The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

 Community Portal Talk Page This is the general discussion page for The Sims Wiki! Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding the wiki here or at the forums. Any questions regarding the gameplay features or modding for The Sims series should be taken to our Questions forum. Policy proposals should be made here.



If a link to a particular discussion has brought you to the top of this page, instead of to the actual discussion, then that link may be broken. Please check the link and make sure that the section name is correct, and that the section in question hasn't been archived.
 * Broken Links

 Contents

 Noticeboard

Archives 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  18 19
 * Fanon wiki merge (archive 5)
 * Articles about unannounced titles
 * Achievements discussion
 * Fanon Namespace discussion

Attracting, keeping and engaging new users
''The beginning portion of this discussion is archived here. After the discussion in the section below has concluded, it will be archived along with its parent section.''

Moving on
Seeing as discussion has dried up, here is a list of what has been suggested above with the aim of attracting new users and improving the way the community engages with each other:
 * More contests and games, such as in the off-topic forum
 * Utilisation and branching out with social media
 * Improving the Awards system to acknowledge a wide variety of things in addition to having an annual awards system
 * Further promotion of the lesser used community features (such as contests, forums etc.)
 * Improving the user welcoming system either by reshaping the automated welcome message, having administrators welcome the users manually or something like that
 * More series-related engagement blogs, similar to this one
 * Making the wiki seem appealing to anonymous editors via letting them get involved with games and such
 * Reviving/revamping Featured Content, namely fanon for engagement purposes (although everything seems to be lacking but if someone wants to propose something about this then feel free)
 * Talk page notifications of things one can do here (like a "subscription" thing or something like that)
 * Trying to get users involved with IRC and Chat
 * Reviving New User Adopting, which I was meant to do a while back based on an old proposal... Done that one.

As you can see, we've got quite a fair few things we can implement and I'm very committed to making as many of these suggestions come to fruition as possible. If anyone has anything new to propose then feel free to add it to the main section (above this sub-section) and if it seems practical then I can add it to the above list. Finally before we choose to implement anything, if anyone has any comments/suggestions about the list regarding how to implement something, how to improve something etc. then don't hesitate to speak out. 16:21, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
 * That's really a lot of options, though I'm not sure if we can keep all of them intact. In a quite different topic, perhaps we could add more admins... just a suggestion though.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  16:00, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * As things currently stand, all of the request pages (namely RfR, RfA and RfB) are open indefinitely to anyone who wishes to come forward provided they're eligible. I guess an easier way to handle this would be to decide which suggestions will probably be the most effective and whether or not it'll be practical to implement them. There is a bit of a variety there so we have a lot to choose from. 17:33, August 16, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think some people just find there's a lot going on all at once. And, of course, that's not a bad thing. It is always good to have things that many different users can participate in, and can enjoy with others. I think it's one of the best things about this wiki, actually. However, I think some new users look at the main page and just think, "Wow, there is so much happening!", and try to pick as many things as possible to get into. And then tomorrow arrives, bringing homework and a maths test and anything else, meaning the user will not get to go on the Wiki that night. And then a few more days pass, and the user finally gets to go on the Wiki, and they realise the contest is over, the discussion has ended, the problem has been fixed, and the voting is closed.


 * I guess I'm just trying to say that maybe we should try toning things down just a little bit. It might not work, but it could be worth a try.


 * Also, I think some of the suggestions above are absolutely fanastic. I think the ones that give a more community, 'homey' feeling, as though no one is excluded and we are all friends. (I know I still need to get onto that IRC...) ~ Waikikamukow (talk) 08:21, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that could be addressed by trying to show that there is plenty to do without making it seem too overwhelming. Maybe promoting a feature in its entirety could be more effective than promoting say a "sub-feature" of something (by that I mean say promote the off-topic forum as a whole rather than just individually promote a few threads). If anyone has an idea about this, jot it down.


