UDWiki talk:Open Discussion/Historical Status: Difference between revisions
Misanthropy (talk | contribs) |
MisterGame (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
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. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 23:13, 27 September 2010 (BST) | 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. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 23:21, 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 23:21, 27 September 2010 (BST) | ||
::Still, I forgot; what is the point besides a fancy template & category? --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 23:25, 27 September 2010 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 22:25, 27 September 2010
- Please keep all discussion on this page, not the main.
Don't Forget
The constant POV rubbish. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:24, 27 September 2010 (BST)
- The use of it as a rejection criteria?
21:37, 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)
- Still, I forgot; what is the point besides a fancy template & category? --
