Forum:Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Policy Forums

Forums - Brickipedia: The reincarnation/Policy Forums

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. No reason for archiving given. This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Use a forum namespace, or move to section in wikiforums? Or something else entirely? I would like to have one forum. I think WikiForum is nice but I also like the Forum namespace because it appears in Special:Contributions for each user, plus is a bit easier to revise various parts at once. There also aren't revision histories in WikiForum, which is something I don't like in case someone edits their replies. As I've suggested elsewhere, instead of using a Forum namespace or WikiForum, we could have our policy/site discussions on a single page in the Project namespace, like wikipedia:simple:Wikipedia:Simple talk or metawikimedia:Meta:Babel. For much bigger changes like this one we're discussing, we could have a mw:Requests for comment-like system. It's a good system that allows for in-depth planning and discussing; basically like our forum namespace but more organised. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) For most things, I could see things working well on a single page. Most of the time, we don't really have that much going on. It would be easier, and possibly get more participation. NovaHawk 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Agreed. CJC95 (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Sounds fine. Should new issues go at the top or bottom? Berrybrick (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC) The bottom, because then we can take advantage of MediaWiki's add section button and &section=new parameter. Putting them at the top, even though it'd get seen easier, is more complicated to engineer a simple way to add new discussions. Unless we want to try mw:Extension:LiquidThreads. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC) As we know, I'm against just one forum page. Both of the pages you link don't contain any real discussion, they're basically q&a. I like to be able to see each discussion separately, and see when each was last edited. I find it harder to keep track of discussion if there's lots on one page (example) UltrasonicNXT (talk) That Overhaul forum is a prime example of what would go in a RFC format. As for the links, yeah, they're mostly Q&A. I never linked them for what's on the pages. I linked it for the format. We never get policy discussions so long that they need their own articles. Never. It saves space and also solves the problem of people forgetting about forums which end up never getting responded to. All on one page equates to people seeing the other ongoing discussions if they scroll up or down from the discussion they were linked to. And if it's truly so hard to keep track of them when they're not separate pages, LQT would solve that and you could stick to the Thread namespace instead of the single page. --ToaMeiko (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC) So are you suggesting we use one forum page, or LiquidThreads? UltrasonicNXT (talk) I'm saying one forum page and if it makes it easier for you (the only person who has reservations towards one page) use LQT on it. --ToaMeiko (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Changing to neutral. While I think one page could work well, the archiving process would be messy. NovaHawk (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Putting it out there, while I still hold to my opinion I left above, I strongly oppose using WikiForums since there would be no way to export the data anywhere else, as there is no revision data and doesn't log as contributions to the wiki. --ToaMeiko (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC) Closing. Result: Use one page, which will be set up at Brickipedia:Forum. NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Grouping of forums (currently MoS and other) Please hold off on this topic until "Use a forum namespace, or move to section in wikiforums? Or something else entirely?" has been resolved I don't think MoS forums are even necessary. It's no different of a policy than the others, so MoS stuff can be discussed in the same forum as other policies. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Closing. Result: irrelevant as the forum will be condensed to one page. NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. How to decide outcome of forums - vote or discussion? I don't think any specific "rule" needs to be made how things are decided. Consensus, however it is reached, is enough of a conclusion to a forum. Whether the forum is a long discussion or a vote (or both), whatever is the consensus should be the outcome. --ToaMeiko (talk) 04:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'd be pro-votes. Votes get things resolved faster, and discussing without a vote has meant in the past that conversation just dies and nothing gets resolved. NovaHawk 23:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I'd agree - votes work in most cases I think, but they don't work as well in bigger things, like this :P CJC95 (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2014 (UTC) What CJC said. Not everything has to be a vote. Sometimes a forum can just be discussing ideas for changes, not final decisions to be voted on. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Per CJC and Meiko. I can't add anything else without being repetitive --Nexus (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Closing. Result: keep as current (no fixed rule, set up votes where necessary). NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Running time of forums (if any) Until they are done? :P If a forum dies after a few days and there is little comment or a couple of supports and that's all - just close it and do it anyway :P CJC95 (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC) Until consensus is reached. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) What do we define as consensus? Ie. is 2 supports and no opposes enough? UltrasonicNXT (talk) Sure. If other people are apathetic enough not to respond to discussions, then they can be apathetic enough to not question new changes which they ignored the opportunity to voice their opinion on. --ToaMeiko (talk) 05:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC) Result: No fixed running time, close when a consensus is reached. NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. What to do if forum gets very little (or no) response? Just leave it open. If it gets a response 2 years later but is still relevant, great (and that might get more people to see it). If it's no longer relevant, someone can comment that and close it. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Then we get well... what we have now. A heap of dead forums, with no action being able to be taken because noone will comment NovaHawk 23:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC) If a forum gets very little response, but there is even a little bit of support (or no opposition) then the clause or action of said forum should be taken (after a certain amount of time after opening though). If someone truly opposed the change they would comment or say something, however I think before any final decision was made it would have to be run through active administrators as a quick "Hey make sure you don't hate this" kind of deal. -NBP3.0 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC) I think having admins deleting forums that have been dead for at least a month and are deemed to be unneeded, I say delete them. If you want some attention for your forum link it onto an active chat and people will respond. It's simple and effective --Nexus (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Result: If a forum is inactive for a week, and administrator may close it as they see fit depending on the current votes. Administrators are recommended to quickly consult any other administrators currently online if they are not completely sure of the result. If a proposal is made and after 1 week, there is no response whatsoever, the proposal passes. NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. Archiving process (if any) Where do archived discussions go if we have this new one-forum page system? UltrasonicNXT (talk) An archive page? Like on RfAs and stuff. CJC95 (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Basically support this ^ -NBP3.0 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Closing. Result: Yearly archive pages (Brickipedia:Forum/2014, Brickipedia:Forum/2013, etc) NovaHawk 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC) Current forums This section is resolved, but preserved for record-keeping purposes. Please do not edit this area. I'd like to go through and just delete all old forums to remove the clutter. Like the current policies, since everything should be discussed on these forums, there's no real need to keep the old ones. And, thanks to Wikia, they're incredibly disorganised when they shut down the forum namespace, moved them to special:forum, then we moved them back to Brickipedia:Forum/, then when we came on here we returned them to the forum namespace. NovaHawk 01:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I like keeping a record of the old forums. I often search through them for historical reference or link back to some important ones, so I'd really not want to see them deleted. --ToaMeiko (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Per Meiko, keep the olds for reference. -NBP3.0 (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC) Maybe have an archive if it is not too much trouble? Just my two cents. --Nexus (talk) 04:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Nexus Closing (as rejected) NovaHawk (talk) 01:01, 27 October 2014 (UTC)