Wikipedia talk:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported something

Scaling

Unfortunately, this page is going to only become more a) cluttered or b) irrelevant as the number of users goes up. It seems like half of the entries here are from the last couple months... I fear this won't scale well. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd been thinking that maybe this should be refactored into a list by year maybe, and then have entries within each year sorted by the amount of support the entry had. It might help. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 22:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The exact same thing had crossed my mind recently, and I'm glad that someone brought this up (we only need 97 more Wikipedians to support us and we can create a wiki-paradox by adding this talk page to the list). As Wikipedia continues to grow, 100 Wikipedians agreeing on something (or disagreeing) will become less and less meaningful. In the near term, I agree that this list should be reorganised by year, and eventually it will need to hold a higher standard or broken out into "Times that 250 Wikipedians actually agreed", then "1,000 Wikipedians actually agreed". Or maybe a number plus a percentage. For example, it was much more noteworthy, to me anyhow, that such a large percentage of us (96%+) were in favor of implementing semi-protection rather than the fact that there were more than 100 of us supporting the idea. Hall Monitor 22:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on, people. Be realistic! There are more than 900.000 registered en.wiki users! However, look at how seldom only 100 of them managed to all be in accord about something! I found the figure ridiculously small & I think it is still interesting to keep that page & we're not close to have 1000 people in accord about something. My 2c. --Vlad 00:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of the almost one million users, how many do you think are active at any given time? Active for the duration of a vote? Actively looking for and finding the page on which to vote? It's pretty remarkable :) Isopropyl 21:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. What I'd like to know is, what's the largest amount of votes that any one thing has ever gotten, ever? That'd help us decide how big is significantly big enough.,The number of total, truly active (policy-wise) voters seems to be 500 or less--yet there are at least 800 administrators... ahh, it doesn't make sense! Still... I think we can wait a little bit before worrying about scale. We can always move the adminship list (which is the one where most of the new stuff pops up) to a seperate page later if we want. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like 326 on Mindspillage's Arbcom thing is the record. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

687 supported changing the main page and 213 opposed (exactly 900 votes in total), see right at the bottom of the page. There's still only been 19 RFAs with 100 or more support votes, which isn't that many. If that gets to 50, then it might be worth considering the raising of the bar. Proto||type 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

When this page becomes hard to update due to every other poll getting 100+, we'll tag it as historical and move on to WP:200, then WP:300 or 500, etc... (Atleast I'm assuming that's what's going to happen, given that 200 is in use now) 68.39.174.238 12:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, 100 on adminship is no longer notable, considering we've already had the 99th documented case. Who will be the WP:100th on the list? Heh. One thing I will say: [[1]] is notable for having over 100 supports without getting an oppose or even a neutral. Enigma ^msg! 05:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thrashing

Can I suggest that we not thrash/revert war over whether a particular editor's RfA is unanimous or not? Especially while it's ongoing. In fact I'm not sure I see the value in updating this page quite that frequently for ongoings... perhaps one time for when the editor makes the list and then let it abide till after the RfA is over? Just a suggestion. ++Lar: t/c 17:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we could delete this page altogether. That would certainly solve the problem.--Sean Black 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we vote on it, and if over 100 people vote to delete can we add it to this article? - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Random

What a random page. --Ideogram 11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA's

It's good to see no Times that 100 Wikiedians opposed an RfA -- only supports. Knowing the 'crats, they'd prob close it when it got to 0/50/0 :P --Deon555|talk|e 05:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact.--chaser - t 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny

Random thought: It is not a funny way to to build an encyclopedia by voting, consensus, and all such steps? I am not sure. --Bhadani 17:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems pointless to keep track for ArbCom anymore

By the end of the current ArbCom election it will probably be more unlikely not to have either 100 support or 100 oppose votes, so it really seems pointless to list these anymore. WP:100 is supposed to be for things that are uncommon, not things that are common. —Doug Bell ^talk 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition, for ArbCom, I'd be more interested in seeing total number of voters. That would need someone to go through and tally the number of people who voted. I might do that sometime soon. The same could be done for the WMF board elections - it is not an en-wiki election, but the comparison would be interesting. Carcharoth 13:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

ProtectionBot

I just noticed that the ProtectionBot RfA was withdrawn after 4 days. I guess we will all now be wondering whether it would have reached WP:200... Carcharoth 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposing

Why isnt there a Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians opposed something page. Esp given the opposition to Danny's Rfa (which wrongly looks right now here as if he has huge support which only gives half the picture and thus isnt NPOV). Either that or change this page to Wikipedia:Times that 100 Wikipedians supported or opposed something might be better. What do people think? SqueakBox 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be way to easy though, every ill advised proposal would end up there. Also, I think its something of a social affair, we all know we disagree everywhere, its sort of special when we could ALL come together and agree on the utility or legitimacy of something (I suspect back when this started, 100 WAS everyone). 68.39.174.238 01:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Cap RFAs?

