UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Groups - Amendment

Discussion

I can't imagine this getting the votes because the discussion seems to be 50/50 but I think this would give a clear definition that if you are on the stats page you cannot be nominated for a historical group. It would stop the one rule for one and one for another that seems to have went on (i.e BBB & TSO). Pillsy ^FT 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This would strip from Historical status Shacknews, the Randallbank Coalition, TSO and many other groups. Instead of making everyone equally happy you're asking us to be equally mad with the system. Sorry but no. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 16:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

So I can block any nomination just by making a ten zergs and setting their affiliations to the group I wanna block? I think you need to adjust this to say something more like "significant membership on the stats page" and define what that means.--Jorm 17:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

But that brings up the question... what's significant membership? I say 30 or more keeps the group as a regular group instead of a historical one. --Xtralife ^{| Talk·SCA·FLT |} 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well this was just a base idea, I feel something needs to be done. As Darth says below not using the stats page as criteria but something else. There seem to be a few cases where one group will get in but another group gets rejected for being still active when they both seem to have players active. Pillsy ^FT 13:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Original Intent

As the creator of the Historical Groups policy, I don't think that this is a great idea. The stats page was never intended to be a criteria for entry - just that active contributions stopped. It may be an indicator of it's defunct/not status, but it can be misleading, due to nostalgia/griefing. I would be against this policy as proposed. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm. You bring up an interesting point, Darth. So here's an idea to change this proposed policy: Groups that are inactive, have played a big part, yet are still on the stat page become historical.Let's say that a group falls apart. Before they were disbanded, they had 100 members. However, 50 people still have the group name in their profile. With this new policy, if at least half of their previous numbers cling on to the group name, the group must therefore be considered memorable enough. --Xtralife ^{| Talk·SCA·FLT |} 06:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

So is there a way it could be changed to make it more effective and stop all the differences between nominations. Maybe a notice has to be on the wiki page for so long but I think we need more than groups must no longer actively contribute to the game...Pillsy ^FT 13:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Does Historical Mean Non-Active?

The British Empire still exists (in name anyway) - it doesn't mean there's no history, or that it's not a historical group. That's one example. We could all think of more. Why should a group be completely inactive in order to achieve historical status?

We all know that, in terms of Urban Dead, the Blackmore Bastard Brigade is of historical note. The majority of the voters agreed. One moderator disagreed. So it wasn't allowed in. Essentially, there wouldn't be a problem if it wasn't for arse-gikes like that moderator throwing their weight around, pissing in everyone's drinks and claiming that it's manna from heaven.

Let any group be voted on for historical status, whether they're active or not.

--Funt Solo 15:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good point, probably the best point so far. I think I'll withdraw this and try to apply this to all groups...Pillsy ^FT 16:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit. By this logic, I can have the Ridleybank Resistance Front nominated and passed as Historical within the fucking hour. And you know I can.--Jorm 17:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. And if a policy stating that any group regardless of activity can gain Historical status is approved, then I would vote For. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 19:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well... not passed, but get enough votes to pass it after the waiting period at least. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

And I'd argue that the RRF is a historical group, and also an active group. --Funt Solo 13:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)