UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/No More Historical Groups

History Lesson

I was going to put this with the policy text, but decided against it.

As many of you are aware, Category:Historical Groups was formalized nearly four years ago by the same policy that created Crit 12 for speedy deletion. The idea behind them was that they would work together, with Crit 12 acting as a sword to clear out group pages that had gone unedited for a month, and Category:Historical Groups shielding the groups that had made an impact on the game from being speedy deleted.

Since then, however, Crit 12 has been nullified, meaning that group pages can no longer be speedy deleted because they went unedited for a month. Despite that, Category:Historical Groups remains active, serving no functional purpose whatsoever, and has become a hotbed for drama on the wiki nearly every time a group has come up for voting in recent memory. In brief, it's an obsolete category that only causes drama. —Aichon— 06:09, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Discussion

I know a lot of us have been talking for months now about wanting a change like this, and someone talks about it almost every time the drama bomb of historical group voting gets dropped on the wiki, but the devil is always in the details, so I want to be sure I didn't overlook something. I thought about removing the category entirely, but I figured that would be going too far. Even the original policy that formalized Historical Groups grandfathered in the ones that were already in the category, so it only makes sense to do so again. Plus it avoids more drama, which is one of the primary purposes of this policy.

Also of note is that this policy would not take effect until after Escape's bid has closed, meaning that if they are accepted in, this policy will not retroactively take it from them or anything of the sort. So this policy will have no impact on whether or not they are considered as a historical group. —Aichon— 06:09, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Kill with fire

Aichon, usually you bring up great ideas but this is, simply put, shit. No offense, I can see where you're coming from with that crit 12 and drama but this is unfair. If you're going to close the option for groups getting historical it's only fair to remove the entire category and thus all "historical" tags'n'templates. Or leave this policy to die altogether.

The tag of "historical" is always used for groups who due their importance should be recognized as such, and it's unfair to leave that recognition on groups that came before this policy, while at the same time denying that recognition to groups who came after, but who may very well deserve that "historical" tag. --Thadeous Oakley 11:18, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Oh, btw, I know the original idea behind historical is preventing deletion, but it's has been about recognition for longer then that probably. --Thadeous Oakley 11:23, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I addressed some of your points in my response to Ross below. As for deleting the category outright, as I mentioned, the thought crossed my mind, but I don't believe in undoing that which has been done unless there's something inherently wrong about it, and the category definitely served a purpose in its time. As I mentioned with Ross though, I'm also not opposed to the idea of simply deregulating the category. As you mentioned, it was around before the policy and was used to denote historical groups going even further back than the policy, so we could easily go back to something like that.

As for recognition, see the points I made with Ross. I think that argument is founded in self interest rather than the interest of the wiki as a whole, which is to be expected, given that we're all invested in it, but should be set aside. And keep in mind, I'm in a few groups that would benefit from the category remaining as it is too, since they would doubtless get in. I'm just asking everyone to put aside those self interests for a bit and analyze it logically, then ask what is best. —Aichon— 12:04, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I also wanted to mention that this isn't a policy I thought of on the spur of the moment. I've been thinking about it for at least six months now, and I know others were thinking of stuff along these lines even earlier. The latest drama merely served as a reminder that I had meant to put it up last time the voting came around. —Aichon— 12:07, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Hmm

The issue with this is that some groups still exist, like the RRF who are not only historic but also hugely current. Their effect on the game is huge, yet their continued success should not stop any future bid. Plus as one of the last of the active 404'ers I know that we'd definitely want a bid when we all give up. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:24, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I'm not going to deny that the groups you cite are historic (I'd vote yes to both of those if they were inactive and came through today), but this category has turned into merely being an e-peen contest over who gets to wear the badge of "historical" and who doesn't. Nothing more. That sort of thing should not be regulated by policy documents any more than the current mayoral election should be now that Crit 12 is gone. That said, this policy was specifically written so that it does not preclude the idea of some other category taking its place outside the bounds of policy documents. I'm also open to the idea of modifying this policy so that it simply deregulates the category, making it just as it was before the original policy that formalized it. The category existed before the policy after all, and it would make sense that it goes back to that way since Crit 12 is gone.