WP:100 became kind of dated about a year ago (indeed, WP:200 has been around longer than that). I'm thinking that in an era where many ArbCom candidates go over 100 supporters and RFAs like BD2412's are commonplace, we should cap this page's sections for ArbCom and RFA. I don't feel particularly strongly about this (it's not part of the encyclopedia), but I thought I'd at least bring it up.--chaser - t 05:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

the inclusion of Ragesoss

quote: "Ragesoss - 99 in the 'support' section, plus at least 1 in the 'discussion' section". This is still not 100 supports, technically. Should this be included? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If it was something that really mattered, I could see dickering about it, but this is WP:100, so I'd say let it sit. Sidaway was protesting the RFA format.--chaser - t 06:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Updating while current

As happened during Elonka's RfA and now WJB's RFB, and others I'm sure, people are updating the number it as it happens. Is this really neccesary? With the ArbCom elections coming up, it might be best to decide whether or not they should be now, before the voting begins. Personally, I don't see a need to once they get over 100; list it once it breaks the barrier, and add (in progress) until it is over, and then update with the final tally. Thoughts? I (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have an opinion? I'd like it to be settled before the ArbCom elections start. I (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, glad that went somewhere. Nevermind then. I still support what I wrote above though. I (talk) 07:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL! A late agreement, but yes, what you describe is the best way to do things. "In progress". Carcharoth 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Although I wouldn't be opposed to noting in increments of 100, such as NYB. I (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it worked well doing it that way. I assume that this is to be the format used from now on, since no one contravened it? I (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems this proposal has pretty much been defeated. seresin | wasn't he just...? 05:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I added Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wikidudeman 2 to the page when it had over 100 supports and only 3-4 opposes. Since then the opposition picked up steam and the support eroded to under 100. I think it's unlikely to tick back up over 100, although who knows for sure. What's the protocol? Has this happened before? Is WP:100 based only off discussions that end with 100 support, or discussions that at one point achieve 100 support? --JayHenry (talk) 17:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it has happened before. Personally, I would say that only discussions that end with ≥100 people supporting should be here. seresin || wasn't he just...? 01:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular preference. I'll note, for the record, that the RfA peaked at 107 support but closed at 98 support. --JayHenry (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It should have to end with at least 100. What's so tricky about 100 is that its magic can often push the number back under. Enigma ^msg! 05:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Possible inclusion?

Would User talk:Newyorkbrad/Tribute#This sucks :-( be appropriate to add to the "Other" section of this page? Over 100 people have now participated there. Acalamari 20:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

As one who commented in the section directly previous to that specific one, I personally think that that whole sub-page might qualify. - jc37 20:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been added by JayHenry. Seems good to me. Acalamari 22:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbering discussion

Before we get into an edit war can we please discuss this? Werdna's currently finishing his fifth RFA. The name of the page is WP:RFA/Werdna 3 because his first two RFAs occurred when his account name was Werdna648. It doesn't really matter which standard we use -- Jaranda (7th) was actually WP:RFA/Jaranda 2 because of renames -- whereas we have Tariqabjotu 2, even though it was this user's fourth RFA. Either method is fine and we have some precedence for both. I prefer the former method that accounts for total RFAs, and not just those with the current name (more useful to study, I think), but I really am not happy to see the start of an edit war over it! --JayHenry (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why people are changing it. It should say 4th and 5th, regardless of whether a user has changed their name or not. Also, we've recently had the recurring problem of updates throughout the RfA, instead of merely adding when it hits 100 and updating once after the close. Enigma ^message 07:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, I had forgotten that Werdna had 2 RfA's under a different name... but I think it should match the RfA name. I could go either way, but if we go with the 4, then we should probably add a hidden comment so that when people edit it they know why it is different than the RFA name.Balloonman (talk) 07:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree it should be listed as Werdna's 5th, because, well, it is. Same with Jaranda, and I think Tariqabjotu's should be fixed accordingly. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean you disagree... I was saying that it should be Werda's 3rd---but am perfectly fine with saying 4th if we explain why the RfA name is different from the count in a hidden comment.Balloonman (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Could be he was agreeing with me instead of disagreeing with you. ;) Enigma ^message 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, Tariqabjotu denied one of his nominations (as did Werdna, if I recall), so I'd have him as Tariqabjotu (3rd) and Wernda as Werdna (4th) (that's if he denied, I don't remember for sure either way). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

To seresin: Yes, it's DHMO's 5th, but to be consistent, it should either be left at 3rd, or we should change the other ones, including the two for Werdna. Enigma ^message 23:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If I'm to be listed here, I'd like to have it as my fifth, since, well, it is. That would mean changing the other ones, which I've already said is the best idea. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that, but think hidden comments should be added to prevent reversionsBalloonman (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-relevant question

This isn't related to the content of this actual page, but 964 links on an ArbCom evidence page, does that qualify for a list somewhere? I'm pretty new and I've yet to see the blue brackets holding a four-digit number, but I'm hoping! Just asking. :) Franamax (talk) 20:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating while ongoing

I remember in the past, people have been asked to add it once, and then not to update again until it closed (with regards to RfAs). Should I remind people not to do it? Does it matter? Enigma ^message 15:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion had some support here, but editors kept doing it on the page, so it was kind of defeated. If people would rather waste their time updating this page every four votes, then I suppose that's their issue. So you should probably just let it be. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I updated it when it hit 200 (202 actually), and in pasting the same line to WP:200, noticed that Rudget had already added it there at the 200 mark but had a redundant link, so I pasted the 202 in there (without the redundant link). Won't be updating it again, though. xenocidic (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I figure if you're happy to be updating this page, you shouldn't be held back, but we don't need to be panicing if the page is 20 supports behind. After all, once the RfA is over it can be fixed. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh...if people want to update it every time a support comes in, let them do it. I personally update if it hasn't been updated in some time, in increments (say every 10-15 votes), or if it's closed. Acalamari 23:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

In view of the many entries and edits that the ArbCom elections are likely to generate, I propose that we wait until the end of the elections before listing anyone here. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Link?

Shouldn't we link the users' usernames?
Well, I see everything is linked up to sections July and December, but even so, shouldn't we link those? 71.146.20.62 (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ongoing RFAs

Twice recently I've seen people adding RFAs as soon as they hit 100 edits, only to update the listing a few days later when the RFA finally closes. Is it really necessary to do this instead of just waiting the few extra days until the RFA is closed? Anomie⚔ 05:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)