Category talk:Current Suggestions/Archive

Recently Cycled Suggestions

Can we have it so that under "Current Suggestions" there's a heading labeled "Recently Cycled Suggestions"? It would list the past 5-7 days suggestions and say where they ended up - humorous, spam, PR, etc. It'd save me having to dig through each category just to see whether something passed or not. --Ms.Panes 10:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I like this one--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 10:33, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Would a link to the recent changes in the Suggestion namespace be sufficent? I know there's a lot of other voting in there, but it's easy enough to find the cycled suggestions. Or you could go to the end of Suggestions. I just feel that another list of suggestions would add to the already too frequent confusion about where newbies should place their suggestions -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:43 1 January 2008 (BST)

The recent changes mostly has voting. And not everyone tells that they're closing the suggestion in the edit summary. On Category:Suggestion Pages (if that's what you meant), you have to look at two weeks into the past and you have to look at the individual pages to know whether it's closed or not and where it ended up.

I don't think it would be that much trouble for the one closing the suggestions (and I do that quite often, so I should know). Also, suggestions that are removed (dupes, spam, humorous) on their first day could be just deleted from Today's Suggestions and moved there, which would probably reduce voting on closed suggestions.

To lessen confusion for newbies and others, the closed suggestions list could be placed on some other page as they don't really qualify as current suggestions anymore. Maybe a new category? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good Midianian. As long as there's a link to it I don't mind the list itself being on a separate page. --Ms.Panes 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sounds the best idea. Create a closed suggestion category, and then just replace "Current" with "Closed" in the category tag at the bottom of a suggestions when it is closed (instead of deleting it outright). How long would you want them to stay in the closed category? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 19:58 1 January 2008 (BST)

Well, the whole thing could be done by adding a category tag to the cycling templates so they would be in the category forever (so that it'd be Closed Suggestions, not Recently Closed Suggestions). That way you wouldn't have to cycle each suggestion twice (first off Current, then off Recently Closed). I was thinking of a list like Current Day's Suggestions that would be edited separately for the Recently Closed part. That way you could see where the suggestion ended up without opening the individual pages. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Yet another bloody huge category? If you're going to do it that way, just use that category, it's not hard to count back two weeks -- boxy ^{talk • i} 20:27 1 January 2008 (BST)

I'm curious, how come it only goes back to mid-2007? And do the new suggestions get added automatically, or does someone have to add them? --Ms.Panes 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It only goes back to mid-2007 because that's when the suggestions system was converted to using individual pages for each suggestion. New suggestions are automatically included in the category because of this category-tag in this template, which is included in this template, which is included in every (properly formatted) suggestion page because it says so in the instructions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:07, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, counting back two weeks becomes a bit annoying when it goes back to last month. Especially if you do it often. And then there's dupes and spams and other removals that mix it up even further. Why not just remove Category:Suggestion Pages? Most of the time that page is used for finding dupes and you don't need the current suggestions when doing that, so its function would be served just as well by Category:Closed Suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Besides, Category:Suggestion Pages' contents is duplicated here. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I already suggested it once (it's actually still on the page). I think a category could work ok --~~~~ [talk] 19:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it'd be nice to easily find the newest suggestions in the peer reviewed area. I keep stumbling on something that lists most recently PR reviewed suggestions, but somehow I doubt X-Mas gift giving was the most recent one. The thing is, that only applies to people specifically interested in peer-reviewed suggestions, whereas I'm interested in all suggestions, but only really want the results of the vote. IE: Money Porn-spammed Give Zombies Two Heads-undecided Throw Stupid People Out the Window-peer reviewed. --Ms.Panes 20:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand you, the list that would have all of them is better than a particular case, i just wanted to point that a list for reviewed has even more appliance --~~~~ [talk] 20:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

How about Category:Suggestions? It's not used for anything at the moment. The page could be worked so that the list can be included on other pages. Maybe put it on Suggestions, below the list of today's suggestions? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Putting in on Suggestions sounds good to me. --Ms.Panes 07:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How does this look? The table is sortable, so if you're only interested in those suggestions that went to Peer Reviewed, you can just sort it by "Destination". Adding suggestions to the list is quite easy because of the template (naturally it'd be named something like RecentlyClosed, not User:Midianian/Sandbox/Aux01). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Very nice. :) I'd probably put the closing date after the destination, though. IE:

20071228 Tangling Grasp affects barricade attacks Peer Reviewed 2008-01-11

--Ms.Panes 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason why you'd put it there? I put it in the middle because it's not that important and it visually separates the two linkified columns. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, created a new category page. Any further discussion should go on it's talk page. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple Backlinking for Dupes

I think Funt's idea on Zombie Deformities was a pretty good one. But there might be an easier way to achieve the same effect: put a link of the form [[Special:Whatlinkshere/{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|Pages that link here]] (looks like this: Pages that link here) into all of the "final destination" templates (Template:Reviewed, Template:Undecided, Template:Dupe, Template:Spam and so on). In addition to duped suggestions, this would also include revisions and possible further discussion on other pages that was sparked by the suggestion (provided there's a link, but there usually is). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Place. Goes here.--Karek^maps?! 01:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This most certainly doesn't belong there. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed suggestions most certainly are not Current Suggestions, takes a bit of a leap to assume it belongs here.--Karek^maps?! 16:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

If you would look at the three main headers of Category_talk:Suggestions, you'll see that below the first reads "Put talk about the page Category :Suggestions here". Nope, doesn't apply. Below the second reads "Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here." Nope, doesn't apply. Below the third reads "This area is for formal policy votes concerning the suggestions page." Not here either. Where, oh, where would I put this on that page, as this doesn't concern the page Category:Suggestions or posting and voting for suggestions and this most certainly isn't a formal policy vote?

On the other hand, suggestions are still current suggestions at the time when they are closed, so this actually does apply on current suggestions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:28, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, never mind. I only now noticed that there's a "What links here" link in the toolbox. Maybe there should be a mention somewhere that using this on a suggestion usually gives you possible revisions or suggestions that were duped by it? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Nav Bar FTW

As the page was kept as decided on Deletions, the question of the nav-bar remains. There's already two existing nav-bars for the suggestions, Template:Suggestion Navigation and Template:Suggestions Category. I'd suggest adding the talk-pages to the first template. My opinion would be to divide the jobs of the pages a bit like Gnome initially thought:

• Talk:Suggestions is for developing suggestions.
• Category talk:Suggestions is for suggestions policy discussion and voting.
• Category talk:Current Suggestions is for discussing the suggestions system in general (administrative issues and such). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

That's just wrong. Category talk:Current Suggestions is and has always been for discussing the page Category:Current Suggestions nothing more. Any other use it's been put to should have been on Category talk:Suggestions as that is general suggestions discussion, discussion on each suggestion under voting is to happen on that suggestions talk page and discussion on proposed suggestions happens on Talk:Suggestions. It's how it makes sense and how it's been meant to be used.--Karek^maps?! 00:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

The reason why I suggested that was because this page is much more easily reachable than Category talk:Suggestions. There's nothing of interest on Category:Suggestions, except the list of suggestions. People are more likely to come here if they have a question about the suggestions system in general as this page is easier to find and Category:Current Suggestions is more closely related to the suggestions system than Category:Suggestions. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

It'd be better to do something about that then to completely rework the way the system has always worked in a way that actually makes it more complicated.--Karek^maps?! 20:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

A complete rework? It's just moving the general discussion about the suggestion system here. Everything else stays where it is. How is that more complex than what we're currently using? Every page would have one definite function. And you can't really do anything about the fact that this talk-page is easier to reach/find as it's a direct consequence of the amount of usage the actual page gets.

• Category:Current_Suggestions: "This page has been accessed 62,175 times."
• Category:Suggestions: "This page has been accessed 2,447 times." --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 21:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Those numbers are misleading due to useage. The Category:Current_Suggestions gets more views because of the page it is included on, it doesn't actually get that many views, the page it's included on does. That's just another reason why the discussion on this page should be kept to the useage of Category:Current_Suggestions which is essentially a contentless page due to how it's used.--Karek^maps?! 21:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Templates don't "inherit" hits from the pages they're on, if that's what you mean. Easily proved by Template:Suggestion Navigation, which has ~300 hits. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that, It's the way it's used that gets it so many hits, not that it's a main suggestions page or how easy it is to find.--Karek^maps?! 00:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's still a whole lot easier to get there than Category:Suggestions which isn't used for anything other than occasionally searching dupes. I don't know about others, but I never use Suggestions, only Category:Current Suggestions. Besides, it's the default place for looking at suggestions that aren't from today. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks fair enough to me... are there any other types of suggestions related topics that may need to be discussed in the future? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:56 22 December 2007 (BST)

What is a Dupe?

Please see Wave Hello a suggestion I posted today. What is a Dupe? Who decides? I can't find the rules. --Jon Pyre 22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• A Dupe is a duplicate of a previously submitted suggestion.
• If at least 3 Dupe votes have been made, a sysop reviews the case and makes the call.

At least, that's the way I understand it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[[User:|]] said:

* Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion. Dupe votes can be used to remove suggestions as described below. Dupe votes will not be counted when votes are tallied.

