Talk:Suggestions/archive26

	Archive Page
	This page is an archive page of Talk:Suggestions. Please do not add comments to it. If you wish to discuss the Suggestions page do so at Talk:Suggestions.

Further Discussion

This is for any further discussion concerning the suggestions page that doesn't fall into the previous categories.

For those who've done real work on the suggestions system

Theres now a template that you can use to show that you've contributed to it. {{SW}} - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 06:50, 24 April 2007 (GMT)}

	Suggestions Worker
	This user sorted through peoples bile to find the gems.

Cycling Talk:Suggestions

I have been cycling this page for awhile now, but have found the guidelines unclear. I also noticed recently that Funt had cycled them differently in the past. What I have been doing is moving each topic to the Talk Page for the day the topic started. This seems to be okay for Developing Suggestions, but it occurs to me that Active Suggestions discussions should be moved to the talk page for the matching archived Suggestion votes. Guidance please. --SporeSore 13:05, 30 March 2007 (BST)

I felt that it made most sense to move a discussion to the same page as it's matching suggestion, if there was one. In the case where there wasn't one, or I didn't know where it was, it got moved to the day on which the discussion started, which (of course) never matches the actual suggestions for that day. However, I just made those decisions on my own. Prior to that, the discussions on this page were just archived, and no link whatsoever was provided to any matching suggestions or previous days pages. Sometimes, there is no matching suggestion, as some suggestions never make it from discussion to vote. I would say, do what thou wilt. The chances of anyone actually reading the discussions is minimal. --Funt Solo 15:44, 30 March 2007 (BST)

That last fact has always made me feel we should just delete all developing suggestions and only keep the active. Storing all this useless garbage no one will ever care about. Is this a Wiki philosophy? --SporeSore 17:44, 30 March 2007 (BST)

Maybe we should just stop archiving this page at all. That would be the easiest thing to do, and it's questionable how much value we get out of having the archives around. --Toejam 13:59, 31 March 2007 (BST)

This would be so simple, if every suggestion was on it's own page. Example 20070314 Zombie Rocket Launchers. I'm working on making a viable alternative along those lines -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:00, 1 April 2007 (BST)

Thats true, but you can't idiot proof the wiki. Thus any attempt at trying to force people to put suggestions on their own page would make life for sysops a pain IMO (maily for suggestions being put on a bad page name). The best way would be just to make an extension just for the UD wiki in order to achieve this. However I doubt anyone would care enough to want to do that (that is if you can get Kevan to implement it). - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 07:40, 2 April 2007 (GMT)}

Think so? I think we could make it work... sure, there's always some doofus who can't template up their suggestion... but what's new? I'd appreciate any suggestions as to how to make things simpler on User_talk:Boxy/Sandbox. I'd especially like to know if there's any way to make the "Subst:" function automatically a part of a template -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:36, 5 April 2007 (BST)

I think we should stop archiving the developing suggestions. I am not even sure it is worth archiving any of the active suggestion or policy discussion. If the discussion is fruitful its effects are made permanent somewhere else. If not, it is forgotten. Archiving a tonne of useless garbage IMO, is an offensive waste of resources. If there is an easy way to purge all archived Talk:Discussion it should be done. It is the wiki equivalent of a landfill. --SporeSore 15:03, 3 April 2007 (BST)

I think it's worth keeping the policy discussions - if only because I find it amusing to look back at the one policy I got passed and note that the wording (and it's resultant meaning) was altered by the sysop who I asked to put it in place in a protected area. It reminds me that it's only paranoia if you're wrong, that power really does corrupt (Lord Acton was right all along) - even a little power - and that democracy only ever lasts until the last vote is counted. --Funt Solo 23:13, 4 April 2007 (BST)

If we are keeping the policy discussions and votes, then we should archive them on their own page from now on. Otherwise they are impossible to find for your amusement or reference unless you know the exact date they were archived. I guess what I am suggesting is a policy vote on this ?... :( I do not know the proper etiquette for settling this matter. I am happy to maintain this page, (keeping the formatting clean, moving to proper sections, moving items to linked temporary pages when templates break the page, archiving the Active Suggestions after votes close) and create a policy discussion/vote archive, but I will not archive any more developing suggestions. I would like to delete them after a week of dead time from the last edit. How will it be determined that it is okay for me to do this?--SporeSore 13:32, 5 April 2007 (BST) Addendum: After looking again at ToeJam's archive system, it looks like a good place to archive policy material. Since the active suggestions discussions will be archived on the talk page of their vote, they will always be easy to find.

