Category talk:Suggestions

Page Discussion

Please put new topics at the top of the page.

Archives

Archives for this page are here

Discussion About Talk:Suggestions

As Talk:Suggestions was moved to Developing Suggestions, discussion about that page now takes place at Talk:Developing Suggestions.

Discussion About Category:Suggestions

Put talk about the page Category:Suggestions here

The Suggestion Portal

I think we should change that template on the Suggestions page. I mean, currently, no one is bothering to deal with/add to the Recently Closed Suggestions part, so it would probably be best to remove that redundant section. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:02, 19 July 2010 (BST)

Agree 100%. I was actually thinking through a redesign of the whole Suggestions system, since a lot of it is either outdated or does a poor job of managing the way that the system is currently used by the folks using it. I was essentially thinking that a modified version of DS would act as the hub for all of it, while the Suggestions page would essentially become an archival page only with no parts of it that should ever need to be modified. Recently Closed Suggestions is unnecessary, and I think the distinction between "Today's" and "Current" suggestions is not necessary either and should be discarded (i.e. only have Current ones). —Aichon— 17:21, 19 July 2010 (BST)

With the number of suggestions these days, Today's is definitely pointless. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:39, 20 July 2010 (BST)

Going back to this since I haven't had time to redo the entire system yet, would anyone object to changing it from "Today's" to "Current" in all of the appropriate places? We simply don't get as many as we used to, and maintaining the distinction (which is rarely ever done in practice anyway) requires extra maintenance. —Aichon— 04:45, 17 September 2010 (BST)

I've been meaning to suggest this for a while. Definitely concur. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:12, 20 September 2010 (BST)

I'll give it another day for any objections. If none arrive, then I guess I'll go ahead and do it at some point after that. —Aichon— 20:50, 20 September 2010 (BST)

Do it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:21, 21 September 2010 (BST)

Gonna give it another day. I just posted to the talk for Current Suggestions, which will hopefully attract some more attention. Plus, this topic was previously brought up, so it's only fair to ping folks watching that page too. —Aichon— 00:15, 22 September 2010 (BST)

Require all suggestions to pass through DS first?

Recently there has been an influx of suggestions that have been killed/spammed because they've not yet been run through the Developing Suggestions page.

If that's what's happening, then I think it would be better for all parties involved if we would require that all future suggestions must have a prior discussion in the Developing Suggestions page before the suggestion can be posted on the main Suggestions portal. --Aeon17x 11:43, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Personally, yes. We've actually got some form on this now, that all guides must pass through review first, But I'd rather say something like, ALL new suggestors must submit their first suggestion to developing suggestions for 2 days before posting it in the main suggestions system. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:56, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I kinda like the idea, so long as it allowed people who had made Peer Reviewed suggestions previously to skip DS. It'll just save them some hassle if they don't want to go to DS, but most of us take everything we have to DS anyway just because we know how valuable it actually is. I can only think of two suggestions in recent memory that didn't go to DS and got Peer Reviewed, and they were both by veterans of the wiki. —Aichon— 12:15, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I guess giving a pass for those who made peer-reviewed suggestions is reasonable. How do we identify them though? There's a lot of them now. --Aeon17x 13:12, 1 October 2010 (BST)

I see no problem with this idea or as Ross suggested. I don't know if I'd get behind the idea of past peer reviewed suggestors get a free pass. Might create an elite club or something. Especially since its kind of difficult to get peer reviewed it seems. Most of the good ideas have already been thought of and voters tend to be pretty meticulous on what they accept as worthy. --~ 14:29, 1 October 2010 (BST)

Suggestion Discussion

Put talk about the process of posting and voting for suggestions here.

Reworking of dupes

Changes in the game mean that suggestions which were unworkable before, may now be logical with the current game. To combat this, I suggest setting a limit on how long a suggestion can be considered a dupe, say 8 months as a starting figure. This will be long enough to prevent endless spamming of the system, yet short enough to try ideas again.-- Adward  12:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming this wouldn't apply to Peer Reviewed suggestions, right? After all, there's no point in keeping a suggestion that has already been kept. Anyway, I'd be up for something like this. I'm not sure about the eight months, but the concept is good, since a lot has changed since those early suggestions were made. —Aichon— 13:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested this before, amongst other things, but for 12 months. Either way works really.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this suggestion is itself pretty much a dupe (read further down the page). And no, Kevan decides what gets in and what doesn't – he's implemented stuff from Peer Rejected and from voting before, and there's plenty of Peer Reviewed stuff which is never going to make it in. I really don't think we need more pointless rehash suggestions which will never be implemented. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Kevan doesn't give a toss about the reviewing system, he implements what he wants and based off no merit other than his own approval. Let's put Suggestions up for deletion already? --

 

 

 

 

00:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Deletion is a bit much, but given the abuse of the Talk:Suggestions page by certain individuals who have no clue of how the system works, I'd say looking at deleting that is feasible and having everything go straight to the main system. The suggestion system and the discussions it has generated have contributed to game changes, it's just that contrary to the views of some people the system is accurately named. It is a suggestion system, not a demand system, you could push through a suggestion with 1000 keep votes and it's still not getting through unless Kevan likes it and thinks it's relevant to the game at that moment in time.

