RuneScape:Requests for deletion/RuneScape:Requested featured users

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. The result was keep. 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

This discussion shows no consensus to delete the actual page. However, discussion briefly continued about removing the feature here. Please continue discussion in the Yew Grove. Dtm142 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Again removal of this feature has been brought to discussion here. User:Kytti khat/sig 03:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

RuneScape:Requested featured users

• This, along with AOTM, is one of the last community processes to use outright voting. It can't really be changed to make it use an argument-based discussion instead, as that would cause flame wars (like those seen when oppose votes were allowed), not to mention that the person to close the discussion would hardly be able to make an objective decision in some cases.
• Its only result is to have a vanity paragraph appear on the main page every month. What does this accomplish for the wiki? I know there's the point of recognizing our valued contributors, but surely there doesn't need to be a special mention for them to receive kudos for their work.
• It kind of implies that some users are more valued than others. Do we need that?
• It's quite often used as a battleground for issues that are completely unrelated to recognizing contributors. I'm not going to give examples, but we all know that it's happened in the past.
• This superficial award is seen as a sort of trophy by some users, which creates more drama on the page itself. Edits should be made in order to improve the wiki, not to "win" a mention on the main page.
• Finally, it makes us look unprofessional to others if we take the time out to mention ourselves on the main page.

(Nothing against the current nominees is meant by this; I've been putting it off because I didn't think it would have the requisite support, but after talking to some people the other day I think it might now.)

I know there isn't really a precedent for putting up a community process at VFD, but I think it's the best place to put this. Skill 00:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep, for now - It brings up morale, which is good, but I see where you're coming from with this. But what about the main page? If removed, it would either leave a big empty spot, or the left column in general would become much shorter. Chiafriend12Loon is best buttlord 00:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If you were using a proper main page like this, it wouldn't really matter much. As seen here it doesn't affect the layout of the page very much. Dtm142 23:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - What is wrong with "outright voting?" And the page accomplishes nothing for the wiki, but neither does Article of the month, birthdays, or wikifests. These don't accomplish anything for the wiki, but there isn't anything wrong with keeping them. And I actually think it makes the Main Page look very professional. It's on a lot of other wikis, too. User:C Teng/sig 00:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - @Chiafriend: It brings up a single user's morale, but not the wiki as a whole. As for aesthetics, it shouldn't be that much of a concern. I'm sure it would look fine without it.

@C Teng: Outright voting isn't bad, but it isn't good for achieving consensus, since you count the votes rather than arguments. Anyway, article of the month shows the wiki is capable of making quality pages and promotes collaboration. Birthdays are beyond me; they're probably just a fun thing to do and allow other users an opportunity to be nice and wish a happy birthday (though I don't know that it has ever happened). Wikifests promote community bonding and unity.

The user of the month acts as a sort of paragon, but I don't see how it benefits the wiki as a whole. We should be more concerned over the quality of articles and the solidarity of the community rather than single users. If you think a user's doing well, give them a pat on the back. --Sαcrε Fι ^{(edit my sig) | (edit my user page)} 02:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - this suggestion (in guise of this vfd) actually seems to fit with style guide's ownership and bias 3rd bullet point (which i incidentally just recently suggested be expanded to implicitly cover images) as well as fitting with the current bias leaning away from anything that leads the wiki towards becoming more 'social'. (Note, however, that if such mind set is taken to its extreme the possibility of becoming "faceless" becomes increasingly likely.) A possible interim step might be significant downsizing of this "feature", especially considering the sheer amount of the main page that is dedicated to it. If this were a newspaper (or another such item of physical media) I'd simply suggest moving it off the front page, but that analogy really doesn't seem to fit this reality. I say "interim" because it appears inevitable that the feature will most likely be removed in its entirety one day regardless of whether any intermediate "step-downs" are taken. So now i'm left pondering what new "feature" could help instil a sense of solidarity among new and upcoming editors.