An idea for developing suggestions archiving: You could add an obvious note to this page, saying "if there are no edits for 7 days your developing suggestion will be deleted". That gives people fair warning to take a copy off to their talk page or their own archive, if they want to, and it keeps to an absolute minimum any housekeeping you (or anyone else) has to do to keep this page to a reasonable (ie non-buggy) length. It's all good faith, so I guess if nobody pops up to harshly criticise the idea, you could probably go right ahead and implement that without a policy vote. Anyone against that idea? --Funt Solo 17:01, 5 April 2007 (BST)

I think a fair bit of notice might be called for. The day the warning gets placed should count as an edit to everything current... that is nothing should be eligible for deletion for 7 days after the notice is posted! Other than that i can see no problem. --Honestmistake 18:19, 5 April 2007 (BST)

Okay, so let's say no edits for a week means a warning for deletion in one week. I'll make the warning nice and red. --SporeSore 14:11, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Things can seriously mount up in two weeks, during busy periods. Why not make it 5 and 5? --Funt Solo 18:51, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Why don't we try it with 7 days and see? If the page gets too crowded I will move suggestions to a dated Talk:Suggestions page and link back.SporeSore 22:45, 10 April 2007 (BST)

Seems like 5 days would indeed be better. The shite piles up too quickly!--SporeSore 23:12, 12 April 2007 (BST)

I think that you should really archive the further discussion and policies sections just so people can see what has been talked about and why something may not work. Looking through this pages history is a pain in the arse, especialy for something which you don't know when it was. At least with the archives you can open all of the pages and do a general search. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 06:50, 21 April 2007 (GMT)}

I agree with Jedaz. Archive the discussions, don't delete them. There are some pretty good discussions that I really like.--ShadowScope 18:37, 25 April 2007 (BST)

If you read all of the above you would know that all policy related discussion will be archived following ToeJam's system.--SporeSore 18:06, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Could you please clarify what that is because the only comment by ToeJam on this page is saying that we should just stop archiving all discussion. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 01:36, 4 May 2007 (GMT)}

Individual Suggestion Pages, testing, development

Hi guys, I've been working on this for a while, and wanted you guys to test out what I've done so far, with a view to constructive criticism at this stage. In other words I'm only looking for people who are willing to try and make the system work, rather than say 'I don't want this!'. So, can I ask a few of you guys to try making a (stupid, throw away) suggestion through the system I've developed? I won't explain how, just see how you go following the instructions I have up so far. Any problems, or issues, or improvements you think can be made, please leave them on my sandbox talk page.

The link to the suggestion page is Category:Current Suggestions -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:05, 11 April 2007 (BST)

Well done - it seems like a really easy to use system. The only thing I would question is your inclusion of Humorous Suggestions at the top of the page there - it looks like you're promoting them as part of the normal suggestions process. Say it ain't so. Other than that, like I said, looks like a cool system - we should probably use it. --Funt Solo 11:14, 12 April 2007 (BST)

The top of the page is just a cut'n'paste of the existing Suggestions page (it's just that some sections of it, such as rules, go onto the individual pages). I wasn't thinking of changing the humorous suggestions system, or allowing them through this one (although I guess it could work, but that would complicate the issue). So, after the test period, no funny stuff (that's an order ;)) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:36, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Also, there should be a more obvious (top of page) link back to the Category:Current Suggestions page. At the moment, there's a link at the bottom of the individual suggestion pages, but one has to scroll through all the rules and regs to get to that. (Menu at the top, and all that jazz.) About the Humorous thing - I see where it came from now - maybe we should change that so it's clear where the funneh things belong? Not sure what you mean about the funny stuff - I thought all the examples so far were meant very seriously - especially hagnats. --Funt Solo 11:39, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Yeah, that link is on my to do list... I think that {{Suggestion Navigation}} will probably go at the top of the individual pages, and if implemented, the Category:Current Suggestions link will be in there -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:45, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Another thing - I noticed that the dates are cool for ordering the suggestions correctly, but that the list at the bottom there orders the suggestion from the 9th incorrectly, because it treats it as "9~", as opposed to "09". Can that be tweaked? --Funt Solo 11:47, 12 April 2007 (BST)

