UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Historical Status

Please keep all discussion on this page, not the main.

Don't Forget

The constant POV rubbish. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:24, 27 September 2010 (BST)

The use of it as a rejection criteria? 21:37, 27 September 2010 (BST)

The latter. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:38, 27 September 2010 (BST)

2/3 vs Majority

I don't think it really matters that much. All you will get is that more events and groups get through. These votes are games of meat puppets. Especially with groups. The people who were on the good side of the group for, the ones who aren't vote against; Without actually considering whether the group could be deemed "historical".

People prefer to forget things they didn't like, and vice versa. The more I think about this, the more I lean on removing these categories and the aforementioned "historical status" altogether. Didn't this once start out as way to protect important groups and events, back when these were deleted once they went inactive? Nowadays everything (apart from the worthless stuff at (sp)deletions) gets saved and archived. History is history. I just took a crap. That's a historical fact too, only it's something nobody gives a shit about. What was important will be remembered, and what wasn't will still have happened, and in case of the wiki, those forgotten groups and events will still be archived.

Right now, there doesn't seem a point in this process, other then giving people opportunity to "claim" that certain groups/events were more important then others. --Thadeous Oakley 23:13, 27 September 2010 (BST)

When the policy putting a four-month moratorium on group nominations arose, I was hoping for it to be longer - simply because, as you point out, things need to be remembered to really be considered historical. I think it was a step in the right direction, but not nearly enough, and really should have been applied to the events as well. Also, for the record, I'm not advocating reducing the majority needed, as I like that the for side needs genuine support and not just the bare minimum. I'd perhaps raise it to 7/10, or even 2/3 +1, if anything. 23:21, 27 September 2010 (BST)

Still, I forgot; what is the point besides a fancy template & category? --Thadeous Oakley 23:25, 27 September 2010 (BST)

So that those who weren't around at the time can figure out what people are talking about, look into what worked or didn't, and maybe expand their tactical knowledge based on that. This is an information hub, after all. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:23, 28 September 2010 (BST)

How does historical status come into play here? See Blackmore 4(04), if it wasn't historical you could still figure out what people are talking about, look into what worked or didn't, and maybe expand their tactical knowledge based on that. You misunderstand the problem. Historical status isn't needed for what you mention, as everthing is archived regardless. The only true point I can see is that you have the "important" groups linked in one category. Is this worth the constant hassle of this process? No.--Thadeous Oakley 10:15, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Criteria

I think that a Historical Group or Event should require a gameplay, mechanic, or a tactical change. The HG or HE should be Game Shattering to truly be considered Historical.--Damien falcon 02:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)

And I disagree. I think that they should be memorable, involve a good number of people, and preferably be unique in some way, even if small. Personally, I'd rather loosen up Historical Event since people seem to have way too high of a bar, and either leave Group where it is now or else eliminate it entirely (as I had a policy discussion about not too long ago). —Aichon— 02:57, 28 September 2010 (BST)

i don't know how to use OD

why is this on the talk page? Open Discussion goes onto main pages. -- LEMON #1 03:58, 28 September 2010 (BST)

I followed the example of the most recent OD before this, which is the only other one I looked at first. 04:04, 28 September 2010 (BST)

Yeah I see, fair enough. I'm nitpicking anyway, I'll get around to addressing the actual discussion. eventually -- LEMON #1 04:35, 28 September 2010 (BST)