Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 381730 by Nikel23 (Talk) Didn't see that one coming
imported>LostInRiverview |
imported>Nikel23 |
||
Line 11:
{{Col-begin}}
{{Col-2}}
<div class="headinggreen" style="height:27px; width:220px; margin-bottom:15px;" ><div style="line-height:25px;">'''[[File:Balloon_books.png|25px]] Contents'''</div></div>{{Tocleft}}{{Col-2}}
Line 19 ⟶ 20:
***HIDE THIS WARNING when it is not being used. Please don't leave it up without a timer.
--->
<!--<div class="headinggreen" style="height:27px; width:380px; margin-bottom:15px;" ><div style="line-height:25px;">''''''[[File:Moodlet_no_frame_over_worked_work.png|25px]] Archival Notice'''</div></div>
'''This page is set to be archived''' in {{Countdown|time=22:00:00 March 15, 2012|zone=UTC}}. Inactive discussions will be moved at that time.--->
<div class="headinggreen" style="height:27px; width:380px; margin-bottom:15px;" ><div style="line-height:25px;">[[Image:Replacement filing cabinet.svg|25px|Archives]] '''Archives'''</div></div>[[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 1|1]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 2|2]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 3|3]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 4|4]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 6|6]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 7|7]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 8|8]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 9|9]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 10|10]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 11|11]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 12|12]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 13|13]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 14|14]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 15|15]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 16|16]] [[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 17|17]]*[[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Archive 5|Fanon wiki merge (archive 5)]]
*[[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/The Sims 4|Articles about unannounced titles]]
*[[The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal/Achievements|Achievements discussion]]
Line 115 ⟶ 117:
'''Yes''' - I stand by what I previously said. It's less likely to make anons angry and it doesn't cut them off from the namespace completely. {{GGsig}} 11:24, March 18, 2012 (UTC)
----
I'm sorry if I'm a bit confused since I wasn't following since the beginning of the discussion, but which one is the current policy of the fanon? Is it the one which the Fanon namespace has not been locked yet? If so, then I choose:<br />'''Yes''' - Refraining anons from creating fanons will eventually make them have to register. Registered users are easier to be communicated with and backtracked, so we can lend helping hands easier to them. Besides, if they can't make fanons, they might end up in player stories instead. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] 11:38, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
----
'''Yes''' - Per the above, stops anonymous editors from feeling as locked out as they are now. {{WHsig|23:34, March 20, 2012 (UTC)}}
----
'''Yes''' - The fanon namespace is getting difficult to deal with. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small>
----
Alright, so it's evident that we want some change to how unregistered contributors are handled in the Fanon namespace. Going to open this up for discussion on ideas we could use. {{WHsig|22:26, March 24, 2012 (UTC)}}
Line 180 ⟶ 182:
:::::::::IMO, the reason why a discussion dries up so quickly is because people have no more interest or anything to say merely because that's not really the subject they have a knack for. People in general might only stop by and think, "That's not really a bad idea, why not? Whatever." The thing is, what's discussed doesn't really impact to their knowledge.
:::::::::What GG said makes sense, but what LiR said wasn't wrong too. Voting ''is not'' always needed or major, and it might not be that necessary after all. If we are discussing about a particular subject that general people might not really have any idea about the impact, voting might no longer be possible. Instead, we could ask community opinions about what they think about the idea and what they suggest, and then we consider about it, instead of asking whether they should choose option A or B, and no other solutions could possibly appear. I think it's the community opinion and consideration what matters and is important, not how many votes people have chosen for certain options. [[User:Nikel23|'''<span style="color:#007FFF; text-shadow: #ACE5EE 0 4px 4px;">Nikel</span>''']] [[User talk:Nikel23|<span style="color: #30D5C8 ; text-shadow: #00FFEF 0 4px 4px;"><sub>''Talk''</sub></span>]] 12:42, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::::I think I understand LiR's point but I am concerned that consensus slows down discussions or something. In my opinion, vote should be used when things, that do not affect the wiki to a large extent, like a logo, newsletter logo, etc., but when the change in discussion could have a huge impact, maybe we should go with a consensus. I would also like re-state that we always have the chance to open a discussion where everybody can give their points about on things that were already discussed but need fixes or that somebody is concerned about, and maybe that's what we should do more regularly. What do you all think? Thank you for reading. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small>
(Resetting indent) I would say that if something isn't major enough to require consensus, than it probably isn't major enough to require any sort of formal action. Changing a logo, making aesthetic changes, etc is something that used to be done without community consensus or voting, and for the most part that was uncontroversial. Perhaps part of the issue is burnout - we're voting on a lot of things, things which have a limited impact or things which in the past were just decided by the editors themselves. So I think maybe what we do is say that if something isn't important enough to warrant an actual discussion and consensus, that we just go ahead and make the changes that are being suggested. If users have a concern or problem with those changes, then they can bring up their problems and then have a discussion. In short, '''be bold.''' -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:06, March 20, 2012 (UTC)
Line 246 ⟶ 248:
:::::::That is a good observation. Personally I don't care if they stay or go but if they do say then I suggest we use the rule LiR suggested regarding Sims News by admins being facts and everything else being opinions in his "disregarded" paragraph. {{GGsig}} 17:13, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Keep 'em or get rid of 'em, it doesn't matter to me. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:26, April 4, 2012 (UTC)
:::::::::I agree with Wogan. It would look more professional if admins were the ones to do the Sims news. However, that doesn't mean regular users can't make them, they can, but "official" Sims news would be handled by admins preferably. If something needs to be announced and the newsletter is far away from being submitted, I don't see why we shouldn't publish at least a "notify" blog. Maybe we should just make notify blogs for announcements - expansion packs, stuff packs, store content, and then let having those matters be further detailed on the newsletter. What do you think? Thank you. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small>
