We need to determine a consensus on what level of editing we expect from people requesting The Wikian title, in terms of edit count. There isn't agreement on this currently and its coming across in nominations, which is not fair on the nominees. Establishing a consensus on this would make the nominations run a lot smoother; both for people making the requests and for those who are closing them.
I propose that we go with a guideline of 150-200 constructive edits for users to be considered to have edited enough to make/pass a request for the title. For transparency this would be added to RuneScape:The Wikian, however the same premise of people being able to be nominated earlier if they have made a smaller number of very high quality edits would apply as it does now. I feel that`150-200 edits is a reasonable expectation for new editors to be able to obtain. I'm aware that new editors don't always see that many things that need editing; but with us coping less effectively with new updates and lots of projects and maintenance outstanding there really are things that new people can help with. 150-200 edit count is in line with what most of the people who have received the title so far have had.
If we start to give out the title to people with minimal editing experience I feel like it really devalues the gesture of giving them the title. Receiving the title is a lot less like being being recognised and appreciated by the community when its something being handed out en masse to anyone who shows a small interest in helping out here. I don't feel like receiving the title in such a way is going to give any encourage for people to keep editing after obtaining it. I also think that the title becomes a lot less effective if we're aiming to give an incentive to people who wouldn't normally edit without the chance of receiving some reward for editing. RuneScape players on the whole do not care about having titles that are freely available. Finally, I feel like it's important to note that people using the title are seen by many players in-game to be representatives of the wiki. If we are granting the title to people with limited editing experience it is not really possible for us to establish whether they are suitable to do that or not. We still have no to remove the title if we are mistaken about this.
I really hope we don't go in the direction of giving out the title with trivial expectations. It would be massively disappointing to see us waste the opportunity of having the title by doing this. However if that really is the consensus of the community then I think the other title requirements should be adjusted accordingly:
- Reduce the minimum account age for participation from 2 weeks to 1 week.
- Stop taking concerns about poor behaviour into consideration. We cannot properly determine this for people who have had minimal involvement in the community. The only people this really disadvantages is established editors which is unfair: if we are willing to AGF with new editors then I don't see why this should be brought up with experienced editors.
- With minimal requirements I don't see the necessity of having a nomination process like the one we have now (there really isn't that much to discuss). Perhaps going back to batch nominations or some other automated, edit count threshold nomination system would be more practical.
IsobelJ
13:40, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment - Keep the process as it is now, add guideline of 150-200 constructive edits. 
IsobelJ 13:40, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
Support 200 content namespace edits requirement (content namespaces being Main, Transcript, etc rather than Talk, Exchange, and along those lines) - There are a few reasons we should make an edit count a requirement:
- While the title is not meant to be exclusive, it also shouldn't be given out willy-nilly.
- The fact that we have to give the title out manually takes people's playing time away from things they enjoy doing to hunt down players in-game to provide the title.
- Having a guideline that users should have contributed to the wiki in some way is entirely subjective, and opens a whole new can of worms on nominations.
- Because of how subjective that is, we treat users differently to each other even if they have made the same effort but have varying edit counts. Having consensus for an edit count requirement should help stop this.
- The title represents us and our community. It is not easy to be a judge of character when somebody hasn't done that many edits, yet are nominated because of good contributions.
- The title is an incentive, but an incentive that should be earned, not just given away. We want to encourage people to stay on the wiki, we don't want them to do a drive-by for the title and then leave again, as can be seen with some editors.
And honestly, our current system of giving out the title is pretty bad. We give out permissions to users that reach an edit count threshold without really giving a thought to what they have done or having some sort of nomination process, so I don't know why obtaining an in-game title seems to be more difficult than getting rollback or custodian rights. I'd suggest that users can request the title on a page similar to the RFP one and they will be given it if they have reached the edit count threshold. No bullshit, no nomination, no being scrutinised for a week just for the sake of a cosmetic. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 14:08, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
- Just for clarification here regarding the last part of my comment - I'm not saying we shouldn't make sure they represent our community, I just don't think we need such a long-winded process. This will take some effort to get right and I think we need to actually properly consider how we want to get this right. https://i.imgur.com/xHR7zpA.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/6encXAo.png 14:10, October 26, 2017 (UTC)