Forum:FIMG consistency with other wiki features

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > FIMG consistency with other wiki features
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 28 October 2010 by Gaz Lloyd.

It was just mentioned to me that FIMG voting does not have the same requirements as other features on the Wiki, such as AOTM. We made the voter requirements for some good reasons so I suggest we do the same with this, and any other feature we ever may have that requires this type of voting. I am not aware of any other areas where it would apply , but it would be simpler and make sense of we established one set of criteria, and then applied where needed. We should make and implement this ASAP in my opinion since it will simply be making us more standard, and not introducing any large change.--Degenret01 02:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support It seems to just make so much sense.--Degenret01 02:59, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom and Degen, just seems like a good idea. Not much else to say. Suppa chuppa Talk 03:10, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Conditional Support - A blanket policy here would be more organised and could also improve the quality of FIMGS. Looking over it again, if it applies to the Yew Grove as well, I strongly oppose it applying there, reasons below. 222 talk 05:32, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per Degen. HaloTalk 05:40, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support if amended - If we add this to all places like the yg, rfd's ect i will support but since we use consensus we shouldn't have a real need for this. Honestly i also like the uotm requirements more than the AOTM req's. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - For the Yew Grove we also have to take into account people from other fansites who want to start an event, even though they are supposed to use [[RS:IFC|this]]. Does this mean they will be locked out of the Yew Grove? 222 talk 07:13, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

People can always create threads, RS:UCS, people from other fansites aren't going to be discsussing things unless they create there own thread. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 07:33, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Support - I remember I got confused about this once and had to ask Caleb to explain. This would just make it easier to have similar methods for similar voting processes. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 17:42, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per RS:AEAE. The only place I'm supporting it is RS:UOTM since people may create new accs to support themselves. Other than that, there is no reason to stop people being able to show what they think about something. bad_fetustalk 18:04, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

They could easily create new accounts to support images/threads, etc. HaloTalk 18:43, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand your oppose Chess, could you explain? FIMG is largely done off vote counting, we have nothing in place to stop people from making new accounts to support their own images. (okay, we have GTS). People without the requirement are free to comment, just not cast a vote.--Degenret01 18:50, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Nobody bothers creating accounts just for fimg. bad_fetustalk 18:51, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
[Citation needed] HaloTalk 18:54, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
Oh, on that note, agf. bad_fetustalk 19:03, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what AEAE has to do with this? O_o I think the proposal here is to have the same procedure, like AOTM's, for FIMG. Farming cape (t).png Lil cloud 9 Talk 19:06, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
If you want to play the policy game - UCS/GTS. HaloTalk 19:11, October 19, 2010 (UTC)
At lil - having requirements means nobody cares about what people without the requirements think about it. Halo, I fail to see how any of those are relevant. bad_fetustalk 16:09, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
Guys guys wait... the only place where creating accounts for a better chance of having what you want is RS:UOTM. All other things on this wiki are done by [[RS:CONSENSUS|Consensus, so creating another account doesn't really give you a better reason. You could always say the things you wanna say anyway by adding Comment - (comment) so this discussion is not needed.(Unsigned by Joeytje50)
Resetting a bit so this isn't so crowded. As much as we claim to be consensus based, the number of supporters/opposers is often a key factor when a sysop closes a discussion. This is not entirely the fault of the closer, as in good discussions both sides can present very excellent arguments, and weighing them to decide which is better is often not an easy task. So yes, this is needed.--Degenret01 07:53, October 23, 2010 (UTC)
Even if so, I honestly don't think we should do it. It still stops several people from being able to show their opinions on the topic, which wipes RS:AEAE out. bad_fetustalk 08:03, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Support - First of all, AEAE has nothing to do with this. It deals with weighting of opinions, not who can voice an opinion. Second, even if AEAE somehow did relate to this, common sense dictates that this is the proper move. --LiquidTalk 22:21, October 19, 2010 (UTC)

"It deals with weighting of opinions" well, if we forbid them to vote, it is actually not weighing their opinions, so the opinions of anonymous people will then weigh less than the opinions of registered users. So it does apply here. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - I think evryone can have an opinion about images. Anonymous contributors too. It is useless to vote with an anonymous user when you have an account too, because of RS:CONSENSUS:Voting with an anonymous user will not make your reasons better than voting with a registered user, and as consensus works with reasons and not with votes, so allowing anonymous users to vote will only add more reasons why (not) the image should be featured. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 20:39, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

With FIMG votes are most often just counted. Which has been said before. There is no real way to say anyone's opinion is better than another person's. Two people can look at the same image and say this is horrible while the other says that it's beautiful. HaloTalk 20:45, October 22, 2010 (UTC)
I never said one person's opinion is better than another person's. I just said that if we will forbid anonymous users to vote, we do count their votes worthless, so then we count one person's opinion(registered users) better than another(anonymous users) and that is actually what i am trying to prevent. And why is there discussion if FIMG votes are counted anyway? why not just a list with supporters and opposers? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 23:20, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Standard 'voting' requirements (account age of two weeks, 50 edits excluding userpage, user talk page, and sandbox edits) will now apply to FIMG. Quest.png Gaz Lloyd 7:^]Events!99s 21:44, October 28, 2010 (UTC)