That's already fixed. The day now shows as 09 rather than 9. I just havn't got rid of the old one from before the change -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:58, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Damn, it's so easy to just move the page, and delete the resulting unused redirect, and there are no broken links because the category automatically updates! -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:06, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Ah, you thought of everything. Now, with that system, there would be no need to cycle suggestions, would there? You just add a category to them once they've passed / failed / whatever, right? So the (for example) Peer Reviewed page would become just an archive of all the old suggestions from the old system? In fact, some enterprising person with too much time on their hands could translate all of those over to the new system... --Funt Solo 12:01, 12 April 2007 (BST)

That's the plan, indeed -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:06, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Which is exactly the plan I proposed some months back, albeit without all the nice (if complex) template work. --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo 17:04, 14 April 2007 (BST)

Very nice. Any plans to link this with Developing suggestions? i.e. A Developing suggestion creates a similar list but only of the Talk pages, and a template at the top gives instructions on how to properly create a Suggestion for vote that will be linked to the corresponding Article page? Ack, sounds complicated. --SporeSore 14:43, 12 April 2007 (BST)

Good point. Messy isn't it. I guess the development discussions could be copied over to the individual suggestion page's talk page... I can't think of a simple solution ATM, but will give it some thought -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:51, 12 April 2007 (BST)

The best solution would be to leave Developing the way it is and no longer have Active Suggestions on this page. Actives would be on the Talk page of each suggestion. Although I have been moving Developing to Active when a suggestion goes to vote, this should not be done. Once a Developing Suggestion has been put for vote, the Developing Discussion should be deleted as described in the Topic "Cycling Talk:Suggestions". Christ it is awkward trying to describe all this. Do you get my gist?--SporeSore 23:10, 12 April 2007 (BST)

How about putting the responsibility for archiving developing suggestions discussion onto the suggester themselves. A simple announcement somewhere on the page saying "if you want to save developing suggestion discussions after a suggestion has been submitted, move the content to your suggestions talk page otherwise it will simply be removed from this page after X days"? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 16:39, 13 April 2007 (BST)

I've spotted a potential problem. At the moment, it's possible to navigate Peer Reviewed, because they all go under relevant headings. If the only guide was the date, it would be difficult to browse / search / navigate. Is there a way to add relevant categories to suggestions, so that we could have the same navigation positives that we have now? --Funt Solo 10:11, 14 April 2007 (BST)

It would not be unduely difficult to create pages that listed the (links) to suggestion pages, sorted by category. That is, essentially, what is done right now, except that the entire suggestion is pasted in, rather than just a link to the suggestions page.

Or, simpler yet (as an example) in addition to being catagorized as "peer reviewed", an accepted skill could also be catagorized as a "peer reviewed skill". The category "peer reviewed skill" would be made a SUBCATAGORY of "peer reviewed". This would be an way to automate the creation of index pages, and would also be fully extansable, through the creation of new suggestion catagories and subcatagories. --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo 17:04, 14 April 2007 (BST)

Yes, sub-categories was the way I was thinking of going, for example Category:Peer Reviewed Suggestions/Human Skill, and then it in turn would be included in Category:Peer Reviewed Suggestions -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 04:59, 15 April 2007 (BST)

You seem to have covered all the bases. Are you planning on going for a policy for this? I'd vote Keep, any road. Hell, I'd go without a policy, but I guess this is sort of momentous. --Funt Solo 23:15, 15 April 2007 (BST)

Heh, you don't really need to have a policy as there is no rule that you have to create a policy to change the rules, although it would make people happier about it (anyone remember this or this?) - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 09:49, 16 April 2007 (GMT)}