 * Also, I've dug out [The_Sims_Wiki_talk:Community_Portal/Archive_18#New_user_adoption the NUA discussion] from a while back which gained a positive response so I may as well get to trying to revive it a bit. 12:08, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Late bump - Adopt-a-user is back up for anyone who wants to have a look. IRC and Chat seem to be progressing nicely, what with The Sims Wiki:Chat being created. Again, if anyone has anything to say about any of the above or if you want to have a go at one of these, feel free to do so. 19:00, September 4, 2012 (UTC)

Newsletter
With DanPin's sudden retirement from the newsletter, something occurred to me regarding editors and how long they actually last. The problem here is that principal editors, who seem to be the ones overlooking the production of the newsletter, don't really seem to last too long at all. With the fact that editors are often retiring, I think it would be best that we aim to make some changes to the system. I'd like to propose the following as a potential solution:
 * We ditch the principal editor system completely and just have the process of producing the newsletter overseen by administrators - it doesn't need to be anyone in particular, just as a collaborative effort.
 * Reiterating the newsletter being a collaborative effort, I think we should make it so that rather than have a group of users writing on a monthly basis, we give the community a chance to write something and as long as it's accepted by an administrator, it's no big deal. As long as the newsletter is written however often it is, it shouldn't matter who writes it and the newsletter belongs to the community anyway. After all, we've already got a setup for it...

I do have another idea but it's more of a later on kind of thing so I'll keep it to myself for now. Basically I feel this will be the best way to ensure the on-going development of the newsletter without putting everything on one person or one specific group of people. If anyone has anything they wish to add/change then feel free to mention it otherwise, what does everyone think? 13:40, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, right after I made that announcement, WH came to me in IRC saying he could take over. This wouldn't bother me, as I trust him a lot and I know he'd be capable of the job. However, if the community prefers to go with one of GG's proposals, I think that 1 is the best one in my opinion. 14:42, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Both of the things I said are one proposal. However seeing as WH is highly active anyway I wouldn't mind if he took over as the editor, so either my proposal or WH taking over is fine with me. 16:48, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Having a principle editor seems problematic simply due to work overload. However, it seems that there needs to be someone who is responsible for it, otherwise the work tends not to get done, get done on a regular basis, etc. It would be great if the columns were community-written, but I think it's necessary - even if not ideal - to have some lead editor there to make sure the project is on track and that the content submitted gets put in. Any ways to ensure that that editor doesn't get overloaded would be good, though. --  LiR speak ~ read 20:56, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this has been resolved, and I think I'm sort of too late. The major points have been pointed out, I guess. Maybe it'll be good if anyone wants to submit their ideas, but the newsletter is still under one's control.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:14, August 12, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge with The Sims Social Wiki
Having patrolled an article I just tagged for cleanup, I noticed that The Sims Social Wiki, which obviously provides information on The Sims Social. Having looked over there, I noticed that their articles on the game are more detailed than ours and they have (at the time of writing this up) 2,025 articles on the game with the majority of them being fairly good quality.

The reason I'm proposing this merge is that from looking around, our information on this particular game, not to put too fine a point on it, is actually quite sparse in comparison. Furthermore, it's well known that TSW does have a high traffic rate (25K views a day before Wikia hid Quantcast, not sure about it now) whereas TSSWiki may only get a fraction of that per day.

I've gone and brought up the same thing on TSSWiki's Community Portal so if both communities are in support of the merge then it would be a case of their articles being imported here, where we can do whatever necessary sorting there is to be done followed by an administrator contacting Wikia with proof that both communities agree to the merger with TSSWiki's domain being redirected to here.

