UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Voting Time Limit

I'd like a discussion point on a couple of issues: Firstly, how long should this timeframe be? Secondly, should this perhaps be added to Historical Events too? --

 

 

 

 

15:49, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I'd prefer it for both, and I see 4-6 months as being a good range.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:51, 29 June 2010 (BST)

4months for both events and groups in malton, 2 in perma death cities, as the number of participants will be significantly lower. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:29, 29 June 2010 (BST)

I generally disagree with the whole idea. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 02:21, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I think it should be 2 months for groups that officially disbanded, 4 months for groups that fall off the group listing on the game's stats page while also showing no recent update on said group's wiki page. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:26, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I'd say 3 months from the time they put Template:InactiveGroup on their page (1 month for non-Malton cities), and not at all for Historical Events. —Aichon— 06:34, 30 June 2010 (BST)

I like the feel of 3-4 months for a group, but I'm still thinking at least a fortnight for events. Maybe 1 month, just for simplicity sake. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:58, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Six months for groups, one to three month(s) for events. 19:20, 30 June 2010 (BST)

If you want to make the historical category actually mean what it says, then the longer the time limit the better. If a group can't get the votes after 6 months, it isn't historical. Less than 3 months will see most of the group/event members still being active on UD, and being encouraged to meatpuppet the vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:07 30 June 2010 (BST)

Meatpuppeting shouldn't be a factor IMO. The fact that meatpuppeting is used in this case is probably the only justifiable time I could see it being done. By this I mean meatpuppeting from the groups, as if it's meatpuppeting from places like SA then it can happen regardless of when an event happened. The more people willing to vote on the event justifies the size of it and in that case the chances it was actually historical. Cause let's face it, we've seen it all, the only think that will always impress us is sheer numbers, right? --

 

 

 

 

10:30, 30 June 2010 (BST)

Then why the hell do you want to change it at all? Just let every group nominate themselves, and vote themselves in (if big enough) on a whim. Just rename the category to "Category:Big groups that claim to have disbanded"-- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:03 30 June 2010 (BST)

^^^^Thank you.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:53, 30 June 2010 (BST)

No.

Who came up with this idea??? I'm prettty sure whoever came up with this idea sis it just for the benefit of me not re-nominating my group.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 18:37, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Cf/ Escape, Guardians of the YRC, Assylum, The Church Of The Beyonder, Detulux Inc, The Imperium, Rouge Heart Aces, Gibsonton Nationals, blah blah blah blah, before assuming anyone cares. 18:42, 4 July 2010 (BST)

Monroeville Many, burble burble boo. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:43, 4 July 2010 (BST)

So, you're planning to spam nominations until you pass? Yeah, that would be something worth stopping!
But no, this wont stop that at all. It just means you'll have to wait a few months until you can nominate it, something that you should be doing anyway
It's not all about you. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:55 4 July 2010 (BST)

The idea was first brought up on June 9th. You nominated your group for the first time on June 15th. Unless you want to accuse someone of fortunetelling, I'm afraid I'll have to agree with what boxy just said: it's not all about you. Besides, this doesn't stop you from re-nominating in the least, since according to you the 101st has been disbanded for years now. Please read more and assume less. —Aichon— 01:55, 5 July 2010 (BST)