This is way too big a change to do without a popular mandate. Yes, a policy vote -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:56, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Implementation of Individual Suggestion Pages

OK, so it looks like this system is going to be implemented in a couple of days. Now is probably the time to work out how we're going to work this archiving system. What sub-categories will we need below Category:Peer Reviewed Suggestions, Category:Peer Rejected Suggestions and Category:Undecided Suggestions? How should we treat Duped and Spammed suggestions? Should they be sent to their own categories? Spams deleted perhaps? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:39, 29 April 2007 (BST)

Well I'm thinking that we should just take the same attitude that we did before. Just make sub categories based on month and year for Rejected and Undecided suggestions, and just split up the Category:Peer Reviewed Suggestions into seperate categories using the current pages as guides for the naming of the sub-categories. Also if you want you can make Spams their own categories, but I think we should put them into Peer Rejected. Thats my take on it. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 07:57, 30 April 2007 (GMT)}

Sounds reasonable I guess. Although the rejected and undecided categories are going to fill up pretty fast. And the latest suggestions put there would end up on the last page (unless I can find a way to invert the order that categories list their contents) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 11:31, 30 April 2007 (BST)

Ah, true, but then again how often are people going to look through them? If you want you could split up the months even more. So for example, Category:Peer Rejected/2007April/W4, however I think that Category:Peer Rejected/2007April should be sufficent. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:06, 30 April 2007 (GMT)}

Oppps, mis-read what you posted. Monthly would be fine -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:04, 30 April 2007 (BST)

I'm a bit disappointed that you can't invert the sort order in categories. Does anyone have an idea of a way to get the newest suggestions to the top of the list, that isn't too labor intensive on and ongoing basis? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:15, 30 April 2007 (BST)

In short, no. However I think that I have a potential solution, but it requires someone to edit a template exactly once a day. There would basicaly be a template which has a number, say starting at 1 million and each day someone decreases it by 1 while padding out the left with 0's. This can then be substituted as a category tag.

[[Category:Current Suggestions|{{subst:NumberTemplate}}]]

What do you think? Thats the easiest solution that I can think of which will produce the result that you want. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 11:40, 1 May 2007 (GMT)}

I think that would work, but would require someone with the ability to make a bot to update the numbertemplate regularly. Too much to expect from a real person, I think. Wikimedia ought to include something like that automatically... a simple, but useful feature -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 13:31, 1 May 2007 (BST)

Well I'm going to bed for now, but I'll look into it tomorrow. Heres a link you might find useful (I've only had a quick glance at it but it could be useful). Creating a bot. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 12:46, 1 May 2007 (GMT)}

Thanks, but it looks like it's beyond me (in the near future, anyway) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 00:57, 2 May 2007 (BST)

Well I should be able to whip up something with Visual Basic. I've had a look at Header Data to know enough to make one (In theory). I'll see what I can do, but I'm not making any promises. Also I'm more focused on uni assignments at the moment. I should know if I can do it or not by this weekend (and have a working prototype if I can). - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 09:24, 2 May 2007 (GMT)}

Cheers -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 04:17, 3 May 2007 (BST)

Bah, I can't do it, I haven't done VB in ages and I'm too rusty to do it. I did however think of an alternative solution, and that is to make a magic word for use, however I don't have the time right now to try and understand the wiki documentation. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 10:00, 3 May 2007 (GMT)}

No worries, we can do without it. It's a minor flaw. Thanks anyway -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 23:29, 3 May 2007 (BST)

Fair the well my old friend

I'm going to miss the old suggestions system, but not the backlog, although I have the feeling that the backlog is going to stay around like a bad smell, however it will be alot more obvious. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 09:27, 4 May 2007 (GMT)}

Policy Votes

This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page. All policies, along with their associated votes and discussions, are governed by the Voting Guidelines established for this section.

Individual Suggestion Pages

This is a policy change that is aiming to considerably reduce the effort required to cycle all the suggestions that are created here. It has long been a real chore to archive all the suggestions into their respective categories once voting has finished, but most wiki members never notice the effort put in by a very few number of editors that do it all.