I can't see any negatives with this - the merge will be great for both our knowledge base, the quality of our articles and our readers who may currently come here to look for TSS information only to leave underwhelmed. What do you all think? 00:05, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait and See: The discussion of whether a merge should happen might be a bit premature, in my opinion. There's nothing wrong with considering the possibility and I am in favor of contacting their admins and their community to determine whether their community agrees to looking at the idea. After that agreement is reached, then I think it should be looked at in close detail the hows, whats and whens of the merger. After those points are determined, then an official drive for consensus could be made.
 * All that aside, I think that if the community of both wikis approves the merger eventually, that there stands to be a benefit for everyone in this merger. So I'm in support of looking into this idea. ---  LiR speak ~ read 04:12, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral ~ While I can't argue that we'd get more info, we'd have to check all the articles to see if they are up to our standards and all that. In general I don't like the idea of wiki merges because of all the work it takes to fully make the two wikis one, but if we can make this work I don't see why not. Maybe we just become affiliated with them so they get a little bit more traffic or something?
 * Neutral ~ I completely agree with the affiliates idea stated by WH. Combining two wikis is a big job, and I'd prefer if they were an affiliate. BakeryChaz  ~ ( let's have a chat! ) 05:15, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * I realise my writeup may not have been the best in the world (maybe I should have 'discussed' before 'proposing') although the purpose of putting the same thing on both wikis at the same time was to try and see what both communities think. So far their wiki haven't said anything. I do realise that wiki merges haven't exactly been successful at all for us in the past, however if I didn't have faith in this then I never would have proposed it. Granted this is a wait and see measure for us provided that both communities are even up to the merge... 10:23, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
 * As long they agree with this, I'm all in favor, but first the admins should be contacted and let's see what their response is. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 10:27, August 17, 2012 (UTC)

Their response
Although they haven't actually responded to the message that Georgie left, they have discussed it in a forum post and their community seems generally against a merger. Among other stated reasons:
 * Their current set-up allows easy access to important information - if added to TSW, it would be more difficult to readily access information, and they would risk being lost in the crowd, so to speak.
 * They already receive enough traffic from the Sims Social fansites, rank highly on Google searches, etc; merging with a bigger wiki wouldn't necessarily make much of a difference as to the amount of traffic they already get.
 * They like having a wiki specifically created for covering The Sims Social.

They polled their Facebook followers as well and most comments have been unsupportive of the idea, stating it wouldn't provide enough of a benefit to their community. On the plus side, they were honored that we had recognized them for their quality, and were appreciative of our asking for merger rather than simply stealing their information. However, their community has spoken against the proposal and I personally can appreciate their reasoning in this matter.

All that said, I think this discussion now ought to turn from one of merger to one of affiliation. --  LiR speak ~ read 16:44, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * If they're not up to merging then I accept their decision and won't act against it. If however they're up to affiliating in order to reach a compromise/breakeven then I am not at all against it. 19:10, August 18, 2012 (UTC)

Image maintenance project
Hey, so I'm thinking of kicking off a project aimed entirely at image maintenance. The aim is to ensure that all images have the correct licensing, categorisation, a suitable filename and to ensure there are very few to no unused files, duplicate files and Uncategorized files. The reason I'm proposing something like this is down to the high number of files we have here that are either improperly licensed/not licensed at all and have random/generic filenames and I believe it would be a good cleanup task for the community to do in general. As this may take a few months, I don't see any strict deadline. In relation to the "Attracting, keeping and engaging users" discussion above, I think giving out awards to users who do quite a bit of work with this project would also be a good thing.

However, there's a dilemma. Most of the tools that would be needed for this project are currently only available as part of administrator tools, when the aim of the project is for anyone in the community to help out as admins can't do it alone. I do have potential solutions to this issue:
 * As seen at RuneScape Wiki and Call of Duty Wiki, we could request for the custodian user group to be added to TSW. It would let users who are given the right by bureaucrats delete files, move files and suppress redirects with files. As deleting files comes under the MediaWiki setting " ", we would have to write a filter to limit custodian deletes to the file namespace but that's easy to do. I wouldn't say being a custodian should be a mandatory prerequisite for being an admin though I'm not sure whether or not rollback should be a prerequisite for custodian. If this turned out to be what the community opted for, I'd recommend an RfR style selection system.
 * Alternatively I could upgrade my bot to deal with page moves as it already has administrator flags and support for image optimisation. An advantage is that it can deal with things quickly and any user could make use of it although the bot isn't on 24/7, which is a disadvantage, particularly compared to the custodian idea.
 * Even both ideas could be effective, especially for large scale image moves.

