Category talk:Current Suggestions

This page is for discussion about the page Category:Current Suggestions. This is not the place for discussing new suggestions. Putting a suggestion up for discussion can be done here. Discussion about the suggestions system in general takes place here. New topics go at the top. Archives of the discussions can be found here.

Question of Procedure

Is it possible for a suggestor to request that his suggestion be pulled from voting early and then resubmit it with significant changes? Just thought I'd ask before running upp against some sort of brick wall or something. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 21:15, 4 June 2008 (BST)

You can do it all by yourself. Then you just make the second version as a new suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:21, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Duly noted. Thanks. --Specialist290 ♠♥♣♦ 21:27, 4 June 2008 (BST)

Define WTF Centaur

WTF,man? Dude, like, seriously, WTF? WTF is a WTF Centaur? I've never heard of such a thing before. Yet, everywhere, I see stuff about them being bad. I also can't find definitions of WTF Centaurs or what they are. I think if they're going to be banned from suggestions, they should be defined. The closest thing I can come to a WTF Centaur is pasting "WTF" on Centaur Man from MM6, like in this picture. Can somebody fill me in on a WTF Centaur? Maybe officially define it on the pages where it says not to have those? Thanks.

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5131/wtfcentaurlg4.png

--Kolechovski 16:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

WTF Centaurs. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You had to fucking ask didn't you??? The whole stupid fad has pretty much died out (and long may it burn!) Basically what got started as a genuinely funny remark got band-wagoned until it seemed like some morons couldn't finish a sentence without including at least one "OMGWTFCENTAURS" in it. Revive it and i will find you and feed you to my Dawg. --Honestmistake 21:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

That's like asking if anybody's heard of Chuck Norris in the Barrens. This isn't even a suggestions, kind of a halfhearted request. --Vandurn 14:01, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Auto-author keep

I've been working on a way to make an auto-author keep vote appear on a new suggestion. This would make it much easier to do and cut down on a few clicks. Basically, it would involve adding a piece of code under the Keep Votes section of Template:SuggestionVoting similar to #'''Author Keep''' - {{{1}}} and then a change to Template:SugHead so that the last line you need to copy becomes: {{Subst:SuggestionVoting|1=~~~~}}. This would then insert a signed author keep vote into the suggestion automatically. :) What do you reckon? -- Cheese 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea, authors abstain for any number of reasons, not the least of which is there have been cases where the author has come back and kill'ed their own suggestion.--Karek^maps?! 01:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

True story. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thirded --~~~~ [talk] 08:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I've been wanting this myself, and many voters don't know/remember to vote keep on their own suggestion, as it should seem to be common sense. As for people coming back and removing their own suggestions, they should be able to do so just fine by simply stating so somehow, like with those picture thingies that say they removed them for whatever reasons...Speaking of such, I want to pull my suggestion from voting about the elevated railways for further development. How do I do that? I made a post at the top to halt voting. That's all I know how to do.--Kolechovski 15:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If they do not read the Voting Rules, then they deserve to have one Keep less (though it could also be mentioned somewhere else than just in the example at the bottom). There's also the fact that many authors put additional notes or comments into their vote, which makes an automatic templated author keep sub-optimal. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one always appreciate bad comments having no Keeps due to author stupidity. --Vandurn 14:03, 2 April 2008 (BST)

