The Sims Wiki talk:Community Portal

Eliminate Player Stories
I'd like to propose that we eliminate Player Stories from Sim and character pages on the wiki. My reasons are as follows:
 * 1) The content added to these pages is more often than not of poor or very poor quality, is sometimes profane and unacceptable, and is nearly impossible to moderate in its current size.
 * 2) The Fanon Namespace has been created, which allows for users who wish to write about the goings-on of their Sims to do so without using an article sub-page.
 * 3) Contributions to Player Stories pages are very very often not signed and quickly forgotten by the author and by everyone else.
 * 4) The number of player stories contributors is very low - most users do not contribute to these pages.

Thoughts? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:05, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. For the record, they are subpages, and don't go towards our article count, so I see no problem there. --W H  (Talk) 01:06, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Player Stories pages are usually overlooked, and because of that, they are often of horrible quality. Users abandoned their stories, and many are very short, inappropriate, and just... bad. Now that we have the Fanon Namespace, I believe that the Player Stories pages are unneeded. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 01:15, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, even though player stories are not that controllable we should remember that no all people are allowed to write their own stories, for these people player stories is still a good way to share their gameplay, but a new policy could be applied regarding this matter. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 07:30, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, though fanon Sims work a bit different than player stories, as player stories actually uses premade Sims or townies. But it's true, the content are poor and badly organized. Every story is random and made-up by users. I mean, who wants to read Mortimer Goth's player stories all the way down? We should only keep theories for certain Sims, like Bella's disappearance or Olive Specter as murderer. Nikel23 07:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Guilherme, what did you mean by "Not everyone is allowed to make fanon"? If you are referring to anons not being able to, I think they should just make an account. --W H  (Talk) 07:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's why authors never sign their stories. They could be anonymous, not regular users. Oh yeah, having player stories page means number of Sims times two, because nearly every Sim has this. I dislike wasted pages. Nikel23 07:58, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * For the record, the Player Sstories pages are subpages, and don't go towards the article count. (You know, the one that says x pages on this wiki, above the activity feed.) --W H  (Talk) 08:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mmm. I don't know...what about the occasional good quality story? Some users worked hard on making them, and I don't see how we're going to be able to notify every single one of them to tell them to make a page or lose their work. Aren't some people going to be negative upon finding out their stories are gone? Zombie talk •  blog 09:29, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Most users forget about their player stories, so I don't see an issue there. As for telling them the stories have gone, we'll just have to accept that it would take far too long to do so. --W H  (Talk) 09:37, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Bob, and I think this is a very harsh suggestion, yes I meant anons in the previous comment Wogan. I disagree that users forget about their player stories, I have actually seen many completing it and ending it, I do not think people forget that easily, if this is approved, I think there will be a significant number of users with a "broken heart". --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 10:44, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Us eliminating the pages wouldn't be done in secret. If we end up eliminating the pages, such action will be announced long before any deletion actually occurs, to allow people who have stories they'd like to save the opportunity to do so. Any person who visits the wiki even semi-frequently (and therefore, a user that is more likely to care about the story they wrote) will have the chance to move it to the Fanon namespace or save it onto their computer before we ever delete it. And while I admit that every once in a while there is a good story there, these are very few and far between and, in my opinion, don't justify us having the pages and in having to manage such a vast amount of content. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 11:25, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * If we can give people a while (and by a while, I mean half a year) to 'save' their stories, I'll support this. And Wogan, some people still come on, and leave with the thought 'hey. I wrote a story! Now it'll stay and people can read it forever!'. They might forget it, but when they added it, they didn't know that it wont stay forever. -- Zombie talk • blog 11:59, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose users esp. anons would remember they've made a player story if they don't even sign their names. I believe they won't even visit the same Sims' player stories. It just doesn't make sense if they play the same Sims but make different scenarios, I mean, who wants to play Goth family over and over from beginning? Whenever they made a player story, they shared it there, didn't sign the story, and it will remain there not updated and forgotten. Nikel23 16:01, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nikel, I have some things I disagree with. Like I said: they might not have bothered remembering because they thought that it would be there forever and that they've did their part. And almost every new Wikia user I know doesn't remember to sign, or is just oblivious to the fact. Just because they don't/don't know how to sign doesn't mean they don't care about their stories. I play