UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Suburb Historical Groups

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: # 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. Author vote, blah di blah. 20:53, 21 October 2010 (BST)
2. Seems more sensible then the current free-for-all. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:02, 21 October 2010 (BST)
3. After reconsidering, I like it.Rib15 03:58, 22 October 2010 (BST)

Against

1. 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)

2. No. The policy lacks any form of rubic / guidance as to what qualities actually make a group suburb-historical, and adds unneeded bureaucracy to something that does not appear to be a large problem. I am having trouble seeing how an arbitrary popular vote based on undefined standards by users who may / may not have any knowledge of the groups / suburbs /time period in question addresses the underlying problem (if there even is a problem). -MHSstaff 21:23, 21 October 2010 (BST)
3. I'm actually all for the general idea of this policy and really want to support it. That said, I'm just against the wording of the exemption clause, and if I had known it was going to voting already, I'd have pointed out my issue earlier. The problem is that there's nothing in this policy to stop every historical group from listing themselves in places they never visited, let alone impacted, and this policy would explicitly give them the right to do so, which is a bad thing. That wording and/or the exemption's idea needs to be tightened up a bit in order to ensure that things of that sort don't occur. —Aichon— 22:56, 21 October 2010 (BST)
4. Giving it its own subpage archive? wtf? -- LEMON #1 01:53, 22 October 2010 (BST)