UDWiki talk: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.

Caught Not Reading

  • Terminator 20:25, 25 July 2006 (BST) - "This creates undue pressure on the smaller existing groups, some of which have been around for a long time."
    This policy does not affect existing groups, provided they update at least once a month.
  • Anyone who said that this will make it harder to create groups by having to apply/vote (Agent White 21:27, 25 July 2006 (BST), Cdrwcry 00:51, 26 July 2006 (BST), P0p0 08:33, 26 July 2006 (BST), the arbor day killer 22:47, 26 July 2006 (BST))
    This policy does not prevent group creation, nor does it force a group to be "voted into being" It simply delays the group creation, and causes old groups to require updating.
  • Jedaz 09:15, 26 July 2006 (BST) - "Unh, no, this is just silly in it's current form."
    This is more an assumption. Comments like these usually indicate someone who read the title and didn't like what they saw.
  • Axe Hack 8:57, 26 July 2006 (EST) WE HAVE A WINNER "Make group pages harder to edit?No way!I'm gonna give this a NO."
    This policy encourages editing a group page.
  • Adrian 17:55, 26 July 2006 (BST) "Why major updates if you don't need it?"
    Who said "Major"? It just has to be updated.

Further, updating a group page once a month is not hard. Just add a line at the bottom of the page that says, "Updated --~~~~" and update that once a month...just like for the recruitment page. Also, to clear things up, It occures to me that the term "application" is somewhat of a misnomnier. The application is little more than the groub box template put on a page before the rest of the information is. As the policy stated, this is to prevent spontaneous group creation. NOTHING was spoke of about approvals or voting! --SirensT RR 14:49, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I give up...the wiki should be nuked to stop the spread of stupidity. It spreads faster than zombieism. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 00:04, 27 July 2006 (BST)
I know. *pats* I got tired of people not listening a long time ago. The best we can do now is redicule them. --SirensT RR 00:07, 27 July 2006 (BST)
I'll agree with you. Stupidity is more common then hydrogen. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 00:19, 27 July 2006 (BST)
Is there a way to close it before it's murdered by stupidity? I can't stand watching it get killed because people don't like words. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 04:21, 27 July 2006 (BST)
I like to think there's a way to salvage it...bye going to each and every person pointed out above, and pointing them at this header. On a side note, I think it would be a good idea to modify the policy to include that historical groups are excluded from deletetion. Of course, and edit like that would probably require the vote to be reset and new votes to be taken... --SirensT RR 04:26, 27 July 2006 (BST)
For all of you that support spontaneous group creation. I hope you get wiki-AIDS. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 04:51, 27 July 2006 (BST)
Is there any reason you find yourself against spontaineous group creation? --Karlsbad
I was wiki-raped by one. It's just a waste of bandwidth of crappy military images. American troops in camo when the game is in England. Does anyone sit down and think, "Should I use the lump of pink that many call the brain, or completely ignore the organ?" Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 04:56, 27 July 2006 (BST)
But desert camo goes so well with katanas and trenchcoats. The colors of urban camo just clash with the bluish greys. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 04:59, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Seriously...no one read it. "Don't fix what ain't broken". The current system is broken. Every day groups are created that are usually forgotten in a week. You make it so that they wait a week and then you don't have this problem. Dedicated leaders get their group. Randoms don't since they never really wanted to lead. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 15:46, 30 July 2006 (BST)

How about you shut up about it? How does someone making a random group affect you? If you don't like it don't view it. According to the Majority it ain't broke, You all have been overruled. And since the 64 of use should get Wiki-Aids, You 19 should get Wiki-Ebola. --Rogue 06:25, 8 August 2006 (BST)
How about you fucking die? How does someone making useless groups that don't exist for more than a fucking minute, yet continue to waste space, clog up the main namespace and obscure useful articles affect us? Badly. Your argumentum ad populum is nauseating, simpleton. –Xoid STFU! 08:08, 8 August 2006 (BST)
You die first. But why should I bother bantering with someone who LOST. --Rogue 21:32, 9 August 2006 (BST)
Wow...I heard better arguments from Amazing. And his were pretty bad. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS 21:52, 9 August 2006 (BST)

Some more

  • 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)
    What historical groups policy? There is none. Is it that hard to add {{HistoricalGroup}} or Category:Historical Groups onto your group's page when you quit?
  • 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)
    Doesn't apply to existing groups…
  • 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)
    Doesn't apply to existing groups…

Jesus Christ. Anyone who is CNR and doesn't go and change their vote (or at least the reasoning behind it) before voting finishes should be banned. –Xoid STFU! 06:11, 28 July 2006 (BST)

And I think people who waste their time trying to micromanage every future group should be banned also. --Rogue 06:27, 8 August 2006 (BST)
I think a fuckwit who insists that useless shit be allowed to flood the wiki should be euthanised. –Xoid STFU! 08:08, 8 August 2006 (BST)

And another...