I'd like to know what everyone thinks about the project idea in general as well as the solutions listed above. I myself don't have any real preference of what we opt for and if anyone else has any ideas, feel free to shout them out. 20:50, August 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * Since these tools are only available for admin, I agree with the bot idea over the custodian because it would make things faster. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 18:10, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the bot isn't online 24/7 (I don't really want to pay for a shell) and relies entirely on my activity, meaning where it may be faster when I'm online, it wouldn't be when I'm offline. Just a heads up. 18:24, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay seeing as this has gone almost completely ignored, I've gone ahead and opted for the bot idea. It's still in testing though it appears to be mostly working. You can request quick image moves here. It will also change the file links on any pages containing the image to prevent redlinks. 14:08, August 21, 2012 (UTC)

Revised Player Stories policy
Due to the recent deletion of Player Stories, I've altered our pre-existing policy on their creation. For sake of reference, I've included the old and new versions below:

The Sims Wiki policy on Player stories. See also The Sims Wiki's Fanon policy for rules regarding fan fiction, and its placement in the Fanon Namespace.
 * Old Version


 * 1) No CAS player stories should exist in the main namespace of the wiki except for articles designated for player stories. If a CAS page has been created it should be moved to the user namespace, i.e. prefixed with "User: ". Users can write stories in their blog, on a user page or at Create-A-Sim/Player stories.
 * 2) Player stories for pre-made characters and neighborhoods are to be placed on a subpage of the main article. The page should be clearly marked as a player story and a link should be provided from the character's, family's or neighborhood's page, usually in an infobox.
 * 3) Writers should provide their signature ( ~ ) after their stories.
 * 4) Numerical ages are considered player stories as they are presumptive of information that is not cited and should not be included in Sim articles or infoboxes.
 * New Version

The Sims Wiki policy on Player stories. See also The Sims Wiki's Fanon policy for rules regarding fan fiction, and its placement in the Fanon Namespace.


 * 1) No player-created character (CAS) player stories should exist in the main namespace of the wiki. If a CAS page has been created it should be moved to the Fanon namespace or, if it is in need of cleanup to meet Fanon namespace standards, to the user's namespace, i.e. prefixed with "User: ". Users can write stories in their blog, on a user page, or in the Fanon namespace.
 * 2) Player stories for pre-made characters and neighborhoods are not to be placed on any article in the main namespace, or in an article talk page or an article sub-page.
 * 3) Numerical ages are considered player stories as they are presumptive of information that is not cited and should not be included in Sim articles or infoboxes.
 * 4) Due to a community discussion and consensus, as of 24 August 2012 Player Stories are no longer be hosted on subpages of main articles (e.g. 'Bella Goth/Player stories'). Reintroduction of Player Stories on subpages of main namespace articles must be approved by community consensus beforehand.

We can fine-tune the language of this policy if it needs it. I just wanted to make you all aware that the official policy has been changed to reflect the community's decision. Leave a message below if there are any issues here to be addressed. --  LiR speak ~ read 21:12, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's fine as it is. 21:17, August 24, 2012 (UTC)


 * The only thing I see an issue with is the "User: " part. It may be prudent to expand that example to "User: /" or link to a user namespace tutorial page (if there is one) as well as link to a definition of main namespace as that is a frequently asked question. Perhaps a link to the fanon namespace for good measure. 20:28, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * So the policy has been updated, but how about The Sims Wiki:Player stories itself? I made one in its talk page... but seems like not really good anyway.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  02:32, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
 * The version on the talk page looks good to me. I've added it to the page itself. --  LiR speak ~ read 03:40, August 26, 2012 (UTC)

Broken Redirects
It has recently come to my attention that there are a LOT of broken player stories redirects that need to be addressed. I would suggest using a bot to redirect to the parent page in order to deter creation of player stories via the "this page does not exist" routine. If there is another way to deter player stories creation, then I'd be all for it, but something needs to be done. Also, feel free to move this section as needed. I just felt it should go under an existing player stories discussion. Thank you. 17:44, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm on it. It might take me a while as a lot of what AWB is reading from the special page seems to be cached in addition to having to do a double cleanup (as I can only prepend an exact term rather than ) but nonetheless, it can be done.  18:23, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Would it just be easier to delete those pages instead? They aren't linked to from anywhere so I don't see the sense in keeping them. --  LiR speak ~ read 18:29, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm true. Seeing as I'm already listing the pages in AWB I may as well do the delete run while I'm at it. I'll check back after listing and before doing anything (there's about ~250 of them). 18:49, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * LiRBot has deleted them. I'll check the Broken Redirects page again tomorrow to be sure I got them all. --  LiR speak ~ read 20:09, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
 * There seems there are still 34 broken playerstories redirects for some reason. 20:52, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess it needs to be deleted manually, then. I'll do that.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  03:07, August 29, 2012 (UTC)

Wikia promotion tool
Before I start, I'd like to say that this doesn't coincide with the Spotlight which we already have; I'm merely creating this section for the purposes of community awareness.

