Gilgamesh: Enough expository banter!
This talk page is used for discussing improvements to the page "Dragon's Neck Colosseum/Nomination Page". It is not the place for general discussion or sharing stories about the topic of this article.
BlueHighwind TA.png

Because this goes on all the time; whereas you can vote in the DNC once each fight. Though I've noticed it myself without even being able to see it was this place. (I can still see where it says (Support) and (Reject) though. Unfortunately you can't collapse the entire row on RC.  ILHI 20:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


That's what the archive is for I suppose. Ayakil - Came, saw, didn't quite conquer. 06:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninja of Wind2.png
Ninja of Wind2.png

Comic sans[edit source]

Can someone take a look at Judgemaster's sign wiki code? All the whole page is in f***ing comic sans. And I don't know how to fix that. Zak Undersn 13:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png- 18:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


Could anyone clarify the rules?[edit source]

You could Only FF Characters right? could we also include in the rules list about banning of Game Fights so that everyone will be warned? And are different game systems (Sphere Grid, License Board etc.) allowed to participate in the fights? thanks a million Devil Breaker 11:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Tangent to the Above[edit source]

Ninja of Wind2.png

A Question About The Rules and Inserting Number Signs[edit source]

Yuna wedding.png

Archiving[edit source]

Ninja of Wind2.png
Yuna wedding.png

Can we do this soon? The length of the suggestion page is causing severe lag when I try to load it. JohnnyC

New rule?[edit source]

Would it be possible to add a new rule? I'm sure everyone's getting sick of the eleven-way suggestions. JohnnyC

And maybe say something about biased suggestions? You know, when people choose two unrelated characters and pit them as "the best". JohnnyC

A max of three rule wouldn't be bad. What would be better is fights that make sense.  ILHI 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If only, huh? I'm actually tired of going nuts at some people, but I can't help myself from doing it. JohnnyC

I hear your pleas for help. I'm sick of some of these suggestions. I almost lost it when I came home from college and took a look at the nominations page. I saw an 8 way matchup and I was like "Oh hell no." We need to implement new rules. some of the suggestions clog the page. A good example would be that Cid free for all a few months back. Seriously, we need more fights like Ninja of Wind's Archadia versus Palamecia or Kuja versus Genesis. Fights that make sense and have a good connection. I hate to be biased, but I still think my Bangaa versus Viera is fairly decent too. All in all, I agree with what is being said here TheBlueDragoon 05:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I hear you too, and I'll leave it at that. The.DreadnoughT 14:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone want the honors of putting it in? I can't really think of a good way to summarize everything. JohnnyC
I'd do it, but I feel as if we need permission from TacticAngel. TheBlueDragoon 05:51, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Page Locked[edit source]

Yuna wedding.png

Yuna wedding.png

Colosseum Locked???[edit source]

Winterwolf ff1 psp.png

We Need A New Set of Rules[edit source]

Yuna wedding.png

Don't forget a rule about biased suggestions. I'm sick of people pitting "the best" characters against each other. Anyways, we are LONG overdue for this addition. It's ridiculous how only one in 7 suggestions is even legit lately. JohnnyC

Dissidia Onion Sage 2.png
Saethori (T / C) 05:04, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Believe in the future, and persist in the present, that's what I'll do!
Agreed. There needs to be a certain level of restraint or rationale, and the "just because" proposals are about as annoying as "OMG, let's make Cloud and Squall fight again!".

Outright deleting proposals that get too many rejects or violate the rules would also help clean up this page...

Unfortunately, outright deleting suggestions will start even more trouble if just anyone is allowed to do it. That privilege would best of be given to just two or three people, so less arguments arise. JohnnyC

Dissidia Onion Sage 2.png
Saethori (T / C) 20:34, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Believe in the future, and persist in the present, that's what I'll do!
Oh, of course. But it should be done at least weekly, since the nominations page is ridiculously long.

I'd suggest making the page semi-protected to lock out anonymous people, but there are some anonymous people around here that actually help the Wiki, so I dunno...

Yuna wedding.png

Yuna wedding.png

"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody

First of all, I feel very sort of slightly honored that you'd think of me in particular to moderate the page, but I just won't have the time. My grades went down the tubes last year and I am working my ass of to try to pull them back from the sewers before next years' college applications. On a different note, the rules you are trying to make won't do jack shit unless enforced. I have several ideas that might help the page:

