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? LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. DanPin • talk • contribs14:42, 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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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. NikelTalk–Vote! 12:14, August 12, 2012 (UTC)
Proposal to merge with The Sims Social Wiki[edit source]
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? LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. --- LiRspeak ~ 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? ―ฬђtalk05:03, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
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... LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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 (talk here) 10:27, August 17, 2012 (UTC)
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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:10, August 18, 2012 (UTC)
Hello! I'm an admin from the Sims Social Wiki and I was wondering if you all were still in favor of an affiliation. I apologize for the long delay in our response, I had to wait for admin rights from Wikia (and a major cross country move left me without internet for 3 weeks in the interim). We would love to be affiliated with your wiki, but aside from that I am unsure how to proceed. I would like, at the very least, to add a drop down menu to our wiki's navigation bar that links to the content for each Sim game you host. Any proposals are welcome if you all are still interested. Mndarrr (talk) 22:46, September 26, 2012 (UTC)
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 "deletepages", 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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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 (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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 14:08, August 21, 2012 (UTC)
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:
Old 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.
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:<username>". Users can write stories in their blog, on a user page or at Create-A-Sim/Player stories.
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.
Writers should provide their signature (~~~~) after their stories.
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.
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:<username>". Users can write stories in their blog, on a user page, or in the Fanon namespace.
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.
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.
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. -- LiRspeak ~ read 21:12, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
I'd say it's fine as it is. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 21:17, August 24, 2012 (UTC)
The only thing I see an issue with is the "User:<username>" part. It may be prudent to expand that example to "User:<username>/" 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. Talk20:28, 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. NikelTalk–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. -- LiRspeak ~ read 03:40, August 26, 2012 (UTC)
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. Talk17:44, 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 #REDIRECT [[<page>/Player stories]]) but nonetheless, it can be done. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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). LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. -- LiRspeak ~ read 20:09, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
There seems there are still 34 broken playerstories redirects for some reason. Talk20:52, August 28, 2012 (UTC)
I guess it needs to be deleted manually, then. I'll do that. NikelTalk–Vote! 03:07, August 29, 2012 (UTC)
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! <wiki> 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? LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. NikelTalk–Vote! 12:58, 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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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. ―ฬђtalk03:16, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
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? -- LiRspeak ~ 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. NikelTalk–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. ―ฬђtalk09:50, September 7, 2012 (UTC)
Wogan, are you referring to the tempblock template? -- LiRspeak ~ read 00:33, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
Yea, got them mixed up lol. ―ฬђtalk10:23, September 8, 2012 (UTC)
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? -- LiRspeak ~ 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? NikelTalk–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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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? NikelTalk–Vote! 09:37, September 11, 2012 (UTC)
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? LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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. NikelTalk–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. -- LiRspeak ~ 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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 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? -- LiRspeak ~ read 04:19, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
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? -- LiRspeak ~ 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. ―ฬђtalk04:27, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
I found another potential policy on The Sims Wiki:Policy/Proposed Policy, that I have subsequently moved to The Sims Wiki:Rumored games for further development and discussion. I'm starting a section at the bottom of this page for that discussion (just click here to jump to that section). -- LiRspeak ~ read 06:55, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
The MoS proposal seems to be interesting, although I'm pretty sure I've read it before, but forgot. It indeed is pretty hard to keep up a discussion to come into an agreement before it dries up. But if we are to discuss it with certain group of people, I guess this is where we should call the members of corresponding administrative project members to discuss and keep up with the proposals up-to-date. This might not be a necessary solution, but at least they should know what we're doing. NikelTalk–Vote! 08:05, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
That's a pretty good idea, Nikel. I'd say that the MoS proposal would be most relevant to Layout and Navigation, the Image policy proposal would be most relevant to Image and File Maintenance, the Categorization one to Layout and Navigation, and the colors and styles one to Visual Improvement. Each project could evaluate the proposals, bring them up-to-date and have them reviewed by the community. -- LiRspeak ~ read 08:15, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
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. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 15:35, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
Please forgive me for what I know in advance will be a long-winded response.
