Category talk:Groups

The Subcategories Question

Someone explain to me why The Imperium and Malton Confederacy are hijacking subcategories. They aren't the only groups that are made of groups. There is now a section for "organizations" which is where they belong. Again, in the organizations section they have hijacked subcategories. The subcategories section should be empty on pages such as "organizations" and "human groups" because those ARE subcategories of "groups".

"Subcategories There are 5 subcategories to this category. C Confirmed Groups H Human Groups I The Imperium M Malton Confederacy P PKer Groups"

See the problem? They are NOT the same structural type as the other items on the list. They should be listed normally in the organizations section and they should not be using the subcategories function to give themselves better visibility on every human group page they could find. Elliothatman 08:47, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

I agree with you. And I was the one who added both Category: The Imperium & Category: Organizations to the wiki. The Malton Confederacy has taken the stance that having a sub category allows the many pages related to their organization to be more coherently put together. This has the Interesting side affect of putting them above all other groups... Well if they can, WE can. Ergo The Imperium became a category as well, we almost have more pages than they do. --Alexei Yaruk 16:56, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well no, I am against you doing it just as much as the Malton Confederacy, for the same reasons. I don't subscribe to a "THEY DID IT SO WE CAN DO IT TOO" mentality, that is not wikian, the solution is to eliminate the non-wiki issue in the first place. I agree with you adding category: organizations, that is the way that this sort of thing should be handled. I have nothing against any of the groups involved (since I seem to be getting accused of that in some of my other recent edits), I just want a filing system for all the groups which is non-preferential and consistent. A method that puts a specific group in the same section as "human groups" and puts that same group above every other group on the page violates both of those requirements. Elliothatman 19:09, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Mumm, I still largely agree, however the MODs do not. I removed the category for a time, but it was reverted, they claimed that the unilateral relocation to a regular group page was "unacceptable". I would rather see both groups put back into normal, non category status. This seems very unlikely however. Alexei Yaruk 01:06, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well someone changed it. I'm glad of that, it seems fine now (assuming it doesnt get reverted..) Elliothatman 19:39, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Thank the Emperor. Its only fair after all. Alexei Yaruk 01:48, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Guidelines

I've put back in the group guidelines, which I assume "should" be there. Don't want to step on your toes, Daranz, if you intentionally meant to take that out. (There's been a few weird edits in a row.) --John 21:27, 19 Sep 2005 (BST)

Hey, can someone edit the Groups page so that when you click on the link from the main page and it sends you there you can actually see all the groups WITHOUT having to ckick on the categories tab? I don't know how to do that and I don't want to screw anything up. It just maybe confusing for people who don't use the Wiki that often. Tiger Striped Dog

Done. Redirects don't work right when redirecting to a category page, for some reason. --Daranz 00:09, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

There are some bug reports on the meta wikimedia concerning categories and redirects. They hope to solve this problem in a future release. --Timothy Askins 14:40, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Removed pointless, apparently misplaced "Spirit of the West" heading. --CWD

Humans?

Is there a reason why human groups aren't listed as a sub-group of groups? Rhialto 03:55, 29 Oct 2005 (BST)

None at all. --Raelin 04:05, 29 Oct 2005 (BST)

How do you add a group?

So, as i said, any1 know how? -Dislexsick 10:30, 2 Oct 2005 (BST)

How do i get Spirit of the West listed as a group?

Add [[Category:Groups]] and [[Category:Human Groups]] (or "Zombie Groups") to your page somewhere. --Spiro 12:32, 24 Oct 2005 (BST)

But what is "your page" do you mean just put it in my profile or something?

YEah, I second that, what is 'your page'? Where do I add 'my page'?

Numerics enforcement.

It might be a good idea if groups that do not list numerics of membership be removed, it appears that every newb and his nubbin' have 'a group' of their own, thereby flooding the groups page and making it quite moot.

Perhaps a minimum of ten users in a group should be the requirement, therefore if it's not on the statistics page, it shouldn't be on the groups listing. After all, this wiki isn't for recruiting into one man bands. Opinions, feedback anyone? BrianSutherland 15:37, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It'd be good, but demanding that groups have at least ten members will just mean that people will make up a number larger than ten, and explain that their members aren't listing affiliation in their profiles for some complicated in-character reason or other. Or they'll just create ten new characters to get on the stats page, which would be even worse. --Spiro 15:40, 20 Nov 2005 (GMT)

If they're willing to put in that much effort, let them go for it, the characters will vanish out of game in five days. I personally think some kind of quality enforcement is definately neccesary. The groups page is a joke, when I get emails from the 'leader' of a 'group' wanting to join the Malton Confederacy, 99% of the time it's some dude and his mate tops.

If someone is willing to be so bold as to cut down the groups that are not on the stats page, it'd be appreciated.  :) BrianSutherland 22:58, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

How about a seperate category — Unconfirmed Groups, or something to that effect — for groups with less than 10 confirmed members? You'd want something for a name that's not going to get people all worked up, and at the same time succinctly defines why the groups are in there. — g026r 07:05, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Continuing my chain of thought: I've started a category Confirmed Groups for groups showing up on the stats page. (It's much quicker than messing with all the other group pages to move them to another category.) I don't have much time, so I only added those groups which already linked to their respective wiki pages. There may be abbreviations on there that have pages, but if there was no redirect setup, then they didn't get added. — g026r 07:49, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I understand the problem, but at the end of the day, every group starts with one or two members, and the wiki is a great tool for informing people of what you are about and recruiting. The problem with being selective is setting the criteria and enforcing them, and it is a bit of a fuzzy issue, given that number of characters doesn't give a good indication of the number of members, and some active groups have almost no wiki presence.

