UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Historical Groups

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Well - this has been formulating in my mind for a little while. Here it is. How do you think it can be improved? --Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 09:03, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Make it so that only groups that are not on the stats page can be removed. - Jedaz 09:17, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I think such a deletion would need a little more investigation than just 'no edits for 2 months'. Maybe if the last few editors are still active in the wiki (within the 2 month period), they should be informed, to see if they know of the groups status. I know my survivors group page hasn't been updated since it was created, but I still add a link to it to the suburb pages were we are --  boxy  TtaMe  ^~~~~~ 09:48, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Thoughts

• Groups that are still on the stats page should automatically be exempt from deletion (after all, they're obviously still active).
• To be deleted, group pages should be at least six months old, and have no updates in the past two months.
• Place no limit on the number of attempts a group can make to be added to Category:Historical Groups, but add a required delay of one week between attempts.
• To be honest, I'm wary of the whole voting process. I've seen too many instances of people being biased or malicious when voting on things. Not only that, but I could easily see a newcomer voting against a group like DARIS just because they haven't heard of it, when obviously it was of great historical impact.

–Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 09:54, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Your proposed changes sound good to me. Dunno what the community thinks about letting old pages age that long, but that's OK. Like the stat page exemption. I do think voting, or something similar is the way to gauge what has been important. Maybe require a certain amount of participation on the wiki to qualify? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:20, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Well, my main idea for the age requirement was just to give people a bit more time. Six months might be too long. Four months maybe? I don't know. Requiring a certain amount of participation to qualify for voting isn't a bad idea, but it would be a pain in the ass to keep track of (between checking every user, dealing with history wipes, etc). Not sure what the right solution is. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 18:09, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Now that the policy includes the requirement that the group is not listed on the stats page I consider this to be a beneficial policy. Thanks Darth, for coming up with what seems to be a workable plan. I whole heartily support criteria being established to remove stale group pages in a speedy manner. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 06:31, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I don't think they should be deleted totally. I think they're page should be archived somewhere, perhaps in a sea of dead souls. I'm all for extinguishing dead groups, but they're prior existance should be kept somewhere. Besides, what if the player(s) return and want to reclaim their group but it has been deleted? Maybe I will archive some of the groups I like on a messageboard, and maybe redirect some of the dead groups I am interested in to a relevant already existing page. Nevertheless, I'm gonna vote for this policy because I'm tired of finding old groups that I might be interested in that are inactive and/or dead, but the player/creator never bothered to come back and say so. --Luigi Galleani 18:03, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Ignorance

I'm going to vote against. Why? A lot of people are ignorant to what happened before they joined. We have people thinking 42% survivors is unfair but 27% zombies is. Groups like FOBU and The Stanbury Renegades are old. No one hears about them anymore because they're old. They'll be cast away because people are too ignorant to learn about their history. No one remembers the Penny-Arcade Rebel Alliance. If they did then Caiger wouldn't be the big Mall, Giddings would. PARA defeated The Many twice. Does anyone know that? No. Why? Because they're ignorant. You would only get a For vote from me if all groups currently on the list are exempt and able to keep their spot on the list. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS CoL} 17:28, 26 July 2006 (BST)

At least a few of the groups currently listed don't really belong. Brain Central and the Sons of Korhal both seem to be candidates for removal. Maybe have a way to vote groups out? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:46, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Brain Central was important for like a month. Sons of Korhal have nothing to do with anything. I'd remove the latter since it isn't historical. The rest should be exempt from new votes. Kind of like Suburbs of Note. Any of them from before the Map switch were left alone. Leave the ones right now alone and you got my vote. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS CoL} 18:58, 26 July 2006 (BST)

OK - do you think that there should be a way to remove groups from the category?

