UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Creating a Group Page

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

To create a group page you must first fill out an application similar to the form for setting up a group page. Your name, Group name, What kind of group (zombie, survivor, etc.), a brief description, and group numbers, etc. The minimum to group number is 2. If it's just you, get a friend. Groups on the Stats Page already are exempt.

The form will stay on the page. After a week you wil lbe able to create said group. This is to stop spontaneous group creation. If you really want to start a group you'll need to wait a week after submitting it.

Once you create your group page you're somewhat in the clear. If you do not make any major changes after a month of it being created it will be placed on the Speedy Deletions page. After that one month you must update it at least once per month. If it goes inactive it will go to the Deletions page where it is voted on. Failure to submit an application and create a group anyway will result in a Vandal reporting and a Speedy delete on the group page.

Cool? Sonny Corleone WTF 00:43, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Voting Section


  1. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 18:39, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  2. Cool. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:45, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  3. Xoid 19:05, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 19:05, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Can we also apply this to templates? --Technerd 22:05, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  6. SirensT RR 14:35, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  7. Why not?--Brendoshi 19:45, 26 July 2006 (BST)
    If they are serious as a group, they won't mind waiting.
    You must sign your votes. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 21:14, 27 July 2006 (BST)
    This sounds like a reasonable way to keep the group pages limited to real groups. [User:AVN]
    You must sign your votes. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:34, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  8. I am for this. --Lefty
  9. For. -Rotticus 23:49, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  10. For. -Bubbadick 00:33, 30 July 2006 (BST)
  11. For. - Although I am a little worried about the having to make a major change once a month thing. I don't think gaining members would be too much of a problem - afterall, if you can't persuade one other person to make a group with you then the group probably shouldn't be around... --Tethran 13:04, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  12. For. One person is not a group and you can wait that one week. --Niilomaan 20:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  13. For. --Vikermac 09:35, 1 August 2006 (BST)
  14. As Tethran. --Thari
  15. for. --Amanofpower.
  16. Essentially the same comments as Tethran --ALACE 05:04, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  17. This makes perfect sense to me, and the less the people running the wiki have to worry about the better. EMAG TRESNI 18:40, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  18. Reasonable. -- Catriona McM 17:26, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  19. I intially was going to vote no, then I re-read policy and those against it. My only question is can you get this done in a week and guarantee that it will only take a week? Other then that it would be nice if pages were updated. It's a good way for newbies to get info on the game as well as the burbs they are in or going to. I think if your going to put the effort into creating a group, then why not update it? Another benefit; Mods can give new groups pointers for creating & maintaining their pages. --John Blast 19:44, 7 August 2006 (BST)


Don't see a (good) reason for this.

