November 4th, 2019

🕒 Wiki Weekly #25! 🕑

It's November!
We've listed pages that need some love. Take a look!

Latest Announcements

We are currently performing an upgrade to our software. This upgrade will bring MediaWiki from version 1.31 to 1.33. While the upgrade is being performed on your wiki it will be in read-only mode. For more information check here.

Zelda Wiki talk:Autoconfirmed users

From Zelda Wiki, the Zelda encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Doesn't anyone here think that 200+ edits is a lot to become autoconfirmed? I can't even make an edit in the Featured Pictures page because of this... --Fawfulfury65 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about everyone else, but I'm perfectly fine with the number being two-hundred. User:Austin/sig 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
We'll see if we can lower it, though. Some staff members think it's a bit high. Dany36 21:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think somewhere around 50 edits or less would be reasonable. --Fawfulfury65 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I think the 200 is quite reasonable. It took me, and several other users I have seen, at least 30 edits (considering we know relatively nothing about overall editing and such before we joined the wiki) to establish a legitimate userpage alone - and that's not an indication of how well someone can add content, refs, etc. to the wiki with more generally benefitial edits. With it at 200, the user would be able to establish themselves on the site, and even without a userpage, the 200 allows them to be completely familiar with ZW and its regulations before being able to vote and leave their opinoin on intra-wiki nominations and such. Consider it as a goal to work towards! User:Cipriano 119/sig 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The number of edits required was deliberately set fairly high, for the reasons Cip mentioned. However, personally I'd like to see it lowered somewhat, perhaps even down to 100. The barrier to immediate voting would still be in place with the 30 day requirement, but 100 edits would be a more attainable goal for someone editing in what we consider to be a responsible way (i.e. as few individual changes as possible to any given page). User:Adam/sig 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Adam. 100 edits is more than enough to show your dedication. I remember that I got the hang of things around edit 100, too.Justin(Talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm late in here, but I support it too. I'd like to see more featured content voting.User:Axiomist/sig 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave it to me to throw a cog in the wheel :P I disagree to lowering the number of edits. Cipriano basically expressed my sentiments exactly; it's something to work towards. I'll use one user as my un-named example, but needless to say, he fairly quickly had 100 edits because he kept making multiple edits to the same page. His edits were horrible and misspelled and I'd be surprised if there were any that didn't need to be reverted. So, no. To a dedicated editor, 200 edits isn't a lot... 100 seems too low to me. How's 150 sound? :DUser:Mandi/sig 00:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
I'd go with 150: as we speak there is one editor heading in such direction only by editing their user page. I would hate to see these users gaining these powers by editing irresponsibly, and there are a few currently who are doing so. However, for the most part, the user base here is fairly honest and benefitial when it comes down to editing - it is a reward for those users to lower the count, I believe. Is there a way to morph the system for such users who only edit their userpage, or perform unsatisfactory edits? User:Cipriano 119/sig 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
umm Cipriano 119 is one of thes page only editors me by any chance? -FORESTMINISH(U)(T)(C)(Home) 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You are one of them, yes, however, there have been many in the past that have done the same. I mean no offense, I just feel it is unjust to reward users that primarily, and almost exclusively, edit their userpage with featured article/picture voting rights, as they have not done the same for the main content of the wiki concurrently. User:Cipriano 119/sig 03:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is 200 edits too much?

