UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Events

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Green check.png Guidelines — Policy Document
This page is a statement of official UDWiki Policies and Rules. See Policy Discussion for policy additions and changes.
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

An Historical Event is considered Historical if they are part of the Category:Historical Events. Historical Events are very important in-game events that have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton. All Events currently within the category will remain as long as they have a historical significance section added within a month of the passing of this policy.

Adding to Category

To attain Historical Event status:

  1. Events must have been declared over.
  2. The event must have effected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change.
  3. A nomination should be made on Category_talk:Historical Events.
  4. Voting will last for exactly two weeks following nomination. To be successful, an event must by approved by 2/3 of eligible voters to pass. A minimum of 15 votes must be cast for the vote to be valid. The only allowable votes are Yes and No.
  5. Events that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  6. Events must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Maintenance

After having attained Historical Event status:

  1. The {{HistoricalEvent}} template shall be placed at the top of the group page.
  2. A similar template (that doesn't add the category) shall be placed at the top of the group's talk page
  3. A section detailing the historical significance of the Event shall be placed at the top of the group page

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
  • # comments ~~~~
    or
  • # ~~~~

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.

For

  1. We need this, groups and events are getting confused anyway. --karek 14:16, 25 May 2007 (BST)
  2. The Extravaganza, Malton Iditarod, Valentine's Day Massacre, and others all should be remembered. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 14:44, 25 May 2007 (BST)
  3. When I saw the sentence above I readed wrong and thought that all those events should be removed. I was about to hit Darth with a... template? Obvious choice. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 14:52, 25 May 2007 (BST)
  4. Sure, whatever. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 22:43, 25 May 2007 (BST)
  5. Definitely. --Antipathy 03:38, 26 May 2007 (EST)
  6. Yeah, there are plenty of things that could this could be applied too. --Poodle of doom 01:23, 27 May 2007 (BST)
  7. Sounds good, I have some issue with the template wording "This historical event is no longer active" sounds like it could be worded better, maybe something like "This historical event has already occured." but this sounds like a really good idea. - Vantar 21:55, 27 May 2007 (BST)
  8. Yeah, events and groups are like different. --MarieThe Grove on Tour 10:21, 28 May 2007 (BST)
  9. I wasn't born when the Beatles played on the rooftop of the Blackmore Building, but someone told me about it.--thegreathal read the Gazette! 19:24, 28 May 2007 (BST)
  10. What's not to like about this? AmatsuDarkfyre 21:37, 28 May 2007 (BST)
  11. This is certainly where something like the St. Valentines Day Massacre should actually go. I'm surprised someone didn't come up with this sooner.--Headless gunner W! 06:48, 29 May 2007 (BST)
  12. I concur. --Mark Ryerson 09:58, 29 May 2007 (BST)
  13. YES! This is a great idea. --Davurnium 17:28, 29 May 2007 (BST)
  14. Nice --TauronTalk GRR! 22:19, 30 May 2007 (BST)
  15. Yeppers --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 09:53, 31 May 2007 (BST)
  16. The suggestion has been reviewed and approved by Murhapuro 10:57, 31 May 2007 (BST)
  17. Good Idea LoganGoesPlaces 19:52, 1 June 2007 (BST)
  18. Agree with number 7, but yes, this is a nice idea. Monsieur 15:33, 2 June 2007 (BST)
  19. Great Idea. Some events deserve to be recorded. --User:Axe27/Sig 19:27, 2 June 2007 (BST)
  20. Yup yup. Good idea. --Gut stench FU BAR 07:11, 3 June 2007 (BST)
  21. CheeetarTMZ 09:12, 3 June 2007 (BST)
  22. •▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 16:18, 3 June 2007 (BST)
  23. yeah, this is cool. --Ktut 16:28, 3 June 2007 (BST)
  24. all aboard the "yes" train.--'BPTmz 23:43, 3 June 2007 (BST)
  25. The band wagon of yessing. A dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:57, 4 June 2007 (BST)
  26. Yes! about damm time. ----Sexualharrison MR ה TStarofdavid2.png Boobs.gif 15:09, 4 June 2007 (BST)
  27. Yes! --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 21:37, 6 June 2007 (BST)
  28. Why Not? Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 09:45, 8 June 2007 (BST)
  29. Yeh -- /// goebiTalkHelp/LFS/SR/NT/MWP /// 18:05, 9 June 2007 (BST)
  30. I'm assuming that events are allowed to be written up as such AFTER they have occurred, and then submitted for historic status? Because otherwise, you won't be able to make historical events out of unplanned battles and so forth. Still, that leaves open the question- who can submit an event as being historic? ... 22:38, 13 June 2007 (BST)

Voting closed. I striked those votes that were added after the deadline, now some Sysop should process this policy and implement it. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 00:35, 15 June 2007 (BST)

Some sysop should process this policy and implement it... you stupad ? Its not the job for sysops to implement new stuff into the wiki. Thats why i said in the talk page that this kind of thing should be just created and worked out while people was using it! This is the kind of thing any user can create! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:25, 16 June 2007 (BST)

Against

Personal tools
advertisements