User:Iscariot/GSM2010

Great Suburb Massacre 2010

Userspace Notice

This is a user page, not a talk or discussion page. Unless specifically invited, you should not edit this page. Uninvited editors may be referred to Vandal Banning and their edit may be ruled as vandalism.

Proposals

1. Combine the radio and group massacre into one - There's no point in dealing with the two separately.
2. Have check stations on suburb talk pages as well - Some group members might not have their own group's talk page on their watchlist, this way with a small bit of duplication we potentially reach a wider audience.
3. Decide a standard format for the group boxes on suburb pages - There is a lot of variation, by using this project the whole wiki's group boxes can be standardised at once.
4. Create a fool-proof set of instructions to allow anyone to participate - More users equal less work for all.
5. Break down the suburb map into manageable chunks - Users will then know what they're working on and there'll be no duplication or groups missed.

Required

1. New templates - To cover both sides of the massacre, customisation/a secondary template for those in more than one suburb might be the needed.
2. Standardised checklists - For both the GSM status page and suburb talk pages.
3. The map sectioning - Manageable 5 or 10 suburb chunks should be fine.

Discussion

Sectioning the city into districts is manageable. Five districts per quadrant, with five suburbs per district; so 20 chunks in total and each a comfortable size. If that works for everyone, I'll even get a checklist put together this weekend. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, districts make the most sense, since they're already well-understood, though there will be a few areas that have much higher group density, unfortunately. —Aichon— 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Have a word with Aichon. He was looking at reforatting suburb listings to make them more manageable. Might save us a job. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 08:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, mostly what I was looking at doing was simplifying the template so that it would be easier for wiki newbs to edit and maintain the lists themselves, since right now I'm having to clean up after almost every single edit to the templates since mistakes are so common. Those types of changes can be made independently of the GSM, and I kinda need to coordinate with Rooster on them (or else leave the work to him, since he had already started on it before I ever even brought it up), since they'd probably need to be done via bot, otherwise they'd leave the pages broken for as long as it took me to edit them all by hand. —Aichon— 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hurm. I don't understand #2. Can someone explain it to me? Other than that, everything looks good, and some of the finer points of proposal #3 have been discussed in detail here--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he's proposing that in addition to contacting the groups on their talk pages, we also post on the suburb pages in question. The idea being that we can potentially contact groups who watch their suburbs but don't watch their own group pages (perhaps more accurately, we'd catch the attention of their members, who might be watching the suburbs). I'm up in the air on it, and really don't care if it's done or not. I don't see the harm, basically, and it's a very minor inconvenience. —Aichon— 12:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal #3

Regarding proposal #3: since I went through and cleaned them up a few weeks back, a lot of the variation has been toned down, but the things that are still left are:

1. Group images that are taller than 25px (e.g. Legion of the Octopope in Foulkes Village and elsewhere)
2. Organizations with/without images (e.g. DEM has no image, but Southwest Alliance and the Dulston Alliance have them)
3. Groups in one suburb are organizations in another (e.g. The Spanish Inquisition in Vinetown) (handled)
4. Groups that don't have a wiki page
5. Groups listed under multiple categories (e.g. EVIL)
6. Group images that are smaller than 25px to a side (e.g. the Dulston Alliance uses 20x20 images for their member groups)
7. Different groups using the same logo (e.g. M.E.M.S. and MFD in Pegton) (handled)

Anyway, regarding #1, I think that we should either remove the group images that are taller than 25px and replace them with the question mark image, or else do the math on them so that they end up being 25px tall (but might become too thin to see clearly). Otherwise, it's a bit unfair that they get to occupy so much screen real estate.

For #2, personally, I prefer the DEM's approach, since it sets the organization apart from the groups more visibly, but I'm not sure that we should mandate it.

For #3, there's only one example that comes to mind, which I mentioned up there. No idea whether it needs to be dealt with. According to the guidelines, organizations should be mentioned if even one of their member groups is in that suburb, but what do you do if the "organization" is present but none of the member groups are?

For #4, I'd say that they should be removed outright. After all, we have no way to contact them easily. The ones that were just plain text have already been turned into red links by me as of a week or two ago, to make them easier to spot.

For #5, I don't have an issue with it, so long as it makes sense (as it does with EVIL, from what I understand).

For #6, I like the DA's approach in that they use 20x20 images for their member groups. I think it looks pretty nice (e.g. Dulston). I don't know that we should mandate it, but I think it helps to set organizations apart from normal groups more in an attractive way.

For #7, MEMS and MFD are actually the only example I can think of, and I left a note on the MEMS talk page a week or two ago to ask about it, since they already have their own logo anyway, which they're just not using. Go figure. —Aichon— 19:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

#1- Do the maths if it's not too much of a difference - if they'll come out too thin, then replace it with the question mark. If you'd like, I can handle this particular task in a sweep after the Massacre is over, and contact the owners asking if they could upload versions with square dimensions (via extra transparent background mass).