1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 05:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - As was said earlier it serves little purpose other than honoring some user's achievement which serves as a vanity trophy that usually causes flame wars and makes the wiki look very unprofessional by mentioning ourselves on the front page. For the majority of users here on the wiki it does not do anything to bring up morale. Overall, I feel that this does more harm than good. Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 11:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Article of the Month is here to show how good the wiki is and bring up its best articles, Wikifests are a friendship effort, sort of like the Olympics, bringing together different people. Neither of these are unprofessional, so what is so unprofessional about a good editor and contributor being mentioned on the main page. Like the Article of the Month, it brings out the wiki's best editors and shows how good a community we have. It also encourages users to edit more. Although this isn't exactly the right motivation we want to give people to edit, it is motivation, and most of the users featured there have been loyal members of the community who love the wiki and didn't just want to be UotM. I think this page brings out our community's editors most worthy of recognition and sets and example for other editors. There hasn't really been much flaming in the past, ever since the "oppose" vote was removed, and unless a new IP comes on and votes, there shouldn't really be a problem with voting. Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I think what we should be trying to showcase is good editors, and to be perfectly honest, AOTM showcases good editors better than UOTM ever can. Plus, AOTM lets us showcase our editing ability without being vain about it, because people aren't named. I am in principle against giving anybody ulterior motives for their edits, rather than the only motive that matters: forwarding the community. We got rid of edit counts on RFAs because it opened the door to alternative motives. I believe UOTM does the same. Endasil (Talk) @  21:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This doesn't belong here; if we're going to stop featuring users, the UotM page should be [[Template:Rejected policy|archived]]. User:C Teng/sig 03:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Endasil summed my thoughts quite well, it's egotistical, vain, and AOTM over all is much more "in the spirit" of the wiki. Tes ^Fan 00:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete (or archive and discontinue) All who worked on the showcased AOTM can be proud and others can see what kind of articles the community produces, supports and appreciates. The award is inclusive of all who contributed, not matter how small the contribution was. UOTM is exclusive and that's why I don't think it is good for this type of community. Peacefulsage 01:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment One thing that I've noticed is that people seem to just be nominated on the grounds that they are a sysop or a crat. Sure they do help out the wiki but UOTH seems to exclude every other editor. Sir Lenehan File:Smite old.png|25px 04:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment I was gonna type this before my computer shut down, but perhaps what you're seeing is because most users must contribute a lot before they are considered by the community worthy of sysop or even crat tools. Once they have shown that they can use their tools wisely they might be considered worthy of the UOTM award. Of course not all featured users have been sysops or crats. Ilyas Talk Contribs 13:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I want to start by saying I think it is a valid issue to raise if a current feature on the wiki ought to be preserved or not. Discussions like this are very healthy to the wiki, and I do understand why those who advocate the discontinuance of this page and feature should happen. I don't think that VfD pages are necessarily the best way to deal with this issue, and even if users of the month is discontinued, I strongly think this page should be preserved as at least a historical log of what has happened in the past. This discussion really should be moved to Runescape:Yew grove to debate the merits of the UOTM and if that should be discontinued. --Robert Horning 15:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment If it were moved we'd also have to move all of the current discussion on this page (copy and paste), either that or we leave a link asking people to please read the points made here before posting in the Yew Grove section. Ilyas Talk Contribs 16:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the whole discussion needs to be moved to Yew Grove. It certainly should be referenced with a hyperlink, but my contention is that it shouldn't have been put on the VfD page in the first place as this is discussion really isn't about deleting this specific page. It is about getting rid of a regular feature on the main page of this wiki. While that issue is being addressed after a fashion, this whole discussion is getting muddled in the language of a VfD. It may also help to restate this whole issue with a fresh start to address why this feature should or shouldn't be continued, and separates the issue of if this page ought to be deleted to be decided at a later time. It really is two completely different issues that are muddled together right now and ought not be so. --Robert Horning 02:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Personally i believe the biggest issue here is the amount of space dedicated to it. Currently there are 38 words and 229 vertical pixels dedicated to the AOTM, whereas there are 183 words and 349 vertical pixels dedicated to the UOTM, this seems very counter-intuitive to me. In my opinion the UOTM entry should be the one with only 20% of other's word count.