I'm not sure about declining activity in the wiki (mostly because we no longer have the ability to find out) but it is worth noting that, while we have an extensive coverage of the games and have had a lot of contributions to our articles, it seems nowadays that the majority of contributions here are by people who are administrators and bureaucrats (I'll be referring to them collectively as administrators from now on). Now I want to emphasize that I do not think we have too many administrators, because I believe that administrative powers are not meant to be powers given to those in charge. Rather, administrative powers are for those users who are experienced enough and responsible enough to use them - if that means that most of our contributors are administrators, I don't necessarily see that as a problem, because that means we have a dedicated and experienced base of editors. However, the downside is that the rest of our non-administrator community is small, and they may feel overwhelmed when it seems that every active community member is an admin.
Getting back to the matter at hand... It seems to me that administrators, as being the largest group of regular contributors, would by extension be the most regular contributors to community discussions. However, having admins participating in community discussions might dissuade non-admins from participating, for fear that their opinion won't be accepted or treated as highly as an admin's. I would not support a prohibition against administrators taking part in discussions, but I wonder if there is something that can be done to remind everyone that all opinions here receive equal weight.
I'll keep thinking about this problem... but I just don't know. -- LiRspeak ~ read 18:18, September 18, 2012 (UTC)
I noticed this a long time ago when I was new-ish to the Wiki. You see, the fact that thought I wasn't a particularly useful member to the community made me hesitant to contribute to discussions similar this one. Over the past two months, I did gain some confidence, but I did hold back most of my thoughts. I fear this may be a similar problem with other community members. Now, how to overcome it, that's the issue I'm struggling to put an answer to. AsherÉireI'm a lonely person, so please talk to me... 14:47, September 20, 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to bump this based on our recent Wiki statistics. Basically, our activity is dropping and previous attempts to try and boost activity via a community discussion (reference: see the top discussion on this page) have failed. While the initial part of that discussion did gain a fair amount of input, word was spread via a bot message which would be impractical to use for everything that's brought up here; it would probably be seen as more annoying than anything else...
I realise this isn't at all an easy thing to think about but I'm throwing this out there with the hope that somebody has something to say. What Ash said above is interesting and I'm wondering if maybe there's a way of making users feel less hesitant to come forward. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:29, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above about unresolved policy discussions, I did a bit more digging and found The Sims Wiki:Policy/Proposed Policy. I zoned in on one policy proposal in particular; that proposal was to create a formal policy regarding rumored games. I think our recent dealings with certain events/users proves that having an established policy on this matter would be helpful, and as a policy was already written up, I've taken the initiative and have moved it to The Sims Wiki:Rumored games, where it awaits community consensus. That's what I'm looking to get here (obviously). Since I proposed the policy initially, I'd be happy to answer any questions or resolve any concerns about it. Please don't hesitate to weigh in. -- LiRspeak ~ read 06:59, September 19, 2012 (UTC)
So it's taken 2 weeks for someone to actually reply. Anyway, rumors have clearly been an issue in the past and it would be highly beneficial to get something concrete about them. With that, I'm in full support of that policy being implemented. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 19:36, October 4, 2012 (UTC)
hrey guise this is most fast paecd discussn evar!!!11oneone Sorry for taking a bit to respond, only just noticed this. But yeah, I agree with the policy and think we should implement it. Not sure how we'd go about implementing it since three users is hardly consensus. ―ฬђtalk03:31, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
As you may have read in this community events blog, I'm planning a User-created Contests Week on the wiki; specifically from October 13-19. My reasoning for this was as follows: The Contests feature of our wiki is all but dead, and has been for some time. Bringing some attention to it might encourage users to create their own, which might spur wiki visitors to participate and help build community. Additionally, I was looking for a community event idea and to my knowledge this hadn't been done before.