#2- I prefer groups having images and organisations not, but this is purely opinion.

#3- These would be highly individual cases. I say look at each one, and it probably only is one.

#4- Remove them outright.

#5- If the listing is what I think it is (death cults split over 'hostile' and 'zombie') I'd put them under hostile. RDD is as much dead as alive, but 'hostile' is a better fit for them - same goes for most, if not all, death cults.

#6- See point #2

00:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

For #1, you and I could split the work if you want. I was planning to do it myself if the GSM didn't handle it, exactly the way that you specified. —Aichon— 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Bit busy to give this the time it deserves right now, but regarding organisations, remove them. It's a groupbox, they aren't groups, they're something else, I don't care what, it can be giraffes for all I care, but only groups should be in the groupbox. Unless they'd like to say that they're groups, in which case they're breaking some major alt rules. The only reason that organisations want that extra link is free advertising and it shouldn't be allowed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

At first, your suggestion seemed too extreme to me, but now that I've sat on it for a bit, I agree with you. It doesn't help organization of the template, and it just gives free advertising. Plus, I can't tell you how many groups have been confused by the bigger text and have added themselves in with big text. Better to just eliminate it altogether so that there's no confusion. —Aichon— 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so, here's what I'll suggest we do then in order to deal with some of the points. Please quibble with them if you disagree:

• Require that logos either be square or horizontally-oriented. For now, do the math on them and notify the groups (separate project, not part of GSM?). That handles #1 and #6.
• Remove organizations from the group listing. Doing so will handle points #2 and #3 (which was already handled anyway), in addition to causing less confusion.
• Remove groups that don't have a wiki page, which will handle #4.
• Put groups that are in multiple sections under Hostile, which will handle #5.

If we all agree on those, I can easily go through and do those last three on my own before we do the GSM, which should make things easier on us when we go through. As for the images, Mis and I can just clean them up afterwards as a separate project. From then on though, I'd say it should be enforced by replacing non-conforming images with the question mark, which I can handle, since I'm already maintaining those templates on a daily basis. —Aichon— 04:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just jumping in here since you posted. Seriously tired and drunk right now, but on the point of organisations I (obviously agree) entirely. The DEM, DA, PKA etc. should be removed from the group box, they aren't groups so have no business being there. As far as other points go I'll be sure to comment and articulate when I have time, this is why I said we should start on 1st February, people are busy this time of year and in the aftermath, the extended deadline allows everyone to contribute and the project to reach consensus. You'll all now be vouching for me after we get rid of certain 'crats that will bar my promotion on personal grounds ;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for spamming comments here, however, I had a random thought: if we aren't going to tackle group images as part of the GSM, then we still could notify them that their image is not in compliance and that a separate effort to clean up those images will be underway sometime later. Simply educating them might be enough to get most of them to clean things up, and we could easily toss a variable into the template we put on their pages that would automatically add the educational text. —Aichon— 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One extra wrinkle was just created: due to the integration of the suburb historic groups into the template, we now have to contend with historic groups using images that are non-compliant (see Eastonwood Ferals here). Again though, we can probably handle it as a separate project. —Aichon— 16:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Maths time. Change the dimensions of the small image so that the largest side is 25px. It's not like historic groups need the advertising that a perfectly-legible image gives. 16:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Requirement #2

Go here, please. I just rigged up a quick template that we might be able to use as a checklist on the suburb pages (the formatting could still use work, but the functionality is there). Take a look at the source for the page.

I tried to make it dirt-simple to use, while also packing in some automatic, wiki-logic color-coding so that it can be visually scanned to get an idea of what needs doing. Basically, if things are in green, that means they're done. If things are in yellow, they're being waited on. If things are in red, they need to be dealt with immediately. All of that is handled automatically, so no one needs to mess around with any formatting or coloring of their own, which makes it much more idiot-proof for whoever is involved in this thing. Oh, and "Confirmed" is a special keyword that you fill in for the Date Due whenever they confirm.

Anyway, do we want to use something like this at all, or do we just want to pass on it and use a simple list-based checklist instead? Either way works, but I thought I'd run this by you guys and see what you thought. —Aichon— 12:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. It might be worth adding some instructions using <!--- ---> so it's even more dirt simple to use. I say we use a table like the one you've provided - it's less messy, for one. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, instructions would definitely need to get added, but I wanted to see how it was received first before I dumped any more time into it. Oh, and as an aside, it currently can only go up to 20 groups, but I could easily rig it to go up as high as we need. —Aichon— 13:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I also like it a lot. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, given that I know we tend to work in rounds where people go through and get a swatch of work done at a time, and that we might have different people contacting the groups versus verifying the groups, I thought it would be wise to make the template support that type of work. So, I made a few changes along those lines (and other changes as well, of course).