Last week, Wikia released a new tool located at Special:Promote (corresponding Community Central blog) which allows a community to promote their wiki on Wikia.com. It's basically a more flexible version of a Spotlight, seeing as we're able to customise some things for ourselves and such in addition to the fact that there are no minimum requirements for a wiki to use this feature. Once everything is submitted to Wikia via the tool, they'll review it, add it to the promotion queue and it'll appear on Wikia.com within 2-4 business days (which for Wikia excludes weekends). On a side note, if a wiki is already Spotlighted, the tool will just say for the status, "Woohoo! is promoted on wikia.com!"

With this, I'm interested in what everyone thinks about possibly utilising this tool for the release of The Sims 3: Seasons, which we do not have a spotlight for as well as the release being in the holiday season. As Christmas is obviously a time where games are selling more, I can't see this being a bad thing to do. I'm not entirely sure if Wikia would give us the Christmas promotion what with our current Spotlight but I believe that it's definitely worth considering.

What's everyone's standpoint on this? 12:26, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure everyone gets the message, and I think it'll be good to exhibit the upcoming Seasons for the promote feature.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  12:58, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nikel. BakeryChaz  ~ ( let's have a chat! ) 13:03, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * We're already promoted on Wikia.com... the 'woohoo' isn't referencing our spotlight. We were one of the wikis promoted on the website before the feature was made public. --  LiR speak ~ read 14:16, September 5, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think it'd be a good idea since virtually any wiki can get advertised there (seriously, I saw some wikis there with like 10 pages). And while I know TSW was indeed on there before, it wouldn't surprise me if we were removed for some reason or another to let other wikis on there.

Updating the Warning template
I've been considering a revising of Warning, for several various reasons. Mainly, the template is far too rigid for the various circumstances in which it might be used. Presently it has only one variable parameter, the reason for the warning itself. It gives no space to further explain why the warning was issued or any other details that might be important for the receiver to be able to avoid the behavior in the future. Additionally, the language used in the main body of the template is too generalized for many instances, either being too strong so as to act more as a punishment in a situation where gentle reminding or advice is needed, or being too week when a strong message needs to be sent.

With that in mind, I've more-or-less determined that a Warning template with several possible versions would be the best approach. Multiple warning text descriptions could exist depending on the strength of the warning, ranging from advice (tooled mainly towards those edits that appear more than likely to be accidental or an unintended violation of policy), to actual ultimatums (i.e. if you do this again, you will be blocked).

Ultimately, I think something needs to be revised, as with the current template it's so difficult to apply it properly in all situations, and I fear that as a result some administrators may sooner or later choose to ignore warnings when handling users, and instead start issuing blocks right off the bat for behavior that in the past would have received a warning first, simply because the warning template doesn't meet our needs.

The reason I bring this up here rather than on the Admin Portal Talk Page is because I'd really like full community involvement on the drafting of any new warnings, so that the language expressed is truly representative of the community as well as the administrator issuing it.

With that said, any thoughts? --  LiR speak ~ read 06:28, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, the generalized content might be needed for most purposes, and we need a simplified template to warn users. So, as long as the template isn't made too complicated or doesn't have too many parameters, I'd go with the idea. How about making several default messages for several occasions, such as content removal, spamming, inserting false information, and final warning? It'd work like the current Fanon-cleanup template.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:46, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 for the idea of making it like fanon-cleanup. If we made it something like a mix of that template and the blocked-talk template, I think that would be best.
 * Wogan, are you referring to the tempblock template? --  LiR speak ~ read 00:33, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, got them mixed up lol.