In any case, the reason I bring this up is because I want to make a temporary change to the main page. Currently we have a featured content 'section', just below the main page sliding image. Featured Article and Featured media are permanent fixtures, and the third spot alternates between Featured Fanon, Featured Fan Fiction, and Featured Tutorial. For the week of October 13-19, I'd like to take the Featured Fanon, Fan Fiction and Tutorials off the main page, and replace it with a "revolving" list of active community contests. I think this would encourage users to create new contests, while also showing off contests to users who might want to participate in them. I want to stress that this would be temporary, and that in the meantime those featured contents that are removed from the main page would still be accessible through the fanon and tutorial portals.
If the promotional week turns out to be successful, we might be able to consider reviving Featured Contests, but I don't want us to get ahead of ourselves.
What does everyone think of that change? -- LiRspeak ~ read 06:56, October 7, 2012 (UTC)
Before we handle the change of the main page to advertise the User-Created Contest, I think it's much better to handle what to be contested. I think it's a very good idea if we open a discussion to share concepts or ideas about what is good to be contested about, before "reviving" the User-Created Contest itself. Contests such as caption crunches, trivial quizzes, or the prettiest Sims might be some good ideas to start with? Perhaps we could start out with simple contests, yet interesting. NikelTalk–Vote! 11:14, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
The event is meant to encourage anyone to start contests... it wouldn't be a community-run feature (like Featured Article et al), it would be run by the individual that created it. As long as the concept of the contest is viable and doesn't violate policy, the creator could do pretty much whatever he or she wanted. -- LiRspeak ~ read 16:06, October 8, 2012 (UTC)
I guess its worth a shot. I don't see any harm in it. ―ฬђtalk03:32, October 9, 2012 (UTC)
As most of you know, when we have a discussion/vote on The Sims Wiki, we operate by consensus in order to reach a final decision. According to http://dictionary.com consensus is defined as a "general or widespread agreement" which can incorporate various different decision rules for consensus.
The reason I'm bringing this up is based on being made aware via IRC of the outcome of a certain vote that took place recently not actually having the support of the majority of the users who had voted. Having based it on the two-thirds decision rule (which is ideal imo), which would require 66% of support votes for something to pass, the actual percentage of support votes was actually only 47% for that particular vote, which doesn't even accommodate half of those who took part. Please note that this discussion is about consensus in general and not a rehash of any past discussions which have failed to apply consensus - if you want to revisit those then please create a new section on the appropriate page.
Furthermore, I noticed that our participation policies don't even reference how consensus should be applied, even if what should always start as a discussion ends up as a vote (which seems to happen a lot here) and instead gives the impression that we operate under a majority system where 51% support could be enough for something to pass, which is what they do in a democracy and we're not a democracy.
As well as having its advantages with votes, although we try to avoid them altogether, consensus would allow for both sides of the argument to be considered in a discussion, which for us could be beneficial in some cases as it may avoid us having to take things to a vote all the time. I'm all for administrators making decisions at their own discretion, being bold etc. when need be but if a decision is being made to pass something with 51% of users supporting the proposal then that can be seen as a slap in the face to the other 49% who could still make up an integral amount of our userbase.
With this in mind, I'd like to know how everyone feels about consensus and how it should be applied on this wiki. I realise this isn't exactly the most upbeat thing to be bringing up but it's important. I know I'd prefer utilising the two-thirds/66% decision rule but I'm more interested in what everyone else thinks. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 12:30, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the general two-thirds/66% decision rule, but I think sometimes it really depends. If it's a sensitive issue and both sides feel very strongly about it, we should remember that strength of argument is more valuable than number of votes, i.e. quality > quantity. When such an issue arises, we should try to reach a compromise and attempt to please everyone involved as much as possible; we don't really have a set policy about what to do under those circumstances. We should also do the same if consensus isn't reached, but support for both sides are abundant. It's never great to choose one side over the other, unless there is an overwhelming consensus, as in, more than 90%. —Random Ranaun(Talk to me!) 12:53, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I guess we've at least narrowed down the use of consensus as of this discussion. I think consensus would still be needed to resolve an issue or discussion. If we don't even meet a sufficient 2/3 majority of votes, we might be stuck at a status quo / nothing to decide and ultimately we have to resolve it subjectively. Nevertheless, I also agree the quality over quantity, but if we actually wanted strong arguments over quantity, I don't think that's when we need consensus after all. NikelTalk–Vote! 12:58, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
That's also a fair point RR. If consensus lands somewhere in the middle then depending on the discussion it's worth trying to reach a compromise. Same with strength of argument - that should always outweigh the number of votes. Another good point there Nikel about strength of arguments - if there's one really strong argument against one really weak argument then it's pretty obvious what would win, although strong arguments can be made for both viewpoints which could ultimately end with there being no consensus at all, hence how compromising would be a good alternative here. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 13:05, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's worth pretending that this isn't about (or at least started as a response to) the vote on the Same Sex relationships warning, so I'm going to address that particular circumstance before getting into consensus in general.