  • 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)
Who said anything about a vandal ban? From what I saw it would be a reporting to the vandal page which would mean a warning and not a ban. --Tethran 13:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)

New Version

Tell me what you think. Sonny Corleone WTF 00:44, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Ok. How do I make this into a vote? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 18:22, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Easy as π. First clean up the policy to look how the final policy will look. Then move it under the "Under Voting" section on M/PD, and add a "Voting Ends" line to mark off two weeks from now. On the policy page (not M/PD), add a ==Voting Section== header, and under that a ===For=== and ===Against=== header. Add your #Vote under "For," sign it with a ~~~~, and you're done. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 18:27, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Did anyone bother reading the policy? Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 21:51, 25 July 2006 (BST)
Ok. I give up. After Axe Hack's comment I'm done. No one bothered reading. "That'll be harder to edit." "People will never be able to create a group now." Are these the people that will one day lead the world? If So I am afraid. We need a real life ASS. Sonny Corleone WTF RRF ASS CoL 14:31, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Sonny... There are a lot of things I disagree with you on. This policy is not one of them. And neither are your comments about the stupidity of people on here. I've got a few quotes from votes on the main part of this page here...

  • I don't see why there is a need for this.-That's Why I did your Wife 06:16, 28 July 2006 (BST)
Looked at how many groups there are with just one member or with either "unknown" or "classified" listed instead? And how many of those never seem to get updated or seen in the game?
Yeah, but I think that having this category for confirmed groups is really enough. If you're a solid group, with ten members, your confirmed, bada bing bada boom. If they don't, let them create their tiny group, whatever. No big deal.-That's Why I did your Wife 05:49, 3 August 2006 (BST)
  • "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)
See above comment.
  • 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)
Other than for when new players want to join a group and have to hunt through all the inactive groups with 1 member. That and the sheer stupidity of some of these 'classified' groups is hurting my brain.
  • 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)
Omit the part about the stats page? That's just to allow large ingame groups that for whatever reason have not decided to create a wiki page to do so whilst avoiding red tape! You don't have to be on the stats page to create a group! You just have to show that there is more than one person interested in your group! --Tethran 13:24, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Moved from the main page

What about someone that creates five characters and use them as a "proof"? --Tico 21:49, 21 July 2006 (BST)

I'm thinking about changing it to filling a request form to have your page created. I don't think someone would go through all the trouble of creating characters just to get a group page. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:10, 21 July 2006 (BST)

I was under the impression that there already had been a precedent along these lines... – Nubis NWO 22:08, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Perhaps an automatic exemption of the 'filling a request' if the group's listed on the stats page in UD? (In the unlikely event a group there doesn't have a wiki page and decides they want one.) --Tethran 22:31, 21 July 2006 (BST)
I'll add that too. Sonny Corleone WTF 23:20, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Could we start to use THE TALK PAGE to discuss the policy draft and THIS PAGE to see it, please? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 23:23, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Kudos

I've been wanting to present something like this for awhile. I wonder why I didn't... --SirensT RR 21:00, 21 July 2006 (BST)

Won't it be easier if a new moderation page wuold be created, were everybody that wants to start a wiki page for his group has to post a request and the creation of the page is decided by a mod? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 21:59, 21 July 2006 (BST)

That's even better. Am I allowed to edit the policy? Not sure. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:08, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Yeah, this is supposed to be a draft, and you're supposed to change it. Thats why I took off the voting section: the policy will constantly change until it makes it to the voting period. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 22:11, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Well, now the policy has gone all crazy. WTFCENTAURS? I was talking more like a moderators-only decission, where the mods look over a request (in some kind of request template), consider the seriousness of the same and judge if the page has merit to be created or not, taking on account the number of members the group has and the creator's presence on the wiki. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 22:27, 21 July 2006 (BST)

What about the 'BUS?