  1. First thing you have to do is archive away anything that hasn't been suggested within the month.
  2. Those suggestions at the top that were good enough to keep from the archives have to be posted somewhere so we can continue desciding if they are worth using another week on. Top 2-3 suggestions can be taken from every set archived to add to that list, just so those really good suggestions won't die with the times.
  3. Keep the page limited to about 70 suggestions. Put a timer of some sort on suggestions and delete those that don't get at least 3 strong support votes within 5 days to a week, just to keep the numbers on the page down.
  4. To enforce the rules of the page, we can have a collapsible at the top with a title saying Rule Breakers. Then we list the usernames or anonymous numbers of the people that have been caught breaking rules. Then beside it, a number saying how many times they have suggested something that broke a rule. If the number excedes 5, then all of their suggestions that they make after that have to be deleted.
    1. This may seem harsh, but it is the only way to get those guys to read the rules and know what to do.
    2. It would be the responsibility of the person who caught the rule breaking to inform the user of their mistake on their talk page before deleting the bad suggestion and adding to the rule breaking list.
    3. When their number exceedes 5, they can submit any other ideas through someone who knows what they are doing. Any good suggestion that is added by another user will take one number off of their count. Any suggestion they try to sneak in on their own will cost them another number.
    4. Rule breaking has to be for the entire suggestion to go against the rules, not just bad codding.
      1. ex. FF4 v.s. FF6 goes against the no gave v.s. game rule, so that has to be deleted.
    5. And if the user doesn't sign their name, the history can be checked for their name so we can inform them of their mistake. They still get a mark against them, but if they sign, they can keep their sugestion.
  5. Archive all suggestions on the beginning of the month from 3-4 months back. So at the beginning of October, take out all the way through either June or July.

- Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

Ninja of Wind2.png

- Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

Yuna wedding.png


I kind of wanted those "Examples of Excellence" to be kept up for voting if they haven't been in the DNC yet, just so the really good ones woudn't have to be suggested over and over again. I think that was my second part of the system I thought up. But as for the banning for infinity part, you misunderstood me. I came up with a point system basically. If you break a rule, you gain a point. You can loose all the points you earn by making good suggestions, one point lost per acceptable suggestion. If someone exceeds five points, then their suggestions will be banned unless they get permission from one of the top guys here. That way, they can learn to get their suggestions right before clogging up the page. I'ts kind of a learning technique where they will have to get it right eventually, or they will be banned from the page for infinity.
By the way, I can help with the micromannaging parts of the page if we get this system going: like the deleting of suggestions that are obvious rule-breakers, keeping track of the users' point counts, and letting the users know when their points excede 5. If you click on the shadow picture on my signiture, you can get to my sandbox, where I have the box for the rule breakers ready to add to the page when needed. I think the box is in Section F. - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

Ah, okay. Yeah, I must have missed that part somewhere along the way. I do remember your idea with the Examples of Excellence, maybe they can also be archived there as an opposite to the What Not To Do archive? The.DreadnoughT 00:43, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
Whatever we do to the new pages, there are several things that we need to do first: we need to inform the people on the regular page that this is happening, we need to find some volunteers to help get this done quickly, and we at least need the support from the Big Cheese: TA, not to mension most everyone else who is active on the page. - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-
I highly advise that you talk to TA before doing anything at all. People have been blocked before regarding issues with the DNC and its Nomination Page. — YuanSalve!Acta 00:34, October 3, 2009 (UTC)
I already guessed that there might have been problems in the past, but I just wanted some support behind the idea so I wouldn't have to look like a fool suggesting something like this out of the blue. If he knows that people are unhappy about the way things are now, he will know that at least something needs to be changed. I'll leave him a message now, just to be safe about doing too much without his permission. - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

Angelic Analysis[edit source]

TacticAngel TALK 01:17, October 10, 2009 (UTC)
I have reviewed the arguments above and the proposals to enact various rules in reference to this talk page. I will present now my opinion for discussion. I do not care to open a poll, because you know how I hate polls.

The Problem:

The problems with the DNC Nominations page stem from its beginnings as the Dragon Neck Colosseum's talk page. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was never meant to be a talk page as much as it rather just evolved into that, and when things got a little out of control there on the talk page, it was moved here. This allowed for the talk page to function as a talk page again, in case people had things to complain about there.

If you look at what we're doing here, its really madness. We are treating all of these suggestions as something worthy of posterity. Why in the world would we care about what was posted years and years and years ago as suggestions for future fights? Nothing that is discussed here actually adds to anything and I cannot imagine what would compel someone to actually go back and look at all of the suggestions made previously, but I'm sure it would be the symptoms of a mental disorder.

Now, some understanding of the general acceptable guidelines. I don't like the word 'rules' for this because this implies there is some level of consequence that I'm not sure actually exists. You'd have to be pretty darn belligerent before I'd be willing to ban you for making suggestions, and I've got some Berganian reputation as far as Admins go.

The guidelines also help to go back to the whole question of 'why should we archive any of this?' For instance, the way I see it, there are three kinds of requests: those honored, those rejected, and those that are not something we would allow to happen. Those requests that are honored are archived, in a sense, in the actual fights, and as such, there is little point to actually keeping them on the suggestion page. Those fights that are against the rules seem to be of particular problem now, and who wants those kept forever? I would imagine no one aside from those people who want to create a Darwin award page. To be short, I think that idea is immeasurably tertiary, and inconsequential, so I'm not going to do it. Finally, there's the ideas that are voted down. There might be some advantage to keeping them at some point, but not at all points, right? Today no one might like the idea of 'Biggs versus Wedge' but a year from now, who's to say that people wouldn't?