• Using the sigcontact variable will add a signed footer to the table with the signature of the person responsible for contacting the groups.
• Using the sigclear variable will replace that footer with a new (signed) one, indicating that the suburb is complete, and will change the table header to green.
  • It also adds a new comment, thanking the groups for their cooperation.
• The words "Confirmed" and "Removed" both get bolded to make them easier to see and change the group name to green.
• Aesthetic improvements all around?
• The text has been revised, and now includes a direct link to the template with the groups for the suburb.

I also went ahead and redid the examples so every possible case is seen, added a fake comment from a random user (to make sure the template didn't screw things up), and inserted some wacky examples into the code (to show that it's resilient against idiocy). As for instructions, I think they might actually work better on a different page. I'll draft up something, but it'll basically be just like what was said: comments inserted in the code, and I'll set it up so that they can just copy from the code on that page and paste it wherever they want. As before, please review the source for it to make sure it looks okay. —Aichon— 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In particular, please preview edit that page to have different signatures in the variables so that you can see how the table changes appearance and can see the extra text that shows up after the table. —Aichon— 04:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal 1

I'm interested in how you're planning to do the radio and group massacres simultaneously. I can't see a way of doing it that guarantees that every group gets checked (bar doing them separately.) The main problem is that there is no guarantee that a group that is on the radio list will have a presence on the suburb list.

Probably the way to do it would be like this:

1. Conduct the Suburb Massacre.
2. Check the radio list once this is completed. Warn groups that have not been warned yet, make a listing, check them in two weeks time.
3. ????
4. Profit.

That will cut down on double checking a group, but it unfortunately won't cut down on work, sorry (unless someone's got a better idea, and I'm being an idiot.) Linkthewindow  Talk  13:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Though it won't help with this massacre, maybe it'll help for the future if groups are required to be on a suburb listing in order to have a radio station. That'd be a bear to enforce though...maybe not such a good idea. Anyway, yeah, I think you might be right. At first blush, the proposal sounds fine, but once you think about it, I just don't see how it would work logistically. —Aichon— 04:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

District & Suburb Checklist

Here's the list of suburbs, divided up into their respective districts. I didn't link them here, but we could do that for the official page if we so choose.

NW-1

• Gatcombeton
• Chudleyton
• Darvall Heights
• Eastonwood
• East Becktown

NW-2

• Dakerstown
• Jensentown
• Quarlesbank
• Roywood
• Judgewood

NW-3

• West Boundwood
• East Boundwood
• Shuttlebank
• Yagoton
• Brooke Hills

NW-4

• Peddlesden Village
• Dunell Hills
• West Becktown
• Owsleybank
• Molebank

NW-5

• Richmond Hills
• Ketchelbank
• Lukinswood
• Havercroft
• Barrville

NE-1

• Pashenton
• Huntley Heights
• Santlerville
• Gibsonton
• Heytown

NE-2

• Lamport Hills
• Chancelwood
• Earletown
• Millen Hills
• Raines Hills

NE-3

• Rhodenbank
• Dulston
• Rolt Heights
• Pescodside
• Dunningwood

NE-4

• Shearbank
• Roachtown
• Randalbank
• Ridleybank
• Pimbank

NE-5

• Spracklingbank
• Paynterton
• Peppardville
• Pitneybank
• Starlingtown

SW-1

• North Blythville
• Wykewood
• South Blythville
• Greentown
• Lockettside

SW-2

• Grigg Heights
• Reganbank
• Lerwill Heights
• Crooketon
• Mornington

SW-3

• Shore Hills
• Galbraith Heights
• Brooksville
• Mockridge Heights
• Tapton

SW-4

• Nixbank
• Foulkes Village
• Ruddlebank
• New Arkham
• Old Arkham

SW-5

• Dartside
• Kinch Heights
• Spicer Hills
• Williamsville
• Buttonville

SE-1

• Crowbank
• Wray Heights
• Gulsonside
• Osmondville
• Scarletwood

SE-2

• Stanbury Village
• Roftwood
• Edgecombe
• Shackleville
• Tollyton

SE-3

• Pegton
• Dentonside
• Vinetown
• Houldenbank
• Penny Heights

SE-4

• Kempsterbank
• West Grayside
• East Grayside
• Wyke Hills
• Hollomstown

SE-5

• Pennville
• Fryerbank
• Danversbank
• Whittenside
• Miltown

--Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Should I draft up a similar table/template for this as well? Should be too difficult, given that I've already done all the hard work for the other. —Aichon— 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)