Are there any provisions for group pages that we might want to keep for "historical" purposes? -- Rueful 22:06, 21 July 2006 (BST)

If I'm allowed to edit it I'll make it so that groups created after the creation of the policy will be affected. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:08, 21 July 2006 (BST)
I wouldn't be that broad, we want to delete old, insignificant groups. For certain (possibly inactive groups) that the community thinks should be exempt from being deleted, there should probably be a clause. I think what you're targetting are group pages that were edited for a week or less, then forgotten; maybe limit the deletion candidates by how active the group was on the wiki overall. -- Rueful 22:25, 21 July 2006 (BST)
Old groups will be deleted eventually. This is to stop them from ever happening again. Sonny Corleone WTF 23:18, 21 July 2006 (BST)

It's great

It's awesome. One minor issue, though; make it so that an appearance on the Stats page is a requirement for creating a page. That way, we won't have to deal with retarded discussions over smaller groups' eligibilities for a page. Cyberbob  Talk  02:37, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I'd say yes but what about zombie strike teams? What about organizations that do not require people to put it in their profile? Sonny Corleone WTF 02:38, 22 July 2006 (BST)
They can go hang. Sneakiness like that shouldn't be rewarded. Cyberbob  Talk  02:39, 22 July 2006 (BST)
It isn't sneakiness. It's like a subgroup or supergroup. It's a lot easier if you are on the stats page. But if you are not and you have 5 people you can apply to have a group page. That's pretty easy. Sonny Corleone WTF 02:44, 22 July 2006 (BST)
I guess. But the application system is going to need to be pretty well thought-out. Maybe it could be similar to the policy discussions. Make separate pages for each of them and link them all to one central page. Cyberbob  Talk  02:49, 22 July 2006 (BST)
That doesn't really solve the problem of making pages. At least with a page like Suggestions it's on one page instead of a bunch being made. Sonny Corleone WTF 02:52, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Except if they're all lumped together on the one page it's going to get extremely messy. Cyberbob  Talk  02:56, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Suggestions isn't messy. And we get about 5-10 new groups a day. It won't be any different than when Labine50, MrAushvitz, and Mattior created three suggestions a day. Sonny Corleone WTF 02:58, 22 July 2006 (BST)
I strongly disagree, based upon my own experience. Consider this: ASS started with only two members, and it took some time before we were large enough to get on the stats page. How did we get there? By getting new members. How did we get them? Mostly through the wiki.
The worth of a group should not be based upon its size. It's an essentially irrelevant statistic: RRF is enormous, but extremely disorganized. If it was more organized, it would decimate any survivor group in its path. But it still has yet to conquer Caiger Mall. ASS, on the other hand, is quite small in comparison with most groups. But we're able to conquer groups several times our own size. The number of members you have has almost no bearing on your effectiveness, worth, or historical significance, and we shouldn't penalize small groups. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:37, 22 July 2006 (BST)
I think this comment is out of theme. The policy under discussion has nothing to do with the success or failure of a group. There are 180 groups listed in the Game Statistics page (adding ~4850 characters), but there are ~780 articles in the Groups category. As an example you can see Roftwood Drunk Resistance. --Tico 22:39, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Please don't assume I'm an idiot. I actually know what I'm talking about here. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:00, 22 July 2006 (BST)
ASS was created by experienced players. Not Seamus McTrenchCoat, a level 1 newbie that wants to "kil a;ll teh zobmees". Sonny Corleone WTF 23:10, 22 July 2006 (BST)
A recommendation could be done. Something like: To the players who wish to start a group, it is recommended that they do it in a forum. (I'm thinking in Brainstock or Resensitized) By the way, I don't think you are an idiot Bob, on the contrary. --Tico 00:28, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Issues

I have major reserves about this policy. I hate those damn groups, but I believe that this would prevent new groups from forming. Getting a wiki page is the big first step into becoming a group, and the second is directing people to the page and asking them to join. By taking this away, I am afraid that without a wiki-celebrity's endorsement, a new group will never get the 5 members it needs to form a proper wiki page. --Gage 03:02, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Show me a group that hit it off that started with one level one. Sonny Corleone WTF 15:25, 22 July 2006 (BST)
I don't have to because your policy never differentiated between groups started by a level 40 character and one started by a level one. If you want to argue that, put it in the policy. As far as groups started by one person, what about your beloved RRF?--Gage 22:30, 22 July 2006 (BST)
The RRF started with several people ingame and on the proboards forum. That was before the wiki. Sonny Corleone WTF 23:26, 22 July 2006 (BST)

Serious qualms

I like the spirit of this idea, but not its wording. (And yes, if you read the rules on M/PD, you are allowed to revise a policy change before it goes to vote. I'd make some note of what you changed though, just to be safe and avoid confusion.)

