 |
This page or section is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. This thread was archived on 11 July 2013 by Suppa chuppa. |
Previous threads:
- Forum:Featured User - Change UotM to a system like that of RS:FA. No consensus achieved.
- Forum:Modifications to UOTM - Make UotM more like RS:RFA. Not passed.
- Forum:Cleaning up the main page by Discontinuing UOTM - Discontinue/abolish UotM. Not passed.
- Forum:Abolish user of the month - Abolish UotM. Alternate proposal to change the UotM rules passed instead.
- Forum:Removing the "User of the Month" feature / RuneScape:Votes for deletion/RuneScape:Requested featured users - No consensus achieved.
What is the point of User of the Month? For as long as I can remember, it has been nothing more than a popularity contest - nothing more than a page where a few random users are picked and we decide which one we like most. It's not like there's a lot of interest in it either - the latest UOTM only got 5 votes. I think it's about time we abolish UotM.
Discussion
Support - 
Oil4 Talk 12:52, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - I thought the point of this is the same as pretty much all the other wiki-community events - to have fun. It's a harmless little contest that doesn't really need a reason to die as long as its good fun. :P--Jlun2 (talk) 13:30, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - It's just fun. And there's nothing wrong with gaining a little recognition for your work and dedication with some nice words on the main page. 
Fswe1 
15:24, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Everything you said is what it's supposed to be. We're abolishing it because it doesn't deliver. MolMan 05:59, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Now that I think about it, there already is a way for recognition. Template:Wikicape http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 04:35, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Really, is there any real need to remove it? In my opinion it's nice to get recognition for hard work on-site. Neitiznot ▸ Choose OptionMy userpage Talk to me! Spam goes here Sign here! 16:38, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I'd like everyone (who was here) to think back to the threads regarding the Wiki Post, which essentially died off, and had a closure thread started about it. Even though the Post received almost unanimous opposition to its closure, nobody contributed to it and it had to be closed anyway. This scenario is quite possibly going the exact same way - at its peak, UotM had 25+ votes, for numerous candidates. Now, only a single nomination is ever made, and that user is essentially given the UotM title immediately since there's only ever one user put forward for it. The most obvious solution would be to promote it a whole lot more than it is currently, although given that it even has a box on the main page this might be wishful thinking. I agree with Oli in saying that the lack of activity is sad to see, and at the end of the day Temujin's nomination got 5 votes from the entire community. That to me shows a total lack of interest in it and as such I don't believe there's a point in continuing. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 17:31, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Ding dong the post is dead!
- Which old post?
- The WikiPost!
- Ding dong the WikiPost is dead!
- MolMan 00:04, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- my sides User:Real Not Pure/Signature 16:21, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Stupid, dead content. We shouldn't rate users on the work they're doing like that. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 17:38, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Good editors do not need to be recognized in such a way. The quality of your work shows. Sadly, even well written articles are subject to change at the whim of Jagex when they make a new update (see EoC.)--Deltaslug (talk) 17:42, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I was thinking about making something like this thread earlier. It no longer serves a purpose.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
Support - It's dead.
- REDIRECT User:-Matt/sig 21:22, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Per RNP. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 23:18, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
[[:Category:Users of the Month]] - ? MolMan 23:54, July 3, 2013 (UTC)
- Keep it. We still have :Category:RSWP templates. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/Blaze_fire.pnghttp://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg244/blaze_fire12/RuneScape%20Wiki%20Images/12.png 00:08, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a reason. Templates have to be categorized; just as well, these templates were only used by the wikipost. Users are defined by more than being voted in an admittedly stupid "vote". Ask yourself: "Do we really need to keep these users grouped by a vote that has been abolished?" If we need some historical documentation of who was who (if you genuinely think we do, I will laugh at you), then certainly the chronological list already present on the page. MolMan 02:01, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- Delete it. User:Urbancowgurl777/Signature 02:49, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
- That's not a reason. Templates have to be categorized; just as well, these templates were only used by the wikipost. Users are defined by more than being voted in an admittedly stupid "vote". Ask yourself: "Do we really need to keep these users grouped by a vote that has been abolished?" If we need some historical documentation of who was who (if you genuinely think we do, I will laugh at you), then certainly the chronological list already present on the page. MolMan 02:01, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Last year I would have opposed this proposal. That was because, unlike now we still had more than one candidate for UOTM. User of the Month is dead. 222 talk 01:07, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Fswe1. Temujin 05:57, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's not because that the project is dead, but because so little interest is placed into it. Popularity contest or not, maybe it no longer needs to be part of the community if it's going to be left in the dark like the Wiki Post became. Per Real. Ryan PM 11:42, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - No point of continuing it with the current lack of interest in it. bad_fetustalk 13:11, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - As explained at top of page. Shinigamidaio (talk) 16:02, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Even if there was interest placed towards UotM, I would have to question the net benefit of it. Sure, it might be nice to get recognition for your work on the wiki, but a system in which editors choose a user to recognize each month can also incite jealousy and anger ("I did far more work on the wiki than this user, yet this user become UotM" etc.). I do not think UotM is the best way to go about recognizing individuals.