  • Post guidelines so that people will know approximately what is acceptable and what is not.
  • Frequent pruning and no archiving. The way I see it, if something is incredibly unpopular, there is no reason to keep obviously unpopular ideas around to languish for long periods of time; there is no reason to keep around approved ideas; and there's absolutely no reason to keep around 'Terra versus Jenna Jameson' and whatever the people have been suggesting recently. This would require timestamps for the suggestions, because I probably wouldn't want to reject something after a day or two.
  • A format for how to post suggestions. Remove commentary to just a comment section.
  • Remove/precollapsed table of contents.


  • Much easier to administer. Lets face it, deleting is a LOT easier than archiving.
  • Smaller pages load quicker.
  • Prettier.


  • No way for people to tell previous suggestions and gauge previous reactions.
  • No table of contents?
  • No sense of posterity?

Tactic Angel versus Crazy Swordsman[edit source]

Suggestor: TacticAngel

Date: 01:17, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Reason: Its the battle of the first two Administrators! Who could not love it!

Votes For[edit source]

Votes Against[edit source]

  1. TacticAngel
  2. TacticAngel
  3. TacticAngel
  4. TacticAngel
  5. TacticAngel
  6. TacticAngel
  7. TacticAngel
  1. TacticAngel
  2. TacticAngel
  3. TacticAngel

Comments[edit source]

I think someone voted more than once! Tactic Angel fixes it pls now! TacticAngel

Reaction[edit source]


I can agree with this. This is definitely the kind of change that is needed to deal with most of the problems. I also agree with JohnnyC that archiving will be necessary eventually because we get suggestions a lot faster than we can put them into fights. Moving comentary to the Comments section only was a really good idea. I would also like to suggest that to make this transition, we move all the suggestions on the page currently to the archives, then have people make new suggestions or go back to find stuff in the archives they think will have a better chance now. And we also need to set what exactly lets someone get rid of a suggestion on the page durring our "pruning". - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

TacticAngel TALK 03:14, October 11, 2009 (UTC)
An approved idea would be still moved to a queue. Granted, a lot of ideas go to the queue to die. I do not see a reason to archive ideas though, particularly since there's no reason to look at them.

Didn't you just put on the Cons section of your solution: "No way for people to tell previous suggestions and gauge previous reactions." I think that is a perfectly good reason to look at the archives. Though I might be mistaken in what you were refering to by saying that. - Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

TacticAngel TALK 21:59, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
I did, but if you look at the archives, you'll see that there's a lot of stuff that gets suggested repeatedly, which is good proof that no one reads it. Since it isn't a talk page, its actually rather nonsensical to archive it.

First, people resuggest fights so they can have another try at being in the DNC after they have been archived. This can be fixed if we were still able to vote on any in the archive that we still liked. Second, if there isn't going to be an archive, then how will you contine thinning out the page? Lets say that there are 100 items on the page, and you want to bring it down to 75 to make the page shorter again. Then after a while, it is back to 100 items and you have to delete more. Some of the new items are good, so are you going to just delete some of those original 75 when they could be really good? How can you tell if one suggestion is better than the rest like that? An archive will just set aside the better suggestions that are being taken off of the page instead of deleting them completely.- Ninja of Wind Ninja of Wind2.png-

Ninja of Wind2.png
  • Google Chrome: Works perfectly
Red Wings emblem.png
Ninja of Wind2.png
Biggs Wedge FFX.png
TacticAngel TALK 22:24, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
I am going to try something, and we will see how it works. Worst comes to worse, the technology is there to recover all that is 'lost' in this experiment.

Uh, who exactly is this Bartlomeo1204 or w/e guy? Not actually using an account, and messing up with format and all that stuff constantly. SidviciousHart 03:28, October 30, 2009 (UTC)

Is it only characters that can compete?[edit source]

FFU Chobi.jpg

Cleanup[edit source]

The page is starting to get freakishly long again. Wasn't this not supposed to happen this time around? JohnnyC 19:56, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

A little proposition[edit source]

If it's atrociously incorrect, then yes. I would let minor mistakes pass. Although I noticed that for some reason, copying and pasting that format results in the comments appearing in between Accept and Reject. What happened there? JohnnyC

WHAT THE F**K!?[edit source]

What happened to the bottom half of the page? someone's messed up the formatting for everything down there! TARDISES 15:04, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

Everything below the "Genesis vs. Sephiroth" fight is messed up. The problem starts at the Support section of the "Lulu vs. Paine" fight. A.J. two (Smashboards) 17:20, April 26, 2010 (UTC) Someone's been screwing with something ¬¬ FinalFantasyAerith 17:29, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

I've been slowly fixing the page. We have some major problems with people not putting their fights in the proper place. Its annoying. But they'll just be lost when they archive the page, so no worries. XD  TheBlueDragoon Dissicon ff10 Yun1.png02:06, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Non-FF fights[edit source]