And also, here, those should answer your questions I think.--Karek^maps?! 01:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The suggestion you made was to do something another suggestion already existed to accomplish, specifically emotes. Your difference was to target it at one person through the 50 person limit, which, i am afraid, is trivial. It is a minor variation on the concept already covered, and to be perfectly honest, is close enough that the dupe vote applies. The Dupe vote is rarely, if ever, abused, and it wasnt in the suggestion you linked to there. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

While it was called Wave Hello I feel that the flavor text of the wave overshadowed the actual purpose of the suggestion, which was to give your profile link to a specific person in a crowded room. Would you have voted Dupe if the suggestion just said "X was here", without any emote whatsoever? --Jon Pyre 20:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly because it's still use of the /me command. If I didn't vote dupe I'd spam it too hell for being annoying.--Karek^maps?! 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There was no /me command, just selecting a person. And unless people are specifically choosing to contact you, Karek, you wouldn't see anything. --Jon Pyre 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

For, Against, Dupe

Since suggestions aren't removed anymore the spam vote is literally just a strong kill now. It seems as though the voting categories are obsolete ever since we went to the individual page system. I think this would work better:

• FOR - This would replace Keep.
• AGAINST - Replaces kill. You can label your vote anything you want including Kill, Change, or Spam (or WTFCENTAURS) if you want to indicate that the suggestion is particularly bad or violates the Dos and Donts in some way.
• DUPE - Does not count either for or against the suggestion. Players may place a DUPE vote in addition to their one vote in either FOR or AGAINST, or just vote Dupe without making a FOR or AGAINST vote. Dupe votes make no judgement as to the quality of the suggestion, just the originality.

If a suggestion has For to Against ratio of 2/3 or higher it is peer reviewed. If it has a majority of For but does not meet 2/3 it is undecided. If it has a majority of Against votes it is peer rejected. If Dupe votes are the majority, outnumbering For + Against combined then the suggestion is a Duplicate.

This system allows people to Dupe ideas they like without placing the idea in peer rejected should voting not prove it a duplicate. It also appropriately combines the spam and kill votes into the multipurpose AGAINST.

--Jon Pyre 19:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Quote:...Since suggestions aren't removed anymore the spam vote... You're wrong, they are removed - removed from voting. without spamination they stay there for 2 weeks before decision --~~~~ [talk] 21:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have supported this anyway for the combining spam and against part. After the disgrace that is the duping of "wave hello" today i think reform has become even more important. --Honestmistake 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this makes it too hard to dupe suggestions. I think Dupe votes outnumbering For votes would be enough. Also, there are other uses for Spam besides just as a strong Kill. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

But now that each suggestion gets its own page we don't really need to worry about chocking the wiki with dross! Fair enough, if a suggestion reaches 10 votes and at least 5 are SPAM then its probably crap but what harm does leaving it up do? As for dupes outnumbering other votes... again if the vote total reaches a minimum of 10 then yes fine, file it as a dupe in the end but the current problem shows that a consensus on what is and is not a valid dupe is far from universal! --Honestmistake 10:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam can also be used for removing incomplete and humorous suggestions and suggestions which have several unrelated things in it. There is absolutely no sense in keeping suggestions like those in voting for two weeks. Also, as someone (I think it was Karek) said, leaving horrible suggestions up for voting for the two weeks only invites abuse on the suggestion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There should be a minimum number of Dupe votes given (maybe 5 or 8?) before a suggestion can be removed. Similar to how currently you need 8 Spams before the 2/3 rule can be applied (or 3 Spams and no non-author Keeps). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is... it's 3 -- boxy • talk • 11:02 16 November 2007 (BST)

Currently, yes. Jon didn't mention a limit and as he changed duping in many other aspects, I didn't think it would apply in this system. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam/dupe is needed to remove crap and frequently submitted suggestions from the list, where they just sit around for 2 weeks, pissing people off for having to read through every trenchy gun idea to make sure they don't miss a good suggestion to vote for. Dupes work, but I can see trouble coming when people start getting into edit wars about what and what isn't a close enough dupe. Perhaps the people allowed to decide on dupes needs to be restricted? I dunno... come up with something other than leaving them up for the full 2 weeks -- boxy • talk • 11:02 16 November 2007 (BST)

There is a minimum... its 3 and currently those 3 will trump any number of other votes even if every one of them specifically refutes the dupe link!--Honestmistake 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It wont trump anything unless a link is given that is sufficiently similar. I think it would be wise for those voting dupe to abstain from removing the suggestion (as happened in this case) -- boxy • talk • 11:09 16 November 2007 (BST)

List of recent removals

The default status is still under normal voting, others are labeled beside the link.

1. Suggestion:20071115 Putrefaction v2.0
2. Suggestion:20071115 Wave Hello dupe
3. Suggestion:20071115 Death Hands
4. ‎Suggestion:20071115 Damaged Generators
5. Suggestion:20071115 Brass Knuckles multi
6. ‎Suggestion:20071115 Repairing Building Damage v2.0
7. Suggestion:20071114 .22 rifles and ammunition (revised) spam/multi
8. Suggestion:20071114 New Tips
9. Suggestion:20071114 .22 rifles and ammunition spam
10. Suggestion:20071113 Hammer-Pants spam
11. Suggestion:20071113 Home Made Bombs spam
12. Suggestion:20071113 Uses for excess XP spam
13. Suggestion:20071113 Making generators and transmitters
14. Suggestion:20071112 Newspaper re-vamp
15. Suggestion:20071112 Colored Inventory Options
16. Suggestion:20071112 Crossbows
17. Suggestion:20071112 Adrenaline Rush and Zombie Urge spam
18. Suggestion:20071111 crossbows as weopons would have been spam, but edited
19. Suggestion:20071111 Express Subway
20. Suggestion:20071111 Shotgun becomes AWM Rifle spam
21. Suggestion:20071110 Feeding Lunge
22. Suggestion:20071110 Pac Man in Malton!
23. Suggestion:20071110 Mortars spam
24. Suggestion:20071109 Fresh Corpse edited after voting had started

I think the great majority of those removals from voting were totally justified... motars... bombs... arctic warfare weaponry. The suggestion system is better off overall, even if a few borderline cases come up now and again -- boxy • talk • 11:43 16 November 2007 (BST)

I do agree that the majority of those listed above as SPAM were not good. In the case of the Duped "Wave" suggestion I and many others strongly dispute the relevance of the dupe vote. There really is very little similarity but our 10+ votes have indeed been trumped by 3 dupes... That is not justified. I have discussed this with Grim and respect his opinion and suspect the other 2 dupers will have similar reasoning behind their vote and that is fine, after all it is their opinion an interpretation of the voting rule that must guide them. However in this particular case the opinion of the majority seems to conflict with theirs and is being squashed by the system. --Honestmistake 12:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

If they arent close to dupe, they wont get dupe votes, at least, they wont get several justified ones. In the case of such things, i think we should let the system run its course as is. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Its just come up somewhere else so i will make a note of it here; would it be acceptable for specific "Not Dupe" votes to act as counter to "Dupes"? Obviously justification of why you think it is not would be required but at least it would not then come down to a case of 3 peoples opinion overweighing any number of others. Unlike others I don't think "Dupe" votes are often abused and I don't think they are here either... I just don't agree with the fact that someone elses opinion can outweigh everyone elses if they get 2 supporters who agree with them. Doing this would bring "Dupe" into line with "Spam" Currently any other vote acts as a counter to SPAM and while i do disagree with a lot of individual SPAM votes the system isn't so open to minority rule as the Dupe rules currently are. --Honestmistake 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dupe votes having to outnumber Not Dupe or Keep votes is a bad idea. People will start using them when they really like an idea to block it from removal and force heaps of /me suggestions into the PR section -- boxy • talk • 15:04 16 November 2007 (BST)

If an idea has voter support though why shouldn't it stand? I mean, you're basically assuming that the majority of voters are too stupid to identify dupes on its own. In experience most vote tallies turn out pretty much the way they should. Bad ideas are obliterated, good ideas approved, and contested ideas languish in a tie for the most part. For every person that'd be dumb enough to vote keep for a Dupe just because they like the idea there are ten who would Dupe it when provided a link. And if there's disagreement whether a suggestion is a Dupe or not shouldn't it get a fair vote? I don't even think 2/3 majority should be necessary to Dupe a suggestion, just a simple majority and a few hours time. --Jon Pyre 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Rules are rules?

Is this a rule or not?

"1.You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated."

If it is then it should be enforced, blatantly ignoring this very clearly posted rule should be regarded as "bad faith" because it is nothing less than just that. If anyone wishes to remove this rule then please put forth that very policy so those of us with a modicum of decency can laugh when it fails... In the mean time could the mod team please start to enforce it, Grim should be up to the job as he spends a lot of time in suggestions and I congratulate his firm stance on enforcing the second part of the rule in the case below!!! --Honestmistake 14:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's like the justification rule. If it becomes a real problem, where no one is justifying their vote, then it will be enforced for a while to force people to put the effort in. Otherwise it causes more drama than it saves to have sysops going around saying "your comment is insulting"... then suddenly there are 24 other people saying "calling my suggestion stupid is insulting" or "you struck my vote, it wasn't insulting... micontribulation!!!one1one". You want to burn out the few active admins on the suggestions pages, make them enforce this on every page. The best way to deal with trolling is to ignore it unless it causes real trouble. Insulting voters are still going to spam/kill a suggestion. It makes no difference to the results -- boxy • talk • 14:14 14 November 2007 (BST)

I think perhaps you missed a good part of my point there boxy. --Honestmistake 14:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Insulting the suggestion isn't a personal attack. These could be handled similarly to the Trolling votes, ie. defend in discussion. There's a pretty clear distinction between attacking the suggestion and attacking the suggester. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, from what I've seen so far, flaming is tolerated in The Urban Dead Wiki, and no less so in the Suggestion pages (where it cannot be dismissed as roleplaying) than anywhere else. The notion of attacking the idea and not the person suggesting it seems to be "honoured more in the breach than in the observance", as it were. --Richardhg 14:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We've tried quite a few times to actually formulate a policy that would limit flaming, but it never was successful. There were always worries that it was too depended on personal interpretation and that over time the rule would be used ever more strictly. It's a real worry as I've seen that happen quite a few time, where a rule that was supposed to be pretty loose and only enforced when it became a problem became ever more constricting, like the no non-author RE's for example.-- Vista  +1  15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That transition happens as a direct result of people who whinge when a rule is applied to their case but not others, which leads sysops to err on the side of strictness. Loose and fast rules don't really work that well around here, simply because everyone likes a good complaint and sysops get very tired of drama very quickly. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that our high user turnover is a problem. The reason why rules were made tend to get forgotten or is fixed. So instead of only using the rule in cases where it was supposed to solve the problem the rule gets used each and every time because it is a rule and "rules are rules". The whole problem is that making rules is always very difficult and usually best done by professionals. Our amateurish attempts usually create more problems then they solve when they are taken too strict.-- Vista  +1  15:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The incredible NOTE

Description of NOTE:

---

Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout <s></s> in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

---

Relevant sections carved off the misconduct page are posted in italics.

