Board Thread:Consensus Track/@comment-24325144-20150106201659/@comment-24325144-20150107120033

24.19.86.242 wrote: It's not that bad an idea, though I still think we should keep voting. That way, we can vote for whoever is actually prepared to take on the role other than just whoever is popular at the time. I'm not sure what you're referring to here Equillibrium. There is no voting on this, because it's a discussion, were not voting on anything. It's a community discussion to find out what policies needs to be changed.

I too agree that pages without images is fine, of course we would prefer to have images for the pages. But not all people can add images to games, & it takes time, especially with the amount of images needed for the games mentioned. I have added hundreds of images to Morrowind for example. But there is still hundreds more that are still needed.

Maxicut, we have been thinking of this as well, in response to the perma bans issued here, & were contemplating a review process where users can make a case of why they should be unbanned that would be looked over so people can return again.

The Featured Articles may not be perfect, but they are far from being a lower quality article. So I don't really see how that's the case at all, if people followed how they were made, it would be the opposite, we would see a rise in quality articles made here. I know it's being said to make a case for their unlocking, but that just isn't true at all. As for the unlocking of them though, we have been thinking that they should be lowered to semi-protected for a few months now. The FA locking policy was added here years ago, & has been a policy ever since. Long before I even joined this wiki, but we do agree they should be semi protected. & that full protection of pages shouldn't be here unless under extreme vandalism, or temporary locking of a page due to a edit war.

That was how things were before Locksmith, people could apply & in a way it still is today. Before people could just apply, & then if they got the support they would get the position. However, that was changed almost a year ago to a nomination system where staff members nominate a user that they think would be good for the position. This was done due to the amount of applications made by users, who used it as a game of sorts to apply for positions that they were not fit for. Requirements existed back then, & they still exist now however.

I agree that preventing users from posting on their own talk page shouldn't be done unless they spam or vandalize it after their block. From my experience, I don't prevent talk page editing when issuing a block. Although have it in policy couldn't hurt either.

I too agree thatt blocking lengths should be better written & easier to understand so the community knows where the blocks stand. Most of the blocks that have occured were there was confusion were longer block times for first time, or second time offenders & was dependant on the violation comitted. But I think the blocking lengths should be laid out more clearly so I agree.

In response to the chat ban policy, I agree & yet disagree to a certain extent. Users here who have been banned from chat multiple times have not ceased to act appropriately in chat & end up being banned & cuasing more trouble then they should. Users being banned 4-10 times from chat, until a perma ban was issued. Which is why like I said previously, a review process for perma bans & blocks would be the best way forward in my opinion.

What is relevant to an article is largely subjective, so I agree that it should be looked over more closely to benefit both sides. My concern is, what is speculation to one person, is not speculation to another. & if both sides are given equal opportunity, then that could cause edit wars on said pages.

With regards to bug sections, or bugs in general. It's common practice to verify the bug to recreate the bug or attempt to & prove it factual. It increases the credibility of the wiki when such measures are taken. That being said, there are some bugs that are all over the internet with multiple sources & has been proven to be a legitmate bug. In such cases adding it to the articles isn't a bad idea. The issue I find with many of the bugs however, is patches. Many of the bugs out there are hard to verify or confirm anymore due to them being bugs on older versions of Skyrim that was later patched. & considering that most users will have the most up to date patch it would be difficult to confirm or deny certain bugs to verify legitmacy.

Liking the ideas everybody keep em' coming!