UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Historical Groups (Revised)

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

[Politician voice]I'm Darth Sensitive, and I approve this message.[/pv]

Should an effort be made to bring people who voted against due to time limitations here to discuss it? It would have made a difference had they discussed and not just voted. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 21:04, 21 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah, that would be great, anyway the main thing they disliked on the original was the time, so, how long should it be?--Thari ^T/C/TJ! 00:09, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Well... due to this mod decision, the God "against" vote is invalid, allowing the policy to pass. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 10:43, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Even so we should update the policy so that theres a minium of 10 yes votes and 2/3rds of the total votes for a group to be considered historical. Otherwise as I said before in my vote that a few no votes can make a group to be considered historical. - Jedaz 13:22, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Good to know that the original passed. I'll modify this policy to reflect your request.--Thari ^{S T F U} 15:19, 22 August 2006 (BST)

Does the time limit on last edits include talk pages? Because sometimes I leave a talk page comment asking if a group is still active, and I know other times that is the main wiki activity of the group, so it seems like it should be a discretionary thing. Also, I still think all groups should be archived somewhere, in case the user returns and wants to resurrect it, they can go to an inactive group graveyard. --Luigi Galleani ^{MAC | BB} 15:47, 22 August 2006 (BST)

I'm going to pull this one to withdrawn policies since the original actually passed. No need for duplicates. --Brizth ^{M T} 16:07, 22 August 2006 (BST)