The no new vote is strongly implied. If only a sysop can remove strikeout, why should a person be able to effectively remove strikeout by voting again? If they want to change the content of their vote, they can discuss it with the sysop on the talk page, and odds are, once its acceptable, the vote will be changed and unstruck. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The power is to remove troll votes, not voters. Plenty of people vote keep or kill because they don't agree with spammination. It is a valid voting tactic, IMO. Nali telling everyone that he was simply voting keep to invalidate spam votes was trolling, and was justifiably struck out. I see no rule, or even implication in the rules, disallowing him a proper vote -- boxy • talk • 09:40 14 November 2007 (BST)

Boxy, Note is essentailly meaningless if someone can write another vote right away. What would be the point of having the defend on talk page part of the description if a person could just change their reasoning and avoid the whole process described in the Note description? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a left over from back in the day when all suggestions where on the same page and 25 spams could be made invalid by a single keep vote possibly breaking the page or creating massive amounts of drama. And with the new system and changes to the spam system, that situation just can't happen anymore. Even back then the note had a meaning but very limited real use that way, I would be amazed if it was used for that more then half a dozens times. The only real use of it now is to cut down on flaming. Sometimes rules lose their relevance, it happens. Trying to change the use of the rule just so it can continue to be used just because it is a rule is idiotic. situations change while rules don't. Sometimes that just means a certain rule becomes meaningless. so what?-- Vista  +1  11:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Surely getting them to change the vote is the point! If they want the alleged TROLL vote unstruck they must defend it, if they wish to make a non-trolling vote then the strike has done its job. --Honestmistake 09:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The point of the rule is to get rid of votes intended to cause drama. If they vote properly, they should be allowed to put a new vote up. I see no implication in the rules to say they are banned from voting properly because of a strike. The trolling was in justification being simply a "this is to block you" to the spammers rather than the act of voting to try to block spamination (because plenty of people do that without being in your face about it) -- boxy • talk • 10:04 14 November 2007 (BST)

The whole rule was instated because we had a group of users purposely voting keep on spammed suggestions back in the day when a single keep vote would invalidate each and every spam vote. Ever since the spam rule chances it's been basically a meaningless rule only fit to tone down the drama in votes.-- Vista  +1  11:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The vote was struck through because of the following voting rule

"1.You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated."

The striking is just the way that troll votes are removed... what is the system for Flame votes? These are a much bigger and more common problem and fall under the same rule as far as vote validity is concerned yet their is no rule or note specifically for them. It is ridiculous that one part of this rule is almost universally ignored and the other almost only used (this is the first I have seen) In short we either tolerate trolling and flaming here or we don't... this should be applied in all cases or none, to selectively use it is to invite misconduct cases like the one this spawned. --Honestmistake 11:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlike the before mentioned trolling votes flaming hasn't been specifically targeted by a suggestions page rule change. So the normal wiki rules apply. And we have a rather lenient policy regarding speech and flaming here the vote justification has to be pretty bad to be considered trolling. While Note has been used a couple of times to invalidate votes that were over the top insulting, if you want to it to be used more in that manner you'll have to propose a more strict policy regarding speech. Either for the whole wiki, or just for the suggestions page.-- Vista  +1  12:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be fairly simple to strike votes that make personal attacks on the suggester and/or other voters. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It would. but the current rules allow that sort of talk. No exception is made for the suggestions page. All proposed rule changes that would allow us to do so have failed to get passed. I've been on the record for somewhat stricter civility rules for a long time now but our hands are tied in this case.-- Vista  +1  13:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

"The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it". It's forbidden in the rules but you can't do anything about it? That certainly needs to be fixed. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's more that we as a community have set the bar for what actually are considered personal attacks or denigrating the user pretty high in all the discussions about that rule. As I noted elsewhere, we've certainly acted on the worst cases.-- Vista  +1  15:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Like this one for instance? I have paraphrased it because the middle part is well reasoned and I happen to agree... the rest however is a personal attack which flagrantly (and openly) breaks the rules. No matter how leniently we usually apply them the same can be said for the "troll vote" that started all this!

"You think posting your re in another language will stop me flaming you? Think again...... This suggestion is just retarded in the extreme, another example of a dumb idea bypassing the miniscule and highly atrophied higher sections of your brain enroute from creation to posting. THINK BEFORE YOU POST. --The Grimch U! E! WAT!"

Seem a little personal and totally in conflict with the rules to anyone else? --Honestmistake 12:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

But Honest... it's alright for Grim to do it because he's on a mission from God. Didn't you know? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I will eat my hat, and post photographic proof, if Grim ever admits to being wrong. It's a shite state of affairs for normal users of this wiki if there is a rogue sysop wandering around the place making up rules in an arbitrary fashion using dubious interpretations to always bend things to his way of thinking. He wouldn't like it if it happened to him so he shouldn't do it to other people. It really is as simple as that. It's just bloody sad that he can't admit when he's gone too far. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Link. I can screeny it if you like. Out of mercy, you can make it a really, really small hat. Made of Pastry or another edible substance. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I don't think Funt is going to accept entries from back in March. What disturbs me is that you can even remember it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Make it a very, very small hat... I have rarely seen such a masterpiece of insulting weaseling apology! He apologized for not responding quickly and even then makes comment that he had better things to do! Read it again, it doesn't actually apologize for insulting anyone at all! --Honestmistake 16:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Holy shit - you're right! --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness he does apologize to one of them... --Honestmistake 09:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness, i didnt actually attack one of them. I apologised for being out of line to the person i was out of line to, and the rest was a general discussion where we worked out the problem and moved on with no hard feelings. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely amazing isn't it! Grim, I would take my hat off to you but Funt might eat it ;)--Honestmistake 16:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember a lot of things, like how you are behaving now is exactly like how you behaved when you first arrived, and the reason you are doing it this time is not because of any hard feeling over policies or anything, but because i took a chunk out of the gnome on his promotions bid. But thats off topic. The Note has rarely been used, in fact, this is only the second and third use of it in all history, and the one time it was used on me, it was used in the same manner i used it. Here is a handly link to that usage. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You presume much... I couldn't give a toss how you vote on Gnome's bid purely because I know nobody else really cares, either. Seriously, where the hell did you dredge that one from? I've never ever ever ever commented on your behaviour there, so I'm not sure where you get off trying to read my mind. If you really must know, I'm doing this because I think you're a stuck-up fuck who gets off lording over the helpless peons while you sit on your Throne of Newbie Skulls^TM up there in the Realm of the Gods. But that's off topic. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of our dealings up to that point was cordial, even friendly. You even congratulated me on how i handled Zachsmind. From then on i hadnt actually posted a result ruliong vandalism on the A/VB page. Had barely interacted with it at all. I had participated in the Open discussion regarding democracy on the wiki, and did contribute to the policy on obnoxious sigs, but other than my comments on the gnomes promotions bid, nothing has happened between then and this flare up of yours. But keep going mate, you are doing a very poor job of hiding your motives. Now, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion? I feel i used the note right, but, given that it has barely ever been used, its probably a good idea to hammer out an accepted meaning for what it should be rather than have a drama shitstorm, like certain individuals seem set on having. Im perfectly willing to go with whats decided, but that doesnt mean i forfiet the right to present my position and argue for it. You all have that right, and i am entitled to it as well. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you not listen to a word I just said? I don't give a toss how you voted on Gnome's promotion bid. I've been feeling increasingly pissed-off at your little shenanigans recently, Grim. Some of your ideas are good, but the rest is utter tripe. The last straw came when I went to post on A/VB in relation to Nalikill's case... and realised I couldn't, because you wanted users' voices to be basically ignored. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Damn - I've got to eat a hat now! Well, I don't mind, because that apology is way back in March 2006, which kind of proves my point. This isn't an attempt at general character assassination, btw Grim - it's very much about this particular case - despite my overuse of hyperbole. On a more general note, I do think there's a danger of over-moderating the suggestions system. I'd know - I used to do it (as a non-mod, obviously). I backed off when I finally realised how much drama I was generating. It's like The Gong Show, right? People are coming up, pulling a sheet off a cage and introducing their laser-eyed-monkey-NPCs, or whatever, and the crowd goes wild with hoots of derision - that's the atmosphere we have on the suggestions page. To suddenly come down hard on one user who turns the tables on the hooters by hooting in the Keep section, is rather suspect, don't you think? Additionally, I think the over-zealous idea of enforcing strictly an unworkable policy of polite justification (as Midianianian seems to want) will just remove any sense of fun from the suggestions process, and cause a ton of bad feeling. If we accept "la la la" in Spam, we must be willing to accept nonsense (such as "avoiding spamination") in Keep, as well. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I didn't say anything about them having to be polite, Funt Solololo. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Funt, that was merely the first thing that came to mind, and that was because of some reading i was doing earlier where i linked to that particular discussion a year ago. Ive done it since, i just cant find any right now. Mostly they are little things. Anyway, as ive said, ill go with what the community decides on this. Oh, and might i suggest carving a small hat out of cheese for the eating? You can have it on a cracker, or even just draw a hat in pepperoni on a pizza, or maybe you could wait until april and eat one of those hatted chocolate easter bunnies. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can claim you're not generous - some would have insisted on a textile hat. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the vandal banning, but the Note was used in the way that Vista described it's purpose for creation was. Nali was pretty obviously trying to keep suggestions in the system even though they had been spamminated.--Karek^maps?! 20:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion Vote Revamp

Based on the Do away with spam votes discussion below (especially Honestmistake's idea).