Firstly, and something to establish because it's important to know, consensus isn't the rule here. If you may recall, I had brought up a subject like this about 6 months ago and it was generally decided to stick with the status quo of majority rule during votes; the very status quo that two days ago rightly decided the Warning issue.
I say 'rightly decided' not in regards to the outcome, but rather in regards strictly to the number of votes. It's important to keep in mind that neutral votes don't count for or against anything; they're neutral. Discounting the 3 votes there that didn't support or oppose, it was 9 in favor and 6 against. Since we have no rule anywhere indicating (and haven't established prior to this) a 'magic number' for what constitutes consensus/a majority vote, it would be improper (and I would argue a violation of current policy) to retroactively set a minimum vote threshold.
If you were to look at the discussion that took place prior to the beginning of voting, I think you'd see a more clear consensus for removal - I quote Mathetesalexandrou: "It does seem like that the general consensus seems to think it's unneeded."). Only when the issue came to a vote did the matter become contentious. Ultimately having the vote made the outcome less certain, not more certain. Had the issue been decided based on the original discussion, the warning would've been removed without the headache of a formal vote which ultimately made things more controversial and less clear. Better yet, had someone simply been bold in the first place and removed the warning, likely no one would have noticed or cared, and none of the brouhaha would have ever happened. So this whole incident is essentially my fault, because I moved to create the vote in the first place despite there being reasonable consensus already in-place (by my count, 5 in favor and 1 opposed prior to the vote) to take the action that was ultimately decided.
All that said, I am against assigning a 'magic number' because, as it has been said before, quality of argument far outweighs quantity of votes. I hold that the creation of votes should only be made when less formal moves for consensus fail to reach that consensus, and then should be governed by majority vote in those cases. Why a majority vote? Because during the drive for consensus the threshold for a decision is far above a majority; moving to a vote should only happen when 1) a decision needs to be reached and 2) a consensus cannot be reached otherwise. Since a large enough bloc for consensus wasn't originally possible, it's not reasonable to expect that a vote will be any better, just as it is not good to deadlock on an issue, especially one that needs a timely resolution.
As for compromise... I agree that compromise should be our highest priority when in consensus-building. But that is much easier said than done, and I fear that holding a high standard for compromise in all situations will, again, deadlock the decision-making process. -- LiRspeak ~ read 23:54, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
Added: To be clear, I'm not trying to rehash that discussion, I'm simply trying to explain why the decision ultimately reached is a valid one, as it relates to the discussion here. -- LiRspeak ~ read 23:56, October 14, 2012 (UTC)
If neutral votes aren't counted for anything then I have a question: what is the point of voting neutrally at all? I know it's merely just a vocal representation of "being in the middle" but as far as I'm concerned, a vote is a vote no matter how it was applied. Here's a scenario: 13 users vote; 10 vote neutral and 3 vote support; it would still pass unanimously because those other 10 votes were discarded. Obviously a neutral vote doesn't automatically mean support nor does it mean oppose but they can still provide good reasoning and it's still a vote, so imo even if it doesn't provide a clear answer, the number of neutral votes should be counted with the support and opposition votes and then determining the outcome, whether it be via consensus or a majority outcome, should take those votes into account. If a vote isn't counted then really it just seems like a waste of a vote. Just a thought. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 08:09, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
If a voter wanted their vote to count for something, the should have voted in favor or in opposition to something. The reasoning is something to consider in cases where the reasoning is being considered, but if it's a strict 'X votes in favor, Y votes opposed' situation, the neutral votes can't be counted. Because, if they were counted, what would they be counted as? They can't be counted as votes in favor because if they had been in favor, they would have voted as such. They can't be counted as in opposition because if they opposed it they would have voted as such.
