Forum:Cleaning up the main page by Discontinuing UOTM

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Cleaning up the main page by Discontinuing UOTM
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 31 March 2011 by Suppa chuppa.

If we have to get rid of something on the main page, I would make UOTM the first thing on the chopping block. Frankly, I don't see what the purpose of this project is. My reasons for wanting to do away with it are as follows.

  • One can only become a UOTM once. Under that system, anyone who hangs around the wiki indefinitely will, sooner or later, win UOTM.
  • You can't oppose nominations. While I don't support removing that rule, I don't support having it either. If oppose votes are unacceptable, then no real discussion can be held regarding whether or not the user should actually be UOTM. Looking at a list of votes on the current UOTM page, I'm seeing "caek", "waffles", "(:", "As nominator" (from somebody who was not the nominator). This project is mediocre.
  • Looking at the current list of candidates, all of them appear equally worthy of winning. The person who wins will only win because they randomly ended up with the most votes. We are essentially drawing a name out of a hat each month.
  • It's a vanity project, and if the above is true, then winning it isn't at all prestigious. One might argue that it's not supposed to be prestigious, but if it isn't, then why does it exist?

I'm probably not explaining any of this that well. The point is, and I hope all of you can agree, UOTM is no different than drawing a name of an active user out of a hat.

Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:58, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I'm not saying UOTM is inherently evil and must be destroyed, I'm just saying it's not worthy of space on the main page. If it doesn't have the main page slot, the whole project has to go down with it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 12:27, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Clarification - Steler is mainly arguing that something needs to go from the main page, and that his favorite to get axed is UOTM, not that UOTM needs to be axed just cause. HaloTalk 19:34, March 20, 2011 (UTC)


Support - A wise man (named User:Vimescarrot) once said, "For fuck's sake, this is the most pointless argument ever in the history of the world! Bloody decide something before I shoot you all!" Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:58, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I censored the f-word. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 20:35, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Why? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
Good question. Uncensored. White partyhat old.png C Teng talk 01:43, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Just got a message I cannot censor it. Fine. Stelly, please remove it? It's a bad word. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:33, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
So? It's not going to hurt you. One, he shouldn't edit his post after the fact, and two, he should accurately quote the user. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:41, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. Yet I think everyone understands what f*ck would mean, with a 99% accuracy on the quote. Lol User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 06:51, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
"Stelly, please remove it?" No. I've personally never used the word out of personal choice, though I'm not going to stop other people, nor will I alter quotes that include it. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:23, March 18, 2011 (UTC)
I hate to sidetrack here, but I'd like to point out that "bad" is relative. "Bad" words have their place by emphasizing, if you don't like it, no one is forcing you to read it. Be realistic here, we've all heard the word "fuck", pretending that it doesn't exist is completely immature. I feel like someone said "penis" in front of a bunch of 5th graders. We should all be, what 12+? Grow up a bit. Please. HaloTalk 19:45, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support - For practical reasons, the project is pointless. For ideological reasons, the project goes against principles of the wiki (like no democracy). Essentially per the reasons I listed in the last thread I made about this topic. --LiquidTalk 20:15, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Amend it - Rather than discontinue them, make the supporters give a valid reason for why they are supporting them. That should deal with point 2. Also, have it possibly limited to 1 vote per person, to possibly ensure that the best candidate gets the award, possibly dealing with the last 2 points. I do realise that may possibly violate a policy, but the way I see it, the way it is right now also violates said policy, as Liquid states. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:24, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

As I said, all the current candidates are worthy (at least in my opinion). Even if we required practical reasons, we'd still be drawing names out of a hat. If we limited each person to one vote for all the nominations combined, what happens when a nomination appears mid-month? A user may change his vote, causing the same problems we are trying to prevent with the "no oppose" rule. The safest, most reasonable way to approach the issue is to do away with the whole project. Besides, what are you trying to salvage from the project that's worth saving? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:31, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
So add a time limit for nominations, say 4 days, and have voting start after that, with people having to dedicate their vote to 1 person with no opportunity to switch. It would help ensure that the most worthy candidate wins. And I'd rather try and see if we could fix what is broken before condemning it to the scrapheap. What I've done Ciphrius Kane Talk 20:48, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - For reasons listed above, and I get all sad and jealous when I'm not picked, >:( - Freeze967 20:42 March 17, 2011 (UTC)