How about a system with sections Keep, Change, Kill and a combined section for Dupe and Incomplete/Rule-Breaking (can someone think of a better name for that?).

The function of the Spam vote would be divided between Kill and Incomplete/Rule-Breaking. The system would be changed so that if enough (80%?) of the votes are Kill, voting would be terminated prematurely. There would be a minimum time (a day?) and number of total votes (15?) before the suggestion could be removed. Suggestions that are incomplete (significant information missing) or rule-breaking (humorous, giving options and maybe others?) would also be removed prematurely. Incomplete/Rule-breaking-votes would have a set number (4?) of votes required after which the suggestion would be removed (like with Dupe-votes).

Suggestions that have a large number of Change-votes (more than 33%? 50%?) and suggestions removed for being incomplete/rule-breaking could not be used for duping unless practically nothing has changed (I'm tempted to include Duped suggestions here as well, based on a discussion at Category_talk:Suggestions). The Change votes would only affect the ability to use the suggestion as a basis for dupe, not it's destination (reviewed, undecided, rejected). They wouldn't be included in the counting when removing a suggestion based on Kill votes.

So, how's that? Suggestions and opinions (especially on the numbers) are more than welcome. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I just know someone is going to say that the name for your incomplete/rule breaking is SPAM! technically it is but sadly the name is tainted by its current use so carrying it over to any new system is going to negate any benefits as the same people will still just abuse it! I would say that nearly 80% of SPAM votes are not based on the current definition so getting rid of it would go a long way towards reducing needless flaming etc... I don't think this version of the voting system works but it is at least a good start! --Honestmistake 12:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Having said that about 80% of SPAM votes weapon suggestions are almost always the exception... like todays batch ;) --Honestmistake 12:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be the same system we use now... only you've renamed the spam section, and increased the power of kill votes. I see no need to change it... as I said down in the get rid of spam section. Spam is a necessary part of the system... unless you are going to ban people from being brutally honest about how much most suggestions suck, simply getting rid of the spam section isn't going to change anything other than where those votes go... they'll still be there, just labeled differently -- boxy • talk • 13:54 9 November 2007 (BST)

Did you completely miss the Change vote and changes to duping, or did you just ignore them?--Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Change votes are kill votes. --Karek^maps?! 23:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If the author is dumb or lazy enough that he doesn't remove and re-submit the suggestion, it probably goes into Peer Rejected and under the current system any further attempt to fix the suggestion would result in duping. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, there are actual exceptions you know, the sysops do use common sense when removing things.--Karek^maps?! 18:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the rules pretty clearly say it's a dupe. It's better to have these kind of things explicitly in the rules instead of every sysop having to bend the rules every time they happen on a suggestion like that. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 12:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysops don't have exclusive rights to dupe suggestions, anyone can slap the template on the page -- boxy • talk • 13:06 11 November 2007 (BST)

That makes me want to put it in the rules even more. Because a lot of people on the internet are seriously lacking in common sense. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't seem to have changed much from the current system. You haven't set out how a suggestion is duped out, so I assumed it was the same as the current system, three votes makes it eligible if there is a valid link provided. Suggestions with a significant amount of change votes are removed now, only voluntarily by the suggester (or they go to rejected). The main thrust of this seems to be the removal of the spam section and replacing it with incomplete/rule breaking (spam under another name) in an attempt to get people to vote kill because it offends people. I may agree with your treatment of change votes, and voiding them from being used as dupes in the future, but not while it's connected to a "get rid of spam" change. Spam is necessary, and works well -- boxy • talk • 23:47 9 November 2007 (BST)

The thing is that Spam is used for a very large number of things. Let's see;

• game-breaking suggestions
• ridiculous suggestions
• overpowered suggestions
• incomplete suggestions
• multiple suggestions in one
• out of genre suggestions
• humorous suggestions

This would split these into Kill (and all of those suggestions would qualify for removal under my suggested 80% rule if Spams were counted as Kills, so they would stay in voting only for a day):

• game-breaking suggestions
• ridiculous suggestions
• overpowered suggestions
• out of genre suggestions

and Incomplete/Rule-Breaking (maybe termed Invalid?):

• incomplete suggestions
• multiple suggestions in one
• humorous suggestions

Also, something I've noticed: Kill votes usually have a reasonable justification, whereas Spam votes tend to have justifications like WTFCENTAURNINJAPIRATES. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A simpler suggestion would be to strictly enforce the justification rule. Also, strike as invalid any vote that substitutes "Spam" for something 'funnier' like "WTFCentaurs". --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 13:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's a doubtfull intention, Pavluk. Writing a good justification is devoting time and spam-minded suggestions aren't those you should waste time on. Striking purely disrespectful votes would be slightly better, though --~~~~ [talk] 13:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Like a classic disresepctful Sonny Corleone vote?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Kill votes have better justifications because the kill voters believe the suggestion is somehow redeemable (and hence worth pointing to fixes)... spam votes, by definition, are for suggestions that are totally unworthy of consideration, and unfixable. Therefore they are more likely to be simple "no, don't be stupid" votes... which is what WTFCENTAURNINJAPIRATES translates to -- boxy • talk • 12:57 11 November 2007 (BST)

Just because one thinks a suggestion is irredeemable (interesting choice of words there) doesn't mean one shouldn't justify one's vote. Also, writing "as above" wastes less time than coming up with clever insults (I admit I've done that too, but I try to avoid it). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 13:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Typing "WTFCENTAURNINJAPIRATES - You idiot" doesn't take much time... and it gets the message across quite effectively -- boxy • talk • 13:32 11 November 2007 (BST)

And is a personal attack on the suggester. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:SugVoteRules, Advice to Voters #1: You are voting on Suggestions, not Users. The text of your vote should not personally attack or denigrate the user who has submitted it... no matter how ridiculous the idea. Flaming and/or Trolling will not be tolerated. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your real issue is with keep votes, they are almost never justified. Since when is justification needed for the blatantly obvious or unless the author asks for it? All vote areas are abused, often people vote kill when they should be voting spam, keep when they should be voting kill, or spam because everyone else is, but don't be fooled, spam is not the most abused vote section, something like "Cause I don't see why not" is lack of a reason to vote, not justification.--Karek^maps?! 18:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Like when I don't justify my keep votes, no one complains, but as soon as I try to leave my kill/spam votes unjustified, I get mauled for it. It's abuse of the system to selectively attack votes like that..-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Very, cause the suggestion itself justifies spam and kill votes.--Karek^maps?! 19:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And the suggestion itself doesn't justify keep votes? Talk about selective... I personally wouldn't mind if all unjustified/nonsense votes were struck. I usually abstain if I can't think of a real reason either way. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is just as bad as "Cause I don't see why not".

But all this is beside the point. The main point of the revamp is the Change vote and the changes to the duping rules, not removing spam. I wouldn't mind really that much if the Rule Breaking/Invalid portion was separated from Spam and Spam kept, but I don't really see a reason why Spam would need to be separate from Kill. With the Invalid-portion separated, the justifications would be mainly the same as with Kill, just stronger and it makes more sense to include Spam into Kill than the other way around. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Spams aren't strong kills, that's just some people's misinterpretation of it, usually the ones that object to spam voting in the first place at that. My point was that you can't say that spam and kill votes aren't justified when keep votes are almost never justified, it's all or nothing which is kinda why this whole thing came about. Nothing is wrong with the current system except interpretive bias making keeps somehow holier than thou. --Karek^maps?! 00:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I wouldn't mind if all unjustified/nonsense votes were struck. I'm not saying that Spam is currently a strong Kill. It is used for other purposes too. But those purposes would have to be separated in order to make the duping rules more sensible and after that, Spam would just be a strong kill. Do you disagree with my list of uses for spam? With the Incomplete/Rule Breaking-part removed, there's only game-breaking, ridiculous, overpowered and out of genre suggestions left for the spam. Tone them down and you get somewhat ridiculous, slightly overpowered and slightly out of genre (game-breaking is hard to tone down). These are all reasons to vote Kill. Hence, Spam with the Invalid-portion separated would just be a strong kill. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You forget suggestions made with the pure purpose of spamming the system. --Karek^maps?! 22:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd say those usually fall into ridiculous, humorous, overpowered, game-breaking or incomplete suggestions and thus they would be voted out through either Kill or Invalid. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 06:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

None of Jon Pyre's suggestions fall under that category but somehow he continues to suggest the same or similar things and somehow people keep refusing to vote dupe or spam for things he's suggested 5 or 10 times in the past simply because they look complete and he insists it's somehow different. Even the ones he does get spamminated(instead of duped) don't really fall into any of those categories you pose.--Karek^maps?! 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If they aren't dupes, then they aren't dupes. That's one of the ways Spam is abused (IMO) currently, to use as Dupe when there isn't a real dupe. I don't think that kind of situation should be resolved in voting. It would be better if it was a policy limiting the number of suggestions you can make in a week or in a month or something like that (similar to the one-per-day limit). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Pyre does submit a lot of very similar suggestions but he does so because he uses the voters feedback as a sounding board to tweak and refine the suggestion to appeal to as many as possible thus each is different to the others. Another way he avoids being (legitimatll) Duped is that he often removes the suggestion himself so it can be revised. I honestly don't see a problem with his methods especialy as he does come up with some very good ideas... Of course he does have some stinkers and some which just don't fit/work but is that really so bad? --Honestmistake 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually he continuously ignores the voters, he's even stated before that Talk:Suggestions couldn't ever help some of his suggestions. He doesn't care about voter feedback, just getting what he wants implemented somehow.--Karek^maps?! 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Add Developing Suggestions to Suggestions Navigation Menu

It would be a good idea to add Developing Suggestions to the Suggestion Navigation Menu. If you want people to use it, it must be easy to find. Unless I am missing something, the only link to it is buried on the Suggestion page itself.--SporeSore 15:32, 19 October 2007 (BST)

Okay now I see it under Help, Brainstorming... I can see why that was done but I find it confusing. --SporeSore 15:35, 19 October 2007 (BST)

Add a line to the suggestions page

BEFORE POSTING A SUGGESTION, TRY TAKING IT TO Talk:Suggestions. This might save you embarrasment by learning how the community feels about your suggestion, and learning how to properly format your suggestion.