::::::::::I'm bumping as this has gone unattended for 20 days (whoa). I'm now thinking we should just go along with the "notify" blogs that RoseGui suggested - they'll just be placed under the Sims News category. Plus they can be used for community interaction too. We'll just have to emphasise that "news blogs" made by non-admins should mostly be opinions and they can still be used for community interaction - I recall a recent blog regarding Katy Perry's Sweet Treats had next to no facts whatsoever and was a good short but sweet opinions blog which the community got involved with. {{GGsig}} 13:23, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
Line 278 ⟶ 280:
:::::</rambling> {{WHsig|01:31, April 14, 2012 (UTC)}}
::::::I don't like the Achievements and I even have it disabled on my test wiki. I just think competitivity between users may create chaos and as an Ombudsman it may require me to settle fights that could easily be avoided. {{DanPinSig}} 21:20, April 20, 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I think Achievements shouldn't be enabled for this wiki, because it was proved, in the past, that it didn't work. --[[User:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">RoseGui</span>]][[File:Thanks rose.png]] <small>([[User talk:RoseGui|<span style="color:orange">talk here</span>]])</small>
:::::::: N. O. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 01:52, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
::::::::: The reason I suggested this at all is because I'm trying to think outside the box as far as encouraging new users to begin editing, and to continue editing once they've started. We're seeing the same set of users recycle through, and not seeing a real influx of new editors, and I don't really understand why, except that we're not 'grabbing' those new users that are coming in. If that's the case, then I'm left to wonder why, and my first instinct is to think that it's due to lack of recognition for accomplishments. Achievements are a way - not a perfect way, of course - to show recognition for contributions. I very much feel the idea that badge boosting will be rampant is severely over-stated... those users that choose to contribute only to gain a rank are still making contributions, and in my opinion would still be more likely to stick around, as opposed to now where a user can come and go without any 'credit' (if they can even stick around long enough before being scared away or perma-banned due to [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers|newbie-biting]], which I'll make note of in a different location shortly).
::::::::: The point I'm trying to make with all of this is that we need to do something to address this, and Achievements is one possible solution. I'm disappointed that this idea isn't even being considered seriously, not necessarily because I may favor it, but because it's really disappointing that everyone is so eager to dismiss anything that isn't an absolutely perfect solution. There are no perfect solutions, and since I haven't seen many other constructive ideas, I'd say this is our best bet. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 02:40, April 21, 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::I see where you're coming from, but I don't think many people would be keen on this, mainly due to the whole Late Night blog debacle from a year or so ago. We could maybe re-activate chat (I know everyone will be against this, but it's not really doing any harm if it's there unused, and I've seen users say they have wanted to use it), or just promote IRC more. Anyone else have any ideas? {{WHsig|02:36, April 22, 2012 (UTC)}}
Line 298 ⟶ 300:
:::::Lately I can't help but think that '''this place is boring''' and that could be the explanation of the activity drops. I think the survey may as well get given the go ahead and see what everyone else thinks as lately, this place has just seemed...dull. {{GGsig}} 07:50, May 1, 2012 (UTC)
::::::GG has made a simple yet very fundamental point. However, I do not believe we are responsible for that. It is no secret that The Sims series begins to fall due to the greedy company we all know. Unless EA changes its attitude towards the game, there is little we can do. We are boring because the game has become rather dull. If things do not change soon, we may end up in a few years like [http://www.legacyofkain.wikia.com a wiki of a game I love]. Only a handful of editors trying to handle some pages. I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but really, if this doesn't go better, we are doomed. [[File:Andronikos sig.png|175px|link=User:Andronikos Leventis|A trip to hell is an exciting experience, isn't it?]] 22:00, May 4, 2012 (UTC)
== User right nominations ==
Line 311 ⟶ 312:
:::How does this sound: A user may nominate another user for adminship, but the nomination will not be considered until the nominee accepts it. When nominating a user for adminship, please leave that user a talk page message so they know they have been nominated. [[User:Dharden|Dharden]] ([[User_talk:Dharden|talk]]) 18:27, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
::::I'm in full support of that idea. {{GGsig}} 18:33, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
:::::Typically, what Dharden describes is how it already works for RfBs... the request isn't really considered until the nominee accepts it. That said, that doesn't eliminate the possibility that the nomination could have convinced a skeptical or unsure possible admin to go forward with the nomination process when they would otherwise not have.
:::::From a historical context, there's a reason why RfBs are done by nomination. I think that it's meant to deter users who are over-ambitious from applying for Bureaucrat before they have community support; having a person nominate potential 'crats means at least someone else has faith in that admin to do the job well, rather than the nominated admin deeming that they can do it.
:::::On the whole, though, I think I'd agree with Nikel - Getting sysop is much different than getting rollback, so the application process should be different too. Additionally, as a general rule sysop applications were typically not treated as community consensus issues; they used to be resolved by a bureaucrat without community input (though I suppose that input would be welcomed, especially if it would show an issue in the applicant). The application in that sense is similar to applying for a job, and job applications usually aren't debated and voted on by co-workers and colleagues. However, if the community decided collectively that they viewed admins in a different light than in the past, then that would justify not only introducing nomination of admins, but a full vetting process for those applicants.
:::::But, to sum it all up, until the community would do that, I support keeping RfAs as-is, with no nominating of other users. -- '''[[User:LostInRiverview|<font color="green">LostInRiverview</font>]]<sup> [[User_talk:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">talk</font>]] · [[User_blog:LostInRiverview|<font color="navy">blog</font>]]</sup>''' 18:42, April 25, 2012 (UTC)
| |||