Suggestion talk:20071115 Wave Hello

Useful. And not a dupe, the link is an unrestricted emote, whereas this is just a wave. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

And an unrestricted emote conceivably could be a wave, could it not? It's even referenced in the suggestion itself. Not only is this a dupe, it's worse than the duped suggestion, as it only allows waves. – Nubis 15:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the other suggestion does all this, and does more. This just duplicates a portion of that suggestion and is therefore a dupe. If i were to open a book and copy out a single paragraph of text into a notepad, it doesnt magically become something new, it is merely a duplicate of part of a greater whole. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The effects of this suggestion are not achievable with the linked suggestion. Therefore not a dupe. Often it's more important to have someone know that you were there, rather than everyone. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Midianian. There is a rather major difference in the fact that only the person waved to can see the wave, while emotes in the suggested dupe are viewable by everyone. - Whitehouse 23:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone proposed a far-reaching combat/skill suggestion with several effect, for example... and it got rejected... Then later on they took a piece of it, modified it, etc. to make it more palatable... it would not be a dupe. Not in my opinion, anyway. And that is basically what this suggestion does... It may be spam-o-licious, but it is not a dupe. Barely... --WanYao 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

The below is from the main page -- boxy • talk • 10:53 16 November 2007 (BST)

• EXCUSE ME, but the number of Dupe votes is vastly outnumbered by the keep votes that do not consider it a dupe and in fact directly refute it being a Dupe. What the heck is a valid Dupe link anyway? Who decides valid? I'm actually unsure what the rules are in this situation. --Jon Pyre 22:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how many Keep votes there are: "If a suggestion is a duplicate of an earlier one, and has received at least 3 Dupe Votes linked to the Duplicated suggestion, then it can be removed as per the guidelines below." (from Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions) --Darth Lumis^{T! A! E! FU!} 00:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's asking who decided that it was a dupe; he thinks there's some questions as to whether it is or not.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  00:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I can not see how this is dupe as it is not, as Grim suggests, a copy out of one element of a bigger suggestion. The Emote suggestion allows everyone to see the action, here only the targeted user does. Given that it then is not a dupe of that suggestion, are not the dupe votes invalid? I looked around but found no requirements for a valid dupe vote apart from that a link to another suggestion is required. If we then follow that system, with no option to contest the votes, people could dupe a hell of a lot of things for including one similar element. - Whitehouse 00:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Confirm that there are absolutely no viable differences between the original and the duplicate." There are differences as I have already stated, hence the dupe votes should be invalid. - Whitehouse 00:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As I am the person who started this Dupegate, let's start. One, I believed Grim s was right in that it was a dupe. So I voted dupe, because I don't like to see this suggestion be suggested again. The end. And don't you dare strike any of the Dupes vote. Why? Because I think there ARE no "viable" differences. If in fact, it was amended that it said that there would be no differences, then I would vote Spam.

Now, I know many people don't see it as a Dupe. That doesn't matter. What's a duplicate and what isn't is, well, based on personal opinon, I admit. But the Dupe vote exist because we don't want the exact same suggestion filling the Peer Reviewed/Peer Rejected area. And in the end, by having three people find out it is a Dupe, more likely than not, it is in fact a dupe, and that everyone else voted against it because they want to see that suggestion get sent into Peer Review. Does it even matter? The Duped Suggestions don't even get deleted anymore. They get a template stating Dupe, and it will still remain on the Wiki, so everyone can read it. So Kevan can read it.--ShadowScope 02:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It has a freaking different purpose. To be seen by friends in groups of 50+. Or to be added to his list whilst not being noticed by others. It fills this purpose, and the "original" doesn't. A fork isn't a dupe of a spoon because they are both ustencils. They are used for different things. Hence I fail to see how it's a dupe --Grognor 02:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'm going to draft a solution and end this drama before I get annoyed even further.--ShadowScope 02:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Just my two cents, but the only dupish thing I even saw was the fact that both suggestions used the word "emote." Their purposes are completely different, this one is simpler, and does fill a niche. --Uncle Bill 05:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

---

New justification does not mean new idea

It's a dupe, in that the actual mechanics of the suggestion is already in peer reviewed. Giving it a new justification for needing it does not make it a new suggestion -- boxy • talk • 10:53 16 November 2007 (BST)

As I said above, the effects of this suggestion are not achievable with the linked suggestion. Therefore not a dupe. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Rules 1, Community 0

Anyone who reads the votes can clearly see that the amount of people indicating that it is not a Dupe outnumber the people indicating that it is, and both sides have used reasoned arguments. So, in a largely democratic wiki, we have a result here where the written rule ("three Dupes and you're out") goes directly against the wishes of the wiki. Whoever removed it (and I haven't looked to see who it was) is clearly acting against the wishes of the community, which to my mind is a bad faith edit. I don't understand why this action is being protected by people - it's clearly rules against the wishes of the community.

This should be un-duped and allowed through voting, if only to reduce drama and bad feeling. What's the harm in letting it go on for two weeks? Nobody's going to get hurt by that, are they? --Funt Solo ^QT 17:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Odds are will get spammed anyway... Well, I guess opinion is deeply divided on the suggestions merits, so who knows? But I am in complete agreement with FS that most people involved in the vote do not consider it a DUPE, and have given valid arguments as to why not. So unless a sysop wants to go out on a limb and remove it from voting as a CONFIRMED DUPE, then the template should come off... the various DUPE votes may get changed, or tallied as kills, whatever... and... and life will go on... --WanYao 17:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, blinders off, now please not that more voters didn't come because it was a removed suggestion, Jon's little hissy fit doesn't mean it was magically reopened to voting, but just too placate the drama I voted too, guess what I voted. FYI, the community, especially the one in suggestions, didn't secretly tell this suggestion it's wishes, just the drama despots who are constantly opposed too suggestion removal.--Karek^maps?! 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh and Wanyao, only three people actually justified their not dupe comments, all with the same justification that it's on a different scale, that is in no way a majority, and I wasn't aware scale changed a suggestion considering it's the same in ever other aspect.--Karek^maps?! 21:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"just the drama despots who are constantly opposed too suggestion removal". That's just not accurate, Karek. Look back over the last month's suggestions and show me one example of where I've complained about the removal of a suggestion. That's right - this is the only time. Opinions are fine, but bullshit is just bullshit. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't deal in absolutes, just majorities.--Karek^maps?! 00:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by that. If you're not going to talk straight, why bother? Does it make you feel clever, or something? --Funt Solo ^QT 00:23, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It does actually, but I meant that when I say something that can be intereperted as everyone is something I don't literally mean everyone is that something, just most of everyone, there's always an exception, in this case it was you(which was something I knew when making the statement). Also, looks like the majority of people here now since discussion has continued are for it staying dupe removed. --Karek^maps?! 00:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like you're right. Oh well, nobody died. --Funt Solo ^QT 00:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)