The current scope of the Forum is "large in-depth discussions". This mostly means big proposals, but smaller proposals can and do happen on the Portal (example 1, example 2, example 3) somewhat regularly. I propose that all proposals, big or small, be put on the Forum. The exact wording (though, it could be altered slightly) for what belongs on the Forum would be "wiki proposals and other important discussions". Of course, a proposal that pertains to a singular page should be put on the page's talk page, as is already the case.
Why?
I have two reasons:
- "large in-depth discussions" is a vague definition, it would be more ideal to have a clear definition of what goes on the Forum. It's vague because it doesn't specify any specific kind of discussion, and because it can be hard to gauge whether a discussion will be "large and in-depth" before posting it, since sometimes we can argue a lot about very simple things, but also sometimes be in complete agreement about something important (therefore making the discussion actually small and not detailed). Vagueness also means that people often put pretty notable proposals on the Portal, before having their topic moved to the Forum (ideally we should not have to do that so often, and if experienced users are getting it wrong then we've probably not given adequate information). Unfortunately, "proposals" does not encapsulate all important topics that definitely feel Forum-worthy, so I've included "other important discussions" in the definition.
- The Portal is immensely active, you should be able to see this by simply looking at the Portal right now (54 topics in a bit over a month), and its recent archives. Making sure every proposal is on the Forum would make it slightly less crowded, but my main number 2 point here is that users would no longer have to keep track of the Portal (which can be difficult considering its activity) if they only care about proposals since they're naturally more significant, which I think would be pretty convenient.
Overall, this honestly isn't a large change to what we already do, it's just a convenient clarification that will mean a few topics are now on the Forum, not the Portal. The Portal would continue to be "everything else", which would largely mean help questions or miscellaneous requests. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Support Making the forum the primary place for discussion.
The way I see it, the forum replaces most of MCT:CP's original purpose. MCT:CP can therefore just turn into a place to ask quick questions about the wiki that will end max three or four replies deep. Nixinova T C 03:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose I think Forum topics should be detailed and well developed suggestions for significant changes to the wiki. You might run into issues with what technically qualifies as a proposal. Some smaller "proposals" might be more like people putting out feelers to see if the community is interested in an idea and to to get suggestions and feedback for a more concrete proposal. I might argue that example 2 isn't actually a proposal, but someone asking about the feasibility of adding a feature. Is my topic here a proposal under these guidelines? I asked if we should create certain guidelines in the topic; so, it could be interpreted as a proposal, but I didn't mean it to be a proposal. I wanted to gauge interest and get ideas before developing a set of detailed guidelines to suggest on the Forum (which I plan on doing eventually). If that topic were instead posted to the Forum, I would just eventually create a new Forum topic with the more developed proposal later. Otherwise, it would be really messy to make an informal idea-seeking proposal and then restart the discussion half way down the page when the concrete idea was developed. If you want to clear out smaller and more informal proposals from the Community portal, we could create another page specifically for those kinds of discussions, and add language to the Portal saying it is only for asking questions about the wiki, not for making suggestions to the wiki. Rampage455 (talk) 03:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- Your example does not feel like a typical proposal, the initial message certainly does not read like one, you didn't intend it to be one, and likely no change to the wiki could have come directly from the topic, only from a follow up topic. Asking people if we should do Thing is clearly distinct to me from telling people that we should do Thing. At least for this example, I think it's clear it wouldn't really be considered a proposal like others. Of course, I am sure there are other examples out there or that have yet to come. However, I think with any case like this we could solve it very easily by just not overcomplicating things in our heads and making a swift decision based on the factors. If we truly, somehow, cannot decide on where to place a topic, we can simply ask the topic author what their intention was, and I don't think that's so awful as a worst case scenario.