the Goth family and the Wolff family almost every start of a game if I don't make my own Sims because it's a preference. Plus, I have another problem with the play stories being deleted: even if they did come to retrieve it, and still want it on the wiki, what if it just isn't enough to make a Fan fiction page with? A few paragraphs is a lot on Player Story pages, but is normally a low-quality fanon page which will be deleted soon. So, users might get upset that their stories, which used to be fine, is now 'low-quality fan fiction'. Even if they care about the stories, what if they don't have the time to make a quality fanon page, yet still want the story to be available for people to read? Zombie talk •  blog 18:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should abolish the Player Stories pages as their only contributors are anons and they can easily create an account to create fanon. I've even seen one fanon article based on a canon Sim in an imaginative way and is a more detailed article. 19:35, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bob, player stories shouldn't be deleted due to the reasons he mentioned. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:47, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with Bob. So many of these people aren't even registered users in the first place. Although there are some exceptions, most often anonymous users don't stick around unless they actually register an account. If these people didn't do that, then the odds of them even coming back to their player stories is pretty low. Also, half a year? That is an astronomically long time... I would say 1 1/2 to 2 months at the very most. If a user doesn't visit here at least once every two months, then they probably don't care much about their story. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:50, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * (added more). Another point brought up that I'd like to address. Guilherme pointed out that anonymous users can't create fanon articles - that's true. However, one added 'benefit' of this is that users who wish to make those sorts of stories then register an account. Once they do that, they're much more likely to 1) become active members of the wiki and 2) improve their story and keep it up to date, both of which are very good outcomes. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 19:52, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Still, every being has a right to remain anonymous. It's like we're telling them "create an account, or your story isn't allowed here". Get what I'm saying? -- Zombie talk • blog 19:54, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR remember that people do not add their player stories to always improve them, as many of them end the stories they write, they won't check them to improve it as it's ended, I think that's understandable, so deleting those stories is for me a bad option. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 19:56, June 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Idea: We could archive them all, possibly? Zombie talk •  blog 20:00, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the point in short stories? The whole point of a story is something that's interesting to read - if all we have are thousands of "This Sim got married, had some kids, and died," stories, then quickly player stories become very boring to read (which they currently are). Just like fanon stories have a minimum length requirement, I think all stories should, simply for the sake of the story itself. Since so few player stories existing now ever hit that threshold, I think they should as a whole be ditched.
 * (added) I don't think we should archive, because most of them honestly aren't good enough to save. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 20:03, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * But LiR, boring is your opinion many people may not see them as boring (excluding the ones like "Hannah got married and then had a kid"). Thank you. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 21:34, June 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * At first, I felt strongly towards this, but now I'm not so sure. I think, while this idea is good in theory, it would be really hard to implement. I'd say that we should look through and get rid of a lot of them, i.e. the bad ones, but that would be incredibly tedious and time consuming. I'm starting to think, "If it's not broken, don't fix it." I think we should just leave the system as-is. --W H  (Talk) 09:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * Still, we can't compare which is good and which is bad if we want to get rid of bad ones. Since no issue was made... what's actually the real problem happening? The reasons LiR stated are not real problems, right? Nikel23 11:01, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * They are problems, because we have a large volume of very poor material sitting on our wiki. Is that something we should just continue to ignore because it would be difficult to fix? I say no. If we can't get the authors to improve the quality (which would be impossible considering how many authors there are, and over the period of time they were written) and we can't spend the time picking out good stories from bad, then the last logical option is to delete the pages.
 * Here's my honest thought on the matter. I don't think anyone is going to care. I think that certain people are really concerned that all these users are going to cry and be very upset if they player stories go away, but I am willing to bet that few, if any, of these users will even give it a second thought, especially if we have a period prior to deletion to allow story recovery. The bottom line is that the player stories pages are shamefully bad, so bad that there is no hope for improvement, leaving us with only one justified solution - delete. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:23, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. My final position on this is weak oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 13:53, June 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say Neutral. --W H  (Talk) 07:14, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