If a user votes neutrally, they might be doing it to give an opinion but ultimately it simply cannot be accounted for in the actual tally. As they say, decisions are made by those who show up... if you're not voting for or against something, you haven't really shown up.
However, if we're looking for consensus instead of a vote, then neutrality really could be used to ultimately determine where the community lands on a particular issue. -- LiRspeak ~ read 16:26, October 15, 2012 (UTC)
(Resetting Indent) Alright, I've thought about this a little bit, and I'd like to put forward a tentative "definition"/procedure to follow in discussions.
1 - Users should be bold, and start discussions only when needed. Because discussions tend to take a long time to sort out, they should only be started when truly necessary. If a user decides that something needs to be changed, they can take the initiative to change it; if someone disagrees with the change, they can try to work it out with the first user, or either user can trigger a discussion then. A user should not be punished for acting boldly so long as they continue to follow the rules.
2 - Consensus is not a number to be counted. When a discussion is held, a neutral party should evaluate the collective strength of argument for and against multiple options. Consensus is indicative of strong community support for a particular action, with little to no substantive opposition.
3 - If consensus first fails, compromise may be necessary. A neutral party should encourage all sides of an issue to re-evaluate their ideas, if it becomes clear that there is too much substantive opposition to or a lack of strong support for a position/idea.
4 - Silence is not support. A lack of response from members of the community does not indicate an implicit support for an idea. Therefore, an idea or option not receiving support from a large enough portion of the entire active wiki community cannot be assumed to have reached consensus. Persons wishing for community members to participate in a discussion may take reasonable action to alert others (e.g. talk page messages, community blog postings)
5 - Vote only as a last resort. A vote should not be held unless these conditions are met
A - The matter is significant -ignoring the issue is not an acceptable solution;
B - The time required for a renewed community discussion is prohibitive;
C - The issue has already been discussed at-length and all credible viewpoints have been given ample opportunities to weigh in, and;
D - A good-faith attempt at compromise was made before a vote was started
6 - There is a pre-established procedure for voting. - Votes follow wiki Voting Policies. In a vote, the position of the voter is the only relevant matter (i.e. In Favor, Neutral, or Opposed). Neutral votes are allowed but do not count in an official tally. A majority of counted responses in favor of a proposal is required for passage.
7 - Decisions should be reviewed. If an issue was solved in a particularly contentious manner, either through very lengthy discussion or formal voting, an effort should be made a reasonable time after the initial discussion to review the issue and the agreed-upon solution(s). If necessary, a new community discussion and ultimately a new solution to the issue may be presented.
To clarify a few things... I want it to be clear why I stipulated a majority vote in point 6. Certainly I do think that community opinions are important and need to be taken into consideration during consensus building. The reason I've removed it from voting in point 6 is because voting really is a matter of last resort. As such, it has to meet the requirements in point 5 before it can even take place (excluding votes for administrators, etc). That means that a discussion ultimately became deadlocked because 1) there was lack of community interest, or 2) a majority but not a clear consensus was in favor of something, and attempts to compromise failed. If something is voted upon, that means the community deems the issue to be important and thus, we cannot afford not to act. But since we can't reach consensus, reaching some form of formal decision, even if only a majority vote, is enough. Of course if that should happen, it's definitely worth reviewing the decision later to make sure it was the right one.
In the first point, I wanted it to be clear that we as wiki editors should have an ability to make substantial changes without being forced to go through a long discussion. Often I fear we trigger discussions on wiki issues because we're worried that we might be looked down upon or punished for acting first rather than discussing it with others or asking permission. This over-caution I think leads to a lot of the lack-of-interest discussions we have and just a glut of discussions in general, many of which weren't needed because most everyone agreed on the ultimate outcome. So I don't want users to feel as if taking a bold action makes them subject to scorn or even warnings/blocks... so long as the change isn't outright vandalism, there should be no penalty for taking action. Just as well, there should be no penalty for disagreeing with a user, or even in reverting the edit (keeping in mind a 3-revert rule and the necessity of avoiding edit wars).