Wiki Theme
Hey folks. There has been some discussion over when the Wiki Theme will be changed back to normal. I was originally planning on leaving it through the end of last week (last week being the release week of Supernatural and the end week of our spotlight), but at least one other person has brought up the idea of leaving it as it currently is for longer. So what are you all thinking on this - should we change back to the normal theme or leave this up... and if we leave this up, for how long should we leave it before changing back? --  LiR speak ~ read 01:28, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * At first I thought about leaving it until Seasons is released, but that'll be over 2 months later. I prefer the change back, but how long would "longer" last?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  02:11, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Longer could be for another week, another month, or until Seasons is released, or any time in between. I personally am in favor of changing it back sooner rather than later, since I'd rather we kept our normal theme except for limited periods when we change. Of course, the decision is for everyone to make. --  LiR speak ~ read 02:33, September 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing no real idea for when to change back, I've decided to be bold and switch back to the normal theme. I think a week past the game release date is a good rule of thumb, if we choose to implement a special theme in the future. --  LiR speak ~ read 05:50, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
 * I miss the good 'ol green. I noticed that the theme was matched with St. Patrick Day in the past, at least the logo. Maybe we could do this too for holiday and new year theme in the future?  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  09:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC)

Revising voting requirements
Hey, from having a look at our current voting requirements, I think it's worth revising. Currently, it states that a user only needs to make 1 edit to vote for anything, excluding Rfx (x = user right) which has a 50 edit requirement.

The flaw I see with the current wiki-wide voting requirements is that a user could make one edit, vote, make a new account, make another edit then vote again. It's happened before and there's nothing to say that it won't happen again.

I personally think that using the same, "Users must have 50 edits and be a regular contributor for a month to be able to vote.", requirement as Rfx would be suitable as a wiki-wide minimum requirement for one to be able to vote in a community discussion, though I'm not sure whether or not the 50 edits should be mainspace or not, though I can see why other wikis would base it on mainspace edits.

I'm bringing it up here as I would like full input from the community rather than just the administration team. So what does everybody think? 12:36, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't know... Other than minimum 50 edits, I think noticeable consecutive edits is eligible for a user to vote, though I'm not sure how to define "noticeable consecutive edits." Maybe it's like, the user has been here for days, made constructive edits, not massive and might be 2-3 edits per day, but I guess he's known things around to actually understand what he's voting for. I don't know why a vote for consensus needs to be as strict as Rfx, but we do need to keep an eye on an input from a total stranger.  Nikel  Talk  –  Vote!  13:01, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * It does take effort to get a minimum of 50 edits and be here for a month, and we could lose potential voters because they don't pass the requirements. And there would be lots of people violating it, and it would be a lot of trouble removing their votes. So I disagree. BakeryChaz  ~ ( let's have a chat! ) 13:05, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * As anyone who has been around for awhile knows, I'm not a fan of voting on matters that should be decided by consensus. And in consensus-building, the length of time someone has been here is nowhere near as important as the strength of their argument or the amount of knowledge they have on the subject, which may be sufficiently large even if their edit count isn't. On the other hand, we are looking for community consent, and it would be difficult to argue that a person with one edit to the wiki constitutes a member of the community. In the example referenced above by GG, it's worth noting that we eventually determined the ruse and scraped the vote when it was realized that it wasn't genuine; I think we all know the community well enough to realize when there is true support for an idea and when someone else is trying to make it appear as if there is support, so ultimately the idea of someone 'faking' a vote doesn't worry me much. All this is to say that, while I'm not inherently opposed to increasing the vote requirement itself, I'm hesitant to agree to any increase that could detrimentally affect the ability of new users editing in good faith from participating in community discussion or in the community decision-making process. After all, I believe one of the strengths of this wiki is our ability to resolve these issues as a group, rather than just having one or two admins/bureaucrats make all the decisions.
 * So, to boil this all down - I ultimately would support this proposal if the 'must be a member for x months' portion was dropped. I think in the past we've seen several members become incorporated as major players in the community within days or weeks, so forcing these people to wait a month before having any real say in the operation of the wiki seems to be less than ideal. The number of contributions itself - 50 - doesn't seem too detrimentally high, and I don't think it's of very much concern where the edits took place so long as they were good faith edits and not superfluous ones. --  LiR speak ~ read 14:28, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason I based this on the "Rfx rule" is because I was looking to incorporate a universal minimum requirement of a reasonable standard, in addition to the fact that I don't really understand how Rfx currently requires a user to have 50x more edits than a user who could vote for anything on this page - RfA/RfB nominations do still require community input after all. I suppose it wouldn't be a bad idea to drop the "must be reasonably active for 1 month" rule. Furthermore, I doubt a legitimate new user with 5 edits would even realise that this page is for community discussions.


