Talk:The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2012

GSGM 2012

It is now January already, so it should be time to kick off another GSGM. Anyone else up for the task? -- Spiderzed█ 19:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

depends on how much work is involved.--User:Sexualharrison23:34, 15 January 2012 (bst)

just do it yourself, pooface D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 06:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll help as much as I can. Someone gonna deal with the Goons? ~ _{14:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)}

which is going to be fun. as they are still active as hell in the DH.--User:Sexualharrison14:34, 16 January 2012 (bst)

All I care is about where they're listed yet not active. Obviously if they're active as hell somewhere they won't be removed from that burb's listing. ~ _{14:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)}

Have set up the basic page and advertised it on Community Projects for now. Will need to work on the remainder (templates etc.) later, unless someone beats me to it. -- Spiderzed█ 21:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A reworked template would be nice. Different colour at least. --Like Moss and The Dude..... 23:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No, it is (probably) not time

I'll preface all of this by saying that I may be a bit out of touch due to being less active, but given past proclivities with the GSGM, I seriously doubt I am.

The GSGM happens when the wiki needs it, not because it's a new year, and if you want to cite the Goons as being a reason to do it now, stop, because that's not a valid reason. There's nothing stopping anyone here from doing regular maintenance and cleaning up a group that is clearly putting their name in suburbs where they aren't. Many of us used to do so regularly, and you don't need a GSGM to handle that, nor should you wait for one. GSGMs are a necessary evil because they can and do remove legitimate groups every single time. That's why GSGMs are intended to be as infrequent as possible.

I repeat: the GSGM is not an annual event. The first two were about 6 months apart, the third happened a full year later, and the fourth real one, which was supposed to take place 1.5 years after the third, only happened a single year after the third because someone made the incorrect assumption it was annual and jumped the gun before they could be corrected. Now some of you are falling into the same trap. Consider starting it in 6-12 months instead, since the game and wiki have slowed down significantly, which means that the need for the GSGM is reduced.

If you're dead set on doing one now though, at least do it right, for crying out loud. Those of us around for the 2010 one spent months completely rethinking the process from the ground up, but only about half of our changes made it into the 2010 GSGM since someone jumped the gun before we had everything in place. We planned to fix that for the next one, but then the same thing happened with 2010 No.2 when a lone individual who didn't provide notice to anyone else jumped the gun. And then someone who was unaware of the plans for fixing things went and jumped the gun with the 2011 one when they started it without identifying the existing issues faced by previous GSGMers, let alone fixing them. Notice a trend? Even if you don't rethink the process, at least fix the problems identified and documented on the talk pages for previous GSGMs.

If you're going to do a GSGM now, don't follow in the footsteps of those before you, guys, and take the time to plan this one out, then execute it properly, rather than jumping the gun. Rethink how it's done, read the talk pages for the last three years GSGMs, go dig up the 2009 discussions that took places in Iscariot's userspace for the 2010 GSGM (there were a lot of informed and well-considered ideas being bounced around in there, as I recall), and don't forget to consider the plight of the innocent wiki-newb group who doesn't check the wiki often. Try to make things as easy for them as possible, since it's not their fault they're not as cool as you, yet they get harmed by this, despite the fact that they're using the wiki as intended.

Finally, and because I have a personal interest in it, if you guys decide to reuse the massive template I made for the 2010 GSGM (as was done last year), please be aware that you should remove previous incarnations of it from the suburb talk pages first. Even having one of them was enough to break the include limit on some of the talk pages in 2010, forcing us to archive those pages. Having two (or even three, now) could be quite a nuisance, and did break a few talk pages last year. Don't repeat that mistake. </rant> —Aichon— 04:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR: Doing a GSGM annually is like pruning a tree too often. It's harmful to legitimate groups and the overall usefulness of the wiki. Only do it when you must, and this time do it right. Read the old talk pages and actually fix the issues raised, rather than jumping the gun like has happened for the last three GSGMs. —Aichon— 04:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the massive template we've been placing on the burb talk pages truly necessary? I think its purpose was to help let other updaters know what which groups you had already contacted. As I recall from last year, though it only helped in certain circumstances. On many occasions, I'd pick a burb and attempt to contact a group only to find they had already been contacted. That's really the only frustrating part for updaters I think. As for reducing frustration for groups, I don't see too much more that could be done. Change the template color? Sure. Reword the template again? Maybe so. Extend the deadline? Why not? None of that should be too difficult.

My suggestion when we decide to do this is not to break it into burbs but try to somehow determine and list every groups that's listed on a burb template and then divide and conquer. Simple. No burb talk template or archiving necessary. No stumbling over each other when contacting groups. Just the behind the scenes magic of listing those groups all on one page.~ _{06:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)}

The massive template's purpose was to help groups who check their suburb talk pages but not their own to know what was going on, since prior to that we didn't make any changes to the suburb pages until when we were ready to remove everything. For those groups that didn't check their own group page, their first and only warning was the delisting. Contacting the groups in as many different ways as is feasibly possible is one of the things that needs to be improved upon. And yes, we definitely need to figure out which suburbs the groups are in, rather than that they are merely active. That's been on the to-do list of necessary changes to the GSGM for a few years now, but everyone always starts before the logistics for it get figured out. —Aichon— 08:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

erm...why not a list?

