Forum:Featured User

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Featured User
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 July 2009 by Soldier 1033.

Featured user was originally introduced to help recognize users for their good contributions, right? Right. But it has turned into a popularity contest, it's become way too much of a competition. People with great contributions withdraw from being UOTM because there's another user who the community is more familiar with, and they go unrecognized. That's pretty much the definition of a popularity contest. Proposal: Instead of voting in one user a month, have multiple users be selected. Whether or not a user may become a featured user, the community votes on. On the featured user template, use the <choose> <option> code so the different users will be displayed a couple of minutes apart.


Support - As nominater --— Enigma 20:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - How about past featured users, would we add them into the cycle? - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 20:44, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Edit: Removed support, currently undecided.

Comment - How are we going to selected the featured users then? A consensus too? A amount of supports to enter the cycle?

Bonziiznob Talk

22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment -What I was thinking was yes, add previous users that are not banned, and have a general consensus for a user to enter the cycle. For example, someone with only 50 or so total edits obviously will be opposed by most of the community and would not enter the cycle. I think the current requirments to be a UOTM (if there are any, I've never checked) would apply. --— Enigma 05:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - I agree. Runecrafting.gif Mo 55 55 Talk|Sign 09:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I understand that this is only a proposal to curb the popularity contest feel of the UOTM, but in this case, you don't solve a problem by adding more to it. UOTM needs to go. Cap and goggles.pngTEbuddy 09:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Support - So it's a bit like the featured image, and that works well. We would really need to rename User of the Month to Featured User though, because it's not really UOTM any more.--Joe Click Here for Awesomeness 09:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's already Featured User on the Main Page, we just need to move RuneScape:User of the Month to RuneScape:Featured users. I don't think we should have RS:FU as a shortcut, though, that name seems a little deceptive... --— Enigma 10:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - I've seen no "popularity contest" problems for quite a long time. Andrew talk 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - first of all, the users that become populer on this wiki are the people who are our best contibuters and thus are worth the title. popularity has been given a negitive meaning, but it means to be well liked. I have a fealing that is the point. Second of all, I have never seen a user get user of the month that I would not vote for (I just forget to vote) and I would only vote for a user that has shown good character. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 22:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - The point is users are going unreconized. If we're going to have Featured user, I believe it needs to be improved. If not, we can just get rid of the whole thing and everyone will go unreconized for their contributions. --— Enigma 22:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I do think that UOTM is a bit of a popularity contest. And Stelercus, "well liked"? Someone may be a very active and helpful contributor, but many people may not like them. I wouldn't be surprised, if out of three people, a voter would support their friend. I agree with Tebuddy. UOTM is biased. Enigma, yes, I do agree with your above statement, but the point of the Wiki is to be a source of information for people. Not to flaunt how many edits/contributions you have. Exceptional contributors, yes, should be given credit for their work, but is it entirely necessary to go through the whole ordeal of UTOM? Is a "Great work" and pat on the back not enough? If great contributors have a smidgen of modesty in them, they wouldn't need to tell the world how great their edits are to get recognized. Don't flatter yourself. If you're that great, people will compliment you.  Panjy16 22:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

UOTM is for recognizing good contributors. If someone doesn't win then they might the next month. Nobody is complaining except a couple people here without anything to back it up which leads me to believe that there is no problem. Multiple UOTMs won't make things any better and neither will trashing the idea completely. You can never please everyone. Andrew talk 23:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
You're right we can never please everyone, but if you never try something you will never achieve anything. I still support because I think it's worth a shot. --— Enigma 06:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Do you honestly believe that more than 1 UOTM is going to solve the problems that you have failed to prove even exist? OMG! Andrew talk 07:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
It might. And you can't fail at something you have never done until you actually try to do it and fail. --— Enigma 10:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, let's take a look at the month you were UOTM, Andrew. Mainly the nominees were you and Stinkowing. You even nominated Stinko yourself. But, alas, you had more supports. Stinkowing went unreconized, even though he was a great contributer as well. If we have this proposed process, I believe it will please more people. Not everyone, though, because that is impossible. --— Enigma 10:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
That makes absolutely no sense.. not everyone will win and Stinkowing obviously wasn't upset. He could have asked someone to nominate him next month if he really wanted to. Don't start proposing changes and then come up with random excuses that don't even make sense. You still haven't given me a valid reason for this, and by your logic we should make every user an admin because "you can't fail at something you have never done until you actually try to do it and fail". Andrew talk 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for closure - We won't be achieving consensus any time soon if at all. --— Enigma 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Andrew talk 20:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)