For me, Player Stories should definately be deleted. They were useful once upon a time, but now with the Fanon Namespace, it is unlikely they will ever be needed again. And, as it was pointed above, nobody even actually reads these stories, so, how can anyone care?. So, I'm saying Strong Support. \_Andronikos Leventis Talk 13:00, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I couldn't say it any better than Andronikos just did. Strong support. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 13:08, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Somehow, Fanon has its own weakness. The main difference I could seek is the simplicity. Making a fanon page is complicated and not simple, and it will be hard especially for beginner users who are not really good at editing pages yet. On the other hand, player stories can be used as simple means to share the stories, and it could be a good editing beginning for all beginner users. Some new users who prefer sharing their stories will be more likely to make player stories than articles, so player story is a basic and simple way for them to start their editing experience. I'm sure it will be recklessly written, but that's better than they edit an article, right? Nikel23 15:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Due to Nikel's reasons I am going to change my position to oppose. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 18:25, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I do want to keep the player stories, but, I do want to eliminate all player stories that are left unsigned. Ѧüя◎ґ 18:48, June 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe we should make an eye-catching noticeboard or template so that writers actually read the template to sign? The current template is boring and contains too long words. Nikel23 02:18, June 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read through the comments again, and have changed my opinion to Weak Support. --W H  (Talk) 07:40, June 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * My position is Strong Support. Let's face it, according to Wikia, stubs should only make 1/5 out of all pages on a Wiki. This includes other namespace pages and sub-pages. Since many player story pages are unedited and empty (mainly for townies, NPCs, and deceased Sims), our stub count goes way over the limit. And what's worse? The player story pages that are longer than stub-length are of horrible quality, with bad language, spelling, grammar, and punctuation. They are also near-impossible to maintain, due to their length. Users do not sign their stories, and, come on, who really cares to read them? Player stories make our wiki look bad, and therefore, should be removed. —Random Ranaun (Talk to me! ) 02:34, June 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak support. -- Bleeh (talk) (blog) 02:39, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

What I have determined so far: three users (Andronikos, Random Ranaun, and I) are in strong support, two users (Woganhemlock and Bleeh) are in weak support, Guilhermen Guerreiro is in opposition, and Auror has opposition to deleting all player stories (which for the purposes of determining consensus would count as an 'oppose'). I wish to wrap this up before too long, so I'd encourage everyone to give their final thoughts, and would encourage users who have not spoken up yet to speak up within the next five days or so. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:23, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I change to full support in eliminating player stories. Ѧüя◎ґ 06:33, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Even though, many of you are right about player stories quality, I think we should respect the users who have made the stories who thought they would be there forever, also we are also guilty about player stories quality since we didn't control them from the beginning, nor we did make a policy very strict to these player stories, so I suggest instead a new policy, eliminating all player stories seems to me unfair for me and for users who didn't make stories with profanity or bad language, and even if we have time to save the stories in our computer before they get deleted, many will not remember all the stories. It's unfair. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 11:48, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * What would be the new policy that you're suggesting? And as well, how would you enforce it on the hundreds of stories that have been completely abandoned by their authors? --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:05, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course many of them have been abandonned because many users have already ended their storires, I just think it's unfair to delete them altogether, a new policy being more strict with the player stories could help. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 15:14, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're saying... you're remaking the player stories instead of deleting it? Sorry if I don't get the point. I'm clueless over time. Nikel23 16:03, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Nit exactly remaking them, but kind of, I know it would be hard, and I do not know how to do it, though I' think on it. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 16:07, June 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am in full oppose of deleting player stories. I just feel it's wrong to delete them, as nobody ever gave any guidelines except for the user to sign them. Even if they didn't sign them, nobody ever did anything about it, when we actually should have. I would feel, like Guilherme said, guilty that they were removed when people thought, no matter what the quality is, that they could entrust us and leave them here. And for a whole bunch of other reasons states above. BobNewbie   ∞(Talk)∞  16:58, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I was missing the word, what I meant was guideline not a policy, we should have given guidelines from the beginning, and the player stories not having good quality is partly our fault, because we did not care about them. For users who are in the beginning it's so much easier to write a player story rather than making fanon, and also player stories are for users who want to tell their pre-made Sims stories, though they can create a fanon about a pre-made Sim, I don't think they understand that message, as there are very few fanon pages about pre-made Sims or so. --Guilherme Guerreiro (talk here) 17:20, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * I support per all of the support votes above. 17:36, June 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright... I've noticed player stories only seem to be posted every few hours, they aren't that popular. So why don't we maybe delete all the current stories, and simply moderate all future story submissions? We could add it to tasks for administrators with the Fanon admin project. Other than this, I don't see a way around this. --W H  (Talk) 05:40, June 15, 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, will the Theories pages still remain if the player stories are deleted? BobNewbie  ∞(Talk)∞  10:22, June 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, they're pretty much player stories too, and have the same isses as well. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (talk) 05:26, June 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't, because player stories and theories are different! Theories are only in certain Sims. If player stories are deleted, we won't have as many issues in theories, right? At least so. Nikel23 06:23, June 23, 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward
This issue seems to have stopped being discussed, so I've done my best to figure out what's going on. Although strictly by the numbers, it appears that only two users who voiced up are vocally against these deletions, I think even some supporters may be somewhat hesitant to go along with this, even with votes of support. Therefore, what I'd like to do is shift away from the idea of deleting all player stories, at least for now, and instead focus on a different issue.

