Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-3076045-20131028130218/@comment-3076045-20131029122233

TombRaiser wrote: Wow the Consenus policy hasn't been updated since 2009! Yikes!

It doesn't even point to the new CT board...well, it does now, because I just fixed the links.

I don't think the "Articles for Deletion" discussion has ever been practiced. Usually when an article is placed for deletion, it's not an entire page full of information, it's usually a duplicate page or unused page, or spam/junk, in that case those shouldn't need to be up for discussion.

Not quite true. There were at least two major instances when a bucketload of pages needed to be discussed in order to determine which ones were to be deleted. (The two instances in particular were the merging of the SkyrimWiki and the merging of OblivioWiki). Because the duplicated pages that we were deleting both had a lot of different information on them that needed to be merged first, and differing writing styles.

But yes... on the whole, it needs to be improved. Hence... why I brought it up. (I think we inherited these from one of those two, and we just used it because noone had the time (or inclination, probably) to change these, as they seemed ridiculously wordy, and we mostly knew what we were doing at the time anyways.

And what Documentalist said... yes, something like that. But hopefully it could be implemented by the proper of the change, so that the admins aren't constantly editing their posts :)