Part of the discussion about why GSGMs are difficult to carry out seems to be that multiple users are contacting the same groups regarding the same suburbs. So...why not a list of all suburbs on the Main Page that get ticked off once all groups listed in that suburb have been contacted? This doesn't necessarily mean they've replied and been confirmed, just that they've been contacted. Wouldn't this solve the problem? This would surely help all members participating in the GSGM. --SufferingBob 01:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

If you go back to any of the last few GSGM pages, you'll see that your suggestion is exactly how it's been done. The problem isn't that multiple users are contacting the same groups about the same suburbs. The problem is that we want to have a simple way to identify exactly which suburbs a group is active in. Contacting them multiple times isn't feasible, but the current method (your suggestion) doesn't provide the information we need since we are forced to assume that their one response applies to all the suburbs in which they are listed. —Aichon— 14:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just ask on their talk page specifically which suburbs they are active in, with a disclaimer that if they don't specify, they'll be removed from all suburb pages?--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 15:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, that's exactly how it has been done in the past. My suggestion was to comenup with a system whereby we list every single group and the burbs in which they are listed and then divy them up by group rather than by suburb. It would take a lot of backend work or one very clever bot programmer but it would solve some of the problems which have plagued gsgm for years. ~ _{15:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)}

That doesn't seem too bad. It would just take somebody to go through each page and make a list of groups, then write the suburb they were found in next to them. If they come up again in a later suburb, just add the name. Would take an hour, tops. --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 16:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I started on it a while back but got massively sidetracked. The idea was to use transclutions of the Template:SuburbGroups/Suburb templates so that the data would be live but I ran into issues which I could never work around. A simple one-off list at the beginning of the project would probably work, though as long as it wasn't made too soon before we got started. We wouldn't want out of date info. ~ _{16:25, 26 February 2012 (UTC)}

Let's plan

So, before we start in earnest on the GSGM, what needs to be prepared and what needs to be fixed?

Decisions that still need to be made:

1. How do we deal with groups that are listed in multiple suburbs?
   • Do we ask them to simply list the suburbs in which they are active?
     • What do we do if they say suburbs that they are not currently listed in?
     • What do we do if they indicate activity but forget to list suburbs?
     • What do we do if they say something like, "every suburb" or even just "every suburb we're currently listed in"?
   • Is there an alternative way to deal with it that's better?
2. How can we make more people aware of the GSGM?
   • Isn't one of the system messages that sysops can edit capable of displaying a message at the top of every page? Would that be appropriate?
   • Should we be posting in the news for every suburb page?
   • Should we merely use the contact on the group page as a first effort, then try to follow up on the ones that we missed via forums and the like?
3. Since groups still miss it, should we increase the time limit from two weeks up to a month or something else?
4. Should the GSGM include the radio frequency massacre at the same time?
5. Should we eliminate lists of groups on suburb pages (e.g. East Boundwood and Yagoton), clean them up to match the group listing, or leave them alone?
6. Once we decide all of those, how do we break up the work?

We need to prepare:

1. A new template to post on group talk pages
2. A checklist of groups/suburbs/whatever we decide that need to be handled
3. Instructions for how to deal with some common situations (e.g. red-linked groups, groups linking to something else, group icons that are too big, responses that don't conform to what we ask, etc.)
4. Make the intro text on the GSGM page much easier for groups to skim through and read

And these are all off the top of my head. I'm not currently planning to participate in the GSGM once it gets going, but I want to see you guys get the ball rolling on some thinking for it. I'm sure you all can come up with much better stuff. —Aichon— 20:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether we use the burb talk page as a point of contact or not, let's not use a template which forces us or future generations of gsgm updaters to archive burb talk pages. I understand the need to get the info out in as many ways as possible but that was total overkill and caused more problems than it likely solved. I don't know about system messages but if you really want to grab people's attention, include a message somewhere prominent on Suburb. Forum contact may not be a bad idea. Basically, work smarter, not harder. ~ _{02:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)}

Inactive Groups/Request Clean Up

I have been at Greenland Police Department and Gelasius General Hospital, I have went onto DK13's talk page and website, and it appears there has been no activity since mid-2011. I do believe it was already confirmed on the Malton Hospital Group's talk page, they were inactive. I request to clean up these pages (Or I will do it, it's fine), and claim them for my group, Malton Safe Zone Security. I have been in both buildings for more than a couple days now, as I am the only one there. --Jerrack 20:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome to clean them up without requesting permission. DK13 hasn't been recruiting since last year, so it does look like they're inactive at this point, and you sound like you did your due diligence in confirming their lack of activity. That said, it isn't really possible to claim locations in any sort of official sense, so you're welcome to do whatever you want in that regard even if they are active. —Aichon— 23:18, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding to what Jerrack said, I recommend we remove inactive groups from buildings in which they claim ownership of. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

How do you propose to track them down? There are 10,000 locations in the city, and claims to ownership can be made, though they don't mean anything official. Buildings are routinely used as headquarters for well-known groups (e.g. Southall_Mansion for the Philosophe Knights), and there's nothing wrong with stating such. Even stronger claims than that have no official bearing, so there's little harm in allowing them to stand. Even so, Operation Prune might be better geared for tackling the sort of problem you're talking about, rather than dealing with it as part of the GSGM, since the GSGM doesn't go through all 10,000 locations, and adding that task seems like a bit much. —Aichon— 02:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC

Thank you, but that is what Imean, I don't own them, I claim them for use so people know it's safe and such. Thank you for the answer.

--Jerrack 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)