Talk:The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2010-Round 2

Why?

Dezonus, why is this necessary?

GSGM 2009 started in February of that year; GSGM 2010 started in January of this year – nearly a full calendar year apart. This community is only getting smaller and smaller. There's no need for another GSGM right now since the group listings are still in decent shape at the moment. Maybe around New Year's, though more likely it won't be needed again until closer to next summer.

Not only that, but the last GSGM was started before folks were ready, so we hadn't even prepared everything for it and changed things to fix previous issues of the GSGM, and your starting one now puts us right back in that same boat again. There were plans to simplify the process further, account for which suburbs a group is in specifically, make the templates better, and so on. Reusing those templates is a very bad idea, for instance, given that it categorizes the groups in a nonsensical manner at this point. And in the case of GSM2010no2suburb, it has the potential to break the talk pages it's added to if you don't remove the GSM2010suburb template first, due to the fact that it's so massive (I would know, I wrote the original one that you copied, and it did break at least one talk page during the last GSGM...putting two on the same page could potentially break quite a few more).

I think you misunderstood DDR's advice. He was suggesting you make a project of cleaning up the suburb pages, since some of those have been around for years without being cleaned. But the group listings in the template on each suburb? Those are fine for now. Redoing them now just creates a lot of work for us and a lot of headache for hundreds of groups. I was still dealing with complaints related to groups that were removed in the last GSGM as recently as a month or two ago, and I am not eager to see it happen again already. —Aichon— 08:36, 19 September 2010 (BST)

I agree. Dez, it's fantastic that you're being so bold, but don't try to be the mastermind behind every project. Your rise to power is too abrupt; You don't fully understand the forces from which you draw your power. It's like you're shooting an arching projectile directly at a target; You're almost doing it right, but in a field where almost isn't worth anything. Either walk up and club your target, or take the time to learn from those who operate the arcing weapon properly. That's not at all to say that you're inept. Most editors never even try. You've put a valiant effort into your attempts here and otherwise, but simply lack the experience do do them properly. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 10:01, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Ok So perhaps I did misunderstand...

Thing is, I enjoy helping out here a lot. You may have heard I want to become a Sysop, this is simply because I really really do enjoy helping out here.

I've already done a few suburbs for both, but the remaining suburbs I'll just do a section clear on. That way, I might be able to do a lot more Suburbs...

Count me in for the 2011 GSGM though ;)-Dezonus- ^(talk) 14:20, 19 September 2010 (BST)

It's really one of those things that wouldn't hurt, but isn't really needed right now. What you could do, though, and what would be great, is to turn this into a project not to find active groups, but to remove active groups from the suburbs they're listed in but aren't active in. Spread out groups like the DEM groups, or Rotters Relief, etc, tend to advertise lots of suburbs with little to no actual presence, so you could sort out the extraneous burbs, which is something GSGM doesn't do. It was also agreed last time to remove "organisation" headings, like Dulston Alliance or DEM, and just list individual groups, though I don't know if that was ever fully implemented. This could easily become the follow-on "clean up" phase that does those things in the wake of GSGM. 18:34, 19 September 2010 (BST)

I went through and removed all of the organizations before the last GSGM so that it would be easier for us. You and I have also gone through and cleaned up a lot of the logos for height violations, though there are still some left, since we seem to just be doing them as they get edited by others. If Dezonus wants to tackle that himself, I'd certainly enjoy the help, since it's simple and useful.

As for the other project idea, I'd leave the "identify which suburb(s) they are actually in" part for the next GSGM, since it would either involve a LOT of cross-referencing to see which groups are listed in multiple suburbs (i.e. you have to check every group in every suburb against every group in every other suburb to see which ones are listed more than once, then contact ALL of them), or else just contacting every single group and asking them to specify the suburbs they are active in. If he wants to do the former, by all means, please do, but if the latter is the approach we're gonna take, then saving it for the next GSGM is the best idea since we can kill two birds with one stone. —Aichon— 21:29, 19 September 2010 (BST)

Yes, the organisations were removed (without a vote btw) But then again, I'm massively biased as the leader of a DA group. Also, Dezonus, although wanting the job is important, some people don't like you appearing overeager, so as I advised Jerrel (I think I linked it to you before) don't mention it until you run. It works better, because then people don't make up their minds about you before you have a chance to wow them.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:15, 19 September 2010 (BST)

yup. i agree with koponen, but you really can't compare jerrel to dezonus. jerrel is way more inept and annoying. jerrel just wants to become a syop because he is under the delusion that one of his lame groups will get historical status (never happen). you are at least generally just want to help. keep the aspirations of extra buttons to yourself for now.. you will come off way less annoying.----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 13:17, 11 October 2010 (BST)

What about Nomadic Groups?

Since the GSGM is based on picking off groups suburb by suburb, will it count nomadic, non-suburb based groups like the AZS? I think if it doesn't, it could use a nomadic section as well to cover whatever amount of nomadic groups there are. --Penguinpyro 08:54, 11 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not sure what you mean about adding a section (a section to what? the suburb listings? the GSGM?), but the way the GSGM has worked up until now is that we merely confirm whether or not groups are active, not where they are active. As such, so long as they have been active, we've left all listings of the group intact, regardless of where they might actually be in Malton. In the future, we've discussed changing it slightly so that we ask groups to identify which suburbs they are active in, but that shouldn't adversely affect nomadic groups any more than stationary ones, since they'd be able to identify the current suburb(s) they are active in just the same as a stationary group would. A good chunk of the groups have an area of operations that includes multiple suburbs or else involves a nomadic life (including my own ;) ), so it's not something we're unaware of. —Aichon— 11:03, 11 October 2010 (BST)