The above line would be added under the "Current Day's Suggestions" header. Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  22:36, 22 September 2007 (BST)

I don't think it will help, there is already a section just above that, in bright blue telling them, and plenty of other mentions, pretty much everywhere... You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, eh -- boxy • talk • 03:46 23 September 2007 (BST)

If the horse won't drink stick it's head in until it stops struggling.--Karek^maps?! 01:13, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Make Discussion Mandatory?

How about making it a requirement to have posted an idea to Talk:Suggestions before it is put up for voting? So many ideas, mainly by new contributers, are getting Dupified or Spaminated at the moment, and rightly so because they are unfinished, or a dupe, or just plain bad. Having to use the talk system first would have two benefits: it'd act as a filter for dupes and gamebreakers, and it would ensure that a finished idea is brought to voting. -- Pavluk ^A! 16:46, 15 September 2007 (BST)

You stole this idea off my sandbox page! Seriously.... anyway, I'd vote for this- is this the right place to propose it or does it need to be taken to Policies? Nalikill 23:20, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Not bad but it would need to be made very clear.... i have the talk page watched but it took me ages to find it when i first started! --Honestmistake 23:18, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Not every suggestion needs to be discussed, it's just making another step for people to screw up on. That and the talk page already gets too long and can't take much more use.--Karek^maps?! 11:32, 18 September 2007 (BST)

Well, there can be a system, under which developing suggestions would be created in same way as right now "finished" (on new pages) and when moving to voting - just having to set up the voting template and category tags. Under such system it would be possible to make a rule like "need 1 day after submission before may go straight to voting" and if it is not fullfilled it would be really easy to force it (as everything needing changing would be category tags / page links) --~~~~ [talk] 16:27, 18 September 2007 (BST)

I agree with Karek; we don't want to make another rule for newbies to inevitably break, right? --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU! U} 03:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already tried pushing this through, it really does defeat the purpos as not that much discussion really happens. Even shitty suggestions will still go through to the suggestion page and they will still get 'spamminated' on the talk page anyways. May as well have a comprehensive archive of suggestions, instead of a heap of deleted, aborted ones. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 13:44, 19 September 2007 (BST)

Do away with Spam votes

"Spam, for the most ridiculous suggestions." - They seem to not be used as defined so why bother to have them? Am I missing the point? FmrPFCBob 03:39, 15 September 2007 (BST)

Spam votes are used as defined, just not everyone feels it is necessary to repeat things that have already been said. Hell, there are a lot of times where people vote kill when they should be voting spam, or file their vote under keep when it should have been kill(change votes). Mistakes are made with every vote category, doesn't mean they should be done away with.--Karek^maps?! 07:46, 15 September 2007 (BST)

No, SPAM votes are clearly defined as being for ridiculous or game breaking suggestions. The majority of SPAM votes are used as strong kill simply because the voter does not like the suggestion. I do agree that many vote Keep when what they mean is Change (I do this a lot myself) but this is partly done to counter the unreasonable SPAM votes. If an idea has merit I don't want to vote kill so it goes to peer rejected as then if/when its revised it gets Duped. The SPAM vote should be kept but with stronger guidelines for when it is acceptable but we do need a "Change" vote to reflect opinion! --Honestmistake 15:07, 15 September 2007 (BST)

This isn't just about my suggestion, I've looked at many others where Spam votes are used when the voter clearly intends a Kill vote. I think its misuse of the system and should be addressed. When I was working up my idea I was told it would be spammed, not killed or voted down, spammed. It appears to me this is a common practice. A "change" vote makes sense as some kill and keep votes mention the need for tweaks to the suggestion. FmrPFCBob 22:35, 15 September 2007 (BST)

The benefit of a "change" vote would be that it would stop people like me voting keep to avoid a suggestion with merit going to Peer rejected! And allow others to not vote kill when they too think it has merit. --Honestmistake 23:38, 15 September 2007 (BST)

If I like the idea, it sounds good, but it needs a bit of tweaking...I will vote change in keep. It is a good vote, but there is X wrong with it. doc crook 02:17, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Spam is a completely necessary part of the suggestions voting process. Take a look at the Spammed Suggestions list... there arn't (m)any that don't deserve to be there. Voting spam as a strong kill is annoying to the suggester, but really, it does no harm. They just end up being counted as regular kill votes unless they make up more than 2/3rds of the votes... so even 4 or 5 kill votes are enough to ensure that most suggestions will avoid spamination. Making formalised rules about voting spam, and allowing people to strike out "invalid spams" is just a road to mega-drama, IMO The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 12:43 16 September 2007 (BST)

I agree that allowing anyone to delete dodgy SPAM vote would be chaos... requiring mods to do so would be better (though given some mods love of spam not perfect) perhaps a system where any user can tag (but not delete) crappy SPAM votes to draw attention would be better... possibly still cause some drama but it should quickly stop the misuse of the vote!--Honestmistake 23:23, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Having sysops delete dodgy spam would be only slightly less drama prone. And I still don't see the major problem with it as it is... it's annoying, but has very little effect on voting results The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:27 17 September 2007 (BST)

Spam votes, are for the most part used correctly. Admittedly some people go overbord on the insults and such, but to be honest bringing something in to control that will result in way more problems than it would solve! What I personaly do (picked it off an other user, can't remember who when I first started), and what a lot of other users seem to do with kill and keep votes that are almost in the other category is vote either Kill/change - Would be acceptable if you altered/removed.... Or Keep/Change Pretty good, but you might want to think about changing/removing.... This outlines what you think of a suggestion as well as being able to draw attention to your perceived areas of concern with suggestions that are on the borderline either way. Maybe this could be made official or something?--Seventythree^Talk 15:44, 19 October 2007 (BST)

Recent evidence suggests that we should do away with kill votes! no one uses them as a "SPAM" vote seems so much cooler! Down with kill, hell lets just kill keep votes too, death by spam is just so much easier to achieve!!!!! --Honestmistake 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it would be more efficient, as is only about 1 in 50 suggestions are even worth the time of reading.--Karek^maps?! 14:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that way, there's an easy solution: rather than flagrant voting rules violation, don't waste your precious time reading them, much less voting on them.

FmrPFCBob and Honestmistake are absolutely correct. Spam votes are not generally "used as defined," and they are not "for the most part used correctly." The word "ridiculous" is used so rhetorically on this wiki that it is devoid of meaning. Many people who obviously have some dislike for a suggestion will vote Spam and say "it's ridiculous," when in virtually every use of the term it simply means "I think it's stupid," or "I don't like it." "It's an uber power," which is set as the standard for ridiculous in the rules, is widely ignored as having anything to do with Spam vote criteria. The Spam votes are the most common SPAM on this wiki.

The same goes for "Dupe" votes, which are also widely misused, though not as often used as the more easily abused "Spam." Much of the time they don't provide links, and when they do, it is often to other suggestions that might at best be considered earlier versions of suggestions which could be considered Revisions but definitely not Dupes, but generally such votes don't even come that close to being relevant.

The majority of Spam voters pay no attention to the voting rules, which apparently many of you are fine with. Why not just eliminate the entire Suggestions area of the wiki, if there is such general hostility to all suggestions, and a willingness to break the existing written voting rules just to avoid having any of them seriously considered, for fear that something might change? Is it because then dozens of trolls would lose their favorite playground for flames and abuse?

Anyone should be allowed to delete dodgy spam votes - because most of them are. "Drama" is no excuse - the Spam voters already create truckloads of drama with their flagrantly rule-violating behavior, which goes not only unchecked and ignored by the admins of this wiki, but endorsed by some of them, and cheered by their own Spamination lynch mob.

So, if any of you want this entire Suggestions section of the wiki to be anything but a playground for trolls and flamers:

1. give in to the "anything new is bad" bias here and kill the entire suggestions area of the wiki, ending the pretense of a functional peer-review system, and ending the drama-queen game by which Spam voters continually abuse wiki users who make serious attempts to contribute, using it as an excuse to flame and troll anyone who makes a suggestion,
2. kill the Spam vote option entirely (my favorite),
3. redefine the Spam vote option so that it is clearer and less easy to abuse with rhetorical "that's ridiculous!" comments on suggestions which, good or bad, are clearly serious suggestions and not "absurd; preposterous; laughable," "nonsensical, ludicrous, funny" or otherwise worthy of ridicule by a reasonable person, not by the abusive crowd of louts that this "feature" has attracted to this area of this wiki,
4. only let sysops use Spam votes, and make it easy for them to be demoted to regular user for any misuse, or
5. let anyone who feels like it strikeout any Spam vote they think doesn't fit the stated Spam vote criteria, and require a sysop to undo the strikeout.

