UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Suburb Historical Groups: Difference between revisions
(→For) |
|||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
===Against=== | ===Against=== | ||
#Not particularly keen. This'll lead to *sigh* more meatpuppetry, and will mean that wiki regulars who check RC will have enormous amounts of influence in suburbs they've never even heard of. Also the whole retroactive effects thing is stupid.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:57, 21 October 2010 (BST) | #Not particularly keen. This'll lead to *sigh* more meatpuppetry, and will mean that wiki regulars who check RC will have enormous amounts of influence in suburbs they've never even heard of. Also the whole retroactive effects thing is stupid.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 20:57, 21 October 2010 (BST) | ||
#No. Means voting twice for historical status. --{{User:Vapor/sig}} 21:04, 21 October 2010 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 20:04, 21 October 2010
One thing that has always been a personal bone of contention to me is the complete lack of guidelines or rules for the listing of groups under the "historical" header on {{SuburbGroups}}. As such, this policy proposes that the following lines of text be added to the guidelines for the template, and enforced as such:
- Groups may be listed under the 'Historical' heading provided they pass a vote on the suburb's talk page, requiring a one-week voting period, with a 2/3 majority of votes "for" the listing. This is not connected to Category:Historical Groups or its rulings.
The smaller scale of the vote is intended to make it a less stressful matter for those involved, hence the shorter vote period. It is also expected that the smaller 'reward' will lessen misgivings for 'against' voters, but this is just supposition. Archiving of these votes would take place as sub pages of the suburb in question, for example, at Kempsterbank/St. Ferreol's Hospital Noise Abatement Society, etc. The suburb's talk page will include an index of these archives where applicable.
An exemption to this policy will be those groups who are listed in Category:Historical Groups, who will have been considered to have passed the necessary vote by nature of passing their vote for that listing.
This will affect groups currently listed, as they will be removed pending any votes that can or will be brought, unless exempt under the above clause.
- Note: Policy amended before voting to remove minimum number of votes
Voting Section
| Voting Rules |
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. |
For
- Author vote, blah di blah.
20:53, 21 October 2010 (BST) - Seems more sensible then the current free-for-all. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:02, 21 October 2010 (BST)
Against
- Not particularly keen. This'll lead to *sigh* more meatpuppetry, and will mean that wiki regulars who check RC will have enormous amounts of influence in suburbs they've never even heard of. Also the whole retroactive effects thing is stupid.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 20:57, 21 October 2010 (BST)
- No. Means voting twice for historical status. --~
21:04, 21 October 2010 (BST)