1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 14:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think the UOtM is good because it makes other users strive to be a good user on the wiki. It also lets the community know (and the person themselves) that their hard work has not gone unnoticed and that they have accomplished something. But maybe we should shorten it like Kytti said (But the AotM gets less words because they have to squish an image in there aswell, the box is actually larger. Chicken7 ^>talk 08:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete There is something that could actually benefit the wiki that could be put there. Users who understand wiki and contribute toward its prosperity should not be need to be featured to understand that. TEbuddy 08:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete: 1. We have more than one contributor per month who would deserve that. Giving this "reward" to only one (obviously quite random) of them is simply unfair. 2. Voting in this is a waste of a time which could be used to contribute to articles instead. 3. Having the oppose vote prohibited is just ridiculous: a vote where you can't say no? Are we in China? 4. Finally, this page is simply breaking RuneScape:All editors are equal. Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 06:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There is not extra benefit to becoming a "User of the Month" other than the knowledge that your peers have recognized you hard work and effort. The rest of your complaints here are about the mechanics of the process which can and perhaps should be changed if you feel that strongly about it. That doesn't really note why this particular page... even in a historical context if this feature is discontinued... should be deleted. All I see is rationale for why this feature should be discontinued. I'm not picking on you Pathetic, but rather trying to make a point that this VfD is about this page and not necessarily the UOtM feature, even though both are being discussed. --Robert Horning 15:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, no problem, discontinuing sounds fine too... I only posted "delete" because on an VfD, expected votes are keep/neutral/delete ;) What I meant is more like "delete the feature". Patheticcockroach_(Talk) 10:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep: UotM gives a little more background to the users featured. It lets newer users see who is good to ask about editing/etc. Example (no offence, its just the one I remember best) I wouldn't have known who created (and hence to go to) if I had a query about the Grand Exchange Market Watch if it weren't for Robert Horning's UotM (last month). UotM is just a generally useful thing for new users to see.  @Gaz#7521 17:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep The fact that it puts a someone on the main page who knows what they are doing, may point a new wikian in the right direction to ask questions. When I was UotM, I got many questions asked about how to edit etc. Atlandy 15:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment Should we just delete HELP then? TEbuddy 04:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Delete. It makes one user feel like they're better than everyone else just for winning a popularity contest. That's what UOTM is...a popularity contest. Some may argue it shows the best editors and lets them set an example. Well, I say if anyone wants to see some examples of good editing, they should go to my contribs find out who wrote the bulk of the Article of the Month. And there's plenty of great editors here, more than could fit in all of the UOTMs the wiki would ever have....well, that's my reasoning.

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

21:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"go to my contribs" - XD Christine 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I lol'd really hard. earth_(t) 04:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked my little joke :P.

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

21:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The strongest keep I have eva used: This request for deletion is invalid. You must go to the Yew Grove to discuss deletion. Besides, I don't think you can delete an aspect of the Wiki. http://img111.imageshack.us/img111/6032/bt3sw5.png _{Done whoozy!} 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No, Blanko. In fact, the yew grove says never to go to the yew grove to discuss deletion. Butterman62 (talk) 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Small Keep Suggestion - Why not just make this "user of the month" And make it randomish based on how long the user has been in the wiki (their has to be a way to do that...right?). Having a user of the month does keep up wiki moral among editors but not if it is a popularity contest. --Rune ldr 88 05:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep. It's important to distinguish good editors, and it fills up space on the main page.--Ma44040 01:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why would we need that space in the first place?

InstantWinston^{old edits | new edits}

13:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

It makes our community look colourful to visitors, thus encouraging them to edit, that's why we need that space. Ilyas Talk Contribs 15:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment Why don't we use that space for an article written by the user of the month. Nobody cares about what is said about that person, instead share what he/ she has actually accomplished by linking to an article by them. My two cents. --Rune ldr 88 23:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• A second AotM? That doesn't make sense. Just because you say we all don't care about the description of the user, doesn't mean we don't. I like the having descriptions under the current UotM. User:C Teng/sig 19:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep I somewhat agree with Rune ldr 88 but, I think maybe that could be integrated into the current UotM. 1diehard1 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I'm not going to reiterate what so many before have said regarding this feature, however, I strongly advocate making a policy of keeping it to a limited size (even less than what is now posted) say 100 or even as few as 50 words.

1. REDIRECT user:kytti khat/sig 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. No further edits should be made to this page.