The abuse of this "feature" is disgustingly, ridiculously, rampant. Kill Spam votes.

Of course, so many of you are the very trolls and flamers in question, that this will almost certainly never happen, and you will have a steady flow of new victims who come from UD to this wiki thinking it might actually be a place to find out about the game, and the suggestions area might be a place to make suggestions, only to discover that it's really just a shooting gallery for a bunch of bitter "old timers" who are dead set on abusing other users because that's how you have fun. I'm nearly ready to leave myself, based on this type of nonsense.

Good day.

--Clay5x 15:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey! I am one of those bitter old timers and I agree with almost everyword. Sadly there is real SPAM and it deserves ridicule and abuse to be heaped on it.... its much rarer than many would argue, but they are usualy the most abusive in the first place! --Honestmistake 15:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Good to know that not all the bitter old timers here are such trolls, though I don't know how you can stand them to have stayed here this long. Of course there is real spam, but why not just kill it by the normal kill procedure? As soon as you structurally concede that certain things "deserve" abuse, you open the floodgates to abusive behavior on the part of all and sundry against anything and everything they dislike - which has clearly happened here. Right now this wiki's parody of real suggestions areas are throwing babies out with bathwater. --Clay5x 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I stick with it because i (rarely) let it get to me these days. The site is home to some people who don't know better, the teen boy macho posers. Some who do know better but do it anyway because they need to compensate by having a big e-penis, these usually get the boot for vandalism or promoted to sysop ;) The site is also home to all manner of friendly folk who will happily help you out one day, abuse you horribly the next and then laugh about it with you on the third! I mostly only came here for the suggestion page and gradually got sucked into the rest... Honestly though, if you think its bad now you should have seen what it used to be like, lets just say its no suprise that those who have been here for over a year are bitter :) --Honestmistake 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I would take issue with the points you raised here. There is not in my view a bias against all that is new. There is a weariness with seeing the same oft-rejected concepts re-hashed or duped outright. In some cases, I find Spam votes actually protect a suggestion from trolling, as a truly terrible idea can be removed quickly. As for your point about Spam votes being used on suggestions you consider serious, may I point out that voting on all suggestions is a matter of personal opinion. An idea that I consider utterly ridiculous, you may consider to be perfectly balanced and vice-versa. There is no way to legislate in this area, you cannot have a rule which defines what is ridiculous and what isn't. To a large extent, the suggestion system works in that it consistently produces good, workable ideas; several of which have been implemented into the game. As for the mocking, sniping and trolling which goes on, this is indeed regrettable. However, if every suggestion went through Talk:Suggestions first, there would I believe be a much better atmosphere within the suggestions system proper, as the dupes and gamebreaking ideas would be weeded out. --Pavluk ^{A! E!} 15:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"There is no way to legislate in this area, you cannot have a rule which defines what is ridiculous and what isn't." And yet, you do! It's called the Spam vote! It's very definition includes the term - which does, by the way, have a definition, but it is clearly not how most people use it here - precisely due to rhetorical flexibility. Which is what makes the entire Spam vote part of the Suggestion process nothing but troll and flame bait.

Also, my comments are not about what I consider to be good suggestions, when I say "serious" I don't mean "balanced" or anything else. I mean that the author clearly intended the suggestion as a serious suggestion - not giving survivors capes and the ability to fly, not floating laser turrets, not changing every building into a fast food restaurant and making everyone ninja burger delivery people. Those things are ridiculous: absurd, ludicrous, funny, etc. Words are not entirely a matter of opinion, they have definitions. And bad, unbalanced, etc, are not the same as ridiculous. But the whole Spam vote is so vaguely and uselessly defined, that despite saying "Spam is not a strong kill vote," that is precisely how it is used over 90% of the time.

I agree that people should use the Talk:Suggestions first, but I've been flamed and trolled there, too.

If it were really about people being tired with seeing dupes, they would vote Dupe, not Spam - and even then, I've seen Dupe repeatedly abused by trolls. Not that my view matters, I'm just griping about this wiki a bit before I suspect I'll stop using it, as opposed to what I suspect many users do who just don't say anything and leave it to the trolls who seem to run the place. --Clay5x 16:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As you say above, merely by having a SPAM vote we invite folk to use it and by doing so encourage them to be negative or even out right abusive! If you don't like it vote kill, if you think it is game breaking you can still vote kill. If you think they are taking the piss then cite them for vandalism! Long ago we had 1 single page for all suggestions and the SPAM vote had purpose... it was still abused but at least it had a genuine use. Now there is no need for it and so it gets to be like an appendix, a forgotten relic that serves no real purpose but might just go bad and kill you!!! --Honestmistake 17:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam votes still have a purpose, they are there to remove suggestions that are a blatant waste of the communities time and Kevan's time before the two weeks is up. If something is overpowered and you know it but vote kill you are asking for people to try to get meatpuppets or sockpuppets to get it implemented and you are asking for Kevan to take time and consider inputting something you know to be over powered/useless/completely absurd and nonsensical. --Karek^maps?! 17:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Flip side to that is when muppets vote SPAM for giggles and stuff that a lot of others might like gets taken down before others get to decide, admitedly thats less of an issue than it was but is still possible. If at the end of the 2 weeks a suggestion has a majority of SPAM votes it could still be marked as such when archived thus alerting Kevan to our considered opinion. My biggest gripe is when a suggestion gets lots of SPAM votes and lots of keep (or kill/change) when you see suggestions with 10 keep 7 kill/change and 7 SPAM you know something is odd and that half those SPAM votes are nonsense that should not count as votes at all. The problem is that although that hypothetical suggestion is now destined for rejected if it gets revised it will get duped for being to similar. Frankly the whole suggestion system needs revamping with SPAM removed and a change vote instigated. Anything that finishes with a majority for change would not be eligible for future Dupes and Kevan would be aware that killed suggestions are the ones we really think have no merit. I think most of the rejected that he has instigated would probably have received change votes under this system! --Honestmistake 19:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... SPAM is a necessarily category to weed out suggestions that are broken. Many users post suggestions that they think are great, but do so with little experience or understanding of the implications of their suggestions. And they get spammed. Harsh, but necessary. And I believe that, overall, the good suggestions make it, the bad ones go to peer rejected, and the awful ones get spaminated. That being said, however, I do believe that some people vote SPAM when it quite uncalled for. There is a grey area, yes... but there are also times when the distinction is pretty clear, when people are using SPAM when it really is not justified. What to do about it? How to whip those NAUGHTY SPAM VOTERS into shape? I dunno... Conversely, there are some suggestors who just REFUSE to accept the fact that their suggestion is simply CRAP, who cling stubbornly to their untenable position, no matter how detailed or rational people's refutations are. What about THEM, huh? Anyway... keep debating... :) --WanYao 13:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam isn't necessary for weeding out bad suggestions. If the people voting Spam would vote Kill, the suggestions would just stay under voting longer and go to Peer Rejected instead of Spaminated. What's the difference? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam is necessary so that ridiculous suggestions don't hang around for two week of "abuse and insults". You think that spam voters are a bit hard on your suggestions... well leaving crap suggestions in the system for two weeks is only going to increase the drama. Many suggestions deserve spamming -- boxy • talk • 02:03 9 November 2007 (BST)

If I lose my Spam vote, then I demand to get a "lurk moar" vote. And I'm being completely serious.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you people take a look above at my proposal for an improved voting system? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Can We Get a Template?

The Category page should have either a template to fill in or cut'n'paste example text for what you actual suggestion page should have on it. I used the old suggestion template, but I see that is NOT what Boxy was using, and am not sure where he got his format, or if mine being different will cause problems. --Seb_Wiers VeM 01:49, 4 May 2007 (BST)

From the instructions "Once you have added the template, it will produce a link to your new suggestion page. Follow the link, and add the {{SugHead}} template to the page, and press preview. Then follow the instructions it will give you." The {{SugHead}} template has all the instructions. You put it on the page, press preview and it has the template to use right there for you -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 01:55, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Thanks, I got it after reading over the stuff a few times. The template names are so small, I missed them! Its almost TO EASY, not to difficult... --Seb_Wiers VeM 01:58, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Soon fixed that :) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:09, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Not really your fault; I'd voted keep on the idea, so I figured I could just skim the instructions and get it. Its easy if you go step by step and actually read the directions. Great work on that, and on the whole thing! --Seb_Wiers VeM 02:30, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Categories

when the voting period for any active suggestion is over, the page should be removed from Category:Current Suggestions and should be placed in at least three other categories... Category:Suggestion/yyyy-mm-dd, Category:Suggestions/yyyy-mmmmmm and Category:Peer Reviewed Suggestions or Category:Peer Rejected Suggestions. Actually, i think the first two categories should be added to the current suggestions even before their voting process is over.... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:28, 4 May 2007 (BST)

This was discussed on the Suggestions talk page. I'm easy, it would be best for you guys that have experience in cycling suggestions to nut it out. I only take a passing interest in that area (when I go looking for stuff) :) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:59, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Developing Suggestions

Are we going to use a similar process for developing suggestions or keep using the old discussion page? I think we need a link to that on this page. Alternately when developing a new suggestion, why not create a page (but don't assign it to "current suggestions" or open it to voting) where people can comment in the discussion page and the author can edit/change the main body until the idea is developed again to go to voting? --Uncle Bill 06:45, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I'd favor the later, with a few changes. Create the new page, but use its "talk side" for the development, and put the appropriate category on that page. That would need to be "category: suggestions under development" or some such for these to show up on- I don't think we can do it so they show up here, as this is a talk page, not a category page.