  1. Forcing groups to "apply" for a page is opening the door to way too much abuse. There are many kinds of groups that would be shot down by the community, simply because people "don't approve of that kind of group." Do you think the community at large would approve my PKer group's page, ASS, if I had to apply for it? How about a group like GANKBUS? These legitimate groups would stand a good chance of never getting a foothold, just because of people's personal biases.
  2. How will you enforce groups reporting legitimate numbers? If a group reports 9 members — and thus, isn't on the stats page — how will you know they're being honest? Forcing groups to report their member roster isn't a fair solution either, because PKer groups etc. stand a lot to lose in posting their roster (ASS is somewhat unique in that we post our list of members).
  3. In regards to already-formed groups having to prove their worth via the stats page, is that really fair? What if they don't have 10 members? See points 1 and 2 for more on that.
  4. Would this apply retroactively?

I think a better solution is to force groups to keep their pages up to date. If a group hasn't updated their page in three months, it can be posted on a "group review" page, and its fate would be decided upon (either by a moderator or the community):

  1. If the group is historically significant, it would be archived and tagged as such.
  2. If the group is insignificant, it would be speedily deleted.

Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 20:31, 22 July 2006 (BST)

I don't really have a problem with groups that are alreayd created. They'll get deleted in a month or two. However I'm tired of 10 groups created every day by level 1's. How about Making it a rule that you must be a certain level (for experience) and have more than just you in the group? Abotu the stats page, with my current version it says (I think) that if you are on the stats page then it's cool. If you're not then you must apply. The application wouldn't be based on what kind of group it is (like ASS). It would stop groups like Sreath's and Labine50's from being created. We can tell a mile away that they won't lift off the ground. Sonny Corleone WTF 20:37, 22 July 2006 (BST)
But that really gets to the crux of it, doesn't it? Who is able to decide what a "worthy" group looks like? What is the common denominator for groups that succeed versus those that stay at 1 member? Who can tell what from looking at a group whether or not it will succeed or fail? The common wiki user? I'd hardly call them "unbiased" or even "capable of much rational thought." Moderators? We're by and large slightly more neutral than the average user, but by such a small margin that it's pretty insignificant. What's at stake here is not the obvious cases, but the ones in the gray areas. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:05, 22 July 2006 (BST)
You know how to run for mod you need 500 edits and whatnot? If you have someone like that, with a lot of experience, create a group I can see it taking off. But a 13 yr old that signs onto the wiki, butchers the English language, and uploads an irrelevent picture of a soldier in desert camo will not. It's fucking England and soldiers are wearing desert camo?! WTF?! The point is that you can see these groups a mile a way. Sonny Corleone WTF 23:15, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Sure. I agree that the really obvious ones won't succeed, but again, I have to return to the gray areas, and my personal experience. I mean, do you know how many edits I had when Jimbo and I first formed ASS? Zero. He and I initially shared an account (different from either of the ones we have now), and our very first edit was to create the group page. Granted, he and I had both been playing for a while before then, he had been on the wiki on his own account, and I had experience editing wikis before, but still. Looking at the contributions of the original account, we'd be thrown out by your rule. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:20, 22 July 2006 (BST)
You win on that one. What do you suggest to fix this problem? Sonny Corleone WTF 23:25, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Well, I think a reasonable compromise would be to require at least two members to start off with, both of which have to be run by different people, and then something like the deletion process I outlined up above. If you do have a submission process, which I'm still wary of, you'd have to think it through very carefully, and either introduce lots of rules to make sure people are impartial in their votes, or restrict it to moderators only. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 23:59, 22 July 2006 (BST)
Bob is right man, and if this goes to a vote as is I promise it has my Against vote. --Gage 00:32, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Even if Bob liked it and it was perfect you'd still vote Against. Sonny Corleone WTF 00:39, 23 July 2006 (BST)
No I wouldn't --Gage 19:31, 23 July 2006 (BST)

The revision

Very interesting revision. I like it a lot better, but I have a question: would there be any voting process, or would it just be to stop spontaneous groups? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 00:52, 23 July 2006 (BST)

