This HTML5 document contains 7 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Subject Item

n2:

rdfs:label

Avatar Wiki:War Room/The footer template

rdfs:comment

__NOWYSIWYG__ So I was thinking, 1. shouldn't {{footer<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>}} be moved to the bottom of the page and, 2. should we add the template to the bottom of War Room forums? G o d s r u l e - T a l k t o m e ! 02:35, January 4, 2013 (UTC) I'd disagree: right now it is right underneath the edit button and above the image, so when someone wants to edit the page and click the button, the notice is one of the first things to notice. 23:11, January 6, 2013 (UTC)

n3:wikiPageUsesTemplate

n4: n5: n6: n9:

n8:abstract

__NOWYSIWYG__ So I was thinking, 1. shouldn't {{footer<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>}} be moved to the bottom of the page and, 2. should we add the template to the bottom of War Room forums? G o d s r u l e - T a l k t o m e ! 02:35, January 4, 2013 (UTC) I don't think so. Footer template is used for notice user to withhold her/his vote when it is in line with the majority's opinion, as casting her/his own vote will once again reset the "three days, no comment" waiting period. If the template is placed under the discussion, most of the people can't easily notice it. I suggest to change the template name to header, imo. However, I support to put it here. 04:09, January 4, 2013 (UTC) 1. The template should remain at the top as per the reasons Acer gave: it's to dissuade people from editing and casting their oftentimes unneeded "backing up the majority vote" opinion and thus resetting the timer. If it is placed at the bottom, people will indeed more often than not have not read it and then it serves no purposed. It could thus be renamed to "header" if it is such an issue (it was named footer as it was originally posted at the bottom of the page). 2. No, it should not be added in the War Rooms. Though it may perhaps be beneficial on some discussions, it doesn't strike me as something good to discourage discussion, even if there have been three days without a comment. If someone wants to say something on the forums, it's usually because they just noticed the forum and still want to participate. War Room discussion should be as open as can be. The PIC/PIQ/VfD pages usually rather quickly end up in long votes of the same nature, and then it is just annoying if someone edits the last day with yet another vote in the same line. In the War Room, one usually has more to say than "per X" (usually, not always), and thus I see no benefit in discouraging said form of participation to the community. 07:42, January 4, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Lostris. The template was made so users would realize that votes which do not affect the consensus are needless and only delay the proposal's closure. The War Room is more oriented around discussion than voting, and through discussion new ideas and points are brought up that help all participants form a better understanding of the topic. We want as many users as possible to input their opinion on the subject, since that helps proposals develop, but the template would only discourage participation. It's not like project pages where a simple "I agree" cuts it for most users; here people are always more comprehensive about their views and there is nothing wrong in that. 21:34, January 4, 2013 (UTC) To add to this, the footer template is still a work in progress, since I have yet to correct a few bugs/oversights. So, stay tuned for developments! As for this issue, to put in the fewest words possible, I agree with Lady Lostris. KettleMeetPot • wall 03:00, January 5, 2013 (UTC) Then move it to where the discussion ended template is kept. Where it is right now no one sees it easily. G o d s r u l e - T a l k t o m e ! 21:18, January 6, 2013 (UTC) I'd disagree: right now it is right underneath the edit button and above the image, so when someone wants to edit the page and click the button, the notice is one of the first things to notice. 23:11, January 6, 2013 (UTC)