(editconflict x2)Hmmm well hmmm mwah hmmm ya err... hmmm.... - We could turn the voting system into a FIMG'y system(like what we did for AOTM)(yes I am comparing a couple of bytes with actual people here =D). I think it is good to keep this "tradition" of the wiki, and also keep it as stimulation for new users. They will start editing more fanatically, and do better edits, just to become UOTM (and/or become admin), which is only a profit for the wiki. We are not abusing them in any way then, as they want the "title" themselves, we are not forcing them, but still we get something in return. After a while they will probably change minds and continue editing without the single goal of becoming UOTM, but I do really think that UOTM, and it's featuring on the main page, does stimulate new editors to edit better, and/or more. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:49, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that new users are prompted to edit better upon seeing that we have UOTM? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:54, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
No evidence, but I think that if you ask Cook, he would know a user who would want to pay to remove all ads from the wiki with the reason "now you gotta give me uotm" so I do really think it has some kind of effect on people. I do think it helps our wiki, even though we can't see any direct effect of this. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 21:02, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Support - I never did get the damn title, and I've been here for ages. That makes me feel rather...inferior. 7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 01:06, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral - What Joey said in a Nuts.pnghell. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 14:59, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose I do understand with the points of the supporters but I disagree it is enough reason to remove this feature. What you may be failing to recognize is that this positive feature is a useful method of leting people know that "Hey, you do good work, yuo help the wiki, and we appreciate it". They really are not the supreme editors of the month, but they are good constant regular contributors who improve the wiki with the constant work and dedication. Recognizing that effort, time, and dedication should hardly be called a bad thing. Is the system flawed? Perhaps. But some of the suggestions to change it would make it worse, begging your pardon and meaning no offense. We try to have multiple users to offset the fact that we cannot oppose someone. I do like the idea of the limiting the time frame in which people can be nominated, and no voting can start until that time is ended. That would be an improvement certainly. All too often the first person named receives a flood of votes and then nothing happens until the month is up. But let us make the change to one full week of nominations before any "voting" can begin. And if anyone really wants to be featured, they should try to edit a lot, not just sit around hoping their name will be called. All the recent featured users are recognized for their work, not hanging about.--Degenret01 22:04, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Degen has some really good points. But also-to all you people complaining that you never got it: 1) that doesn't make you a bad editor, 2) that doesn't mean you aren't appreciated, 3) that doesn't mean you won't get it in the future, and 4) it's not a valid reason to oppose. It's somewhat similar to opposing someone's RfA because you aren't an admin. "If I can't have it, nobody can!" -HaloTalk 02:03, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - How is UOTM hurting anything on this wiki? All it does is provide recognition to a good user each month - a task at which it excels. As I've said before, if it ain't broke... Ajraddatz 02:07, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

"If we have to get rid of something on the main page, I would make UOTM the first thing on the chopping block." The main page is broken. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 01:55, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - All the reasons given for canning UOTM are just plain silly. It's been around for years and it hasn't done any harm. I think we should be focusing our efforts on something a little more productive... Andrew talk 02:44, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Like what? Indicting corrupt player moderators on bribery charges hasn't gotten very far... --LiquidTalk 02:57, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - UOTM is doing it's job fine: Recognising one of our best editors every month. It doesn't need to be changed, and a lot of the changes suggested will just turn it into something more serious, which defeats the purpose of having it in the first place. Yes, it has flaws, but the "fixes" won't improve it. 222 talk 07:22, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose - What's wrong with recognizing someone's good work?.. Regarding point 1: Not necessarily, considering we get new users. Point 2: I felt "good editor" wouldn't get the point of me waking up in the morning and having the will to actually vote for someone, so I put a useless smiley instead. Thanks for bringing that up. Point 3: If everyone felt that each person nominated was worthy, they would vote for each person, and all of them would become UOTM. What you deem worthy and what another deems worthy are completely different, obviously. Point 4: I agree, but your solution to can the entire project can be better combated by changing how the current one works. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 15:59, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose When I first was editing and recognized, it made me keep editing. what is wrong with that? 16px‎AtlandyBeer.png 16:16, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Change it up - I agree that it is definitely flawed. Perhaps we should do the things joey said, or at least make it more fair and less 'K I vote you yayyy' sort of stuff. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 00:39, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Why not attempt to make it better instead of outright removing it all? --Callofduty4 14:07, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - As per Degen.

