UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Eliminate Criteria 12

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

Discussion

While I believe that the SD Criteria had a very valid purpose in the past, with the wiki overflowing with unwarranted "group" pages that were no more than one-week attempts to make a succesfull group in UD, now this purpose has been forgotten and in turn the SD machine has turned into eating a lot of UD history. I'm not saying that it's absolutely useless and disruptive, but that its range goes far over these undesirable pages mentioned above to reach some that don't manage to be considered "Historical", an honorary title, but still were quite valid groups in the past. So, my opinion is that we should not eliminate SD criterion 12 as a whole, but limit its reach so those groups that aren't viewed as historical but still had their impact in-game can't be reached by this hungry machinery the Criterion has proven to be for quite a while. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 06:29, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Such limitation aren't viewed as historical but still had their impact is very strange (to me). Who would decide that group is like that? Community voting - just the same sh!t as what happens in voting historical... No, i'd better like this crit12 just be forgotten. Make some template like This group no longer exists to put on pages, but no deleting --~~~~_T^''' 09:25, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Not everything has to be a community vote: concepts such as appearance in the stats page, several edits to the group page trough more than a month, etc could be used as well. I made a sysytem a while ago that got shot down by the then Administrational staff because they didn't want to handle the workload. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 18:02, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Agreed. Get rid of crit 12. Why go around purging the games history?--The Grimch ^Sysop-U! 10:20, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Yup this could work, it could save large parts of UD's history while still letting those "group" pages that consist of a improperly formated group box with no edits since last year get deleted via the deletion page. Also it never made sense to me to have part of "speedy" deletion have 5 day wait attached, this fixes that too - Vantar 15:11, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Perhaps a mere change in the criteria is in order. 1 year without edits and a 2 week waiting/voting period? It is not like I'm trying to destroy history; I'm just trying to tidy up a little. I nominated my own group for SD not too long ago, after all, and was very surprised that previous SD attempts had failed. Asheets 17:53, 30 August 2007 (BST)

I still don't understand why tiding up should be done by deletion. Why not just add notice/template and leave pages there. --~~~~_T^''' 18:18, 30 August 2007 (BST)

You see, we don't have to delete anything. That was just a bad idea from the beginning, and it's caused all sorts of pointless arguing and bickering over what's historical and what isn't. Just remove the criteria. If a page needs deleting, it can go to deletions just like normal.

And since I vote "keep all" on all criteria 12 entries, they go to deletions anyway. This really just helps Vantar in that he doesn't have to spend a lot of time moving stuff from speedy deletions to deletions.--Jorm 18:24, 30 August 2007 (BST)

Criteria 12 was one of the most awful things that ever happened to this wiki. It simply teared half of this wiki history away from us. There is plenty of stuff that was somehow important, but not for the whole community. Still, they deserve their stay. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:45, 30 August 2007 (BST)

I can see someone stating that it does waste wiki space. However, I am in full support of banning Criteria 12. Stupid pages of inactive groups are still, well, fun to read.--ShadowScope 21:55, 30 August 2007 (BST)

From a server perspective, an inactive group article takes up hardly any space. I have absolutely no objection to Criteria 12 being eliminated. --Kevan 22:06, 30 August 2007 (BST)

• I would prefer the criterion be kept - less crap on the wiki makes it easier to browse the list of everything, and keeps needless cruft from being preserved forever. --Pgunn 22:29, 30 August 2007 (BST)

I'm gonna move this to voting.--Jorm 23:25, 30 August 2007 (BST)

I don't mean anything bad with this, but according to the rules you are supposed to wait at least 3 days of discussion before putting the policy up for voting. I'm taking you to Misconduct! XD --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:55, 31 August 2007 (BST)

I wonder if it's possible to undelete past criteria 12s, cause there is a significant amount of somewhat important or involved groups that were active for far more than a week that got deleted under crit 12 in the past.--Karek^maps?! 02:29, 31 August 2007 (BST)

It could be done, figure out what groups should be resorted and place them in the queue- Vantar 03:36, 31 August 2007 (BST)

Is there an upper end for how long ago the deletion was?--Karek^maps?! 03:55, 31 August 2007 (BST)

Not that I've run into, but try and keep these undeletions to groups that had some kind of significants - Vantar 00:09, 3 September 2007 (BST)

Undeletion can only take place if those edits havent been lost to a dif clearing that kevan does periodically. Its been a long time, so i think you could find most of them. --The Grimch ^U! 00:13, 3 September 2007 (BST)

7 January 2006 is the furtherest back edit I've undeleted recently, I don't know how much further back we can go - Vantar 00:41, 3 September 2007 (BST)