I actually joined this discussion to propose that a category be set up for groups whose primary language isn't English. I've noticed that there are now a few groups like that, and I think it would be nice. Off the top of my head, I can think of Russian and French groups, and three groups who speak Japanese to varying degrees, and I've seen graffiti in arabic, and katakana about the place. --Timothy Askins 17:53, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Perhaps it should be sub-divided first into Confirmed and Unconfirmed, then into Zombie, Human, and PKer groups within each. If possible, would it be possible to create a Recruiting subsection under Unconfirmed for those small groups that are trying to spread the word about themselves? I know that some of the bigger groups also recruit, but they have the luxury of already being confirmed, whereas some of the smaller ones would likely need a hand in doing so. --Lord Kelvin 21:03, 26 Nov 2005 (CST)

What is the point of this?

The following appears at the top of the Category:Groups page:

If you have been redirected here, click here to show the list of groups

When you click on the link, it just goes to this page. Is my browser acting up, or is this something that could be changed or removed? --Dickie Fux 02:58, 20 February 2006 (GMT)

How do I move my group to the proper location?

Hi, my groups name is the clampgoons. Currently we reside under 't' but we really belong under 'c' how is this problem resolved?

Defunct Groups

We need a list of the deleted groups especially with how fast they are being deleted. Just a list. For now I'll keep a list on my User page.--Rogue 02:28, 24 August 2006 (BST)

Group Stubs

I'm proposing creating a Category:Stubs/Groups. I've been trying to clean a lot of stuff up in maintenence in the last few weeks and it's become painfully clear that a lot of the useless pages on the Wiki are in the form of 1 user "groups" that are created one day and never added to.

I voted against the new rule to delete defunct groups over a month old, but if I could go back, I think I'd recast my vote (although it went through anyhow).

Could I get a discussion, either here or on my talk page, about possibly creating Category:Groups/Stubs?

Thanks to anyone who adds to the discussion - Bango Skank 21:43, 1 September 2006 (BST)

Vanishing Group

I recently noticed that my group. Librarian Organization of Malton was gone and I wondered how I could get it back after my long break from urban dead. We did have a couple of members so it'd be nice to see the pagea again If anyone can help thanks in advance. Anyone? --Poodge 22:58, 8 September 2006 (BST)

This has also happend to the Grayside Demons, the page still exists however the link in the human groups page has vanished. and as i am a member of the GD's, i can say that we are still a human revival group. Please find out what has happend to the link! - koryo

"Zedic"

Can anybody confirm the existance of a group called "Zedic"? They appear to have registered a hospital on the MHG page, but the link to thier group is red.--Labine50 ^MHG|^MalTel 03:10, 19 October 2006 (BST)

Groups by Suburb

Is there a page anywhere to find groups based on their suburb(s) of influence. If not, is there interest in creating such a page? --Pdeq 23:07, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Couldn't you just look at the 'Known Groups' section on suburb pages?--Lachryma^☭ 23:10, 13 August 2007 (BST)

Yes! Thank you. I didn't see that before. --Pdeq 23:23, 13 August 2007 (BST)

No problem, mister.--Lachryma^☭ 02:35, 14 August 2007 (BST)

re: Zombified Republic of !zanbah

According to its wiki, the ZRO! is apparently not an actual zombie group, per se, but a kind of umbrella organisation similar to, say, the DEM. Thus, might it not be correct to list it and its member groups in the same way the DEM and other organisations are listed on suburb pages, i.e. The organisation first, followed by the sub-groups, indented. --WanYao 01:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Project Groups?

Anyone want to go through all these and add {{InactiveGroup}} to all of them? It will make this category a bit more accurate (and of course, I'll help.) Linkthewindow  Talk  01:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I would, but now I think about it, I don't think I could handle going through every single group page again just now. Maybe in a week or so, I'll throw myself in to help you with this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:47, 18 April 2009 (BST)

I've got a week off next week so I'll hopefully make a fair dent in it then. It would be a big project, and we'll have to be careful not to delete groups that just don't wiki (so check forum links.) But like the Massacre, there will be false positives. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:16, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Even if it is a hit and miss affair, its just a template, easily reverted, so it holds the same easy risk as the massacres. And the stats page will be a better guide anyway if we need solid proof. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:30, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Question

Is there any tool that will tell me how many members a group has? -Captain Video 00:52, 1 May 2010 (BST)

stats page --  RoosterDragon  00:54, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Other than the stats page, nothing that I can think of. And the stats page only shows you groups with at least 10 members. —Aichon— 00:57, 1 May 2010 (BST)

Zerger Group

Is it okay if I started a Zerger Group?
This type of group hasn't been officially listed here.- Armin Meiwes 22:14, 05 May 2010 (UTC)

You probably want to ask that over here since it's the place where you posted it. As for being okay, zerging is against the rules of the game, so, no, starting a zerging group in the game is definitively not okay. —Aichon— 21:35, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Notable Active Groups

Which active groups, survivor or zombie, are most notable, and what makes them so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedom0 (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

This is a question that's hard to answer. The wiki only has a structure for deciding the notability of inactive groups — historic group voting. Current groups are treated with an equal platform, equal access to the groups page listing, etc.

That said, the idea behind groups is strength in numbers, and so groups are often more influential in-game the more members they have. You can find a list of groups with ten or more associated in-game accounts at the bottom of the stats page. (Currently there are twenty-six such groups.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)