Bonziiznob Talk

14:34, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Most of you are missing the point. The main reason I'm proposing we get rid of UOTM is because I think something on the main page needs to go. I am also of the opinion that UOTM is the least important thing on the main page, for the reasons I listed. If one is going to oppose this proposal, he/she needs to focus on its presence on the main page. Reforming the UOTM is a different issue and should be taken to a different thread. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:21, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Clearly people here don't think something on the main page needs to go, or possibly that they think there is an alternative option. I personally think the main page is fine as is. HaloTalk 19:27, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Then they should say that instead. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:28, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
I just did. Don't get angry because people don't agree with you. HaloTalk 19:29, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
But why do we need to remove something from the main page? I reread the forum description and it simply said we need to remove something and UOTM is on the chopping block, yadda yadda yadda. But why remove from the main page? Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 19:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
What is wrong with the mainpage..? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:35, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
<edit conflict> @Halo: I'm not angry that people don't agree with me, I just don't want this discussion to be about something other than what I actually proposed. @Coel/Urban: There is a proposal to add yet another feature to the main page. We've added two new sections to the main page in the last month or so, and I think something needs to go, so I proposed we get rid of UOTM. If you don't agree, that's fine. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:39, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
I suggested that we move Article of the Month & the ET box into the slider. Why not put UOTM in it as well? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:42, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Assume this scenario is true, whether it is or not. Right now, 75% of people who look at the main page see the ET box. Now the ET box is part of the slider with two other images. The ET message appears first of the three 33% of the time by default. 65% of people who look at the main page now see the ET message 33% of the time, because not everyone looks through all three images. 10% of those looking at the main page look through all three. With all that said, the number of people looking at the ET message has dropped by 43%. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:54, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Okay... and UOTM...? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 19:56, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Adding UOTM would be one thing too many. Each image we add to the slider will decrease the number of times each image is seen. ET messages must be seen, or the ET will be defunct. Furthermore, individual users just aren't appropriate for a large image on the main page... Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:04, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Then remove the message from the front page and put on the site notice. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:07, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Okay then keep the ET box and put UOTM in it. Moving it to the site notice could be cool too. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:09, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of which, in the site notice, the message "Interested in seeing your work on the main page? Submit your fan fiction, editorials, and any other RuneScape-related literature to the RuneScape Wiki Post!" Seems oddly redundant for this thread. We're trying to remove stuff, and it's adding more... But in that top box where it's from is where I think the UOTM should be. Such as a quick message, with a Here for more details link. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:13, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
<edit conflict 3x> @Coel/Urban: Which message, the ET notice? First, the site notice does not appear for the vast majority of users, just monobook users. The main page is the only reliable way to get ET messages across to everyone. If we merged the ET notice into the news section, nothing would actually change. The message would still appear on the main page, just in a different section. Besides, we just recently pulled it out of the news section because it was too messy. @Urban: Why would we put UOTM into the ET box? The two have nothing in common. @Coel: (This message gets longer with each passing edit conflict) The RSWP needs submissions. I'm not sure what you mean when you say the RSWP-advert is "redundant for this thread". Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:18, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
The way I understand it, UOTM isn't nearly as important as, say, someone being sysopped. So it'd be OK to put on the site notice. Achievements Coelacanth0794 Talk Contribs 20:21, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Huh? No lol, I mean put UOTM in the slider. Also, doesn't the sitenotice show up in WikiActivity for monaco users? It does for me... sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:23, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to guess you meant to say "Oasis". Yes, it does show up on WikiActivity, but how many people do you think actually read it? The main page is more reliable, in that regard. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:28, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, yes Oasis. I can't speak for others, but I never look at the main page. So meh. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 20:47, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Now don't rage at me for being to lazy to read all of this. But why not have 2 sliders on the mainpage, one with featured content: UOTM, FIMG, Featured Article. And the other with Wiki news, RuneScape news, and Wiki Events?   Swizz Talk   Events!   22:01, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
Because the sliders are too large. Having two on the same page would look strange. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 23:38, March 20, 2011 (UTC)
We could still use a <gallery type="slideshow"> on the left column. Those widths are adjustable, don't need images of certain dimensions, and could still work almost the same. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:00, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removing anything from the mainpage - I don't see the problem with scrolling down. Readers always needed to scroll down on the mainpage, what's the difference now? bad_fetustalk 21:59, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose removing things - Why are you removing something from the very bottom while you want to prevent scrolling down? If we remove that, wouldn't people have to scroll exactly as much as they would have to do now to see content like featured articles and the news? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:00, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - The system is flawed and should be reformed, but I don't think we should remove UOTM just cause you think something needs to go. It does it purpose of recognizing users of the community, without obscene picture attributions or the like that Wikia supports. I think the main page looks fine the way it is. (Except for that the tips section needs to be moved way up) Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 01:06, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Still oppose - Per Joey. 222 talk 05:25, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I call Bullshit - At least the featured user represents something of the wiki. You let articles for the paper be personal blogs of the worst crap and nonsense. Not all of them, but way too many. If we need to remove one single item off the main page, it is that crap. --Degenret01 06:33, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

