Forum:Shorten SNOW wait times

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Shorten SNOW wait times
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 November 2010 by Liquidhelium.

In Forum:Have you ever seen the snow?, it was decided that legitimate threads should be open for a minimum of one week. As some have pointed out, the one-week period sometimes becomes a burden and slows down the activity of the wiki. It should be noted that the thread which prompted the one-week rule to be instituted was open for under 24 hours before the first oppose came. Especially for threads now, many fall inactive after one or two days. The rest of the week just becomes useless wait-time.

Therefore, I am proposing that the one-week waiting period be shortened to three days. Of course, this does not mean that every thread will be closed after three days; most will go much longer than three days and much longer than a week. Opposition to a thread is likely to occur within the first 24 hours. Three days is more than enough. This rule just alleviates some of the extraneous and time-wasting waiting that some of the threads currently go through. --LiquidTalk 22:32, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As nominator. --LiquidTalk 22:32, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It can be a useless time waster. ʞooɔ 22:48, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it's snowing [email protected] ʞooɔ 22:57, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
Already? Where do you live? D: --Iiii I I I 22:59, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
Cook lives in Seattle. It's not THAT far north. Besides, the Pacific Northwest has some mild weather. But, it seems that Cook is getting early snow this year. --LiquidTalk 23:50, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to it doesn't really matter - In cases where there is an actual need for an urgent decision or something of the sort, exceptions can (and have) been made with UCS. ʞooɔ 02:34, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per above. HaloTalk 23:18, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

RIDICULOUS -Many of our users can't pop in every three days. Anyone who cannot wait seven days to implement something is simply too damn impatient. WTF is wrong with you? Like I said before, these changes we make today will influence this wiki for years. Yes, years. You certainly can wait a damn week. Give people a chance to pop in and comment. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, is harmed by this additional 4 days wait. And personally, even a week is too short most times. The proposal is not going to jump up and run away or disappear. I promise it will still be there four days later for you to implement. Yep, a guarantdamnteed Murphy promise.--Degenret01 23:55, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per degen, it isn't hurting anyone to have it run for a week. ajr 23:57, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen and his [[w:c:harrypotter:Boggart-Banishing_Spell|magic spell]]. - [Pharos] 00:12, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - How about ones that are started on weekdays will be open for a minimum of 5 days? If it is open on Friday, it can obviously be shortened to three days (Fri, Sat, and Sun). --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 00:26, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I dunno, it all depends on your schedule... --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 02:16, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - You do realize that this would barely ever happen and would only be used in extreme cases when support is near unanimous such as the one I mentioned? It's not remotely saying that most things will be closed in three days. That would be insane. ʞooɔ 00:54, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

And I think Jeff's idea wouldn't work. Incredibly complicated. ʞooɔ 00:54, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Compromise - What about 5 days? HaloTalk 00:56, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

I think 7 is a compromise, I prefer 14.--Degenret01 01:21, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. HaloTalk 01:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another compromise - If no opposes are made within 3 days, the thread can be closed. If there are a few weak opposes, then it will become 5 days. If there is a regular discussion then it will remain for 7 days +. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:29, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Why would you want to make it so complicated? Suppa chuppa Talk 01:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think he is trying to be funny, there are already three opposes.--Degenret01 01:37, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
I am not. --中亚人/中亞人 (Chinasian/Jeffwang16) 跟我谈话 01:40, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
You're acting like brains did with the inter-fansite communication thing. There's no reason to make things overly complicated. ʞooɔ 02:37, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. HaloTalk 01:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen. If a thread is strongly leading towards a supportive\unsupportive consensus, all this can do is help strengthen that. Matt (t) 05:16, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - It's fine how it is now. 3 days doesn't really seem like enough. Suppa chuppa Talk 05:19, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen and can we close this thread in 3 days just as an exception. Hunter cape (t).png Sentra246Blue hallowe'en mask.png 06:06, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Current policy serves us fine. Unless threads are incredibly urgent, we can wait a few extra days procrastinating or doing other things. If a thread is "incredibly urgent" policy allows us to ignore RS:SNOW and close it when required. 222 talk 09:18, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Seriously, helm, you need to get some patience. imo you close discussions much too soon, for example you closed a discussion "without consensus" after 2 weeks already on RS:RFD, while that page is not often visited, so there was not even much time to get good consensus. Please, be a little more patient. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:44, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Err, what? 2 weeks is a long enough time for an RfD. ʞooɔ 11:55, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
Not if there were about 5 comments. That is not really enough to close something for "no consensus". JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:07, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
It certainly is. If something is open for 336 hours and garners 5 comments, you better believe there is no consensus, and it's not likely one will develop. ʞooɔ 12:15, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
We will see in the reopened discussion. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:30, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Degen summed it up.   Swizz Talk   Events!   16:23, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - Per nom. bad_fetustalk 16:48, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - I agree 100% with the opposition above, Not every person takes the time to visit the wikia EVERY 3 days, especially not the yew grove. I disagree with the 3 day minimum time frame since alot of "Good" oppose arguments come numerous days after the beginning of a discussion. The current system is doing no harm whatsoever to the wiki, and as per above again, if one thread is of major urgency and we need to skip the policy, it counts as a RS:UCS moment. RSN: Warthog Rhys Talk Completionist's cape... Coming soon. 17:31, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Support - It's all to often that I see an unchanged thread hanging around in the active section, and they can sometimes stay there for a looooong time. However, as Gradius said, not everyone checks the YG daily, or even weekly. I'd suggest just using your brain and closing threads that are obviously dead, and using the 1 week rule as a sort of safety measure, to make sure that threads in need of closing, get closed instead of lounging in the active section. Real Nub 19:44, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