I propose adding the following sentence (or something like it) to the "FF characters only" rule:
"If you want to bypass this restriction, you are directed to one of the many unofficial user arenas on FFWiki"
It just might reduce the number of non-FF nominations (yeah, right, but worth a try). Also, while I'd not be so crass and egotistical as to put a link to my own colosseum there, I wouldn't mind a bit of advertisement – I'm sure some other users who have their own arenas will agree. In fact, I propose a Category:Unofficial Colosseums, and the above sentence could link there. Anyone think this might be worth a try? Just a thought... -- Sorceror Nobody 08:34, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, not at all. King Nothing Where's your crown? 14:11, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
I'll happily do the "legwork", but it's probably best to get approval. I'll ask TA -- Sorceror Nobody 15:06, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
No, because none of the "unofficial" user Colosseum is worth a thing. Doreiku Kuroofangu 19:48, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
The DNC is no different! Now I'm for it! XD Oh, and just out of interest, Drake: how many of the "unofficial" ones have you visited? Note that this isn't a sarcastic rhetorical retort, it's a genuine query -- Sorceror Nobody 20:20, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Agweed with Clawfang. No user arena nowadays is at all popular, it only worked with the tighter userbase that used to exist. Also it's not that hard to just ignore non-FF suggestions. And people who take the effort to comment on suggestions with "Moar FF plz, kthxbai!" may as well take less effort to just remove it. Or again, ignore it, and nothing happens. And unofficial things usually aren't linked to in official things. 20:57, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Popularity is partly a function of awareness, hence my "bit of advertisement" point. Thanks for your insights; I'm tempted to throw them back and say "it's not that hard to just ignore anon IP comments", but that'd be very childish, so I won't -- Sorceror Nobody 21:15, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
Jesus. User Arenas are older than dust. It was a fad. Dead now.
Correction: Dead, long long long long ago. - Henryacores^ 21:37, June 13, 2010 (UTC)
  1. Can't vouch for others, but mine was part of no fad
  2. The DNC is still no different
  3. Will make proper reply tomorrow; too awkward on my PSP

-- Sorceror Nobody 23:11, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I can edit properly, here's the full reply: As I said, while I can't vouch for anyone else's, my own arena was a totally independent idea, and not influenced by the fact that anyone else had one. I didn't even know anyone else had one. Consequently, mine is in no way part of any fad. Secondly, the DNC is still just as pointless as any user arena, because popularity doesn't equal value (just like a certain massively overrated game). I'm surprised this assertion hasn't earned me more backlash, but whatever. Thirdly, and again I can only speak for myself: the tone and content of my own colosseum may be completely frivolous, but the principle behind it is as serious as the DNC. Of course, this third point somewhat combines the first two -- Sorceror Nobody 09:01, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
I'm with the Sorcerer. Also, his is the only user arena I've ever heard of. King Nothing Where's your crown? 12:56, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
So basically you confess you have no interest in the other user-created arenas and just want your own advertised. Again, no. And to be a dick - you fail. Agreed that popularity doesn't equal value, a stupid statement to make because the DNC's value stems not from its popularity, but its status as an official project mainspace page run and maintained by an Admin and advertised on the main page. User arenas are unofficial userspace projects maintained by their owners and advertised on their user pages. They are worth nothing. And BTW, it doesn't matter if it was your intent or not, you are still part of the fad because you're still doing something everyone else has already done. Being unaware of them doesn't change the fact they existed before yours. Doreiku Kuroofangu 14:53, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that does it! You are indeed a dick, Drake, because you're falsely accusing me of being entirely self-interested. Yes, I will not deny that I wouldn't mind some advertisement, but certainly not just for my own colosseum, because I do not consider my colosseum to be "better" than anyone else's for any reason. Moreover, the potential for advertisement is only one part of my reason for suggesting this. You might, if you can manage to see past your anti-unofficial-colosseum blinkers, recall that this is partly a proposal made in an attempt to reduce the number of unsuitable proposals in your oh-so-precious DNC.

"I can't vouch for anyone else" is not egocentric, it's the absolute opposite: if I actually presumed to speak on the behalf of other users without actually discussing it with them, that would be egocentric. I will concede that a fad is defined as "a phenomenon that is popular for a short time", so I will retreat on that particular point, but I will not retreat on the DNC: official or not, it still isn't "worth" anything. It serves no encyclopaedic purpose, and is therefore utterly superficial as far as this being a wiki is concerned. Never make the mistake of interpreting this as me disputing its prominence, nor the appreciation of those involved – indeed, you may notice that my first actual action after initiating this discussion was to ask for TA's approval, because I fully appreciate and respect TA and the work he does on this wiki. THere is one particular phrase of interest in [[Final_Fantasy_Wiki:By_the_fans_and_for_the_fans|part of the FFWiki policy]]. This phrase doesn't say anything about "fan-projects with an official seal of approval", it just says "fan-projects". Who are you to set the DNC above all others? I'm not saying you will do this, but just in case you plan to respond that who you are is a staff member: double-check #4 of Yuan's "10 things to remember"

