Forum:Perennial proposals

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Perennial proposals
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 October 2009 by Degenret01.

To keep this short and sweet, I propose that we borrow from Wikipedia and have our own list of Perennial proposals, Wikipedia Perennial proposals which are topics that one may should not propose to the community as they have in the past been so thoroughly shot down that it is extremely unlikely they have a chance of passing unless new information or ideas or extenuating circumstances are newly introduced. If all are in favor then I will begin by suggesting the one about barring IPs from editing, but I imagine the list will grow in time.--Degenret01 19:28, October 2, 2009 (UTC)


Support :) --Degenret01 19:28, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Sounds like an excellent idea. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 19:30, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - No harm in stopping these bad ideas before they start kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 19:42, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Psycho Robot, that sounds concerning. Of course there's always a risk of harm in doing so. For example, that's why we don't preemptively protect pages. Butterman62 (talk) 19:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Well there was a reason they are consistently shot down the community. It is my understanding that only ideas that have been brought up multiple times and shot down multiple times. Maybe "bad ideas" isn't the best term, how would "consistently unpopular ideas" sit? kitty.pngPsycho Robot talkSilver bar.png 02:48, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Actually, I was going to propose something similar to this today, these topics have caused many wiki-wide controversies. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 19:44, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't ban some discussion just because we don't like controversy. If we really don't, why not just ban all discussion then? Butterman62 (talk) 19:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
Controversy is fine, but when it is over the same thing multiple times a year it takes a toll on the wiki and those issues have no chance of ever passing. - TehKittyCatTalk Wikian-Book 20:00, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Comment/concern - I'd hate for this to actually be a ban on discussion. Wikipedia's perennial proposals page doesn't say you can't suggest those proposals, but that you shouldn't, without good reason. Just a note of caution. Butterman62 (talk) 19:49, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

"topics that one may not propose to the community as they have in the past been so thoroughly shot down that it is extremely unlikely they have a chance of passing unless new information or ideas or extenuating circumstances are newly introduced." It will be suggested, but it can be shot down unless there's some form of new spin on it. Zaros symbol.pngChaos Monk Talk SignCoins 250.png 20:05, October 2, 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I was going to say that as well, Chaos. I'll put my comment here anyway:
"...unless new information or ideas or extenuating circumstances" are introduced. I believe you can still propose things like banning IPs, but only if you have a new, good reason for it, so it's not exactly a complete ban on certain discussions.  Tien  20:11, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - Makes things easier. Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 20:46, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - RS:SNOW, unless, as the proposal says, new information is available. I believe this is about blocking IPs, removing inactive admin powers, and that kind of proposals? Now that's a throwing weapon!Doucher4000******r4000I'll eat you! 21:29, October 2, 2009 (UTC)

Support - I like the idea of this as a suggestion. This could steer new users clear of topics that we have discussed to death. I think it's important to give reasons for a certain conclusion, like Wikipedia does, so new people know how and why the decision was made. I was looking through the YG archive and the following topics come to mind:

  • Closing down RFA's (or forum admins or RFB's)
  • Protecting or semi-protecting groups of articles - see protection policy
  • Allowing personal images
  • Change the clan chat name
  • Remove "such and such" ad - this is something Wikia does
  • De-ranking inactive admins
  • possibly - Punishing/censoring (non-abusive) profanity in discussions

These ideas are just some of my personal suggestions. The last thing I want to do is spark off discussions on any of these topics. These were the discussions I recall as being candidates for "perennial discussions". I checked the titles from the past YG discussions and I came up with these few. It's actually not that long of a list which means most of our topics are fresh ideas. Feel free to add to this list if you think of anything else we have over-discussed here in the Grove. Air rune.png Tollerach hates SoF Fire rune.png 00:46, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

I wanted to compile the list separately to examine each item one at a time. And personally, I felt there has never been a 'valid reason to disallow personal images of a limited amount, and the last time we hashed it out it almost passed. So that one I'm about ready to bring back out.--Degenret01 02:08, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Support - as long as it doesn't say you can't propose something and there is a clearly visible link to this list of proposals I think this is a great idea. Andrew talk 02:46, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Support - per above, with the exception of the 6th item mentioned by tollerach. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 19:53, October 3, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think we have reached a stage where we have our very own list of Perennial proposals. By definition, "perennial" means "lasting three seasons or more". Call it something else.