  1. Goron40 00:39, 29 July 2006 (EST)
  2. Why make forming a group harder than it already is? --Ron Burgundy 19:28, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  3. This creates undue pressure on the smaller existing groups, some of which have been around for a long time. Omit the part about the Stats Page, and it might be a good idea. --Terminator 20:25, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  4. Fails to specifically add category to M/SD for defunct pages and vandal banning is too harsh a punishment. --Darth Sensitive talkW! 20:44, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  5. Is this a wiki or not? --John Teabags 20:45, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  6. Requirement to update the group's page each month would be a hassle for people that maintain a group website/message board that's not part of wiki.urbandead.com. My group, which has a much more active community than some of the larger groups in the suburbs were we have set up shop, doesn't have public news that warrants monthly updates on our group page. Because of this, our group which has been active since UD opened up, would have it's group page deleted. --Cartoonlad 20:57, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  7. It simply annoys me. Seems like a way of stopping people from choosing to build groups. The groups can exist in the game, why not on the wiki. Also, it feels elitist. --Agent White 21:27, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  8. I find the requirements a hassle, even without maintaining any outside websites/message boards. --Kenny Matthews W! 21:45, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  9. I'm with Catoonlad on this one. My group page exists purely to inform people on the nature of my clan. Is that not what the wiki if for? Why must I be forced to update my group page if it's already doing its job? Furthermore, who will judge what groups are worthy of creating a page? --Jonny America 21:58, 25 July 2006 (BST)
  10. For many, a group's wiki page can help it blossom from its initial stages into a full-fledged clan. Applying for a group page will hamper this. Continually updating your page is too much of a hassel too. And too much power is placed in others hands over your group. I do agree that something must be done about not real groups pages. But this isnt the solution.--Cdrwcry 00:51, 26 July 2006 (BST)
    It's a wiki, just put up a deletion notice on 'offending pages', and wait a week. If nobody shows up to protest the deletion notice, it gets deleted under the wiki rules. Why does there need to be a policy for deleting defunct groups? ERNesbittP·T·MalTel 02:30, 26 July 2006 (BST) I'm removing my against vote. Sonny talked me out of it. I would encourage everyone to at least re-read the policy. I think it still needs revision (or more definition), so I am not voting for it. However, if properly implemented (a "trial group" area for recruiting purposes where it is watched by the mods for the week while it can still be edited and gather more interest/members) it could be a good policy. Again, re-read it with an open mind. --ERNesbitt 04:33, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  11. Seems like some way to create cliches and stop people from getting involved, i remember some time ago a rather large movement to stop people from forming groups.. this just seems like an extension of thatP0p0 08:33, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  12. Unh, no, this is just silly in it's current form. - Jedaz 09:15, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  13. No, my survivor group doesn't update it's page at all, but it's still there to let people know what we're about when they come across us in game, or via the suburb or location pages on the wiki. We shouldn't have to update it just to avoid deletion -- boxy  TtaMe  ~~~~~ 09:22, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  14. Make group pages harder to edit?No way!I'm gonna give this a NO. Axe Hack 8:57, 26 July 2006 (EST)
  15. If the problem is too many dead group pages with no users accessing/using it, then this isn't the way to solve it. --MorthBabid 14:53, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  16. JD Ryerson 15:07, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  17. Kurtus Maximus 16:11, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  18. Why major updates if you don't need it? --Adrian 17:55, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  19. i am aginst it for 1 reason, it will make foming the malton reclaimination group harder to form. --the arbor day killer 22:47, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  20. isnt the second half of this proposal (deleating old groups), kind of going against the Historical Groups policy?. Either way i would say no to this specific policy -Night Haunter 23:27, 26 July 2006 (BST)
  21. Anything I would have said has been said. Why? --Dudefromhell 02:09, 27 July 2006 (BST)
  22. I just don't like the idea. Groups should be formed whenever people want to. If it fails, it fails. If it works, it works. That's all. --Bluemofia 04:00, 27 July 2006 (BST)
  23. There is no reason to stop spontaneous group creation. Spontaneous group creation is a beautiful thing that often fails just like most relationships. It does no harm to the wiki or the game community. Don't make it harder to have fun or spread your slant on camaraderie. A single month is much too short for most groups to activley update their page. If we make it too hard to vest ones time in creation and too simple to have your efforts deleted intrest in the whole game will wane. --Max Grivas JG,T,P! 04:50, 27 July 2006 (BST)
  24. Bonefiver 20:58, 27 July 2006 (BST)
  25. Smithy Jones - We dont need any more Red Tape and Paperwork 20:38 27 July 2006 [BST]
  26. Not a good idea, adds more complexity without much benefit. --Zod Rhombus 00:16, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  27. I am sure that if these rules were made before, there would not be so many colorful groups on the Wiki, and that would take away from the game itself --Captain Smirnoff 02:57 28 July 2006 (BST)
  28. - Bango Skank 05:55, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  29. I don't see why there is a need for this.-That's Why I did your Wife 06:16, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  30. This policy would be like kicking a puppy. Small groups are cute. --GrownUpSurvivor 17:50, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  31. Why not just get permission to request a group page? And after that, have it go before a board and review their right to make a group. And then put it to a general populace vote. OR, uh leave it alone, the current system works. --GoNINzo 18:41, 28 July 2006 (BST)
  32. More needless authoritarianism - Nuke Texas 21:46, 28 July 2006 (BST)
    Voting for this would mean you hate children. You don't hate children......do you? - JediColt