I may not always spell out exactly what I mean, and as a sort of "punishment" I accept a certain amount of attack from people who misunderstand me – that's why this post is full of disclaimers, in an effort to prevent such misunderstandings this time -- Sorceror Nobody 16:57, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, and just in case you aren't convinced about my selflessness regarding other user arenas, I'd like to point out that when I created my "Joke Advertisements" for my colosseum, one of them is for Captain Darkblade's arena. In other words, even my own arena advertises someone else's -- SN

TacticAngel TALK 23:54, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
Since I was referenced and called into this specifically, I will comment all the points referenced above:
  1. Mr. Space Invaders is right. The DNC is not better because of its popularity alone. The old adage that what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right probably has some truth here. Just because people like Lady Gaga's music doesn't mean she's a better singer than Elaine Paige.
  2. User Arena's don't matter.
  3. The DNC doesn't matter.
  4. Drake is sort of right about the project space. The DNC's virtue is its status as an official project created by one of our sysops.

I cannot support this idea though, not because I have some ego trip to exercise here. There's just no functional way of controlling whatever we make, how things are organized, what 'unofficial' ones are listed and not, and there may be an explosion of this kind of stuff. I don't really care to see this. There's already a lack of contribution to the main space that is not helped by obsession with these popularity fights. Remember, this is a wiki. The DNC and the forums are tertiary entertainment.

Also, the incursion of user non-sense into the main space is troubling from an organizational point of view. Why have a main space category that has nothing but personal pages in it?

Fair enough, I'll drop the proposal. Thanks for taking the time to respond, TA -- Sorceror Nobody 08:23, June 15, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I remember when I actually believed the user arenas were a useless waste of time. Then that same fate befell the DNC, and I jumped on the bandwagon and off this leaky little failboat when it became apparently that normal users were doing better jobs running their unofficial arenas than an admin was doing with the official one. My, how the times have changed in sixth months... DoreikuKuroofangu - Visit the Soul Shrine! 21:44, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

OVER 9000!!![edit source]

At the time of me writing this, there are 146 proposals in varying states of crossed-out-ness. It's getting out of hand again. We really need some kind of management system for the nominations page. I'm not volunteering, but that's not to say I'm not willing to pitch in... -- Sorceror Nobody Flan.PNG 22:13, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I've come up with a few ideas, but they'll have to wait until tomorrow because editing on PSP is a pain :P -- SN, 23:02, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so here are a few ideas for the duties of a "Nominations Patroller" (which I am now sort of volunteering for):

  • Delete nominations which have non-Final Fantasy participants in them. It may be worth making it a requirement for the participant names to be linked to their articles so that this becomes easier to check. Fixing those links could also be a patroller duty
  • Delete noms if they've been up for over a month and have no supports (besides the suggestor)
  • Delete noms if the rejects outnumber the supports by a really large (to be decided) amount
  • Delete noms which have too many sides. The massive Cid-fest particularly comes to mind...
  • Give a week's warning for noms which have ridiculously flimsy rationales, then delete them
  • If there are any duplicates in the list simultaneously (it's rarer than duping archived noms, but still happens), the votes and comments of the latter appearance of the nom are merged into the first appearance (minus the "already suggested" comments)

All given timescales and so on are subject to discussion; these are merely some ideas -- Sorceror Nobody Flan.PNG 22:30, July 15, 2010 (UTC)

TacticAngel TALK 03:44, July 18, 2010 (UTC)
People are fond of archiving. I'm still not sure why we need archives for a nomination page. People have put Latin letters in long strings in a vain attempt to justify this practice, but I've yet to see a really good reason. It would be much, much, much, much easier just to delete things that are rejected for whatever reason. I was controlling this when we didn't have an archive. Then someone decided against this, so we will have an circus of nomination page.
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
FFVI Terra Branford Menu iOS.png
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
TacticAngel TALK 23:01, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
It would be easier to clean it up if there wasn't this obsession with holding onto silly stuff, thus, someone might actually do it. I personally don't like to feel I'm violating the rules when I start just deleting massive amounts of info, which I would gladly do in this case.
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
TacticAngel TALK 02:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
There's nothing to say we won't have repeats. We have no rule against it. I am certainly conscious of the fact that I have put up a few repeats. The fact is that this thing has been going for years and most of the people who were here for week 1 aren't here now and most of the people here now weren't here for week 1. I don't see any purpose for archiving things at all as far as nominations. What was perceived by the 12 people interested in 2007 as disinteresting might be just the bestest idea ever in the whole wide world by the people we have here today, so even if something was voted down before, I see no reason to prevent its future nomination.
"Instant Awesome Just Ask Nelo" Sorceror Nobody
TacticAngel TALK 21:56, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
Most of it isn't that far from what I would personally prefer to do, aside from the week-warning on flimsy stuff. If its never going to get posted because it doesn't really fit, then I don't see why we'd delete it. I do have a unique position on this, since the DNC is my responsibility and I have a large say in what happens here. I realize I could probably swing my weight here and make it happen, but I'm not looking to be any more a tyrant than I already am.

