From IBWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

HOw long should we leave things on here? Should we set a time limit, or should we let them stay indefinitely? BoArthur

Funny you should mention it, because I was wondering exactly the same thing earlier today. Well, no, they certainly should not stay there as proposals indefinitely, but on the other hand, setting a time limit won't work either. After - say - a year you'll probably notice that a number of people have read the article but nobody cared to comment on it.
My opinion is that people must have plenty of chance to read and comment an article. Let's say, three months minimum. If you really need an answer quickly, just ask the Conculture list. Otherwise, well, I think there should be some kind of warning. Perhaps a tag {{urgentproposal}} or so, saying that unless somebody responds quickly, the article becomes QSS within (5) days. How about that? IJzeren Jan 11:57, 10 Feb 2005 (PST)

That sounds reasonable. I know a lot of those have sat untouched...but some of them have just been filled in to be filled in because for one reason or another I needed something there....but then that was before QAA. I vote that after a year things become QSS unless it's like Deseret and needs a massive reality redirect to align with what would've mostlikely happened had all the facts be known, if you get my drift. BoArthur

Fine, fine. But frankly, I think a year is much longer than necessary. The Category:Proposal is easy enough to visit. If we simply write a message to Conculture like: "Hey folks, there are a bunch of proposals out there, please give some opinions... and if you won't comment on them, then they'll be QSS after a week." And there you have it! I'm sure we don't need a year for that (unless is directly touches the territory of a member who is unavailable at the moment, like Joe).
Regaring QAA: I didn't mean that to become a special category. It was meant to refer to facts established in one way or another about unclaimed territories that are of no direct importance to other members (and therefore, that can be altered more easily if a new caretakers should desire so). Cheers, IJzeren Jan

I like having it as a category, though, because then we can allow people to change some things, if necessary. BoArthur

The english wiki has a list of stubs...we have a list of proposals to bring to light proposals that need to be voted on and supported by the group because they have semi-sweeping influence, you know? Stuff that's internal to the RTC or Japan, or LA or elsewise is up to the caretaker, but the stuff that transcends and affects others needs verification. that's my take. BoArthur

Yes, I can see that. But my question was: what is the additional value of a page with a list of proposals to the page Category:Proposal? If you ask me, it is exactly the same list! And the disadvantage having the same information on two different places is that it becomes harder to maintain (*). As far as I know, the list of stubs in the English wiki is an automatically generated page - the same thing as our Category-page. Oh well...
(*) Regarding this: I think we should decide something about the Nations of Ill Bethisad page vs. the NOIB page (and its underlying pages). The way it works now, it is really hard to keep up, because every change requires to be implemented twice. IMO the job can much easier be done by the categories. This is what I propose (this is the proposal page after all, isn't it? ;)) ): we delete the NOIB pages (naturally, all in due course), and we place the individual countries in categories like Category:Country in Europe, Category:Country in North America, etc.
What do you think?
Cheers, IJzeren Jan 02:05, 11 Feb 2005 (PST)

Articles to be deproposalized

I don't see any reason for Cyprus to remain a proposal. - Nik 01:48, 15 Jun 2005 (PDT)