old doesn't mean we have a backlog.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you say does qualify as a backlog, I transcluded it to avoid putting: on the page each time.  As these are manual generally by the time someone puts this one back up there there are multiple past-dues.  Is your goal to say that past due discussions don't require admin attention until they are past due for a certain period? —  xaosflux  Talk  00:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC) See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. —  xaosflux  Talk  00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets keep the discussion here, since the issue is over the template (I've also created the header to reflect this). I'm assuming the issue is over the appearance of MfD at the Admin backlog category. While I agree that one day does not constitute a backlog, its there in case there are multiple days (which would in fact be a backlog). My opinion, is that it should stay for that reason. If we remove it now, there will be a discussion a few months from now with someone wondering why admins never see the backlog.  Syn  ergy 03:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant the above to be a mere explanation to anyone who might stumble upon it and the discussion to occur at WT:MFD where more editors are likely to see it, but I should have made that clear. There is no bright line, but the idea that every discussions must be closed after five days of discussion is erroneous (not to suggest either of you think that only that the tag gives impression that they must be).  Discussions may be closed after five days.  Just because they are running long isn't a backlog, three or four extra days is getting there depending on the number of discussions and their complexity, but posting to  the moment we cross the five day line gives the wrong impression and risks a "never cry wolf" response from the admins who monitor that cat - when we need them, we want to have them come.  I really don't think real backlogs are that common here and that tag can be manually applied when needed.  The exact number of days is flexible as it depends on both the number of discussions and the number of admins monitoring MfD.
 * BTW, the old business tag should be returned to it's place whenever we cross a six day threshold in order to ensure that all discussions have run for five full days. Mistakenly applying the tag at the beginning of the fifth calendar day is common and admins called in from adminbacklog are not likely to notice the problem since all the other XfDs have bots to apply these tags.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Erroneous? Policy states at least five days and the top of MfD reflects it as well (although it says usually; I'm taking this to mean there are times when the backlog grows and admin actions are not so swift). The template itself does not specify what you are saying, so you'll please excuse me when I tell you I don't believe you. This is how I've been operating since MFDbot has been blocked, for approx. two and a half months.  Syn  ergy 05:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no conflict in what I'm saying and the things you quote. The closers have to decide when to close after five full days have run.  The idea that it must be immediately closed is what I'm saying is erroneous and I'm only saying that immediately tagging a backlog suggests that we need to close now, not that you actually believe that five days and one second is a mandatory closing time.  I have to tell you that I have seen several admins come to admin backlog tags and close things without checking that the time has run, they count on people like us who are regulars on the page, as well as bots on other XfDs to worry about that stuff.  --Doug.(talk • contribs) 05:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * But the template does not say that it has to be immediately dealt with. If you'd like, we can amend the wording to better suit the situation. Currently, MfD's are deleted before a full five days. And I'm not hearing a huge public outcry that they are being deleted too early.
 * Also, MfD has no bot. I'm working on fixing this problem as we speak.  Syn  ergy 06:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know we have no bot, I recruited the last one but unfortunately it failed. I always cry foul when I see someone closing a discussion early and it appears they've messed up the math (which is why I always comment on closing early if I do it).  Granted I've been away for a bit and haven't been watching recent closes, but there is a policy that says at least five days and that policy should be followed, if we shorten the time to 4.5 days we are not following policy.  I'm pretty sure that consensus re WP:DEL is unchanged on this point.  If we IAR all the time, we make the rules pointless.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 06:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing we shorten the length, but amend it to specify the deletion policy, and possibly a reminder on the time frame. Just because you don't close discussions early, doesn't meant anyone else cannot. You should know more than I, that policy is descriptive and not prescriptive. I'm more than willing to work with you on this, But I'd like to know what Xaosflux thinks. There really aren't that many editors who pay attention to MfD related talk anymore (or haven't since I've been here). If no amendment is nessasary after our conversation, then I will change it to reflect the other bots. I'll also tell the coder to implement this change in MFDbot before taking it to BAG.  Syn  ergy 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand, what is this amended language you propose? And, I do close discussions early when I find it appropriate.  The fact that admins can has nothing to do with this marker.  The marker should never move until five full days have past for all discussions below it.  I don't see the problem with the language of the marker, only with the early advancement of it (and, what brought us here, the category call - but that's trivial next to the timing of advancement).  For Xaosflux's edification, this discussion of timing has been going on in more detail at Synery's talk page as well.  Also, for everyone, forget the cat, put it back in, whatever - I don't think it's a good idea but I don't really care.  I do care that it not become a matter of common practice to advance this marker early.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 10:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Shorten the length of the marker, or shorten the length of time? Absolutely oppose the latter.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, I am not proposing that the time frame be amended. I suggested an amendment be made, based on your objections thus far. The example on my talk page serves as perfectly good reasoning to move the marker. Notice that during our conversation, the MfD under the 13th, the very MfD that sparked all of this, has been closed. If I was going to suggest a different wording to the template it would be this: also note, that not all of the discussions under this tag have had a full five days, but some or most have. I believe that would accurately depict the situation, as it currently happens.  Syn  ergy 11:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, why don't we just move the marker at the right time instead of rushing it and having to come up with some kind of wiggle words to explain that this isn't really the old business marker just the discussions that are about five days old? Just move the marker on day 6 and there is never any question, every discussion from that day will be at least five days old.  Admins know that discussions can be five days old and be above the marker, that's the way it is everywhere else and it's the way it's been here normally; heck the marker doesn't always get moved when it should anyway.  If we move the marker after only four days and change the marker is meaningless, it certainly won't help me close anymore.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I almost forgot we were having this discussion! Apologies, I was caught up in something else. Sounds good. Like I said, if at the end of the discussion if its not needed, then I will change the way I do it. So, consider it done. :)  Syn  ergy 13:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a date parameter to the template that will allow people to move the move the marker at the right time. If possible, it might even be better to have a bot move the marker since the bot can read the section heads, knows the current date, and knows when five days have passed. -- Suntag  ☼  19:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)