Anonymous user
The Sims Wiki talk:Policy: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
imported>A morris (→Comments: replying) |
imported>LostInRiverview mNo edit summary |
||
| (16 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Archive navigation
|[[The Sims Wiki talk:Policy/Archive 1|1]] · [[The Sims Wiki talk:Policy/Administrative Policies talk archives|Admin policies archive]]
}}
Line 36:
:*Removing content from another users user page or talk page is forbidden and will result in a warning.
'''--[[User:Duskey|<span style="color:#344790;">Duskey</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Duskey|<span style="color:green;">talk</span>]]</sup>''' 21:07, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
;Update
Nothing much has developed here, but since this 'rule' is generally well-accepted, I've added it to our [[The Sims Wiki:Guidelines|Guidelines]]. If people think this rule should be officially added, feel free to restart discussion. -- '''[[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>''' 06:59, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
==General Rules Contradiction==
Line 41 ⟶ 43:
== Creation of Policies governing votes for Featured content ==
:''This proposal has been removed by its proposer.''
<s>I would like to propose the following policy governing nominations and votes for Featured Articles (FAs) and Featured Media items (FMs)
----
Featured Articles and Featured Media will be selected after a thorough review process consisting of nominations, quality assurance and voting.
Line 56 ⟶ 58:
#Votes must adequately explain why a particular nominated item is qualified for Featured status, and all votes must be signed - votes that lack these requirements may be deleted by administrators.
#At the end of the month, the single article and single media item that received the greatest number of votes ''as well as the best justifications'' will be made into the Featured Article and Featured Media for the new month. If there are serious questions about the quality of an article or media item that received the most votes, the Administrators may review the winning item, and choose to instead give Featured status to a runner-up item of superior quality. However, this should be done only if the winning item is clearly not of Featured Article/Featured Media caliber.
#All articles or media items that were nominated and that were not disqualified based on quality issues will remain on the Nominations page, and may be re-voted on until they either become Featured or lose quality to the point where they are no longer worthy of Featured status.</s>
----
===Comments===
Line 64 ⟶ 66:
:In a situation where items are submitted for review and given a quality rating, would that inhibit the ability of regular users to nominate items for FA/FM? Also, do you think that we should or could coordinate the establishment of criteria with a possible update to the MoS (if you think the MoS needs an update)? -- '''[[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>''' 21:32, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
::Any user could nominate an item but there would be a limited number of articles that could be nominated. Although anyone could discuss the quality of an article, only an administrator would assign the article a rating. Yes, the criteria should be consistent with the MoS, though it does need updating. I've also been looking at how Wikipedia does it. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 22:07, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
:::I like that idea. I'm going to pull the policy proposal from here and start a new discussion in the Community Portal instead. Hopefully we can get some engagement this time around... -- '''[[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>''' 22:25, November 3, 2010 (UTC)
== Policy for Usernames ==
;Username policies
# Usernames that are the same or very similar to the name of a premade Sim, game, neighborhood or item from ''The Sims'' series of games are not allowed.
# Examples: a user cannot choose 'MortimerGoth' as a user name, since it is similar to [[Mortimer Goth]], a premade Sim. Additionally, a user can't use 'The Sims 3' as a username, as it is identical to [[The Sims 3]], a game title. A user with the name 'BellaGothRocks,' however would be allowed because it is different enough from [[Bella Goth]].
# This policy does not apply to users who are already editors on the wiki as of the date it is enacted.
----
Comments:
I've introduced this in reaction to a user named {{Userlinks|The Sims 3 Late Night}}. Please keep in mind that this policy would not have any effect on already-registered users, such as {{Userlinks|BobNewbie}}, {{Userlinks|Bella Goth}}, or others who are already registered contributors.
-- '''[[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>''' 06:19, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
:I have found it confusing. And now, with the new skin, I've noticed namespaces is not displayed as much. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 22:21, November 13, 2010 (UTC)
== Revision to [[The Sims Wiki:Policy#Voting Procedures|Voting Procedures]] ==
I would like to amend TSW's [[The Sims Wiki:Policy#Voting Procedures|Voting Procedures]] to recognize the idea that [[Wikimedia:Meta:Don't_vote_on_everything|most things shouldn't be voted on]].
;Current Language
Voting begins after a discussion has taken place and an adequate amount of time has passed so all views can be taken into account. A voting period last 2 weeks after the first vote is made, this would usually be the person creating the vote. All Voters and Voting Topics should follow the following format in order to maintain neatness.
;Proposed Language
Voting as a means to determine [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] for a decision should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. If a vote must occur, it should be held only after significant time has passed for all viewpoints to be taken into account. To encourage discussion rather than voting, votes may only be initiated by Administrators or Bureaucrats. A voting period lasts 2 weeks after the vote is created, unless otherwise stated. All Voters and Voting Topics should follow the following format in order to maintain neatness.
;Comments
I'll start by explaining why I'm advocating for the change. As TSW often attempts to emulate Wikipedia in our function, I think it's important that we observe one particular element of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a democracy. Rarely, if ever, are decisions put to up-or-down votes on Wikipedia because votes don't build consensus behind a particular issue, which is necessary '''especially''' when policies and major decisions are being made by the community. Take for example the vote held months ago regarding TSW merging with the Fanon Wiki, which ''barely'' failed the final vote. A person looking at that discussion would see that there was no consensus on merging versus not merging, but if the vote had been just a little more towards merging, it would have happened ''even though a near-majority would not have supported it.''
The idea of voting on an issue is understandable for sake of fairness, but since we are all a community and we must support as much as possible an initiative, a vote really isn't preferable to developing agreement in the community.
Feel free to propose a change to my proposed wording, if you feel what I've written is too long or confusing. -- '''[[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>''' 04:51, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
:I agree with the sentiment and wording. --[[User:A_morris|a_morris]] <small>([[User_talk:A_morris|talk]])</small> 21:02, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
I support the proposal. [[User:GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="navy">GG</font>]] [[User talk:GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="grey">(t)</font>]] • [[Special:Contributions/GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="green">(c)</font>]] • [[User blog:GEORGIEGIBBONS|<font color="purple">(b)</font>]] 08:57, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
{{VoteFor}} Support. [[User:BobNewbie |<font color="green">BobNewbie </font>]]<sup>[[User_talk:BobNewbie |<font color="red ">talk</font>]] • [[User_blog:BobNewbie |<font color="blue">blog</font>]]</sup> 09:50, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
{{VoteFor}} Support --[[User:Norman Average|Norman Average]] 10:21, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
{{VoteFor}} Support. --[[User:Guilherme Guerreiro|Guilherme Guerreiro]] <small>([[User_talk:Guilherme Guerreiro|talk here]])</small> 10:30, December 18, 2010 (UTC)
:I'll leave this open for an additional week for any opposition to come forward. If none does in that time, it will be considered adopted by consensus and will become official policy. If there are any objections to the procedure I am employing, please state them here and we will use a different procedure. - '''[[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>''' 06:54, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
::The change has been adopted. -- '''[[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>''' 22:16, January 17, 2011 (UTC)
| |||