It is a fact that we have over 1000 player stories pages that have no stories on them. A lot of these pages are for NPC Sims or very obscure Sims that don't get a lot of playtime. What I would like to propose, in lieu of deleting all articles, is for us to delete all empty Player Stories pages. We can adjust the Sim template so that the link that appears is no longer red (but still says 'create player stories page') but the Player Stories pages won't exist until someone wants to use them.

Deleting the empty pages means that no stories get deleted and we massively decrease the number of pages that sit empty and unused. Thoughts? (I want discussion, I do not want votes right away). --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 06:13, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, good idea. Maybe change the text to "player stories" instead of "create player stories", as sometimes new users are hesitant to create pages. But, other than this, I see no issues with what you are proposing. --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 07:46, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Subpages don't count in number of pages in wiki, right? And if one of the issue is to remind people to sign their stories, maybe the Player Stories template should be redesigned to be more attractive. If their stories aren't signed, then it will be likely to be deleted... or so. Nikel23 09:04, July 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't so much player stories being signed, but more what to do with the empty page. But, yes, we need to try to get them signed somehow... --<font face="Trebuchet MS" color="black">W H  (Talk) 00:09, July 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, this discussion has stopped for a while, but we should come to a conclusion. I say delete. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 15:29, July 19, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm slightly hesitant, but I'm going to say delete as well. ~> ฬ ђ  (tคlк ★  ς๏ภtгเ๒ร) 10:15, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say delete. 10:41, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * If we delete all empty player stories, even if we do change the color of the link, wouldn't they still count towards our list of Wanted pages? —<font color="#008000">Random Ranaun (<font color="#00FF00">Talk to me! ) 14:23, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * While I am also hesitant, especially when it comes to player stories quality, I would say not to delete. -- Guilherme Guerreiro [[File:Thanks rose.png]]( talk here ) 14:27, July 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I say Not to Delete. The Wiki is an informational, helpful place, for players of The Sims Series. I personally read a lot of the player stories, and I also frequently add my own. I am newer to this than most of you on here so I honestly didn't know there were general expectations for Player Stories. I admit that I have submitted a few short, sloppy stories that mainly focus on the names of the kids I made the Sims have (that's what everyone seemed to be doing, ;) ), but after reading this discussion, I understand what is expected of these stories. Player Stories, in my opinion, are nice to read once in a while and have actually inspired me to get more creative with my game. I agree with Guilherme Guerrerio's earlier posts saying there should be a policy, though.
 * P.S. What is the Fanon Namespace? It sounds interesting. Simrose101 20:37, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * The fanon namespace is a part of the wiki where a user can write about their own Sims, lots, neighborhoods and even their own fan fiction articles. It provides a lot more freeedom than the player stories feature and some have even written in-depth stories about pre-created Sims there. 20:41, July 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to remind everyone that when we talk about deleting or not deleting, we're not actually deleting content at all. The only thing on these pages is a template - that's it. Not a single user would lose a single contribution, not one letter of player stories would be deleted. The only thing this proposal would do is delete the empty and unused player stories pages. -  LostInRiverview talk · blog 23:26, July 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I say delete the empty pages. I think that articles about sims are more important than empty unused player stories. Though, I'm not saying that we should delete Theories pages. <font face="Vladimir Script" size="3"> El cobaya talk here  13:45, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think we dont need to delete it, player stories can prevent people to do insert a nonsense/vandal into the main page because we have a place to write their own stories. but i do agree that unsigned stories must be deleted.--Wir.wiryawan 14:38, August 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with you, Wiryawan. Player stories only help beginner editing, but don't prevent vandalism. And any stories will not be deleted as LiR said. I say Delete. Nikel   (Talk to  me!)  11:22, August 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, LiR has left but this issue hasn't been resolved yet. Will it remain abandoned?  Nikel  Talk  08:55, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, discussion has been dried up. I'm hoping something will happen soon or it will become archived next time the page is cleared out.