This post may be a record for the longest wall of text I've ever made here, but I felt like there should be some way to reach a solution that is workable. I strongly feel that assigning a percentage required for passage during discussions is the wrong approach, as it takes the idea that discussions are meant for consensus and turns it on its head, essentially continuing the strange single consensus/vote system we have currently... a system which I hope we can all agree needs to go. -- LiRspeak ~ read 22:01, October 16, 2012 (UTC)
I went to update the featured article (belatedly) only to realize that there are no articles that have received any votes on the nomination page. This issue is one we've come across before; when it came up the last time, there was no definitive solution created.
I've decided until the problem of low participation in Featured Articles is resolved, Featured Articles will be returning to once-a-month update status, as opposed to the twice-a-month we've been observing for over a year now.
I do not think this problem will go away on its own. People aren't interested in nominating new articles or in voting on nominees, or are unaware they can do so, or are uncomfortable with doing so. We've tried advertising Featured Articles in the past to no avail. I am pessimistic that additional advertising of the feature will do any good, as it's not even entirely clear that anyone aside from the admins even read the news blogs (we have no way to gauge readership of anything).
I do not believe we've run out of quality articles, I simply think the good articles are not being nominated, for whatever reason. Please weigh in on any way to solve this problem. -- LiRspeak ~ read 04:59, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
I kinda agree that community awareness is decreasing. Ultimately, the Featured Article might end up with only administrators' decisions to see which is eligible to become "featured". I don't encourage this, because wikia is a collaborative creation and people need to get involved. This, however, might be just in case. When in doubt, well, we could postpone it to one article per month... NikelTalk–Vote! 12:07, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
I personally am not sure whether it's a lack of awareness or a lack of interest in participating. I've said in the past that I think the system in place is too complicated, and it ends up scaring a lot of people away (Featured Articles used to get a lot of anon votes, but not anymore). I'm not sure if that's the reason why this has happened, but I'd prefer to simplify the selection process rather than make it an administrative choice because, as you said, this is a collaborative project. -- LiRspeak ~ read 16:43, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
I'll apologize in advance if this seems like it's slightly off-topic but as I feel it's somewhat related, I'm just going to say it.
I'm not going to sugar coat it - Featured Content in general, which includes but is not limited to Featured Articles, is lacking and I feel that some kind of revamp is essential to solving the problem. However, I don't have any ideas myself on how to solve this and truth be told, I've considered bringing this up a fair bit lately but to no avail as I simply can't think of a solution. As LiR said, it can't be determined whether or not the cause of the decline rests solely with the lack of awareness or the lack of interest, so that makes things even harder.
That said unless a better solution can be thought up, maybe slowing things down and returning to the one article per month system could be a way to gain more votes. I realise that discussing Featured Content in general isn't the intent of this discussion and again I'm sorry if I kind of derailed it but I felt it was worth a mention and if anyone wants to start a new section about it, they're more than welcome to do so.
And that's yet another thing on this wiki that's dried up completely... LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 17:40, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
I've already taken action by returning to a once-per-month rotation for FA for the foreseeable future. As for solving the issue... it might help if we built up a longer list of articles that are ready to be featured. If for example we went through our articles and 'graded' them so that a user could come along and nominate one and start voting on it immediately, rather than requiring an admin to verify that the article is good enough to be featured. This would have the added benefit of allowing us to catalog which articles are good and, by extension, which ones need work. But that's just one idea. -- LiRspeak ~ read 18:00, October 18, 2012 (UTC)
Changing how community discussions are handled[edit source]
We seem to be making a regular effort to have ironic discussions, such as discussions about how to encourage participation in discussions. This discussion will involve whether or not we want to continue having community discussions on the Community Portal Talk Page.