We did try this once, just deleting rather than archiving. It worked well for about 2 months, and then someone decided to add the archive back to the page and it really wasn't keeping up with at that point. Its too much work for absolutely no reward.

I'd like to volunteer to become a patroller. The page is getting pretty messy with 81 noms currently out there. If nobody minds, I'll start deleting those noms that fall under they guidelines for removal as stated above. I'll first start with those that are clearly worth deleting. I'll leave it to more experienced editors to deal with the more complicated noms. --TeaTime 03:04, June 27, 2011 (UTC)

Biggs Wedge FFX.png

Nomerical Concerns[edit source]


Put a banner near the top of the DNC that says "Want to choose who battles it out in the DNC? Click here", or something. At least for a trial. I know grabbing random user's attention in the DNC hasn't always worked... 23:21, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

There's actually a link near the top as it is, though you kind of have to be looking for it in order to find it. That said, that would probably be at least marginally more effective. Actually, now that I think of it, and while I'm at it, I'd also like to petition to have guideline number four removed, at least in its current context, that being "Include only your "#~~~~" for your vote," which is being followed by all of two votes in the DNC as it stands now, both of them mine. So long as votes maintain a reasonable length, I don't see anything wrong with including small commentary in the votes, as long as it doesn't get out of hand. It only adds a negligible amount to the page's length. But, again, it's up to you guys. Jimcloud 23:39, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

The trouble is that people are making nominations but aren't voting on past nominations. Which partially stems from the fact that it's the same people making nomnomnoms over and over. I'm also for removing the "#~~~~" clause from the rules; and lower the standard from 5 (I know I suggested that originally, but that was when there were 80+ horrible noms and the pages was something like 120 noms total and crashed my browser half the time) to 3 or something. Cat 23:51, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I think that the nomination page should be easier to find on the DNC page to draw some more attention to it. Nothing too obnoxious of course, but something that people can see. I think less votes for shortlisting could be good until the page picks up its pace again. The include only your sig clause can be thrown out. I don't have anything to add; I just want to voice my approval for the changes. ScatheMote 23:59, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I'll keep it short and sweet: Banner = good, reducing number of votes = good, rephrasing clause four = good. I also would suggest extending the period of time before archival from one month to three. If noms don't pick up after the banner ad goes up, that might have to become a permanent change. - +DeadlySlashSword+ 02:17, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

All right, I added a little message to the top of the DNC page, attempting to make it as non-gaudy as possible. If it becomes necessary we can make it increasingly flamboyant as time wears on. With that said, I'd like to see how this influences voting influx for noms, so I propose that we hold off on the slackening of votes required to be shortlisted. That said, though, I do believe we should give the noms present another month at least, but that's up to you guys. Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll edit guideline four now. Jimcloud 18:28, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Me likey. Cat 23:55, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it worked; the page was edited 9 times yesterday (okay, 2 times if you count by new users... but hey, one of them is a completely new user!) ... should noms that were already shortlisted or done be moved to the archives? Cat 00:32, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I need to get around to doing that... but first I have a fight to make >_> between my impressively high fever and my recent acquiring of TWEWY, I had nearly forgotten about it. Jimcloud 15:40, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Tag Battles[edit source]

Leo Killesen 15:09, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Does Tag Team In The DNC is Okay???

No, they are not okay. The only time the DNC ever has fights with more than one participant on two sides is for very special occasions, so no, don't nominate fights with more than one person on each side. Jimcloud 15:40, April 8, 2012 (UTC)

Archiving[edit source]

All right, welp, I've put it off long enough. There is one fight that needs shortlisting and archived, and two fights that have been shortlisted/done and need to be either archived or deleted, which means a new archive page needs created. Which means we need to figure out what we're doing as far as archiving goes. There are two main issues that need deciding on:

  1. Where is the archive box going to be located?
  2. How are archivals going to be ordered?

For the first issue, we currently have 16 DNC nom archive pages, but you wouldn't know it looking at the page, now, would you? If there's any point in possessing the noms in archived form, then there needs to be a place they can be accessed. That means a template needs made, and it needs placed somewhere. Here are some options:

  • On the bottom of the page. This is the format most pages use, but I'm unsure if it's appropriate for the nominations page if only because nominations get added at the bottom and thus there is more room for template messing up than normal. In addition, if the nominations page gets long, one would have to scroll through all of the nominations in order to get to the bottom, and at the nom page's figurative height, that was pretty terrible to do to someone.
  • In its own section above the nominations section. This gets rid of the problem with it being at the bottom, but it'll lengthen the page unnecessarily for people who want to nominate and doesn't really fit with the other items at the top of the page. It could also confuse people reading through the first time.
  • On a side at the top of the page. This version could be kind of intrusive, but it would expand the height of the page the least of the first three options. On the other hand, it would probably have to go on the left or below the ToC because of the ToC's right-leaning placement, and templates on the left side or two in a row just kind of rubs me the wrong way, personally. >_>
  • As a section within the main DNC archive template. Like several of our mainspace templates, we could have one DNC template to rule them all to collect the information in one location, and the template wouldn't even need to be on the Nominations page at all (although it still could be). It's generally not all that relevant to DNC fight archives, though, and it might make the template longer than it needs to be.