Community input on rollback requests
I know there's probably been a discussion about this already, but since it seems that nothing has taken effect I'm going to start a new one.

I do not believe that we need as much community input on rollback requests. I think input from bureaucrats and possibly admins should be enough. What do you think? -- Bleeh <font color="#489094">(talk) <font color="#489094">(blog) 17:15, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. If a bureaucrat doesn't feel that someone would be capable of using the rollback rights correctly then I strongly doubt that a bureaucrat would give them to the user in the first place. Plus, having rollback isn't as much of a leap forward from being a user as much as becoming an admin is; rollback only requires someone to show that they do want to improve the wiki and fight vandalism and I don't think a community vote is required to judge that, whereas it's a different story when it comes to admins and bureaucrats. 17:25, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. DanPin  ( Talk ) 17:43, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus for admins and bureaucrats could be enough. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 19:03, August 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * As it stands, only Bureaucrat applications receive a community "vote" of consensus. Administrator requests technically can be processed by a bureaucrat the moment they're posted, but usually as a courtesy and to allow for community discussion, the requests are left open for an acceptable length of time. Honestly, the only time it's ever necessary to give feedback on a rollback nomination/application is if there's some compelling reason why the person shouldn't be in that position. For what very little a rollbacker can do above a regular user, we put a lot of weight in that position as being sort of a stepping stone to administratorship, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.


 * As it is, I think we put way too much scrutiny into rollbacker candidates; not every user gets much of an opportunity to do anti-vandalism work, since most of the time the admins are the ones that undo vandals and issue blocks (obviously, in that case). I think as long as a user shows they've been around for a bit of time (like, a month or more) and shows that they're at least moderately comfortable with wiki controls, then they should be free to receive rollback status. I wouldn't go so far as to say that user feedback on rollback applications should be prohibited, but I would say that it really is unnecessary - if a user thinks a candidate for rollback shouldn't get it, they should take it up with a bureaucrat, or even address the candidate to try and work out why. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 01:22, September 1, 2011 (UTC)
 * I will say I agree with the scrutiny part. I remember some time ago before the requests for administratorship page was opened, the candidates for deletion page was pretty active and I remember myself leaving messages for administrators when we had mass vandals. Now that we have more administrators, unnecessary pages and vandals are usually caught on the spot and dealt with in a relatively short amount of time, meaning that someone who is willing to help revert vandalism and nominate pages for deletion may not get much of a chance to do so. Like LiR said, if someone wishes to request for rollback rights who has been about for a reasonable amount of time, worked to improve the wiki and has not caused/participated in disruptive behavior then I don't see a problem with giving them the rollback flags. Again, another good point is that if a user has doubts about another with the rollback tool then they are free to voice their opinion as long as it's used to try and guide the user in the "right direction" (and if it's of a sensitive nature then they can email a bureaucrat of PM one via IRC).


 * To sum things up, I agree that rollback requests shouldn't rely as much on a community discussion unless there is a reason why someone shouldn't be given the rights and that we could loosen the requirements for the rights as rollback isn't as much of a big deal as administrator/bureaucrat rights and they can easily be removed if a bureaucrat sees fit. 14:48, September 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * That sounds fair to me. If a bureaucrat approves it, chances are it's a good decision, and if need be users can contact the crat who made the decision.
 * We may as well try and wrap this up. I think the best way to go about this is to put less emphasis on anti-vandalism work when it comes to approving rollback requests and when a user requests, I think that the community should be allowed to ask questions to the nominee, which is an optional process as some users may not find the need to ask the nominee any questions, and if someone is aware of a recent issue regarding that user, they should be able to ask about that in a question to the nominee about it. A user may also mention why the user shouldn't receive rollback rights on the nominations page (with a compelling argument) and in a more severe case, they can contact a bureaucrat via email or IRC. Feel free to suggest something different if you think it would be for the better but I'm just offering this so that there would be less scrutiny and community input on rollback requests. 16:40, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Voting for admins/bureaucrats
Hey guys! This thread kind of branches off of the above thread and the points made on that thread that are related to whether there should be community input on rollback requests or not.