No voting process. But I will now add another part. If you do not make any real significant change (like updates and shit) after a month of it being created it will be put up for deletion. Like it? Sonny Corleone WTF 01:02, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Yep, I think that's very reasonable. Do you want to add anything about having to perform regular updates to the page after the first month, as well? –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 01:05, 23 July 2006 (BST)
That too. Sonny Corleone WTF 01:21, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Looking better and better. Couple of suggestions:
  • Change "If you do not make any major changes after a month of it being created it will be automatically deleted" to read "If you do not make any major changes after a month of it being created it will be placed on the Speedy Deletions page." (You might want to add a new Speedy Deletion criteria to cover this to the policy as well.)
  • Change "After that one month you must update it like every other group" to something like "After that one month you must update it at least once per month" (or whatever time limit you want). Otherwise it'll be too vague and people will protest, no matter how old a group page is. Yes, I have experience with some of the lower inhabitants of the wiki. </bitter> –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 01:35, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Updated it some more. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:11, 23 July 2006 (BST)

Doesn't this leave it open for problems with groups that once had a large number of members but have since disbanded but the group page itself may still have some relivancy? For example it was a group that has had an impact on the way the game's played, maybe it inspired a second group to form taking up the disbanded groups ideals, etc. You probably get the idea. --Tethran 13:43, 23 July 2006 (BST)

We have historical group pages for groups that had a significant part in the history of Malton. Like FOBU, DARIS, etc. I'm pretty sure when Reptileus leaves again no one is going to miss the 501st. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:17, 23 July 2006 (BST)
Much better, this version has a good chance of getting my Keep. What was the comment about me not giving it a Keep even if it was good about?--Gage 19:38, 23 July 2006 (BST)

IF Groups that are on the stats page but not on the wiki are exempt from this. still aplies sounds good to me. Also, I think we need a Historical Resource" tag for pages that are no longer updated but have/had significance in the Past. Pages such as Daris and the 1st Mall Tour shouldnt be deleted (IMHO). Conndrakamod T 00:59, 24 July 2006 (BST)

I like it, especially if what Chondrakka mentioned comes to pass. --SirensT RR 01:05, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Conndraka: Category:Historical Groups. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 01:07, 24 July 2006 (BST)
What I was thinking Bob was a template that ID'd the page as a Category:Historical Groups or page rather than the oft ignored Category tag at the bottom. Conndrakamod T 21:05, 24 July 2006 (BST)
If you did have a catagory for those historical groups you'lld have to make sure to carefully define was constitues a historical group... Otherwise anyone and everyone will try and list their group in the history section. --Tethran 21:28, 24 July 2006 (BST)
There already is a Historical Group page. It works like this "If your group had a significant affect on the UD game at some point and is no gone then it goes there. The Many, DARIS, CoL, Renegades, FOBU. All of them did something at some point that affected the way people played. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:59, 24 July 2006 (BST)

For historical groups: {{HistoricalGroup}}. It will also include the Category:Historical Groups link itself. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 03:49, 25 July 2006 (BST)

It's minor, but can we change "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." to "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 post a major update at least once per month." just to stop groups from changing their "group" slogan" from "kill all the zombies" to "Zombies must die." The whole idea of what constitutes a "major update" or "major change" seems shaky though. Ybbor 22:32, 24 July 2006 (BST)

And what if the group has no major changes to make in that month? What if all they have to alter is the group numbers because they're just looking after one area? --Tethran 22:35, 24 July 2006 (BST)
The part abotu deletion after a month isn't my rules. I'm going by the rules of Deletions and Speedy Deletions. If all they do is fix spelling errors or add the Groups Category thing it isn't a major change. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:45, 24 July 2006 (BST)
Can this policy be added to so that old and defunct pages aren't deleted under Category 1 at M/SD? Because they don't really fit there. If we could give them a real reason to die, that would be great. --Darth Sensitive talkW! 15:36, 25 July 2006 (BST)
I'm all for stopping pointless group page creation, and the terms you describe seem pretty clear. I am only concerned about the update requirement. What do you term a Major Update'? How much content would have to be added/altered for it to be considered such? The Coalition group page doesn't change that much, but alterations to other pages relating to their activities do occur...Should contributions on other pages that are about the group count towards active status? (i.e. Regular updates regarding their activities on suburb pages).–Ray Vern Pig.gifphz T 16:36, 30 July 2006 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements