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 or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: no consensus. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Following Eyrezer's proposal on the Wookieepedian of the Month page, I'd like to propose a new system for the WOTM nominations. Rather than just nominating whoever whenever we feel like it, the nominations for the WotM award should be taken on the first day of every month. This will hopefully encourage more thought to be put into voting and prevent an excessive amount of last-minute changed votes. However, the question would also be whether nominations should be accepted after the first day window has passed. CC7567 ^(talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First day of every month is reserved specifically for nominationsEdit

Reviewing the choices, I believe that one day is enough for nominations. If someone misses the first day, it's not a big deal; the nominator can always wait till the next month. CC7567 ^(talk) 17:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

You have my bow. -- —Harrar ^(Villip) 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

First day is reserved for nominations, but nominations can also be taken after the first day has passedEdit

1. I don't think this is a bad idea at all, because it seems like whoever gets nominated first is almost invariably going to win. This would be like creating a ballot before the polls open. But there's no reason why people still can't be nominated later in the month. Toprawa and Ralltiir 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Per Tope. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. Grand Moff Tranner ^(Comlink) 18:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. Per Toprawa; reviewing my reasoning. CC7567 ^(talk) 18:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Per Toprawa. Grunny ^(Talk) 20:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
6. I'd be happy to have two days just for nominating but this is still an improvement. --Eyrezer 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
7. IFYLOFD ^{(You will pay the price for your lack of vision!)} 22:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I don't see anything wrong with it one way or the other, but this might help out with something I've noted as well, so my vote goes here. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 01:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
9. Per Tope. Master Jonathan^{Jedi Council Chambers} 02:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
10. At the moment, whoever's nominated as soon as the previous month's nominations has been removed is gaining an unfair advantage. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is a lie)} 05:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
11. OLIOSTER ^(talk) 05:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
12. Not a big deal, but I'm going with this. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 18:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
13. It might not be 100% essential, but I don't really see why not. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 22:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
14. Per Soresu. It's only one day of non-voting out of a full month of voting; it's not going to disrupt things that much. jSarek 03:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
15. Not all the nominators can access the 'pedia exactly at 00:00 on the 1st of a month; and as I've seen the current method to be not really operative. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 07:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
16. Ditto Skippy. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep as it isEdit

1. Why make it more complicated? It's just a small pat on the back to recent good contributors, not a huge serious deal. If someone is deserving, they will eventually get nominated and win regardless of this proposed rule. --Imperialles 17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
2. Extremely per Imp. I honestly think this is a matter of indignation over specific users not having won, erroneously misplaced as questioning the system. No one wins that doesn't deserve it, and there's more to winning than being the first nominee. Floyd, Harrar, Jorrel, Gonk, Chack, GT, Acky, Cull, INAN, Greyman, and Eyrezer have all won WOTM despite not being the first nominee—in some cases nominated more than a day later or several nominations further down the page. No one says you have to vote for who's there, and no one nominates anyone that at least someone doesn't feel deserves it. There will have to be more than just a few complaints over what really is quite fair to begin with for me to be won over. Last, but not least: it's Employee of the Month. Is it really worth getting upset over? Some people have been here for ages and worked their rears off and will likely never win it. Do they quit, do they complain about the system? Of course not. It's what makes them stand out. Graestan^(Talk) 22:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
3. I agree that it is an interesting idea and one that might have merit, but I lean toward leaving it alone for now. — Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 22:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
4. —Xwing328^(Talk) 03:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
5. Not only what Graestan said, but then everyone might get confused when this first day ends since we're not all on the same clock. Even if we use UTC time, someone might say that they submitted before the deadline and another user might dispute it leading to a whole mess. I say it was fine the way it was, and users should vote the way they feel. I just hope they don't become swayed by the first nom or the majority just because. -- Riffsyphon1024 07:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
   • That mess couldn't happen, because you can still nominate someone after the first day. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 10:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
     • It wouldn't be hard to have a "Voting is currently open/closed" message somewhere on the page to prevent early voting. SoresuMakashi^{(Everything I tell you is the truth)} 10:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
       • That was said on the basis of what the original vote was for. Considering people are open to noms after the first day, then its not an issue now. -- Riffsyphon1024 04:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
6. Ditto Imp. WhiteBoy 05:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
7. I have to agree with Imp in that I think that this will complicate things more than is necessary and could ultimately create more work since the nomination page would have to be closely monitored the first day to make sure that the policy was being followed. Furthermore, as Graestan stated, some very deserving users were awarded WotM, despite not being nominated first. Cylka^-talk- 14:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I fail to see the need to change this. --Darth tom (Imperial Intelligence) 16:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I liked the idea at first, but upon further review, I'm going to have to vote here, for one simple reason: voters can change their votes. If you vote for a user, and another user is nominated later and you want to change your mind, you can strike your old vote and vote for the other user. Unless there is any rule against this of which I am unaware, this completely eliminates the point of changing the policy. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Jujiggum) 14:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. There's nothing wrong with the system that this is going to fix. Havac 01:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

• I'm for this, but I think the first 2 days reserved would be better. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Abstention, actually. -- —Harrar ^(Villip) 23:29, 2 June 2009 (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 section.