Forum:Improving Criteria for CDWC

Hello! I'm putting this up on the request of Doc.Richtofen, to talk about the criteria for the CDWC, which right now is 500 main space edits. The problem is that some people Don't always help through main space edits, they might help with templates/Filespace/forums. A good example of a user who helps out people out alot, without too many main space edits is Rosechu. So we think that the requirement should be tweaked a tad so people who legitimately contribute can be apart of CDWC Here's an example of what it /might/ be: "1000 MS/WR/Template edits" to join CDWC? Leave some variations or suggestions!

- 10:52, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Discussion
I think COD:IAR is sufficient in circumstances like this. Shotrocket6 10:54, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really to the point where you ignore You MUST acquire 500 mainspace edits. 10:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * But really, how often do we have cases like Rosechu? If they're known by the community, then IAR can be applied. Shotrocket6 10:58, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think AEAE would apply when accepting people into a usergroup such as the CDWC. 11:12, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But even at that, the most we'd need to to is change "You must acquire 500 mainspace edits on this wiki" to "You must acquire 500 mainspace edits on this wiki or have contributed in another space efficiently." Shotrocket6 11:16, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * Seeing this would be a permanent change to the requirements of joining, which is a very noticeable difference in how it currently operates, it needs a consensus in my opinion. 11:40, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I suppose. The best proposal is to change requirements to "500 edits to main, Call of Duty Wiki, file, template, category, and forum spaces." Shotrocket6 11:43, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I would like to wait and see what other people think about it first before it goes to a vote or something like that. 11:48, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. Shotrocket6 11:56, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you Kat, I appreciate the favour. I am unclear of your "best proposal", do you mean 500 edits split between all of those areas or 500 each? If so I completely agree, and perhaps once enough users have made input on the forum we can have a vote to reach consensus. While we are on the issue I would like to see a rise in the amount of edits needed to gain membership to the CDWC. A few months ago, the requirement was risen fairly dramatically. This was to prevent a large influx of users joining without putting in that much effort to gain their reward. If the number were to be kept the same with a change, but more passageways are opened, the same problem that was encountered before will occur again. If there is to be a change, which I believe there should, the number of edits needing to be aquired must rise. Doctor out. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 13:42, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

I'd go for a smaller edit (not necessarily just mainspace) requirement and maybe throw in an account age requirement as well - something like 1 to 3 months with more emphasis on the account age - the CDWC isn't about editing, it's about community after all. 13:45, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to throw in an age account requirement as well, three months sounds apropriate. Would you rather 3 months age or 3 months active? On top of that, I understand the CDWC is about community. However, it is also a reward and a target for new users to apsire to. It can also be used to stimulate activity in key areas of the wiki. The CDWC is about community, and if you aren't editing or showing commitment, are you really part of the community? I also don't believe that raising it will greatly make an effect. Those that want to be part of it will either set their minds to the task or accomplish the criteria anyway. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 13:59, February 13, 2012 (UTC)


 * 2 or 3 months with a reasonable amount of activity would be nice, yes. 16:07, February 13, 2012 (UTC)
 * 750 MS/Temp/File would be best. 00:48, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
 * We are agreed then. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 20:02, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

We got rid of the 3 months requirement a while ago, why not make it 6 months of productivity or 750 MS/Template/File like Philly just said? 01:32, February 14, 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with the or is that people could just sit and wait instead of putting in any effort to the community. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 09:14, February 14, 2012 (UTC)