All of that aside, I don't see how future groups failing to have the badge is important. If the badge simply does not exist any longer for use by new groups, then everyone will know that and nothing will be lost. Historical groups are historical because they made an impact in the game, and they don't need a template or their name in a category to be recognized as historic. The impact they made was in the game and will be felt all the same.

I recognize that a lot of people will have, well, selfish reasons for wanting this to stick around, since many of us are in groups that are decidedly historic in nature but are still active. All the same, there's no reason to have things as they are, since it makes no sense, and if we put aside our own personal interests that are at stake, I think it's pretty obvious that there's no logical leg for this category to stand on as it is. A change is needed. —Aichon— 11:59, 9 June 2010 (BST)

If you don't think future group need the badge, then it shouldn't be important for past groups either. Simples. --Thadeous Oakley 12:08, 9 June 2010 (BST)

See what I said in response to you under your header, as well as what I said in my initial comment under the Discussion header above. —Aichon— 12:13, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Perhaps, though the first step is pushing for the easier and more likeable step, I think. I echo Aichon's sentiments. We don't need RRF to be in a "historical groups" category for everyone to remember it when/if it dies, I reference the dead and their exploits alot, though their status as a historical group wavers in comparison to their image before they even had it... Similarly, speaking of The Dead and Something Awful's horrid use of meatpuppetry, Category voting for Historical has often fallen to more horrible abuse of meatpuppeting than anything else, since it's a wiki-centric title and all. It's not that I don't like Historical Groups, I just don't like what it represents to me anymore. --

 

 

 

 

12:14, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Most of the people that voted Yes for the Dead to be historical were DHPDers, but please make up more lies. The only thing we "meat puppeted" would have been voting for Grim as Crat or bashing the "nail gun" chick on suggestions. What the fuck was her name? -- #99 ^DCC 14:18, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Please note that when I used the words "the dead" "historical voting" and "horrid use of meatpuppetry" I never once said that they all happened at the same time. Please be more fragile with your ego. --

 

 

 

 

14:32, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Tselita! That was her name! Something like that anyway.-- #99 ^DCC 23:13, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Time limit

The problem is that groups are put up within days of them being disbanded. For a group to be truly historical, it should be able to pass a vote even after the majority of it's members have moved on. Voting on it the day after it's declared finished just results in members voting for, and enemies voting against (often encouraged to meatpuppet the vote on either side). Perhaps it should be required that groups that disband place a notice on their page (inactive groups category?), and they don't qualify for an historical vote for 6 months after that -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:32 9 June 2010 (BST)

I think it's a great idea but I think 6 months is much too long. Perhaps 2 months after the disband notice? That way the image of what the group's done is still fresh but it's been long enough to see the fallout and if people still give a crap about it. Actually, maybe 3 months. --

 

 

 

 

12:39, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I'm certainly not opposed to the idea. It's a compromise, to be sure, but at this point, I'll take any step in the right direction, and this is at least something. I actually tried to temper this policy so that it wouldn't be to the far extremes, but I like yours as well. I'd prefer to see how this one pans out, or at least see how some more of the feedback goes, before switching to your idea. —Aichon— 12:49, 9 June 2010 (BST)

The problem with just removing the aspect of having any more historical groups is that there isn't anything wrong with the idea, it's just the method turned to shit a long time ago. Boxy's solution focuses a little more on the actual problem rather than hitting the fly with the rocket launcher, etc etc. --

 

 

 

 

12:57, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Personal bitterness aside its a good idea about time limits, but 6 months is too long. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:04, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Two is too little. Four. 15:40, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Four sounds good.-- Adward  17:55, 9 June 2010 (BST)

I was being conservative with 6... newfags need to GTFO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 18:04 9 June 2010 (BST)