The main reason that it is such a chore, is that each suggestion that goes the distance has to be manually copied, firstly onto the Previous Days Suggestions page after a day, and then once again onto the appropriate archive page once voting is completed.

The change to individual pages means that we can take advantage of the categories function of the wiki software and archiving will then only consist of changing the category tag on the page, automatically sending the page to the appropriate suggestion archive category.

This change would mean that:

1. Each suggestion is added to an individual page.
2. The suggestions page becomes a category page listing all the suggestions still open for voting.
3. Once a suggestion has finished voting the category tag is removed, and another (peer reviewed, rejected, humans skill, game interface, etc.) is added.

Most of these functions are automatically carried out through the use of templates, ensuring that the suggestions process is as simple as possible for newbies, just by following some simple instructions.

Further discussion on this change has been held in the section above this, and on my sandbox talk page. If you have doubts on the ease of use of this process, please try out the system by following the instructions on Category:Current Suggestions and creating a page (to later be deleted or archived in the humorous section, there are some beauties already) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:21, 16 April 2007 (BST)

I'm leaving this policy open for discussion for a day before opening voting (as the rules say should happen), even though it's been discussed for a fair while already, it's mostly been discussions designed to get it working properly, rather than of it's merits -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:21, 16 April 2007 (BST)

Voting

For

1. -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 09:49, 17 April 2007 (BST)
2. -- If the people who do the cycling work are for it then who am i to argue? --Honestmistake 09:56, 17 April 2007 (BST)
3. -- should have been this way from the start. A great idea, a grand implementation. This will save a few contributers a lot of time and energy. Think of poor Jedaz - after months of cycling the suggestions he's been left nothing but a burnt out wreck - a drooling simpleton. Isn't that right, Jedaz? And me, well, it nearly cause me to nearly caused me to nearly caused me to forget my own name. --Fark Solo 11:00, 17 April 2007 (BST)

   this system was only possible after the latest upgrades in the wiki software. This whole idea is not exactly new, i tried making something like this last year (in june IIRC), but this is a better and working solution than the one i suggested. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:39, 20 April 2007 (BST)

   I love old links to illustrate points. You can even see how much people have improved their attitudes towards the suggestions system. =P - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 12:09, 23 April 2007 (GMT)}

4. Heh, I wasn't a burnt out wreck, I was a pile of ashes, theres a big difference there. Now, time to start designing that new suuuugggesssstttion... - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 11:03, 17 April 2007 (GMT)}
5. -- The cycling of suggestions seemed so daunting that I did not even bother trying. Instead focused on keeping this one little page tidy. --SporeSore 13:12, 17 April 2007 (BST)
6. Moving suggestions once voting is done is a huge pain in the ass. --^T 21:50, 17 April 2007 (BST)
7. :) --Marie^{The Grove on Tour} 21:53, 17 April 2007 (BST)
8. anything to simplify process would be lovely --Duke Garland 21:57, 17 April 2007 (BST)
9. Why not. Its not like I do these cycling task. If the people that take the time to do these things want it changed for the better, than I'm all for it. --Target Zombie 22:23, 17 April 2007 (BST)
10. --Toejam 22:51, 17 April 2007 (BST)
11. --Lord Evans 00:04, 18 April 2007 (BST)
12. -- I pretty much stopped making any effort to cycle suggestions when this idea got shot down the first time. --S.Wiers^ctdp_NTmap^x:oo 00:09, 18 April 2007 (BST)
13. -- Mattiator 02:59, 18 April 2007 (BST)
14. -- I've never cycled, but seems like tedious work. The easier the better --Storyteller 03:08, 18 April 2007 (BST)
15. --Bluish wolf 03:54, 18 April 2007 (BST)
16. There's a reason I've never cycled suggestions, and that reason is that I'm lazy. Hats off to those of you who do all the work for the frequent suggesters out there (like myself). This looks like it wouldn't be that hard to do, and the navigation might be easier as well. --Uncle Bill 05:07, 18 April 2007 (BST)
17. Yes! I stopped cycling the suggestions after I've finished the February '07s cause it was taking so long! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:30, 18 April 2007 (BST)
18. - Whitehouse 21:47, 18 April 2007 (BST)
19. Definitely! The only reason I haven't been actively involved in cycling the main suggestions page is because I don't have that kind of time. Although I wish I had found out about this policy sooner, since I'm not sure how I'm going to make this work with Humorous Suggestions (I've been kind of taking care of that section of the wiki). Well, in any case, when this passes, don't delete the "sample" suggestions people have made; I want to put them in Humorous when this is over. --Reaper with no name ^TJ! 22:13, 18 April 2007 (BST)