So, in light to some recent discussion regarding autoconfirmation, some people think that our current autoconfirmation limit of 200 edits and 4 weeks seems a bit much, and that perhaps it should be set to something lower and more reasonable?User:Mandi/sig 22:02, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps 150 and 3 weeks? I think that would be a more lenient, yet still loyal criterion. Nah, but let's not fool ourselves: There will be people disagreeing with this, it wouldn't be a surpirse if someone proposed to actually increase the requirements. --K2L (Interrogatory) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (EST)
150 edits for 3 weeks works. The average edit rate of new users is roughly 50 a week, or about 7 or 8 a day, which is actually not that much even for a new user. Most make more than that in the first few minutes after registering, and then taper down to 7-8/day after that. So we'd like to keep the edit amount to work out so that the average user reaches the requirement roughly as the time requirement passes. If people feel that four weeks are too much, then 150 edits for 3 weeks is the next step down. For me I'm more concerned that the number of edits matches the time span than what the time span is. Though I'd prefer that three weeks is the lowest we'd consider.User:Matt/sig 05:12, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
INCREASE THE REQUIREMENTS! :P We all know to expect arguments, K2L. There will always be someone to disagree, but it's the community that decides if it's a good idea, not a few individuals. Or atleast that's what I'm getting from this page. Anyway, I agree with 150 edits 3 weeks. That image Captcha gets quite annoying after a while, and if you don't know how to preview a page after 150 edits, there's nothing anyone can do to help you. — Abdullah [T] [C] [S]  00:22, 11 February 2011 (EST)
I don't want to sound like a devil's advocate here, but I don't see why this should really be changed. It being "too much" doesn't seem like a strong enough reason to me; I see "autoconfirmed" as a reward for continued interest, just like the positions of Autopatrol and Patrol are (although those carry larger implications). There are always those users as well, every once in awhile, that take advantage of the system and make the 200 edits to their userpage, with little to nothing in the mainspace. By lowering the requirement, it would encourage more of these editors to edit as such to receive a "reward" that should really go to those that make real, content edits. We also must consider the amount of pages that are "autoconfirmed-protected" like the Help Guide, that may be taken advantage of by editors that haven't really spent much time editing on the wiki itself. I'd stay with the 200 (like K2L said, I'd even go as far to propose more edits... but 200 doesn't seem too far off the deep end), even though it's only 50 more edits, it could make all the difference, especially since a significant percentage of edits made by first-time editors is to the userpage anyway. (I realize I voted for 150 in the above argument, but I chose to fall back to my original argument, as I feel it is better supported.) User:Cipriano/sig 02:19, 11 February 2011 (EST)
EDIT: Is there a way to make it so that userpage edits do not count towards the "autoconfirmed" edit requirement? If so, that could be implemented, and then I'd agree to see the number for autoconfirmed go even as low as 100 (since they'd all be guaranteed main wiki edits). User:Cipriano/sig 02:22, 11 February 2011 (EST)
^ What Cip said (especially that second bit). Embyr 75  --Talk-- 13:09, 11 February 2011 (EST)
I looked all over the MediaWiki website. I couldn't find anything. But judging how the database works, I don't think it's possible. User edits are tracked by literally counting all the revisions made by the user. There isn't a way that I can see to tell it to not count revisions in certain areas without actually deleting the revisions completely. As far as where I stand, I meant what I said before that I prefer it stays at a fifty edits per week ratio. As far as where I lean on how many weeks, I think is should remain at four, but as I said before, I won't complain if there is a consensus to go down to three, but four is preferred. Since Cip did make some good points. If we make it too easy, people will be tempted to speed edit to get that reward fast. We've actually seen this before. When member sites offered banner awards for ZW edit so on their forums, we got a lot of people just spamming edits to get to the reward level as fast as they could. They did things like splitting up multiple changes into one tiny change per edit, making an edit and then essentially undoing it, etc. things like that. If we make this reward too easy to get, people will be tempted to "cheat" to get there faster. It's supposed to be a testing and training period for new editors anyway, they're not going to learn if they just skip past that step. And we've all seen, what happens when spam editing gets taken too far and the user never learns how to slow down, we saw this in an editor that used to dominate the RC a few months ago, who I won't name out of some respect, with basically pointless edits and breaking larger edits down into many little ones. This process is draining on all of the patrolling admins and patrollers and the last thing we need is to do anything that encourages other users to take up this behavior.User:Matt/sig 18:37, February 11, 2011 (UTC)