Zelda Wiki talk:Autoconfirmed users

Doesn't anyone here think that 200+ edits is a lot to become autoconfirmed? I can't even make an edit in the Featured Pictures page because of this... --Fawfulfury65 20:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about everyone else, but I'm perfectly fine with the number being two-hundred.  20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll see if we can lower it, though. Some staff members think it's a bit high. Dany36 21:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think somewhere around 50 edits or less would be reasonable. --Fawfulfury65 21:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the 200 is quite reasonable. It took me, and several other users I have seen, at least 30 edits (considering we know relatively nothing about overall editing and such before we joined the wiki) to establish a legitimate userpage alone - and that's not an indication of how well someone can add content, refs, etc. to the wiki with more generally benefitial edits. With it at 200, the user would be able to establish themselves on the site, and even without a userpage, the 200 allows them to be completely familiar with ZW and its regulations before being able to vote and leave their opinoin on intra-wiki nominations and such. Consider it as a goal to work towards! 21:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The number of edits required was deliberately set fairly high, for the reasons Cip mentioned. However, personally I'd like to see it lowered somewhat, perhaps even down to 100. The barrier to immediate voting would still be in place with the 30 day requirement, but 100 edits would be a more attainable goal for someone editing in what we consider to be a responsible way (i.e. as few individual changes as possible to any given page). 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adam. 100 edits is more than enough to show your dedication. I remember that I got the hang of things around edit 100, too. 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm late in here, but I support it too. I'd like to see more featured content voting. 00:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Leave it to me to throw a cog in the wheel :P I disagree to lowering the number of edits. Cipriano basically expressed my sentiments exactly; it's something to work towards. I'll use one user as my un-named example, but needless to say, he fairly quickly had 100 edits because he kept making multiple edits to the same page. His edits were horrible and misspelled and I'd be surprised if there were any that didn't need to be reverted. So, no. To a dedicated editor, 200 edits isn't a lot... 100 seems too low to me. How's 150 sound? :D 00:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd go with 150: as we speak there is one editor heading in such direction only by editing their user page. I would hate to see these users gaining these powers by editing irresponsibly, and there are a few currently who are doing so. However, for the most part, the user base here is fairly honest and benefitial when it comes down to editing - it is a reward for those users to lower the count, I believe. Is there a way to morph the system for such users who only edit their userpage, or perform unsatisfactory edits? 01:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * umm Cipriano 119 is one of thes page only editors me by any chance? - 02:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You are one of them, yes, however, there have been many in the past that have done the same. I mean no offense, I just feel it is unjust to reward users that primarily, and almost exclusively, edit their userpage with featured article/picture voting rights, as they have not done the same for the main content of the wiki concurrently. 03:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Is 200 edits too much?
So, in light to some recent discussion regarding autoconfirmation, some people think that our current autoconfirmation limit of 200 edits and 4 weeks seems a bit much, and that perhaps it should be set to something lower and more reasonable? 22:02, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps 150 and 3 weeks? I think that would be a more lenient, yet still loyal criterion. Nah, but let's not fool ourselves: There will be people disagreeing with this, it wouldn't be a surpirse if someone proposed to actually increase the requirements. --K2L (Interrogatory) 17:16, 10 February 2011 (EST)