Then when it comes time to actually submit the suggestion, use the "real" side of the new page as normal. That way the discussion stays mated to the suggestion from the start to the very end. --Seb_Wiers VeM 13:50, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I was thinking we could use the old Suggestions page for developing suggestions. Although it could be an idea to let people make pages. But the dating system would be all wrong, and we'd have to apply to a mod to get the page moved so the date is right. The date keeps the suggestions in chronological order in the category, so that it's easy for people cycling them after voting finishes to tell when they're due -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:57, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Nuts, I forgot about the page title including the date. That would tend to bugger things up. Yeah, the above idea seems better. It's hardly any work to cut'n'paste the text over when you create an actual suggestion page anyhow, so that works too. --Seb_Wiers VeM 15:02, 4 May 2007 (BST)

So then... the simplest thing would be to add a link to the new suggestions page which links back to the old suggestions talk page (or whatever gets set up as a replacement). What happens when developing suggestions time out? --Uncle Bill 21:41, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Previous Days Suggestions

There's no need to move suggestions down to the previous area, they're already listed there automatically via the category system. To make another list is just unnecessary duplication -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:57, 4 May 2007 (BST)

First opinions

I'll be honest. I hate it. It's cumbersome and annoying to navigate and instead of checking one page to see how the voting unfolds you have to check multiple page. Clinical and lifeless. /rant.--Vista 15:04, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Yes, it does have it's downsides -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:16, 4 May 2007 (BST)

If that's the main complaint, why not work it so that the (appropriate sections from) the individual pages all get displayed on one single page? Put a "noinclude" around the bits that you don;t want carried over to the compilation page, then just use the suggestion pages as templates. A page doesn't need to be a template to get included on another page using the curly brackets. --Seb_Wiers VeM 15:26, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Damn, that's a good idea. Could do that on the old suggestions page couldn't we? We'll need to think it through though... with regards to editing... and the main danger is someone stuffing up the cut and paste job on the coding and ending up breaking the suggestions page it's included to (causing much confusion and gnashing of teeth if it happened too often) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 15:32, 4 May 2007 (BST)

It's not an entirely novel an idea- the NT Status Map already works more or less along those lines. And yes, the old suggestions page would be a good place for the compilation. In fact, we could start doing that already- in addition to having a link to the suggestion page, have the suggestion text. If its not a problem, I'm gonna edit mine up that way. The editing WOULD be a bit trickier, but I think with some decent examples / templates / etc, it could be done just as easily as the old style. People used to break the old page all the damn time, at least this way the breaks could be edited out by temporarily editing out one curly bracketed suggestion page, rather than digging through gobs and gobs of text to find a missing "|". --Seb_Wiers VeM 15:44, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Try it out I guess. And if it works, I'll add it to the cut'n'paste that gets put on new suggestion pages. It's just yet another step to make though, in the whole "new suggestion" process. And a rather confusing one for newbies -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 16:06, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I did some (very minor) adjustments to my suggestion's page and then gave the curly brackets thing a shot on the Category:Current Suggestions page. Looks damn nice, if I do say so myself. I think some very minor adjustments to the suggestion page templates and such would get this flying in no time. Oh, and once you get a look at this, please feal free to revert the edits to either or both pages. --Seb_Wiers VeM 16:13, 4 May 2007 (BST)

PS- hmm, the "edit" tags are still in there, making it rather likely that people would enter thier vots on the Category:Current Suggestions page, rather than on the idividual suggestion's pages. Any way to address that problem? I'm pretty sure there is a "hide edit" feature or some such... --Seb_Wiers VeM 16:17, 4 May 2007 (BST)

No, don't put it in the current days suggestions section in the category. That's already included on every individual page (look down at the suggestions rules now, they're stuffed up with your whole page there) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 16:22, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Yikes, I just saw that when reading somebody else's suggestion. OK, there's gotta be some way to make this work, but I guess it's gonna take minor tweaks in a lot of places. Not having designed the system, I don't know all those places. I've reverted the Category:Current Suggestions page. Those wondering what it looked like can see the "exprerimental implementation" here. --Seb_Wiers VeM 16:25, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Just put the page inclusion on the old suggestions page? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 16:29, 4 May 2007 (BST)

That seems to have worked well enough, but it could still use some aesthetic tweaking. I'm gonna call it quits now; I'm on lots of cold medicine and don't want to break any more pages, and there are WAY to many colons and edit conflicts in this discussion. I leave this for less diseased minds to ponder and prevail.  ;) --Seb_Wiers VeM 16:41, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I think it would work there, but it's just another step in the process. BTW, they can edit it there, but clicking on the edit buttons, they automatically edit the individual page (I think) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 16:39, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Seems to work that way. I tested it.--Vista 17:28, 4 May 2007 (BST)

If that's the case, we can pull the cautionary note and the title link, although currently neither is doing harm. Once these get rolling in a consistant manner, it should work GREAT. It already looks damn good. --Seb_Wiers VeM 17:48, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I can't get the damn templates to include a <noinclude> tag in the cut'n'pastes... and it's too damn late here. Will sleep on it -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 18:02, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I actually prefer it and find it more entertaining. You can watch list individual suggestions and follow them through the entire life cycle, rather than getting chopped off each time it moves from one section to the next. Personal and friendly. --Seb_Wiers VeM 15:28, 4 May 2007 (BST)

I like it so far just for the ability to "watch" a single suggestion. It was a little tricky to figure out how to use it the first time, but I'm starting to get the hang of it. --Uncle Bill 21:46, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Why is it written DO NOT VOTE HERE - go the the suggestion's specific page on Suggestions, if the edit links of voting chapters on them link to the editing of proper chapters on proper page? I.e. there's no actual need to go to page itself, [edit] links are correct --Duke Garland^LCD 22:10, 4 May 2007 (BST)

My fault. I thought using the edit links would result in a text editing fork. Turns out I was wrong, but I was the first one to try putting a suggestion's page on the general suggestion page as an insert, and didn't want to mess anything up. It doesn't cause any direct harm, but it certainly could and should be removed now that we know there is no such issue. --Seb_Wiers VeM

Nobody uses expansions on old page, so maybe it would be better protect it and leave as general "How to make sugg/How this whole thing works" page? --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 20:46, 23 June 2007 (BST)

need help submitting a suggestion

I'm confused. i made a link, but then I need help making the suggestion page or whatever. the name of the link basically says it all. I would like it if you would reply if you edit it (if something isn't already there). if you do make the page, please make it say something along the lines of, " we should get at least 1 XP when we make a barricade creak. I'm not saying make the barricades weaker, im saying if it creaks, and you caused it you should get XP," okay?

Looks like its done now to me. The suggestion could use some editing (minor detail mistakes) but its fully functional in terms of being able to vote on it. --Seb_Wiers VeM 23:04, 5 May 2007 (BST)

Well it looks like you worked it out. Once you've got the new page, just put {{SugHead}} on it, press preview, and then follow the instructions that come up on the page -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 00:48, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Um, I have a suggestion, but I don't know anything about wiki editing to submit it. I'm dyslexic, and don't want to trash the wiki by accident. Any chance that there is somewhere where people can get help developing these proto-suggestions into a workable format? Da Vane 16:25, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Simple, no problem, this would be what you want I think, you can put your suggestion out there and then people will help you improve upon it, tell you what they like or don't like, all before it goes up for vote(you can make changes before it goes for vote but not after.)--karek 16:30, 7 July 2007 (BST)

I think s/he wanted help formatting the page, using the templates and stuff. But if you ask over on that page that karek gave, I'm sure someone will help you (or even post it for you) -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 17:06, 7 July 2007 (BST)

Er, what happened to the May 4 suggestions?

Shouldn't these be listed in the previous day area or some such? Or are we just supposed to add new categories to them? I'm now confused again... --Seb_Wiers VeM 02:16, 6 May 2007 (BST)

No, they're down the bottom of the page, in the list of pages in the Current Suggestions category -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:19, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Ah, well. Hmm, that's a bit confusing, the way the section lines divide it... maybe there's some way to gussy it up a bit. Say, by changing the text that says "Articles in category 'Current Suggestions'" to something more descriptive, and getting rid of the "previous days" header? No idea how that would be done, mind you... --Seb_Wiers VeM 02:24, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Yes, it needs a bit of a re-write, to make it clearer, but I don't think I can adjust the "Articles in category 'Current Suggestions'" bit, it's automatic. On a related note, can I ask someone to cycle the suggestions that are still on the suggestions page that were done under the old system please? There are still 3 from a couple of days ago under current days suggestions -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:41, 6 May 2007 (BST)

We also need someone to sort March onwards. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:02, 7 May 2007 (GMT)}

Articles in category "Current Suggestions"

"User:Boxy/Sandbox" appears on this list.  :) Looks like its where you developed the template that puts suggestions on that list, and therefore it also puts that page on the in the same category. --Seb_Wiers VeM 04:31, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Oops, forgot about that ;) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 04:34, 6 May 2007 (BST)

Dupes, spams, ect

I was thinking that it would be good if the suggestions were locked once they were duped or spamed or whatever. This preserves the page as is. It appears that this isn't happening so I thought I'ld bring it up. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 12:55, 7 May 2007 (GMT)}

A lot of trouble for little gain. In fact with the new system I'd remove spam all together. As it's pointless now. And dupe might need a reworks as well.--Vista 14:21, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Well I don't think it would make much of a difference if spams there or not, and as for a dupe re-work, I think it's fine as it is. Anyway I don't think it would be that much of an issue to protect pages, it takes about what? 10 seconds at most (thats including load time) to protect a page. As long as people keep on top of it, it won't be too much of an issue IMO. - Jedaz^{ΣT MC ΞD GIS S! 13:31, 7 May 2007 (GMT)}