Votes on the Merits of the Suggestion Alone

i think we need a box, akin the ones we have in A/VB, to remind people to vote on the merits of the suggestion alone for implementation anytime in the future, not if this should be implemented right away. I see a lot of people saying harmans dont need buff, they are overpowered already or zmobies are already over 9000! they dont need buff... this is wrong. People should vote if the suggestion fits inside the game, not if it fits NOW in the game. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea. Although, there are some suggestions that do depend on when they are implemented, but those are usually lame ones about increasing accuracy of so-and-so. Don't know if a box can actually have much of an effect, but it's worth a try. --Pdeq^Talk* 03:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• nods* worth a try --~~~~ [talk] 07:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a difference between the two things you mention, specifically "harmans dont need buff, they are overpowered already" Is a great example of valid voting based on the effect the suggestion has on game balance. "zmobies are already over 9000! they dont need buff" is not, as it's voting based on the numbers of people in that class/state(and ignoring the general long term state of the game).--Karek^maps?! 10:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are indeed 2 different types of justification but neither is very valid. I think we have all seen kill/spam votes like :"Survivors are already at 60%, they don't need a buff" and "The new Zombie buffs are waay nerfing my trenchie... no more zed buffs!" relative power /numbers should not affect how you vote, balancing anything implemented is something Kevan seems to work fairly hard on. If a suggestion is good but would make one side heavily outpower the other he will balance it with a similar buff for the other side. He might not do it at the same time but he will keep the playing field at least nominally even if at all possible! Unless we start allowing linked suggestions (a very bad idea) almost any suggestion is going to buff one side or the other, meaning that some very good suggestions get shot down by people only concerned with their own narrow point of view. A better plan would be to ban all but the "dual nature/opportunist" players from voting ;) --Honestmistake 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the second explanation. I hate when i need to explain a joke, specially one about an internet meme in an internet board/wiki :P Anyway, if i say let's buff the {insert class here} by 15% with this and that suggestion, people need to vote on the merit of the suggestion, not if it's going to be implemented right away. Like, add a machine gun to UD... it fits the genre, but would be overkill if implemented right now... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Man, Hagnat, Over 9000 isn't always used to refer to power of something, mostly it is actually used to refer to an actual number, usually the size of a group.--Karek^maps?! 02:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think people should only vote on the merits. It's Kevan's job to actually implement it, and getting a suggestion into PR doesn't necessarily mean implementation. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Dupe Change

There's been discussion over whether voters that think a suggestion is original should have the ability to counteract Dupes. Also, there's been discussion in the past over whether Dupe and Spam should be in the same category. Here's what I suggest:

Dupe becomes a fourth category. Dupes aren't considered votes anymore, they're just a section on the bottom to provide dupe links, agree with dupe links, or disagree with dupe links. You can vote AND put your comment in the Dupe section, choosing Dupe or Not Dupe. With a minimum of 3 comments considering it a Dupe, if 2/3rds of people agree it is a Dupe it can be removed. For example:

KEEP

1. Great! -Bill Nye the science guy
2. Meh, fine. -Teapot Dome

KILL

1. I like my idea better. -Rube Goldberg
2. Too powerful I think --Doubting Thomas

SPAM

1. Totally pointless. -Domino
2. Not pointless enough. -Rally

DUPE

• Dupe of this I think. Note the same use of consonants. -Teapot Dome.
• Dupe Yeah! You're right! - Doubting Thomas.
• Original My idea is better but I think there's a difference. -Rube Goldberg
• Original I don't care enough about this idea to vote either way but I agree it's different. -Abstainiator
• Original Come on guys! It's great! -Bill Nye the science guy
• Dupe Totally pointless just like the previous suggestion. -Domino

--Jon Pyre 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, I dono, you forgot to sign. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Woops, thanks for reminding me. You are helpful! --Jon Pyre 23:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Looks fair enough to me. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you just doing this because of the dupe votes you got for your current suggestion? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

My selfish ulterior motive doesn't prevent this from being a good idea : ) Actually, I've been thinking about this since a suggestion of mine was Duped a few weeks ago. --Jon Pyre 23:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got a point. Seperate dupe section could be a good thing.--Seventythree^Talk 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this, as many times the majority thinks an idea is good, but a few dupe it as a somewhat similar idea as an easy way to stop it from passing.--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 23:36, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

With this system we'll get people voting not dupe simply because they really like the suggestion, regardless of how close it is. We'll end up with multiple popular suggestions in peer reviewed. A much better way to do it is to allow dupes to be put back up for voting after removal to see if they should replace the original one in the archives (ie. instead of voting keep/kill you'd vote replace/kill) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:45 11 February 2008 (BST)

