StrategyWiki talk:Collaboration of the Month: Difference between revisions

From StrategyWiki, the video game walkthrough and strategy guide wiki
→‎New mechanics: even six months is probably too long
(→‎New mechanics: even six months is probably too long)
Line 30: Line 30:
I propose getting rid of the "oppose" section on nominations and changing the "Voting" heading to something else (like "Decisions" or something). The reason is, by signing under oppose, someone may feel they're being antagonistic toward the nominator, and the nominator may indeed take it that way. Also, you may not oppose the nomination, per se, but just don't want to work on it. Either way, the oppose section languishes. I think it should be enough to just look at whether the nomination has been supported and then pick the one with the most support. Along with this, I think a workable way to remove nominations would be after six months from the last support. I feel like giving a supporter six opportunities to have their guide chosen is fair, and if it's been passed over that many times, it ought to just be removed to keep the page tidy. — [[User:Najzere|<span style="color:#909090">najzere</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Najzere|<span style="color:#993300">T</span>]]</sup> 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I propose getting rid of the "oppose" section on nominations and changing the "Voting" heading to something else (like "Decisions" or something). The reason is, by signing under oppose, someone may feel they're being antagonistic toward the nominator, and the nominator may indeed take it that way. Also, you may not oppose the nomination, per se, but just don't want to work on it. Either way, the oppose section languishes. I think it should be enough to just look at whether the nomination has been supported and then pick the one with the most support. Along with this, I think a workable way to remove nominations would be after six months from the last support. I feel like giving a supporter six opportunities to have their guide chosen is fair, and if it's been passed over that many times, it ought to just be removed to keep the page tidy. — [[User:Najzere|<span style="color:#909090">najzere</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Najzere|<span style="color:#993300">T</span>]]</sup> 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
:They are removed 6 months after the original nomination.  The oppose isn't really necessary, as people can still leave negative comments explaining why they didn't support it.  If a guide is nominated as a collaboration in good faith, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed nomination indefinately (and I don't really see it becoming a problem since we leave it up for 6 months). If this page starts getting more voters, and more nominations, we can always switch to weekly collabs, or a faster cleanup time.  -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|Talk]]) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
:They are removed 6 months after the original nomination.  The oppose isn't really necessary, as people can still leave negative comments explaining why they didn't support it.  If a guide is nominated as a collaboration in good faith, I see no reason why it shouldn't be allowed nomination indefinately (and I don't really see it becoming a problem since we leave it up for 6 months). If this page starts getting more voters, and more nominations, we can always switch to weekly collabs, or a faster cleanup time.  -- [[User:Prod|Prod]] ([[User talk:Prod|Talk]]) 19:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
::They're only removed after six months if the net voting is at zero. If we removed the oppose section, they would all be at least at a one, so it would take twelve months. The problem I see with indefinite nominations is that at some point the support of it is no longer valid, as interest has waned and some or all supporters may not even be around anymore. If that's of no concern, we'd get as much value out of picking any guide on the site at random for collaboration of the month. — [[User:Najzere|<span style="color:#909090">najzere</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Najzere|<span style="color:#993300">T</span>]]</sup> 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)