This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was no objections. —Silly Dan(talk) 01:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
In response to the clutter that has struck WP:QOTD, I propose the following ruleset:
Any quote to reach +10 votes is removed from QOTD and added to the queue.
Any quote to reach -3 votes is removed unconditionally.
If a quote's current score is between these values, calculate its "reasonable lifespan" as follows: 10 days + current score (that is, for a quote with -2 votes, it would be 8 days, and for a quote with +9 votes, it would be 19 days). If the actual lifespan (counted since the first vote) exceeds this value, it can be removed.
If a quote has no votes at all (as opposed to a net score of zero), meaning the nominator didn't vote, it can be removed.
IP votes are counted as half votes forbidden.
"Strong" and "weak" qualifiers are disregarded, and such votes are counted as usual.
Comments? Suggestions? - Sikon (Vacation) 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
That sounds good. The dates from the votes could be used to count the days. And if no one votes #4 applies. -Finlayson 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I think you should have to be registered to vote, as with the Improvement Drive. -- Ozzel 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
This particular rule is taken from Uncyclopedia's featured article process, as well as the -3 one. The ID stays for a week and the QOTD stays for a day (Uncyc's featured articles stay for two days). But if the majority disagrees with this rule (or any, for that matter), I'll remove it. - Sikon (Vacation) 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I like it. It seems like a fair policy, and perhaps more importantly, it would be easy to maintain.–SentryTalk 21:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think about it, can we get rid of the "IP votes are counted as half votes" rule? It seems to be an unnecessary complication… –SentryTalk 04:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But what should we replace it with? Disallow IP voting altogether? - Sikon 09:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess that disallowing IP voting is our only other real option, but I think that it makes sense. Currently, two IP votes are needed to make a full vote, but I have never actually seen two anons vote for the same quote. As such, their votes are effectively meaningless.–SentryTalk 21:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If it's going to be done, 'twere best it were done quickly. But it's difficult becuase some IP voters are legit, and some are just sock puppets with three votes. Enochf 21:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, don't we require registration for voting at FA and IDRIVE? I see no reason why we shouldn't carry that standard over here. - breathesgelatinTalk 07:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I think the two-anon requirement effectively makes the rule meaningless. Edited. - Sikon 07:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Point of order: Rule #3 is complicated, and things seem to be going A-OK just deleting old quotes at the two-month mark. If it's December 3rd, all quotes October 3rd and older get deleted, etc. The two-month month span really does give every quote the chance it deserves, I think. Enochf 20:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd even support a one-month timeout, as we have on Featured Articles. - breathesgelatinTalk 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Removing the quotes at two months was always my ad hoc policy and it seems to work fairly well, but I definitely would not be opposed to shortening it to one month.–SentryTalk 03:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If we go to one month, we have to lower the vote requirements. Otherwise we'll run short of quotes. Once anything hits five votes, it's like pulling teeth to get it any higher. Most of the ones that get pulled have been sitting at seven or eight votes for a week but nobody comes along to put them over the top. Havac 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Good point.–SentryTalk 04:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.