Some of these topics are quite recent, and have been, well, kinda controversial. Wikipedia's perennial proposals have been discussed/debated multiple times, while our topics have been discussed at most 3 times. Unfortunately, we don't discuss topics as exhaustively as Wikipedians do...

My amendment to this proposal is this:

  • Instead of saying "We have discussed this before, so unless you have new ideas, don't discuss this.", say something along these lines: "We have discussed this before, and here are the pros, cons, and the conclusion we reached.". Try not to use the negative words, such as "shouldn't", "don't", "cannot". Smile
  • Add the dates and relevant links to previous discussions. (Wikipedia's project page doesn't have these.)

Question - What are the criteria of adding a proposal to this list?

I think the minimum requirement would be that the topic has been discussed at least thrice, and that the proposal has been rejected outright (per Wikipedia, "Reasons for previous rejection"). "No consensus" topics shouldn't be included, IMO.   az talk   10:41, October 4, 2009 (UTC)

The only topics I can think of that might qualify right now are about disallowing IPs from editing and whether or not to allow tools like blogs. Andrew talk 02:54, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support - for now im for the idea. I don't see what harm could come from it, and makes thing somewhat easier in a manner. Slayer helmet.png Hmanballer talk | edit count | sign | HS Fire cape.png 04:03, October 5, 2009 (UTC) Oppose - We shouldn't have a policy saying "We've already discussed this this and that so don't propose this." It discourages users, even if the user has a new idea that may turn the opposition around. As annoying as repetitive proposals may get, this proposal may prevent improvements to the wiki. — Enigma 05:43, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

"unless new information or ideas or extenuating circumstances are newly introduced" Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 13:42, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
even if the user has a new idea that may turn the opposition around. — Enigma 18:14, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment I clearly did not go into enough detail at the beginning here, my bad. So here are some clarifications.

  • I just assumed it as given that the topics in our list would have the links to their previous discussions linked to quite clearly as the reason we have them listed. This is important so anyone wanting to re-propose an idea will see why it was previously rejected.
  • We are not out to ban discussion. The goal is to stop entirely repeating ourselves on subjects that have been thoroughly debated. So it should have been a topic three times, and overwhelmingly defeated (90 percent ok?) to be added to the list. In addition, each topic will have a vote on whether or not to add it to the list. This will not be a discussion page as to whether or not that topic should be implemented, but only as to whether or not we add it to the list. If there are a few of us who want a particular topic to stay open for future discussion, it doesn't get added. Very easy.
  • Topics on the list are not forbidden, but I do feel that most wikians, after reading how a previous discussion went, will either write the new proposal in an entirely new way, or just not waste our time with the same old same old.
  • So not perennial...and nothing negative.....not "bad ideas", "beat to deaths" "please don't"..."omg not agains".....How about "Recurrent topics previously discussed"?--Degenret01 17:39, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Comment - We might want to call it: Previously rejected proposals - READ THIS BEFORE YOU POST. And, maybe, we could sticky that post so that it appears at the top. Wink   az talk   18:00, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that works too Smile. I was just assuming again it would be boldly linked at top so people would see it before they type new title into that little box. Kick me now so I will stop assuming for a day maybe :P (wheres our list of little faces?)--Degenret01 18:20, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
RS:EMOTE. Lol   az talk   19:04, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Changed to Support - Now it is more clear, I can't see any cons. — Enigma 18:18, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

I support this by the way, per all (I only commented before).  Tien  20:33, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Support - okay, thanks for clarification. It, um, clarifies (couldn't think of anything better to say, shame on me). :D Butterman62 (talk) 16:07, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is achieved, we will begin a "Previously rejected proposals" list.--Degenret01 08:16, October 14, 2009 (UTC)