And, on the other subject, actual archival. I know the length of time between archiving is still up in the air, that's not the current issue, the issue at hand today is the format of nomination pages. There are a couple of issues within this section; the main two namely being the status of repeat nominations in archives and the order of nominations by type.

Repeat nominations are basically just noms for fights that have either made the shortlist already or have been fought already. On the one hand, they could go, because they don't contribute anything constructively and are basically just gaffs by the person who made the nomination. On the other hand, they are nonetheless nominations and also if the person who nominated it doesn't see their nomination in the archives they might be compelled to nominate it again. And that's fun for no one. (admittedly they might nominate it again anyways but that's not the point okay?)

Now, for the order of nominations. Shortlisted fights (and, if decided to stay, repeat nominations) are supposed to be archived immediately upon their qualification. However, that presents potential difficulties in illustrating properly the order of the nominations as they were initially presented. There are a lot of options here, so I'm going to spread them out again.

  • Archiving in no particular order. Here, shortlisted and repeat nominations are placed in willy-nilly with the periodical archive shoved in under it. In case my word choice didn't inform you, this doesn't strike me as particularly effective nomination organizing.
  • Separate sections for each nomination type. In this case, there would be two (or three) sections for nominations; one for shortlisted fights, potentially one for repeat nominations, and one for stagnated fights that are removed when the page is periodically archived. In this way, one can look through by fight type to see what one is looking for.
  • Archives sorted by time of nomination. This sorts nominations strictly by the time they are nominated -- when periodical archiving occurs, the archiver would place each nomination around the shortlisted and/or repeat nominations as appropriate for the time of nomination. This is the most time-consuming option and is, to me, an extreme waste of effort in placing each and every nomination in correct order by time.
  • Crossing off shortlisted or repeat nominations and leaving them until archival. This is the option TA used to go with, unless I am mistaken. Shortlisted fights would be crossed out until the page was periodically archived. I don't really like this option, though, personally, because it really just looks sloppy. It does involve the least amount of work for archiving, though.

Here are the issues to be decided and some options presented to help decide them. By all means, though, if folks have other options that I have not considered, feel free to add them for consideration. I eagerly await opinions on the matter. Jimcloud 15:45, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

They all seem to have problems concerning altering the general makeup of the page itself by the looks of things. I think it might be best to give the archives their own template space. That way it's, well, out of the way. I don't think the side panel would be advisable, as, like you said, it's a bit obtrusive. I don't know enough about the DNC to comment about the other subject. Tia-LewiseRydia - Young battle.png 15:55, April 16, 2012 (UTC)
Delete dup suggestions, and clear archive every 1to2 months. Give fights 2to3 months to reach support. (I.e: if something is suggested any time in April then they will be archived at start of July/August).
Each archive could be half a year long? I'm not sure on numbers since I don't pay much attention (nomination was the shit back in the early days though, when it was still a talk page of the DNC. but not as much nomination any more. coincidence? maybe---:3). 18:18, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Huzzah for walls of text about archiving. (Speaking of which, somebody ought to archive this page -- it takes too long to load :/).

Anyhow, it's probably a good idea to have one DNC archive template, including the nom archive, at the bottom of the page. It's more organized that way, and people looking at the DNC archive (assuming people *do* this, of course) are encouraged to nominate this way. As for repeat noms (and faulty noms, such as the ones that are done incorrectly), there's no reason to keep them around, so toss 'em. As for these two arguments -

They are nonetheless nominations


Yes they are nominations, but they're nominating something that can't be nominated. If somebody were to nominate Mr. Potato Head to be a political party's choice for president-nominee, even if somebody was keeping a log of all president-nominees they wouldn't add Mr. Potato Head to the list, because he can't ever be nominated, and never will be.

If the person who nominated it doesn't see their nomination in the archives they might be compelled to nominate it again. And that's fun for no one.


Don't we have a list of all past DNC fights, and a list of the shortlisted fights (and, BTW, we should have a list of all failed nominations too)? With luck, people who make nominations will check them first with the aid of Ctrl+F. If they can't do that, and they renominate something, then it's they're own fault isn't it?

