Difference between revisions of "UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Voting Time Limit"

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 54: Line 54:
#I'd actually like to see the category either removed or completely open.  But with the current system in place, where groups nominate and vote for themselves and everyone else votes against, I suppose a waiting period would do us all some good.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 10:36, 16 July 2010 (BST)
#I'd actually like to see the category either removed or completely open.  But with the current system in place, where groups nominate and vote for themselves and everyone else votes against, I suppose a waiting period would do us all some good.--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 10:36, 16 July 2010 (BST)
#Minor nitpicking: <cite>This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups '''in Malton.'''</cite> Lucky Monroeville and Borehamwood. (Not that there are many groups left that can be considered as active in the first place.) --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 11:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)
#Minor nitpicking: <cite>This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups '''in Malton.'''</cite> Lucky Monroeville and Borehamwood. (Not that there are many groups left that can be considered as active in the first place.) --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 11:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)
# [[User:Technical Pacifist|Technical Pacifist]] 11:51, 16 July 2010 (BST)


===Against===
===Against===

Revision as of 10:51, 16 July 2010

This is a slightly more adapted version of the recently withdrawn No More Historical Groups. Historical Groups will have to have a time limit in place between the time of their official disbandment and the time they nominate themselves for historical status on Category talk:Historical Groups. More discussion on page.

Current Historical Criteria

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.

Proposed Historical Criteria

I propose that an additional criterion be added to the above list on Category talk:Historical Groups. It will be:

A policy is in place which outlines the method to attain historical status.

  1. Groups must no longer actively contribute to the game.
  2. A nomination should be made on Category talk:Historical Groups.
  3. Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yea and Nay.
  4. Groups that pass will be added to the category as described below.
  5. Groups must allow a week to pass between nominations.
  6. Groups must allow 4 months in between when the group disbands and when they can be nominated.

FAQ's

  • What does this mean?
    • This means that Groups may only become historical after going through a cool-down period of 4 months from when they become inactive. The reason for this is because some groups, whilst potentially historical, chose to nominate themselves well before their impact and legacy had been demonstrated. Adding a mandatory period of some months will be better for sorting out who is most definitely historical and which groups aren't.
  • How will this be policed?
    • Like the current system, groups are voted on by how well they fit/pass the current criteria for Historical Voting. The community will judge whether the group has fulfilled the requirement to have been designated inactive for the proper period. This may be from proof the group was not on the stats page for this time, a notice in the form of Template:InactiveGroup or simply an informal notice of disbandment on the group page should suffice.
  • Will this affect any current Historical Groups?
    • No.

Important: Note

This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups in Malton. This does not affect Historical Events.

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. If they can't stand the test of time, then there's no way they're historical. Four months is a good balance between giving folks some perspective and better hindsight, and losing people that would have known about them. Aichon 09:08, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  2. One major problem, however. Template:Inactive is a sysop template, you mean Template:InactiveGroup. Other than that, it's all good. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:10, 16 July 2010 (BST)
    Thank you very much for the heads up, I flew through writing this policy so it was lucky you noticed, I've fixed the link. -- 09:37, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  3. As Aichon. --Maverick Talk - OBR Praise Knowledge! 404 09:15, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  4. -- 09:37, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  5. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:41, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  6. -- Adward  10:04, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  7. I'd actually like to see the category either removed or completely open. But with the current system in place, where groups nominate and vote for themselves and everyone else votes against, I suppose a waiting period would do us all some good.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 10:36, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  8. Minor nitpicking: This will only affect Historical Nominations pertaining to groups in Malton. Lucky Monroeville and Borehamwood. (Not that there are many groups left that can be considered as active in the first place.) -- Spiderzed 11:42, 16 July 2010 (BST)
  9. Technical Pacifist 11:51, 16 July 2010 (BST)

Against