UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Abolish Ghost Town Policy
|Guidelines — Policy Document|
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
|Administration Services — Protection.|
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the .
Abolish Ghost Town Policy
This wiki has a number of good policies that help to keep things running smoothly, but situations change over time, and policies haven't always kept up, as most of us are aware.
One such example is the policy that created the Ghost Town status for the DangerMap system. The policy was intended to solve a problem the wiki was facing at the time, but things have changed in the 8 years since that policy passed, and we've collectively learned a lot about how to manage and maintain these systems. The DangerMap has been in need of an overhaul for almost as long as I've been here, but every attempt at rethinking the system has run into a brick wall when the community realizes that they can't touch the Ghost Town status because wiki policy is forcing us to keep it exactly as it is.
Let's fix that.
I propose that the following become policy:
- We abolish the New Suburb Tag (edit, new vote) policy.
One important note: this policy is NOT abolishing the status of Ghost Town; it is merely abolishing the policy that forces us to use the status as it was written 8 years ago. By doing so, the community will be free to update the wording or replace the status with something better. Any modifications to the status are outside the scope of this policy and will be decided in other places (e.g. the current Open Discussion over the DangerMap system), though I think most people agree that the status is useful, so I doubt it will be going away entirely anytime soon.
|Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop.
|The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.|
- Author vote. Clearly this is something that is necessary if we want to make the long-overdue changes to the system that we've all been wanting to make. —Aichon— 18:16, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yup. --K 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Fo'sho!-- bitch 23:29, 25 August 2014
- Sure. --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 23:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- 02:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ha, yes. -- Jen T | SFHNAS | PK 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- For Poor, neglected ghost towns. :( --Rosslessness 11:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just FF this policy-abolishing policy already. -- Spiderzed▋ 20:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- 14:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Voting on these things is what used to be called "playing the meta-game." P.F. 02:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- We are the bureaucratic dead. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- So somebody will notice this is passing by a wide margin. --ConndrakaTAZM CFT 13:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I was a sysop for 18 months and I'd never even read this policy. I don't know what's more unsettling: that this policy passed in the first place or that it has taken this long to abolish it. ~ 15:55, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is clearly the best move - we should never be tied to a policy because of some strange detail of a wikiLaw. Standard Zombie 03:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps it once made sense to tie this type of important system to a policy set in stone. But we are no longer gripped by such drama as we were then. Nowadays we can discuss and enact changes without relying on a vote. --VVV RPMBCWS 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- --TWO HEADED SEX BEAST 13:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
does policies still need a minimum required number of votes to pass ? that should be removed too --hagnat 21:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)(vote submitted after deadline)