Forum:Changes to RuneScape:Featured images

Forums: Yew Grove > Changes to RuneScape:Featured images

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 14 July 2011 by Haloolah123.

I basically have a few problems with how the Featured Image nomination process works.

I don't like how users are not allowed to nominate images that they uploaded themselves. This basically stops great image makers submitting images that they, and probably the community, find worthy of being featured. They have to ask other users to nominate their work, which they may have trouble achieving. I also add that I am in this situation myself.

Why do we have time limits? I understand that speedy consensus is good consensus, but a lack of time limits (or just larger time limits) helps other users who may not have seen it in that time to see it. This can add points/opposition/support that would have not been considered previously.

Instead of a time limit, I propose we have a rule stating that FIMG nominations must be open for at least one week, similar to the rule stating that Yew Grove threads must be open for one week. The nomination should be closed when the closing admin has determined that there is consensus for the nomination passing, not passing, no consensus, or the discussion dying. Just like we do every other discussion on the wiki.

To summarise, let users nominate their own images, and remove time limits from FIMG nominations.

So yeah. Discuss or something.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:23, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - As omnomnom.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:23, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Forum:Featured images self-nominations Suppa chuppa ^Talk 07:45, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

k

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 07:56, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Also Forum:Featured image modification. Smithing (talk | contribs) 12:45, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Support - Per my reasons on what Suppa mentioned above. Oppose time limit - a week is more than you think. Fsw e1 08:11, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose time limit - The current system of having 1 week of discussion, which can be extended to 2 if needed, works well and doesn't need to change. Sentra246 08:18, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong support self-noms, support others - I agree that the time limits are not needed, it's best to close them whenever it is determined there is consensus or none of it, or the discussion has died, as long as they are open for at least a week.

Just to add to what I have said, looking at the archives 11-15 when the rule wasn't implemented, I found absolutely no problem with the images that were self-nominated (no revert wars etc.) of the ones I examined, so I doubt it will lead to problems now. And Matthew, I'll nominate the image myself if you're having trouble finding someone to nominate it. Smithing (talk | contribs) 12:45, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose selfnoms, support time limit removal - per previous threads and per nom resp. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 17:48, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is a rough consensus to remove the self-nomination ban, though there is no consensus to modify the timed nature of the discussion. --Liquid^Talk 22:49, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

Reopened - Four votes and "rough consensus"? --Iiii I I I 01:29, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose removing ban - Seeing as it's the exact same proposal that failed two months ago, I might as well just copy what I wrote then. We still have an issue with people trying to do things for nothing more than credit. This should not be a motivation for nominating featured images, and the idiotic fighting over images would most certainly intensify if we reopened the floodgates like this. ʞo oɔ ~~02:20, April 25, 2011 (UTC)~~01:40, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

As for the time limits, I don't consider the "points" to be that important-featured images are mostly about aesthetics. Removing the week limit would also likely slow the closing even when it should be closed, and would just lead to a backlog. ʞo oɔ 01:40, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we may as well prevent everyone from editing on this wiki, then, if we want to prevent people from doing things for nothing more than credit. And looking back at my data, I cannot find examples of idiotic fighting that have occurred from featured image self-nominations, so I am unsure as to the validity of that statement. Smithing (talk | contribs) 13:59, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Better re-check bro bad_fetus^talk

Yey bad analogies. Look at the Avatar of Destruction FIMG, for instance. That was actually before the revert wars on images had become so prevalent as they are now (see fergie's links). There is no doubt in my mind that with my proposal we nipped something in the bud that would have been a much bigger problem. Removing the rule would end up being a headache. ʞo oɔ 02:58, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose both - The previous thread and there doesn't need to be a time change, it's working fine. Lil cloud 9 ^Talk 17:00, July 10, 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose self-nominations - Oh gawd please no:File:Completionist_cape2.png#filehistory|!

REDIRECT User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 18:07, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - We don't fix what's not broken here, as shown previously. --クールネシ^トーク 18:54, July 13, 2011 (UTC)

Can we add this to the "do not propose" list yet It is bullshit that they keep bringing it up to wear the opposers down. --Degenret01 03:22, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

I had absolutely no clue that there were previous threads. I genuinely thought this was a good idea and I had absolutely no intention to "wear the opposes down". >_>

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn - I'm starting to dislike the idea myself, and obviously this isn't going to pass so I see no purpose of having the thread remain open.

REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 03:31, July 14, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus and the nominator has withdrawn. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:32, July 14, 2011 (UTC)