 * As far as where the edits took place, I'd recommend that the edits were made to our actual content namespaces, specifically the mainspace, fanon, tutorials and I don't suppose the file or template namespace would be problematic either as a fair bit can be done there too (licensing/categorising images, fixing/making templates etc.) though I personally wouldn't put too much, if any, weight on userspace or blog comments.


 * If anyone has anything they wish to add/change then feel free to put it across. 17:26, September 12, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally am still concerned, especially as it concerns what is a vote and what isn't a vote. For instance, Voting Policy is relevant when an official vote is taking place, but what happens if there is a discussion here (which should be open to anyone) that then proceeds to vote? When in the discussion phase, anyone's input is welcome, but we would then turn around and deny those people the ability to formally cast their vote on the matter, regardless of the strength of their argument for/against something? --  LiR speak ~ read 04:19, September 18, 2012 (UTC)

Resolving Proposed Policies
I stumbled upon Category:Proposed policies today and noticed that there are presently some pages there that are waiting to be resolved. The discussion on those pages has long since dried up (over a year ago at least) and I am somewhat at a loss as to what should be done. I personally see some potential in these proposals (particularly the Proposed Manual of Style) but since they haven't been revised or discussed in quite a long time, I think some portions may be outdated. I think one course of action might be to have one or more people work to bring these proposals up-to-date or to otherwise redo them so that they are up-to-date, then bring them forward for discussion. We could also choose to simply archive the proposals and keep them around for posterity, but suspending any potential discussion on those proposals (someone could bring the idea up again, but they'd have to do it in a new article). What do you all think? --  LiR speak ~ read 04:19, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see some merit to all of them, in particular the Image one (anyone who uses IRC a lot knows about my comments I've made about the terrible condition of the file namespace). While I would like to get some input on them, I don't know if we can. It's notoriously hard to maintain discussion on this wiki, (read: taking three months to reach a conclusion on player stories), but if we can get a conclusion of some sort on them, I'd be really happy with that.

Encouraging community input
I've noticed this for a little while now although a point referenced in the Policies discussion above about how things tend to dry up pushed my concern up a notch.

Anyway, I've noticed an awful lot lately that when it comes to putting something on this page, like a proposal, a change or something like that, it always seems to be that administrators are the only ones who actually voice their thoughts. As referenced in the warning template discussion that's currently on this page, the reason that things are proposed here in particular is so that the full community can have a say in something, not just administrators. I realise the warning template may be more of an administrative thing but there have been a variety of discussions in the past that have only really received administrator input before being adopted. Community discussions are aimed at the entire community, which doesn't just consist of administrators.

While I do realise that administrators are indeed part of the community as well, the issue lies with that if only administrators are actually getting involved with community consensus, it could seem like that the wiki is a dictatorship where only admins are allowed to make decisions, which it shouldn't be, though I'll admit that the demise of the entire community getting involved isn't anybody's fault.

Is there a simple solution to this? I'm not sure. While discussions drying up has always been there, I do think that it tends to happen when only a couple of users actually give input (usually administrators) plus I also think that a common belief is that the higher up a discussion is on the page, the more likely it's concluded (when actually the discussion on top of the page at the moment is still ongoing though as per usual it dried up). Plus we're limited to our active userbase, particularly as activity is seemingly dropping. Are that many users aware that this page even exists? Do they know its true purpose? I'm not sure, but I'm asking myself these questions to try and gain some ideas.

I will be giving this some more thought to see if I have any ideas regarding this, though I'd love to know what everyone else's stance is on this, especially if anyone has any suggestions for some sort of improvement. 15:35, September 18, 2012 (UTC)