"It's all to often that I see an unchanged thread hanging around in the active section, and they can sometimes stay there for a looooong time." but then the 7 days are over, so it could be closed even with the 7 day rule. For your reasoning, why do we need to shorten the time? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:39, November 23, 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, meant to put Neutral up there. Real Nub 08:06, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Patience is a virtue..there's no reason to rush things. 4 waiting four more days won't hurt anyone. Andrew talk 21:53, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - 1 week isn't anything on a wiki. svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 22:10, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per all.  Tien  21:05, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Please read this thing written by the proposer, Liquidhelium:

This is an unnecessary breach of RS:CONSENSUS, which states that legitimate threads must remain open for a period of a week. While it is possible to use RS:UCS or RS:BB to override that clause, this does not warrant such an action. UCS should only be used for threads that are very important and urgent. This certainly does not qualify as urgent and important. Waiting an additional three days will not kill the wiki.
helm(src)

So he is Supporting shortening the wait times, but still says "This is an unnecessary breach"(so if it would not be a breach it would still be unnecessary) and "Waiting an additional three days will not kill the wiki"(why propose the exact thing then?) I think this could be closes as the proposer disagrees with himself, and there are almost only opposers other than the nom(who disagrees with himself). JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:18, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

You have completely twisted what he said. He said UCS should only be used for threads that are very important and urgent, and this is not urgent, which was the case for that discussion, but as it can clearly be seen, he said that urgent ones should get closed early. Thus, he is NOT EVEN CLOSE to contradicting himself. bad_fetustalk 15:04, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
I already thought someone would come and defend him, but at the proposal here he says he wants to shorten ALL threads waiting times to 3 days, even useless ones. Still he says it is useless. So he is VERY CLOSE to contradicting himself. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:20, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
"Of course, this does not mean that every thread will be closed after three days; most will go much longer than three days and much longer than a week" - What do you understand from this? bad_fetustalk 18:39, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I am not contradicting myself. My statements on the FCA thread were an application of the policy as it currently stands. This thread is looking to change the policy so future threads wouldn't have to go through what the FCA thread is going through right now. --LiquidTalk 18:00, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Request for closure - Per above. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 11:18, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - Per RS:SNOW.ajr 19:01, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
For a split-second, I thought you actually did close it :O bad_fetustalk 19:09, November 24, 2010 (UTC)
Aww, now you ruined it D::: - But ya, this isn't closed as it has only been open for three days. After four more it'll be closed. ajr 19:24, November 24, 2010 (UTC)

so in 2 days this will be closed? JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 10:37, November 26, 2010 (UTC)

Another try:
This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Shorten SNOW wait times. Request complete. The reason given was: Per above the previous closure request
JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 19:06, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Degen, with the exception of the exclamation, "WTF is wrong with you?". Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 00:28, November 25, 2010 (UTC)

Closed - This thread has served its purpose, so I'm withdrawing it now. --LiquidTalk 00:28, November 29, 2010 (UTC)