Firstly, I personally think that we should shorten the voting period on Requests for bureaucratship from the current two week period to one week as I (and possibly others) have noticed that most of the voting seems to take place within the first week, with very little happening in the second week and given a community of our size, I think one week would be enough to generate an overall consensus.

Secondly, I think we could adopt a similar system when it comes to promoting new administrators via the Requests for administratorship page. While I have no major gripes with requests being left open for a few days so that the community can voice their opinions, I think that there are a few flaws with this system as before, I have seen one request that was accepted within a few days while another was left sitting there for approximately 2 weeks. While it is based of off the proposed changes for voting for bureaucrats, I still think we can have more than one vote going for administrators at a time (like we currently have) for the same reasons that we use that method now. I think if we brought in a one week system, it would make administrator requests more organised, overall consensus would be clearer and it would be more fair overall for every candidate.

Those are the two things I am proposing. What do you think? Also. feel free to suggest a potential change to the proposal if you think it would be better. 13:04, September 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * This seems fair to me. If we could add the countdown template to admin requests like the ones for bureaucratship, and have a crat review them when the timer runs out, that would be great. I remember my admin request lasted for two weeks before it was reviewed. I'm thinking one week fr crat requests and 4-5 days for admin requests seems fair, and if need be it can be extended if it is felt there isn't enough consensus. Thoughts?
 * I agree we need a more fair system for adminship requests, and I agree with both points. The 4-5 days option for adminship requests is the one I like the most. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 13:37, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with what WH said. 17:15, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, bureaucrats are the same as administrators, with one obvious difference. Additionally, this wiki tends to place its Bureaucrats with some sort of mostly unwritten authority. The point I'm making is that administrators are selected because of their ability to administrate, not simply because they are popular users (although that is obviously an advantage). Not all people who are friends with everyone can be productive administrators, so it seems to me the system we have had up to now - where administrator requests are handled by bureaucrats only - is acceptable.


 * Allowing user comment on administrator selection is a relatively recent occurrence; for example, when I applied for administratorship, there was no user comment of any kind. In fact, the first time I can see any users giving any feedback of any kind on administrator selection was on GG's selection back in March. If the purpose of selecting administrators is to pick users who are experienced and capable editors, then in reality having user feedback and voting is completely irrelevant. As it is, I support the idea of allowing user feedback, but I am opposed to forcing formal votes for consensus for administrators.


 * The decision to promote a user should reside with the Bureaucrats, since it is the bureaucrat's job to determine whether an administrator candidate is capable of doing the job, not whether the user is popular. --  LostInRiverview talk · blog 18:08, September 3, 2011 (UTC)
 * Are we going to change the policies? -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 15:13, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion about it going on - underneath this one, funnily enough. But I'm presuming that some change will happen.

Let's start with the first proposal...
I think the best way to deal with this is to have a discussion regarding just the first proposal only, which proposes shortening the voting period for bureaucrats to one week. Personally, I think that Bleeh's RfB should have gone with this one week period (even though we're not a week in yet) but some may argue that it is unfair on other candidates. I would like to discuss just the first proposal alone first and see what everyone thinks about that. 16:34, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the first proposal is fair, because from what I know, most voting is done in the first week, although I've only seen 3 RfB's while here. So I see no issues with changing the time down to two weeks.

What to do with Unused Files
This month's cleanup is to use Unused Files. However, there are just some images that are either poor quality, have better quality image in other file name (e.g. icons), or simply not worth being added. Usually, these kind of files are left out in the Unused Files, which might reach few hundreds. I would like to consider that some of these files be deleted, if not possible to be added. This is so that we don't have files lingering to be added for good.

Let me say that some of them are also fanons which are left out and abandoned by the owners.  Nikel  Talk  12:02, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there are some files that we should keep and add into an article. -- RoseGui [[File:Thanks rose.png]] ( talk here ) 15:44, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that we manage to get most of the ones in there used up if possible. However, a large component are from deleted fanon pages. I'm currently trying t find such images and delete them.
 * Basically, if the image is redundant due to a higher quality version or a deleted page then delete it and if you can add the image to an article, try to do so. 23:02, September 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * What's easier to manage for now is, the low quality icons which has been replaced with better ones. I will try to delete them one day, just to make sure nobody minds.  Nikel  Talk  09:04, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Also, if anyone needs lots of files deleted feel free to give me a list of all the files on my talkpage in the form of File:imagename.whatever and I can perform a bot assisted mass delete of them.