Also, as shortlisted (and invalid, if we decide to keep them) fights are added to the archives, they should be in their own section. It's far more organized this way. Cat 22:55, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it hurt anyone to put list of the past fights?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:37, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
There is a list. It's linked to in the guidelines at the top. If you meant put it on the page, that would make the page stupid long; unless it was collapsed, I suppose. Jimcloud 15:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)
Also, re: list of failed nominations, people can renominate things as they will, although if it was only nominated recently people will usually reject it on those grounds. Jimcloud 23:31, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Oh... NOW I see it! Personally, I think that list should be more conspicuous.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 15:51, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

When I think conspicuous, I think this. Cat 20:41, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

While I appreciate everyone's concerns on the least of the issues I've brought up, I really need to know what you guys think regarding format and placement of the archives, considering it's something that needs to start being taken care of. There's a shortlisted fight and a few dup suggestions that need dealt with now. You guys seem to be mostly against dup suggestions being archived, and I'm fine with that, but there are still the matters of archive format and placement to be addressed. Cat did briefly address the issue of placement, but nobody has responded with respect to archive format. Jimcloud 23:31, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

one DNC archive template, including the nom archive, at the bottom of the page


Sorry I didn't make myself clear. I meant archive box format like this:

I - II - III - IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI - XII - XIII - XIV - XV - XVI - XVII - XVIII - XIX - XX

April Fools

I - II - III - IV - V - VI - VII - VIII - IX - X - XI - XII - XIII - XIV - XV - XVI - XVII

Basically, One Archivebox to find them / One Archivebox to bring them all and in the darkness bind them / In the land of FFWiki where the shadows lie. Cat 23:46, April 22, 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but I mean the format of the pages themselves, though yes, this is what I would do if we were to make the template one. Jimcloud 00:01, April 23, 2012 (UTC)
/facepalm Oopsies. Well, uh, just copy-paste all the kept nominations into the archive page I guess. As for repeat and faulty nominations, toss 'em. Break the page up by using =H1 Headers!= for the nominations that were shortlisted in one H1 section, nominations not shortlisted in another section. Cat 00:06, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

"High Support"[edit source]

What do we consider to be of "high support"? I noticed that if there are 5 more votes for "Support" than for "Reject" then it gains "high support" status. It's not a very good measure of high support in my opinion as sometimes there might be 5 "supports" and no "rejects" and then it is automatically "highly supported", but then let's say a proposition has 15 "supports" and 10 "rejects" (quite unrealistic, but still) it is again "highly supported": what I mean is that sometimes fights with small amount of votes have greater chance to be promoted into the DNC than those with greater input. And so we should establish a rule that will say that a proposition with at least, let's say, 10 votes will be considered for promotion. It's kinda to "force" others who vote their opinions on fights, and mainly vote in the actual DNC and I think they don't even know about the Nomination Page, or at a slightly better scenario, extremely rarely visit the page.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 22:24, January 15, 2013 (UTC)

There are two problems with that. First is that this page doesn't even get enough activity to get to 10+ votes either way. Only fight that comes close is Shuyin vs. Caius Ballad. Second is that at 10v11 the fight still isn't supported. Maybe if they have 10 supports and 7 or fewer rejections. C A T U S E 02:11, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
There is no point to someone voting against a fight if all you need to get in is to hit a set number of votes, regardless of the opposition. If a large number of people are both for and against something, then that says to me that the fight in question is divisive and so maybe isn't so good for a fight, due to the general nastiness involved? In any case, I don't like this, since it pretty much negates the point of voting against. And if you're going to bring up the "considered" in your statement, I'd like to point out that with the current system, there is absolutely no room for bias, whereas some kind of crazy theoretical review system for fights over ten votes pretty much invites bias. Of course, since those moderating includes me, I would like to point out that the current DNC committee is absolutely not biased at all and is indeed the best you could possibly have, look at our track record! Jimcloud-Scathe-DSS for DNC mod committee 2013! Jimcloud 06:08, January 16, 2013 (UTC)
What if we considered "percental support"? If the "Support" section would receive at least 66.7% of all votes for the nomination and there would be at least 10 votes, then we could consider the nomination worthy. How's that?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 12:37, January 17, 2013 (UTC)
That's completely unnecessary. The only case, the only case in which that would actually trigger before the current "more than five votes for than against" would be if it was 10 votes for and 5 votes against. Anything above that (say, 11/6 or 15/10) would never be able to achieve 66.7% without there being more than five votes for than against, assuming you mean there are at least 10 votes in support. And if you think that I would allow a lower percentage, you are sadly mistaken. Jimcloud 22:37, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to enforce the rule that prohibits the suggestor to vote for his or her own suggestion as it's pretty much stupid: if you suggest a fight then we know that the suggestor supports it.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) 12:37, January 17, 2013 (UTC)

I personally don't count the suggestor's vote into the total vote count, but I don't know how the rest of the committee does this. Jimcloud 22:37, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to change the system that we have. I think it's working fine and the fact that people can reject fights allows us to see whether or not the community is divided over a particular fight; a large amount of differing opinions means there's a significant amount of people not happy with it, and it's probably not going to be such a great fight to have. ScatheMote 23:20, January 18, 2013 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.