Well, I'll go with whatever the community wants... I was thinking of speedydeleteing dupes and spams, after a while, so the author gets to see what the votes were, and possibly discuss improvements on the talk page. But protection of the individual suggestion page would work too, leaving the talk page for further discussion -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:44, 7 May 2007 (BST)

Spam was meant to place the suggestion in rejected faster then normal not to delete the suggestion. The whole objective of spam was to remove clutter from the old suggestions page back when we averaged 15 suggestions a day. like most of the rules created back then spam was meant to prevent the page looking identical to the talk page. That danger has passed. So why do we keep the spam vote at all? It's been made obsolute through all the changes to the system and to the rule itself anyway.--Vista 15:18, 7 May 2007 (BST)

How about we send both spaminated and duped suggestions to their own categories... only sending the truly woeful, or exact copies to speedydelete? Would be a good place for newbies to check out the sort of thing that gets binned -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 08:38, 8 May 2007 (BST)

I like the idea. For dupe it would work perfectly. Spam I don't know about but as long as it exists it would be for the best. We should be careful about deleting stuff. Kevan's a big inclusionist And he supposedly checks all suggestions, not those just in peer. He complained a few times about to free use of the spam vote. (The reason I don't spam anymore, I used to be as prolific a spammer as Funt.)--Vista 09:35, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Funt tried going cold turkey for a while too... he relapsed though ;) Well it can't hurt to save the spams for a while anyway. We can always go through and take out the worst, and the oldest later, and have them speedydeleted -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 00:17, 9 May 2007 (BST)

I fell right off the wagon, it's true. Now, I've entered a barren period of not voting at all. (Truth be told, the new system with two start pages has me a bit flumoxed. Maybe I was just looking for an excuse to take a break.) Any road - I don't see the point in the Spam vote anymore. Haven't done for months. It's like Vista says - it was for when the page was all cluttered. Under this system, it's pointless. Dupe clearly still has a function. --Funt Solo 16:01, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Duped and Spaminated. Just to remind people from these pages and images. Someone made a dupe template which looks awfull and has a shitty image from matrix... can someone fix that by using the same image from the duped article ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:14, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Grumpy ole bugger :P -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 05:13, 8 May 2007 (BST)

Unused current day's suggestions

Today there's a link to a suggestion that's been left unwritten for 8 hours. Can we just remove them from the listing, or are we leaving it to an administrator, or do I have to make a new policy for it? I would have thought we could just use common sense and remove them if they've been left for a suitable amount of time...

Also, in the template at the bottom of each suggestion page, it says "Todays other suggestions"; where it should read "Today's other suggestions" (I think anyway, as it's the suggestion for a singular day). I can't edit it because it's protected though. Jonny12 ^talk 22:22, 16 May 2007 (BST)

I got the spelling, thanks. With those unused links that are created... give them a while to write up their suggestion. If you come on one that's, say half an hour old, I'd put the {{SugHead}} on it (if it's by a newbie), which may give them a hand to know what to do. But if it's 5 or 6 hours old, just get rid of it. Doesn't take much for them to create a new link later if they want to. Also, anyone should feel free to get rid of links more than 24hrs old from the top of the list. It's just like cycling the old suggestions page (only easier) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 04:15, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Ok, thanks for clearing that up! Jonny12 ^talk 16:43, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Cycling Suggestion Pages

OK, we're about to come up on the first round of cycling... those of you who have been involved in cycling suggestions need to decide on what categories you're going to place each page in once voting is over -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:01, 17 May 2007 (BST) Hagnat has given his thoughts above, do the rest of you agree that this is the best way to go? -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:06, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Yeah, mostly. I'd probably not bother with the yyyy-mm-dd category myself, as it's not really necessary with the yyyy-mmmmmmmm category and the name of the page already being based off the date. Plus it would swamp Special:Categories. --Toejam 16:22, 19 May 2007 (BST)

Well, I've started cycling the first of the new suggestions, and have split up the peer reviewed suggestions into their different types, hope they're suitable. They were based on what you guys used to do on the peer reviewed page. I've left the peer rejected, and undecided suggestions all in the one mega-category though. Hope this suits, the different PR categories are listed on the template below -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:47, 25 May 2007 (BST)

---

The way I get them into their categories for archiving, is to add either the {{rejected}}, {{undecided}} or {{reviewed}} template to them, and with the reviewed template, I add the sub-category they need to go into (eg {{reviewed|Zombie Skill}}) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 03:47, 25 May 2007 (BST)

Recently Reviewed?

How about another category for Recently Reviewed in Peer Reviewed? I was just wondering which of suggestions in new system got through and only way to do this was to click through all PRV categories... Not very convenient. In old system there is a list on main page --Duke Garland_T^{LCD SSZ} 21:40, 26 May 2007 (BST)

Well I don't see that as nessacary as we can easily just add that list to the main peer reviewed category page. Well thats my take on it anyway. - Jedaz

ΣT MC ΞD CT SR

15:02, 6 June 2007 (GMT)

Suggestions changed after votes cast

Suggestion:20070613 Body Building Upgrade was given a significant effect changing edit after more than a dozen votes were already cast. How should this be resolved? In the past, such suggestions were moved to the talk page, but it seems there would be a better way now- perhaps with a new category to put it in / template to put on the page. 20:25, 15 June 2007 (BST)

I've been putting the {{removed}} template on them with the reason ({{removed|due to editing after voting was underway}}) which puts them in the removed suggestions category. Example -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:07, 16 June 2007 (BST)

Archives

What happened to the previous days archives?--Pesatyel 05:27, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Redirect?

Why not make Suggestions redirect to Category:Current_Suggestions? Everything you need is on second page and it'd just save an extra click/load (I'm quite lazy...) Jonny12 ^talk 20:37, 9 July 2007 (BST)

I think it has something to do with Talk:Suggestions and ease of finding it with the two separate pages. I may be wrong though.--karek 02:18, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Remember Suggestions?

Remember when we discussed suggestions on the talk page? What happened to that?--Pesatyel 04:29, 10 July 2007 (BST)

It's still there. Suggestions talk page -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 09:56, 10 July 2007 (BST)

I was thinking, perhaps we should give it a make over. The page itself is now pretty much duplicated and the talkpage has a dual function. why not make the suggestion page itself a portal resembling the Administration page. Add a page for suggestion development and Let suggestion policy discussions happen on the regual policy page. It would be the last step in re-organizing the system in a more orderly fashion.-- Vista  +1  10:11, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Sounds good to me. But don't you think that suggestions policy should be decided separately from wiki policy? Suggestions as the portal page (only with a few more bells and whistles than the admin page, like Hagnat did for the UDWiki:Community Portal), it's talk page for policy discussions, a new page for Developing Suggestions, and this category page for new suggestions -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 10:26, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Well the policy page works well, And it already handles rather specificly targeted policies right now (such as how we elect bureaucrats :P ). With just some minor editting you'd fit it to handle all policy discussions. In fact the devide between the two happened because the suggestion system needed more rework sooner then the wiki overall. So we made a workable policy for introducing policies up for it's own while we were stilling creating policies for the wiki out of thin air. (All the other major interaction things like the suburb pages were still in development, so it really had low traffic.) Now that we have a general system for everything but the suggestion page and a older system for the page alone while both are quite similar. I think it's more of a relic instead of a asset now. Two systems would certainly continue to work, It's just that I don't see a real need anymore. And the community portal page is indeed a far better example.-- Vista  +1  10:46, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Well I don't know any of the history of why it was split off, but it seems to work quite well as is. What are the advantages of combining them again? Just seems like more of a hassle to make an "official" policy just to change a suggestion rule. The way it is now, you just discuss it on the talk page, and mostly nothing happens but talk. If you've got to create an A/PD page, announce it, link it to the A/PD page, most suggestions policy discussions just wouldn't happen, IMO. BTW, I reckon we should hassle Hagnat to make a Suggestions section for the community portal too -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 11:25, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Good point. There already are an afwul lot of policy discussions that don't go under voting. And I'm all for making hagnat do all the work...:) -- Vista  +1  11:34, 10 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks. But where is this connected? Before, I could click on Suggestions on the main page then Discussions to get there. But now doing that brings me here instead. How do I get there from the main page or the suggestions pages?--Pesatyel 02:03, 11 July 2007 (BST)

It's linked on the "developing suggestions" link on the suggestion navigation template ({{Suggestion Navigation}}) up top of the page (and every suggestion), and I'm pretty sure there is a link on the category page instructions somewhere, and in the rules section of each individual suggestion page -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 09:11, 11 July 2007 (BST)

Crap

I accidentaly got rid of the thing at the bottom of the page saying that previous day suggestions can be seen below. I think it's put it back right though.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Apocalyptic doom (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

I put it back. Please sign your comments. And take a look at the damned messages on your own talk page. 'arm. 22:38, 25 July 2007 (BST)

Can we get a list of "suggestion management templates"?

I wanted to remove a suggestion today, and had to guess at whether is was {{Removed}}, {{removed}}, {{withdrawn}}, etc. I looked in the logival place (the {[:Category:Current Suggestions]] and Category:Suggestions pages) and didn't find any help. --Seb_Wiers Imagine 12:37, 8 June 2007 (BST)

Category:Suggestion Templates -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:49, 8 June 2007 (BST)

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)

Final call if anyone has any objections... Looks like a disambig bewteen D:S, here and CT:S. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just done it. If anyone sees any internal links linking to the old Talk:Suggestions, please point them to Developing Suggestions. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)