The idea has been presented that discussions held in the forums, rather than on this page, would be more in-depth and more easily organized. Presently this page can tend to get quite long before it's archived, but the discussions themselves are somewhat limited in their length and scope, in order to prevent the page from getting way too long.
I want to state from the outset that I am in favor of this change, but I want to make sure we give this idea a fair and thorough discussion. This decision would change how discussions take place on this wiki - a process that has existed largely in its current form since before most of us were ever part of the wiki. I wouldn't propose and support this change if I didn't think it would be beneficial. I think having a forum-based community discussion system might even encourage users to bring up issues and ideas, where right now they may be dissuaded by the Talk Page system we use.
Additionally, each forum thread could be archived as-is, meaning looking up old discussions will be as simple as remembering the name of the topic, as opposed to remembering the specific archive page it's stored in. Links to discussions will no longer change when the discussion is archived. Presently, a link to this discussion would be "The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal#Changing how community discussions are handled", up until the page is archived at which point that link will no longer direct to the right place; in a forum-based discussion system, the location of the discussion would remain the same even after archival, meaning that links to the discussion will never be broken.
Overall, the biggest hurdle in this process would be organization of the new forums. GG has been working out an updated Forum organization scheme that I have previewed, and it looks very promising.
In the event that this idea were to be supported, this talk page's scope and role would change dramatically, likely becoming a place to discuss the makeup and content of the Community Portal itself, or to discuss community-building topics (as opposed to discussing general wiki issues, which is the role this page currently serves).
So, what do you all think? -- LiRspeak ~ read 00:49, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
As I've said on IRC, and echoed by the fact that I've developed a system which you can check out here, I'm in full support of this proposal as it makes backtracking easier, designates what discussions are ongoing (which could be a step in fighting the often situation of them drying up), can accommodate a lot more discussions at once, including various viewpoints/proposals related to one thing as we'd have the whole page for the topic and finally, it may persuade users to use our forums a bit more, which seem to be lacking for some reason. So yeah, I'm all for it. LostLabyrinth • (c) • (b) 00:55, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
An item I forgot to mention but which GG sort of hints at above... It seems that discussions on this page tend to dry up as soon as they "move up the page" - we still have "active" (I use the term very loosely here) discussions near the top of this page, but they are all-but-forgotten because of what is below them. I think having each discussion on its own page will alleviate this. -- LiRspeak ~ read 00:58, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
I find this a good idea, per the points referenced above. DanPin • talk • contribs18:51, November 2, 2012 (UTC)
I suppose this discussion is already over, as the idea has been implemented...? Needless to say, I'm in favor to this change... as I already see where it's going. I can't seem to find anywhere else about this discussion. :/ I'm just curious about these things:
What will happen to this talk page?
Any way to keep track any new discussions and threads? I guess we can just add the category of each forum to be notified whenever a new thread is added, unless there's a better way.
Won't we ever use pictures to represent the forum topic anymore?
In response to the points... 1) This talk page, I imagine, would relate specifically to the Community Portal or specifically deal with community issues, like Featured Content or new community participation ideas. 2) My best advice is to just watch additions to Forum:Community discussions. Maybe there's a way we could set up a feed from the CD forum, showing perhaps the 3 or 5 most recent forum posts there... it's something worth looking into IMO. 3) I assume you're talking about the old Doo Peas, Central Park, etc pictures? We figured that the forum names could be pretty confusing, especially to new users, so we opted to make the names more easily understood. Since the names were no longer there, it didn't make much sense to keep the pictures either. Plus the pictures are quite large and force the forum post - which, after all, is the whole point of the page - downwards. -- LiRspeak ~ read 13:13, November 5, 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I meant in 2) I guess we can just add the category to the watchlist of each forum to be notified whenever a new thread is added. Forgot to write the "to the watchlist." Anyway, I guess it's clear to me now, thanks! NikelTalk–Vote! 04:03, November 7, 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
• (c) • (b) 13:40, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
• (c) • (b) 16:48, August 10, 2012 (UTC)
(talk here) 18:10, August 20, 2012 (UTC)
Talk20:28, August 25, 2012 (UTC)
Talk17:44, August 25, 2012 (UTC)