- I think your issue here might actually be about the "important discussions" part, not the "proposals" part. Your example is an important discussion but it does feel right at home on the Portal because it's a feeler. That I acknowledge as an issue with my idea here but I feel the same issue already applies right now with "large in-depth discussions", except we do just ignore that, which is also not great. I don't think there is an issue with saying "proposals" should be on the Forum, I do however understand there is a conundrum about how to accommodate the large important non-proposals that sometimes occur on the Forum in the Forum scope's definition. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
05:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- This idea has grown on me a little, and I'll change my position to 👁 Image
Soft support. This might need it's own forum discussion, but if we're potentially going to increase the number of active topics, I think we should add time constraints to forum topics. As of writing, there are 37 open forum topics, 10 of which have gone more than 2 weeks without a comment. In order to help move discussions along and to remove dead discussions from the active topic list, I think topics should be closed for inactivity after a certain period of time (2 weeks maybe?) since the last meaningful edit. The longer the active topic list is, the easier it is for discussions and proposals to get lost or abandoned. Rampage455 (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- About your idea... Maybe we should just try to move along topics in general? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 00:23, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Generally the original poster will be the one responsible for the timeline. One to two weeks is normal, longer if something is controversial. If a thread is dead but not closed you can contact the original poster and remind/ask them to close it, or in instances where the poster is inactive then close it yourself or ask an admin in the case of a controversial post. Either way a topic being finished but not closed is not exclusive to the forum, the forum actually makes things much better since there is a dedicated list for open topics, unlike the community portal or a regular talk page. It's also important for editors to not just throw every single rough idea on the forum, or it gets clogged. A forum post should have a specific proposal instead of a fully open ended idea. Anyway sorry this got long, just a brain dump. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 02:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ehm... not saying your comment is entirely wrong but... I don't think admins are the ones that need to be closing controversial topics, plus people don't necessarily own their topics. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 02:42, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Sorry my wording wasn't clear. I mean if you are uncomfortable closing it yourself(likely because you were involved in the discussion and you don't want to have undue influence on the outcome) then you can ask someone else to close it. People don't own their topics, but I would hope if someone cares enough about something to propose it then they will keep an eye on the discussion and close it when appropriate. Mudscape 👁 Image
talk 02:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, I get your point now. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 02:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe... Maybe there could be a discussion on the forum talk page about topics to close, topics to move along, etc. But this is unrelated by now, so I'll go start that discussion tomorrow hopefully. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 02:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Oppose - In-line with Rampage's comment, moving all proposals to the Forum could lead to confusion about what qualifies as a full proposal versus just exploring an idea or asking a question. Smaller or informal ideas might get lost on the Forum which is better suited for major discussions. This change could also make the Forum more cluttered which can slow down focused and detailed conversations. Instead of shifting everything, the Portal could remain a space for quick and idea-based discussions while the Forum is reserved for fully developed suggestions. We could also create a separate section for early stage ideas to keep things organized. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I didn’t address it in response to Rampage, but since the idea has been copied here I should say that the early-stage discussion place sounds very messy. That’s drastically vaguer than the simple idea of a proposal, and more discussion places would make things significantly more complicated and spread out with discussions. As I mentioned, smaller proposals are moved to the Forum so they don’t get lost, since the Portal is immensely active and the Forum is purposefully designed for things to be neatly organised so things aren’t lost. The other points here I already addressed when replying to Rampage. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
05:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- But moving smaller proposals here might actually make things more confusing. The Forum should stay focused on bigger, fully thought-out proposals. Adding all kinds of discussions could clutter the Forum with smaller or casual topics that don’t need long debates. Even if smaller proposals are better organized there they could make it harder to focus on the important discussions the Forum was meant for. The Portal, while busy, is great for ideas or questions that don’t need to take up space on the Forum. Asking users to clarify their intentions, as you suggested, can solve any confusion without needing to move everything to the Forum. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 05:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- How can it be more confusing when my whole proposal is to make the definition of what goes on the Forum be more solid and clear instead of a vague phrase that you can ignore? My idea would not bring a flood of topics onto the Forum, because there is not a very large amount of proposals on the Portal, and therefore there would be no significant clutter. A proposal, no matter its size, is an inherently more important and relevant topic than a question and should be put on the Forum so it can be seen more rather than be buried in the Portal. I do not understand your last sentence, Rampage believes there would be confusion, I say we can solve that, if we must, by asking about intentions. I do not know how asking intentions is a thing that could back up your arguments. - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
05:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't see how your suggestion can have much effect. I jotted down the topics that were introduced in the Portal that would be better suited in the Forum from Nov - present:
- These are the only discussion that would be better suited in the Forum. The change you suggest would practically affect nothing. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 06:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I personally think that not all proposals or suggestions should be made on the Forum. Now usually there is a thin line between proposals and suggestions, but more or less they are basically the same thing. The important difference, however, is rather on the intent of the poster. If the poster feels like there needs to be discussion for inputs and iterations, then Forum is the right place for it. But if the poster intention is to merely suggest for permission (e.g. tenplate modification) and not for feedback, a Forum is not necessarily warranted. Of course if some small discussions off Forum happen to evolve to large discussions, then moving them to Forum will be necessary. – ItsPlantseed ⟨₰|₢⟩ 06:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
👁 Image
Strong oppose because tiny ideas don't need a whole page to themselves. If you don't think there are ideas that are that small, then let me give you an example of a tiny idea I have: "In MCD pages, I think it'sa bit redundant to say that required sub dungeons are always generated. So why don't we remove that sentence from pages?" But according to your guidelines, that'd go on the Forum. See my point? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don’t see your point. Your point is based on what the Forum currently functions as, you’re unable to understand a scenario where the Forum is used differently. Even right now with the current rules, your idea being on the Forum would be more than reasonable. That’s a proposal that affects a large amount of pages and could easily be reverted if not done without a clear discussion. Why would you put that on the Portal where it will be buried? - Harristic / Talk 👁 Image
15:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
- I suppose that's true, but I just find it personally a little silly if a small idea had a whole page to itself. Therefore, 👁 Image
Weak support (I'll just wait for more replies). -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- Actually, 👁 Image
Strong support. I thought about Harri's comment in reply to mine, and then I thought of it. Why indeed would I want my ideas to be buried in the portal? Why indeed... In fact, I'm looking forward to this topic passing because then I'll be able to revive an idea of mine. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 16:50, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I feel like people are drastically missing the point of this forum topic. The proposal is simply to have all RFC-type posts be directed here, instead of ones deemed 'minor' shunted to pages like MCT:CP. That is all. All these hypotheticals and niche edge cases are complete distractions from this discussion. Nixinova T C 08:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Strong support for this – echoing back Nixinova's comment, I don't think the opposition fully understands the point being proposed here. We have this forum for a reason. Large discussions are organized better in individual pages. GIM Dianliang233 (talk) 09:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- 👁 Image
Strong Support | Community portal is for community interaction, for example helping an editor out, clarification on a topic, pointing out errors etc. Forum is for suggestions that change wiki and involves discussion, sometimes voting, collection of ideas to change the suggestion in ways required and then coming up with a consensus which is then put into effect. Thus, any suggestion/proposal regardless or their size should be shifted to forum so that they can be properly and formally addressed.
- 👁 Image
👁 Image
(talk) 07:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Question: you said above that "feelers" should go on the com portal. How would that be explained concisely in guidelines? -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 14:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I feel this is an important discussion and should be discussed upon, instead of leaving it to rot for nobody knows how long. Commenting for the sake of bringing this discussion in light. - 👁 Image
StizzurpXDD(talk) 19:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
- Oppose per @Nerdyguy2000. 2401:4900:A50F:7DC3:0:0:25A4:F144 09:42, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
- This change would go real well with the time limit on portal topics discussed in another forum page. Any progress here? I hope this gets consensus. -~- Nerdyguy2000 Talk Edits 19:32, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
