UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Abolish Ghost Town Policy: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Mind you, abolishing this policy does NOT mean that we would necessarily get rid of the Ghost Town status. It simply means that the community would be able to edit it or replace it with something more useful if they felt that a change of that sort was warranted. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | Mind you, abolishing this policy does NOT mean that we would necessarily get rid of the Ghost Town status. It simply means that the community would be able to edit it or replace it with something more useful if they felt that a change of that sort was warranted. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
:Why was this a policy? Since I'm planning on breaking all the building statuses in another week or so, were all statuses done as policy? Also, put this shit up to vote. --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | :Why was this a policy? Since I'm planning on breaking all the building statuses in another week or so, were all statuses done as policy? Also, put this shit up to vote. --<sub>[[User:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
::Only Ghost Towns were a policy, so you can still do what you were planning. The rest were created and maintained the normal way. From what I can gather, it sounds like there was a lot of edit warring over | ::Only Ghost Towns were a policy, so you can still do what you were planning. The rest were created and maintained the normal way. From what I can gather, it sounds like there was a lot of edit warring over suburbs that were empty, so Ghost Towns were forced through as a policy to address the issue. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::Also, we keep policies in discussion for at least three days so that folks have a chance to chime in before voting starts, which is why it's not already up for vote. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | :::Also, we keep policies in discussion for at least three days so that folks have a chance to chime in before voting starts, which is why it's not already up for vote. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::Overhauling the silly suburb danger classification is a silly enough task as it is. MISTER GORBATCHEV, TEAR DOWN THIS POLICY! --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 18:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
:I did a surf&search didn't see this policy, although I did learn that I am not meant to have blinking text in my sig. I'm all for anything that makes the dangermap more reflective of the situation on the ground, but I really can't comment on removing a policy the text of which I can't even find. Or maybe the fact that a casual wiki user can't even find the policy is comment enough. [[User:P.F.|P.F.]] 00:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Just so you get a chance to see it, I had a link to [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/New_Suburb_Tag_(edit,_new_vote)|the policy in question]] on the main page for [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Abolish_Ghost_Town_Policy|this policy]]. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 03:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
I'm surprised people went through the process of forging Ghost Towns into wiki policy, absolutely for abolishing it and leaving Suburb Dangermap as a malleable mapping system. Good find, Aichon. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/a}} 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:58, 22 August 2014
The recent Open Discussion has made it abundantly clear that this issue remains a problem. It's about time we abolished the policy so that we can make changes to it without having to worry about WikiLaw being involved.
Mind you, abolishing this policy does NOT mean that we would necessarily get rid of the Ghost Town status. It simply means that the community would be able to edit it or replace it with something more useful if they felt that a change of that sort was warranted. —Aichon— 18:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why was this a policy? Since I'm planning on breaking all the building statuses in another week or so, were all statuses done as policy? Also, put this shit up to vote. --K 22:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Only Ghost Towns were a policy, so you can still do what you were planning. The rest were created and maintained the normal way. From what I can gather, it sounds like there was a lot of edit warring over suburbs that were empty, so Ghost Towns were forced through as a policy to address the issue. —Aichon— 22:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- I did a surf&search didn't see this policy, although I did learn that I am not meant to have blinking text in my sig. I'm all for anything that makes the dangermap more reflective of the situation on the ground, but I really can't comment on removing a policy the text of which I can't even find. Or maybe the fact that a casual wiki user can't even find the policy is comment enough. P.F. 00:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just so you get a chance to see it, I had a link to the policy in question on the main page for this policy. —Aichon— 03:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised people went through the process of forging Ghost Towns into wiki policy, absolutely for abolishing it and leaving Suburb Dangermap as a malleable mapping system. Good find, Aichon. A ZOMBIE ANT 07:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