    Don't worry, I was going to just re-categorise them as Category:Humorous Suggestions. I was planning on just leaving Humorous Suggestions as they were, but if you want to swap over to a similar system, then I'll have a go at that too if you like, when I get time. I guess it'd make it easy to just shove humorous suggestions over into your section from the "serious" suggestions page by just re-categorising -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 01:03, 22 April 2007 (BST)

20. If you want it like this... Jonny12 ^{talk . w(m)^∞} 22:19, 18 April 2007 (BST)
21. Keep Ok, but only if you have a help page that explains it in short siple terms. Im not too great with computers.--Seventythree 16:06, 19 April 2007 (BST)
22. Sure. Sounds good to me. -Mark D. Stroyer ^SoH 17:04, 19 April 2007 (BST)
23. - Abi79 ^AB 12:33, 20 April 2007 (BST)
24. only a fool would would go against this. A FOOL, YE HEAR ME ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:39, 20 April 2007 (BST)

    I've been avoiding cycling suggestions. Go for it!

    unsigned vote struck. --Funt Solo 00:41, 21 April 2007 (BST)

25. Just tried it out, works brilliantly. -- TheDavibob ^T 22:53, 20 April 2007 (BST)
26. Alright fine. I just saw it as just more useless wiki drama. Don't go and curse my name.--ShadowScope 00:29, 21 April 2007 (BST)
27. I'm for this. The easier something is, the better. --Humuhumuhumu...Ted 03:11, 22 April 2007 (BST)
28. Oh man, this will be excellent! --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 02:05, 23 April 2007 (BST)
29. Hellz Yeah!--User:Axe27/Sig 03:30, 27 April 2007 (BST)
30. As above.--Labine50 ^MH|^ME|^TNT'07 01:22, 28 April 2007 (BST)
31. A little prep work to prevent future hassle == always a good idea. Firemanrik 18:24, 28 April 2007 (BST)

Against

1. -- Raises the bar for submitting suggestions; currently, one has to edit a single page. If this was implemented, you would have to create a page, which is slightly harder, and also decreases the number of names for suggestions - which would require a naming convention to be developed, which is not part of this suggestion. Also, who's going to take the time to change all old suggestions to this format? --Saluton 04:31, 18 April 2007 (BST)

   Mate, please go to the page and follow the instructions, create a (humorous) suggestion page for yourself, and you'll see that your concerns have already been addressed, and that the templates do all the hard work for you. It's simply a matter of copying the template code to the page, and adding your details -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 06:48, 18 April 2007 (BST)

Spam I see no point. So what if it takes more time? This whole suggestion system is for Kevan, and Kevan rarely even uses our suggestion. Once he sees a suggestion HE likes, peer review or peer rejected, he closes the window and starts writing the code. I'll go along with this idea, but I would like to protest people taking this page a bit too seriously.--ShadowScope 18:17, 20 April 2007 (BST)

I believe that this hints at how wrong you are. [He who shalt not be named], if the message I've linked to is anything to go by, certainly does view Peer Reviewed. Now, how do the suggestions get placed in Peer Reviewed, ShadowScope? Do you do it? No? I'll tell you then - other contributers do it. Jedaz did it for ages, Gage did it for ages, I did it for ages, and in recent months there have been a variety of people tackling the job. And it's a tough, time-consuming, thankless job. If this proposed change to the system would make that job easier (and it would, by a very high factor indeed) then why are you against it? "So what if it takes more time?" How dare you say that when you don't contribute to the task. Ignoramus. --Funt Solo 18:29, 20 April 2007 (BST)