    Learn how to sign. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 00:41, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  33. The DDDS rarely updates their group page, but we update the Dulston page and are there. The purpose of a wiki is to allow for easy changes and creation not to create bs red tape. Thats what the controversy over wikipedia is over. --JP 02:15, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  34. "This is to stop spontaneous group creation." What's wrong with spontaneous group creation? How does spontaneous group creation harm anything? What is the problem you are trying to fix? --Kiki Lottaboobs 09:25, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  35. Useless, pointless. Even old group pages are interesting (history). Not everyone updates his group page regularly. Application means more bureauocracy, which in turn means less people putting up their groups up on the wiki, which means less information for players which is bad. --Marwin 10:47, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  36. 1 month is too short a time period, and i dont think inactive group pages are hurting anyone (unless theyre placing an abnormal amount of strain on the server or something) --Magnetboy 15:47, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  37. Not in favor of this. More Beauracracy and rules will stifle the enjoyment of the wiki and the game. --John Hawke 19:20, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  38. I don't think the vandal ban should be in this-and the historical groups need some protection. Other than that, I can see the point of it, for sure. --Aramcobrat 22:46, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  39. sorry but that would mean getting rid of some of the historical groups. Lt Potter 22:37, 29 July 2006 (BST)
  40. "Why fix it if it ain't broke?" The only thing this does is add confusing rules to an already fine system. What's wrong with the way things are now? Are we going to delete the Malton Confederacy because it has no members now? Will we be deleting the Malton Zookeepers because they won't update enough? Who's going to watch all these forms? Why should they watch all those forms? All this does is bring up questions that don't need answers. The way it is works for me now. Keep it that way. --NomaderTalk 08:19, 30 July 2006 (BST)
  41. TheDictatorTalk 11:02, 30 July 2006 (BST)
  42. My opinion is the same as Nomader. If a page is totally perfect, why fix it if it's perfect? EDIT: Plus, this somewhat does infringe on a person's free will. The wiki is supposed to be open, I thought. This would seriously hurt aspiring people wanting to bring their friends into the game. Plus, making groups is a right, which shouldn't be taken away. --Absolution 21:02, 30 July 2006 (BST)
    User:Lightman No, no, and no. This screws over newbies.
    Learn. To. Sign. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 21:24, 30 July 2006 (BST)
    Why are you discouraging casual players from voting/showing an interest? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bug me not (talkcontribs) .
    We have rules here. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 07:07, 1 August 2006 (BST)
    see above --john doe
  43. i dont like the idea of applications, and i almost never update our group page. the only time i usualy bother is when we get a new member. i dont want to be penalized if were having a slow month recruiting. Bullgod 13:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  44. Kundor 15:16, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  45. Generally seems like it would make things less open and enjoyable. Bureaucracy is often considered a necessary evil, but I don't see that it's really necessary here. --Rgon 15:46, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  46. Jonny12 W! 19:29, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  47. --Grigori 20:23, 31 July 2006 (BST) As Absolution
  48. "Why make forming a group harder than it already is?" Too true. This will just clog things up more. --Smoked 21:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)
  49. --Experiment C 05:59, 1 August 2006 (BST)
  50. I'm trying to form a group at the moment and it's damn hard to attract interest without having to constantly update or apply to create a group page. Pillsy 11:09, 1 August 2006 (BST)
  51. I don't like the portion about having to update it monthly. What if nothing happens in that month? I'm all for it taking a week to make sure the person is serious, but deleting pages not edited in a month, thats just wrong. --HerrStefantheGreat 13:54, 1 August 2006 (BST)
  52. Dog Deever TNec 23:12, 1 August 2006 (BST)
  53. --Pinata 15:50, 2 August 2006 (BST)
  54. This serves no purpose I am aware of, unless there are bandwith issues --CYossarain 22:33, 2 August 2006 (GMT)
  55. Why would you need this? Also, a group might not need to update it monthly. I would be greatly frustrated if a page I had to wait a week to create after submisson of a form was deleted because it didn't get any new members or it wasn't nessecary to update. --Gold Blade 21:46, 2 August 2006 (BST)Edit I do not mind waiting for it to be accepted, especially if that helps from creating dupe clubs, but I think a week is a bit too long. # days sounds more appropriate.--Gold Blade 21:49, 2 August 2006 (BST)
  56. Totally pointless, and a waste of time that would be better spent elsewhere. --Specialist290 02:49, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  57. I haven't been around in months, but I never saw "spontaneous groups" as a problem when I was active on the wiki. Creating a group on a whim make the wiki a lot more interesting (e.g., the WCDZ). If people are causing problems, punish the troublemakers, not everybody else. Anyways, a wiki is meant to be open and easily editable, not subject to pointless restrictions. Creating the 1-week-minimum restriction also puts an extra burden on moderators (RC patrolling to make sure that no troublemaker created a rouge group) which means less time worrying about things that matter (e.g., real vandals). mikm 05:26, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  58. Eliazar Foy 16:28, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  59. any groups over 100 strong should be exempt --DJSMITHCDF 16:36, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  60. I see some promising ideas behind this suggested policy, but there is just too much wrong with it to support. Sorry. -Empath 05:45, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  61. Needlessly bureaucratic. --LibrarianBrent 21:51, 4 August 2006 (BST)
  62. A very unfair idea for those just starting out and who want to set their group up right then. And forcing people to update once a month even if there isn't anything to update? That's just plain wrong. --Rogue 06:39, 5 August 2006 (BST)
  63. Sounds like a "neighborhood comittee" rule. I live here, don't make me mow the lawn and keep the house cleaned. A zed might get me. --Brendan Storm 08:40, 7 August 2006 (BST)
  64. Useless pages can just be deleted... --The Godfather of Resensitized Anime Sucks 23:06, 7 August 2006 (BST)

#Really Bad idea..the wiki is Confusing enough at first--Cyvilian 20:15, 18 August 2006 (BST)

Vote struck - voting ended a long time ago. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 22:48, 18 August 2006 (BST)


Moderator: Abstain votes are not valid. Please review the rules on this matter. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:16, 25 July 2006 (BST)

  1. I am neither for nor against this--Mercsenary 19:53, 25 July 2006 (BST)
    • Abstain votes are not valid on policy discussions. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:16, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Personal tools