Or maybe a seperate page to vote on addendums to existing PR suggestions, that are voted on, either as an improvement or to update the suggestion in PR in light of game changes. THen the addendums get added in the form of an explainatory note on the suggestion itself.--Seventythree^Talk 23:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. These things shouldn't be frozen in stone as the game changes around them. And why shouldn't better ideas be prevented just because something along those lines has been suggested before? --Jon Pyre 06:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

That reminds me, Boxy? What ever happened to that?--Karek^maps?! 18:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea last time it was suggested? It's just never had someone push it through to voting. It really needs someone to take it to their sandbox, and work through it slowly to iron out the detail between a few contributors, before being brought to policy discussion. These pages are just too big to keep an eye on. Discussions get out of hand, and we end up no where -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:38 13 February 2008 (BST)

Actually I believe you said you were going to work on developing it after you proposed it a few times. That's what I meant. --Karek^maps?! 07:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. --Pdeq^Talk* 18:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

An anti-dupe thing is absurd as it would be abused quickly, many people often even comment that they think dupe voters are evil because they correctly vote dupe. There are people who actively go out of their way to make sure things don't get duped no matter how similar they are, it's the same problem as this here even brought up by the same person who was back then annoyed with people voting dupe on one of his suggestions. Also, wrong place, revisions and discussion one the Suggestions system goes to Category_talk:Suggestions, this is for discussion on the Current Suggestions page.--Karek^maps?! 00:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Something definately needs to be done. At present, a lot of ideas cannot be suggested because, regardless of how good they are, they are voted as dupes of badly thought out and/or horribly overpowered suggestions.--Studoku 01:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the dupe system needs revamping either that or we need to hire a lawyer to keeep up with all the dupes votes. I'm still not totally clear as to why we worry about dupes. If someone wants to keep plugging something and having it killed, so what? gabdewulf 15:57, 19 May 2008 (BST)

While I think the suggestion system needs more comprehensive improvement, in the time being this would be a positive change. Suggestions should not be eliminated simply because something vaguely similar has been suggested in the past. This makes it impossible to improve on previous ideas so the community might respond better. I would like to see this change in procedure implemented. --Zhani 22:20, 3 September 2008 (BST)

Who is cycling the Suggestions?

Uh...Who's cycling the suggestions? As of now, the first 4 sugestions on the "Under voting" list are already past 2 weeks by a day or 2. And already, I see a few late votes on some of them. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoever gets to them first. No need to panic, yours got in reviewed --~~~~ [talk] 19:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Usually Midianian.--Karek^maps?! 00:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not hard to do. Why didn't you do it Axe Hack? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:38 18 February 2008 (BST)

Turn Talk:Suggestions into a disambiguation bewteen this page and Developing Suggestions

It's simply more a housekeeping issue- people who go to Talk:Suggestions (especially newer users) might want to talk about the suggestions system itself, instead of just wanting Developing Suggestions. Although the redirect was useful for the first few weeks of the Developing Suggestions page, everyone knows about it now, so I think it's time for a disambiguation. This falls into the "I can't see why not" category, but if anyone has any objections... Linkthewindow ^{Talk MCM} 06:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections about making it a disambiguation, but it shouldn't point here, it should point to Category_talk:Suggestions#Suggestion_Discussion. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [512,15]} 12:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Or we could do some very strange work around type thingy and make all three pages template inclusions on each other so that all three of those pages have the same content at all times :D.--Karek^maps?! 09:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Pointless. just a usual disambiguation page would serve best --~~~~ [talk] 09:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The point would be to eliminate the confusion that already abounds from just two pages from getting worse with two pages and a high profile redirect.--Karek^maps?! 19:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Or you could leave it the way it is, or put "Want to talk about the suggestions system? Try Category talk:Current Suggestions." at the top of Developing Suggestions. --Pestolence^(talk) 00:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's already there. And yet again, this page is not for discussing the suggestions system, Category_talk:Suggestions is for that. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [500,18]} 00:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)