The problem with limiting dupes is the fact that we'd have to deal with pointless shit again and again. We'd get chainsaws, flame throwers and sentry guns all back almost immediately. Kevan has never expressed any displeasure with the way the system works and is operated. The major reason for the dupe system is to prevent pointless crap from filling up the system, allowing Kevan to see the new/evolved ideas immediately. Usually the most vocal proponents of altering the dupe system are those who are so unoriginal that all their stuff gets duped and they take personal offence because they think they are the saviour of the game. Cue Zombie Lord in 10, 9, 8, 7....

You want to change something? Try getting rid of the sysop spam method, there's no reason to give a group of users massive powers when they don't actively participate in the process. Alternately codify the humorous condition, because that's enforced based on who puts the suggestion up rather than the content. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's an idea. Clarifying humurous is less required, as most suggestions that are humurous are pretty blatant.-- Adward  17:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Policy Votes

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

New Cycling Criteria For All Suggestions Pages

The purpose of Developing Suggestions is stated on the page to be as follows:

This section is for presenting and reviewing suggestions which have not yet been submitted and are still being worked on.

Recently a certain user has been abusing this page by using it for other than its intended purpose. Zombie Lord has repeatedly stated that he has no interest in adding any of his ideas to the main system to be put up for review by his peers, why then do we allow people who have no such interest in using the page as intended to disrupt it?

Case in point, if we look at the page in this form we can see how the overall existence of his contributions is disruptive and harmful to the purpose of the page. The proposals of other users that may be using the system as intended end up being buried under the avalanche of his spammed ideas that he admits he has no intention of ever sending to the main system.

To clarify, Zombie Lord has said he has no intention of taking his ideas to the main system (therefore having no reason to post on Developing Suggestions) and that he doesn't have to take his suggestions to the main system as Kevan reads Developing Suggestion (Kevan doesn't, the system is set up so he doesn't have to and Zombie Lord can provide no evidence to support his baseless guessing).

If he has no intention of using the system as intended, why should we allow him to bury the suggestions of others and continue to disrupt the suggestions pages? If he merely wants to list his ideas and work on them with select users then his user space will suffice for that purpose.

Therefore I propose to add a new cycling criteria applicable to all pages in Category:Suggestions and any sub category thereof, including discussion and talk pages. If passed:

Any edit made by Zombie Lord to one of these pages can be reverted/removed by any user without warning or a notice period. Placing the edit back from a rightful cycling will be considered a bad faith contribution and seen as vandalism.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iscariot (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Against

1. This is a joke, right?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
2. While I think something should be done, I don't think this is the answer. How about we just limit people to two suggestions on DS at a time, then automatically cycle any older ones as soon as new ones get posted? It prevents spamming in general, as opposed to just handling one user. —Aichon— 00:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Horrible idea. - User:Whitehouse 00:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
4. As Aichon. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Just apply the same criteria that the main system uses: one suggestion and one revision a day. I'd even say epand that to three maybe five days, for both DS and the main system. 02:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
6. No specific user policy please. --Thadeous Oakley 10:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Well, you got away with feigning this as an action of not vandalism so I might as well aid it to die in a fire. --
    
    
    
    
   13:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
8. As Aichon. Targeting a specific user like this is a no-no. Why not instead say no more than two proposed suggestions per user at a time, and after one week of no discussion the suggestion is either dropped or moved to voting? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
9. I support the concept, not the method: take it to arbies or A/VB. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 17:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
10. developing suggestions do not need to develop into anything in particular. It works well as a forum for discussing potential ideas and actual suggestions have often come from such discussion (even if tangentially!) --Honestmistake 07:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
11. No.-- Adward  10:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
12. Ridiculous - Even if someone has no intention of taking their ideas forward they should still be able to post it in developing, if it gets enough backing the user may change their mind, if they don't then someone else can salvage parts of it for their own ideas. Also, I think it's grossly unfair on Zombie Lord. It would be the same as having a policy allowing deleting of Iscariot's overly negative comments (which has more of a negative effect on the community than Zombie Lords practices). --Kamikazie-Bunny 16:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)