The RSWP section was added by consensus. If you would like to remove it, the best course of action would be to go to another thread and propose that. Also, the intention of this thread is to free up space in the left column for the slider, whereas the RSWP section is on the right. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:04, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
  1. Remove RSWP
  2. Move Wiki news to RSWP spot
  3. ????
  4. PROFIT!
JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:12, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
I may have to close the RSWP in the near future, anyway. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:14, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
I think that's better than to discontinue UOTM. RSWP is so unused and forgotten, we should actually just banham it (keep the page as historical page/archive though, just remove from main page and close for any new posts until new activity comes) and I don't think a lot of people would care if we close RSWP. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 22:26, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
As I said, the intention is to clear up space in the left column. The RSWP section is not in that column. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:50, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
err... yes...? Like I said above, we could then move the sitenotice (Wiki news) to the right column and still save space in the left column... JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 07:19, March 22, 2011 (UTC)
That wouldn't work. The nature of the news section requires it be given prime real-estate on the main page. The only other place we could possibly put it without shooting ourselves in the foot (violently) is the top of the left hand column. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 09:29, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - (I'm finding that CTRL+F was killing my edits to this page) As long as we have an advertisement appear for logged out users in the right column, I cannot support the removal of the box. However I will never support the removal of the project. While it does need to be reworked, removing UOTM from the mainpage will not solve the scrolling length. If we were able to compensate for the removal from the mainpage, I would hope that it stays or is included into either the Community Portal project page or a portal page instead. Ryan PM 15:58, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of moving it into the Community Portal. Anyone else have anything to say on that? Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:02, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Idea - My idea's. 1)Rename the UOTM to EOTM (Editor of the Month).
2)Take off all the names in UOTM and start all over.
3)Only allow editors who are active through out the month or have done something massive for the wiki (Like Making the Wiki).
4)Have actual reasons for voting not like "Oh ya he is mai friend =D".
5)Can only vote for one person.
These are my ideas hope you like them. Thanks. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 19:04, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

The problem with that is that UOTM is not only for editing prowess: Swiz and Fergie, for example, were UOTM in large part because of their involvement with community events. Also, taking off the current names would just trigger a large number of nominations in one month (for the previous UOTMs) which would also be bad. Making user of the month into some serious discussion is not something I would like to see. It's always been very light-hearted, and if we were to make it into something where people must supply important reasons and can only vote for one person, I assure you it would piss someone off. ʞooɔ 19:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
Hey this was only a thought I kinda wanted some input to see if we could make it better. Twig Talk 772kZGs.png 04:57, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
#5 sounds good but I don't like the rest of them, especially removing all previous names. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Sentra and Cook. Don't make it something it isn't. HaloTalk 23:27, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I also don't think #5 is really good. That would make it impossible to support people who come in later. Which would mean we'd have to add a rule about nomination limits. I don't think all that fuss is good. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 00:38, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think there are problems with the UOTM page that need to be fixed, but not necessarily removed from the front page altogether. I think it should follow the Featured article format more or less. The problems listed below have mostly been covered, but I'm listing them anyways. The problem with having a User of the Month is that it may be easily misinterpreted as them being the best user of that month. The purpose of it is actually to recognize users, and it has an obvious naming problem. Another problem is that it is inaccurate. One person can only be user of the month once, but if they were actually "the user of the month," then it would make sense if that user could be that user multiple times (due to the UOTM name). Another problem is there aren't oppose votes (which means that if a person vandalized pages, this might not be brought up and that user may be considered the user of the month). Finally, votes are not accurate, as the users are nominated at different times (and some users may not be given enough time to garner enough support votes to achieve the honour). Smithing 01:06, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Lol. The name...meh you kind of have a point. If someone vandalized they wouldn't be up there, believe me. Votes are fine, it's just meant to be a fun thing, not all serious. Many people nomed with just like a week left have managed to get a ton of votes in that week. HaloTalk 17:43, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
RuneScape:Featured Editor would make more sense rather than User of the Month. This isn't like going for Employee of the month at your job where it can happen multiple times a year. That being said, Featured Editor or Featured Wikian would work best if someone were to create a renaming of the project thread. Ryan PM 08:37, March 27, 2011 (UTC)
Yes a rename would make sense. It's already called Featured user on the main page. --Henneyj 15:05, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - UotM is an incentive to make users who want it actually try to edit properly. It only takes up a small section of the mainpage, why drop it? I come from a wiki where there's no featured image slot, for example. Considering how the right hand column is longer than the main column, if anything UotM only tidies the page. Smuff [kthnxbai] 19:52, March 31, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to discontinue UoTM. If someone wants to suggest a new name for it, that should take place on a different thread. Suppa chuppa Talk 21:28, March 31, 2011 (UTC)