Second, the lack of recent activity in UotM suggests that there is not much interest placed towards the project. Over the past six months, only one month had more than one user nominated, and each month had 10 or less votes; the most recent had only five votes. Compared to previous months which often had multiple nominations and many more votes, this suggests overall interest in the project is dimming. There's no point in keeping a project for which there is little interest. Smithing (talk | contribs) 17:20, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's really just a vanity project, and I'd hate to see another instance of RSWP syndrome. User:Stelercus/Signature 17:43, July 4, 2013 (UTC)
Support - Just don't really like the idea of it, not to mention the inactivity. There's better ways to recognize people's work, like leaving a simple talk message or whatnot. --Shockstorm (talk) 02:25, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
Support - I am one of the only veteran users on the wiki who has never been UotM. However, I do not support this based on that factoid; rather, I agree that it is dead content and needs to go. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH (Actually Stinko) 13:52, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
Extreme neutral - So... is this equal to admitting that RSW has ran out of exceptional users? 5-x Talk 14:14, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- It's saying no one cares about it and that it's a poor way to honor them. I'm a motherfucking awesome user but my 15 minutes of fame have been long over. That's not fair. Love me more. MolMan 14:16, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
Support - It's gotten to the point where we just put somebody forward for the sake of putting somebody forward. There have been more single nomination UOTMs in the past year than in the years previous to it combined. Let's leave the userbox as it is though, at least give those who became UOTM some small degree of satisfaction Template:Signatures/Ciphrius Kane 16:31, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The project will be "archived" and not deleted, right? Like, because apparently we like mentioning it, the RSWP. Fswe1 16:45, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- UotM is a discussion, so...
Oil4 Talk 16:51, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The Post was archived for entirely different reasons - because the articles are still a good read (I still smirk at Andorin's botting article), but UotM would technically be a discussion. I'm not entirely certain on the merits of keeping it though - there is, as far as I can see, nothing constructive in any of the nominations. I'm assuming the box is being removed from the main page, so there really wouldn't be any point in keeping the original nominations. Same reason that the signature request archives were nominated for deletion, only there is genuinely nothing of any use whatsoever here. Here's a general formula for a UotM nomination:
- "User X is a good guy/girl/androgynous character. UotM for them pls."
- "Support - I like he/she/it."
- "Support - <insert praise for user>"
- "User X is Month Y's User of the Month"
- Heck, that last line even disappeared at the end. tl;dr kill em with fiar because they're useless in every single way. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 22:19, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
- The post was archived when it was no longer used, along with other projects such as the wikiguilds. The precedent would seem to be archiving them, unless someone has a good reason to delete them.
- REDIRECT User:Cqm/Signature
Support - It seems like theres nominations just for the sake of nominations. Theres no point in keeping dead content around. Megadog14Talk 23:08, July 5, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - What about the UotM section on the main page? If we remove it, what do we put instead? Haidro (talk) 00:44, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Nothing. Or a portrait of yours truly. MolMan 00:51, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe make Template:Updates a little longer? Oil4 Talk 18:04, July 7, 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe make Template:Updates a little longer?
Support - Because bukkit caek. And also the fact that almost nobody ever looks at it, votes for it or is nominated for it; it is wasting precious space on the main page that could be used for something more useful. [1] Pink Floyd Talk page • Vandalize my sig
Guestbook • My blatant violations of AGF Oil4 I made this 15:37, July 8, 2013 (UTC)
Archive and end - Unfortunately it is apparent that it's run its course. I wouldn't mind using the main page space to extend our Twatter feed, which is a tad too small and awkward at the mo. Ronan Talk 07:48, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
- no ʞooɔ 09:42, July 10, 2013 (UTC)
Comment - The polls haven't been used much, and all the questions are either things that are discussed hugely on the forums, or things that are completely pointless. Why not have it possible for 5-10 people be able to put their name forward, with the small requirements of being in the wiki for, say 3 weeks, and 10 page edits to enter, and do it there. It will help save space, make it simpler to vote for people, and will make UotM more popular again.-Ice Rush12
TalkHiscores 17:14, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
- No it won't. MolMan 17:16, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
- The problem is not that it's difficult to vote, it's quite simply that it's dead. Read over the RSWP threads again, the idea of trying to revive it was attempted but fell totally flat. User:Real Not Pure/Signature 19:27, July 11, 2013 (UTC)
Closed - UotM will be discontinued, and the main page will be readjusted to reflect this. Suppa chuppa Talk 20:49, July 11, 2013 (UTC)