No. If it's there before the policy is ratified then it can't be removed. Groups voted in by the community should be able to stay there. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS CoL} 19:32, 26 July 2006 (BST)

Will you be willing to go through and write the historical significance sections for those groups? It will help get rid of groups that don't belong, and can help show what is meant. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:28, 26 July 2006 (BST)

I'm really tired right now so I'm going to be brief. All groups on the historical category right now are correct. They are all historical. They should not be removed and then revoted in because a lot of them are old. Stanbury Renegades and FOBU being two of them. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:18, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Right - will you be willing to help those of us who aren't as in the know add their historical sections at one point? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:20, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Yeah sure. I think. Dude it's like midnight and I've been tired since like 8. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:21, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Thanks. Sorry for helping to keep you up. We aren't that important in the big scheme of things. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:22, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Nah, I'm awake because of VH1 Classic playing good music. I'm willing to help with everything tomorrow. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 05:23, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Roger that. :::Hums some Boston to himself::: --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:39, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Revisions

• Added not on stat page criteria to SD
• Added allowable votes for voting
• Changed 2 max attempts to waiting period of 1 week

On consideration, I think that 2 months is plenty of time to make an edit, even if it's edit summary reads "Blank edit to keep page from M/SD". Unless I get help getting sections added to the groups in Historical Groups stating why they should be there, I won't change that part. Thoughts? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 18:18, 31 July 2006 (BST)

One final change - unless I get major objections, this will go to voting.

• Groups currently on the page will remain.

Any qualms or anything? --Darth Sensitive ^W! 04:28, 2 August 2006 (BST)

It's cool with me. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 04:30, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Bitchfest

Some groups are quite obviously important, or at the very least historical. I may never have seen The Stanbury Renegades in game, but from looking at their page you can tell. Others are more difficult to see the significance of. If they all had a big NPOV section detailing their impact on the game it'd be a fuck of a lot easier to say "this one's shit", "this one's not". Really, why can't groups that are shutting down have the courteousy to say they've disbanded, this is what they did, this is the impact on the game. Category:Historical Groups, and we'd be done with it. Of course, they don't because they're lazy inconsiderate pricks, and we end up with tons of useless, misleading pages cluttering the place up.</rant>

–Xoid ^S•T•FU! 18:35, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Discussion

1. For the same reason I was against the 'Creating a Group Page' suggestion. A heading for important Historical groups is fine, but for the rest of them 1 month is too short a time not to edit. What about when people have exams or work deadlines or go on holiday? Making sure someone is updating the Urban Dead group page is not always a priority! 3 or 6 months might be alright, if it is so enormously necessary to delete lots of group pages. Is it necessary? GrownUpSurvivor 08:36, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   It's a month. How hard is it to write a paragraph or two for your favourite historical group? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 09:04, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Reread. I was not talking about Historical groups, but other groups. See, where I say 'the rest of them'? My objection is specific to the first part of the suggestion about deleting, or moving to a 'defunct' category, any group which is not updated in a month. However cool the word 'defunct' sounds.

   In the 'Creating a Group Page' voting it is clear how many people this bothers. Should this 'one-month-then-delete' need to be voted against as contained in this suggestion when it has already been voted against as part of another suggestion? --GrownUpSurvivor 11:32, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   This policy does not require that groups make a change to their group page, much less a substantial one. Please look under "Revisions" a little up the page. The requirement that groups update their page is solely so that it can be seen which groups are still active by doing a quick check of the "last modified" date. All you need to do is click "Edit", put "Blank edit - still active" in the Summary box, then "Save Page" for the requirement to be fulfilled. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 13:38, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Hi Darth. Sure, I see that it is simple to show that a group is still active. I often go to a group history to see if it is still active, I can see why you suggest it, but that doesn't at all address my concern with the one month timescale. People can be interested in maintaining their group, but exam season or holiday season comes along, and every one in a group can easily be occupied with life-things for as long as a month. I don't know anyone who would log into the wiki from a beach in Majorca, or in the final weeks of exam prep, even just to put "Blank edit - still active". Their characters in the game go to sleep and can be reawakened, it oughtn't to be different for their groups, ought it? --GrownUpSurvivor 15:21, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Moderators are supposed to look at the pages, even if they do meet the speedy deletion criteria, and make a judgement call. Put a notice on the page saying that you will be "gone on holidays to Paris/Iraq/Saturn/Wherever. Will be gone for x days/weeks/months/whatever", and I can pretty much guarantee that unless 4+ months has passed, it's unlikely to get deleted. There is always M/U as well for those with an itchy trigger finger… –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:42, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Oh no, that smacks of sending a permission slip in order to go on the school trip. Too beaurocratic. Why not 4+ months as standard? I'm trying to think how to explain the objection that I, am I think, many others, have to this 1 month policy. I'm going to ramble on. You can stop reading when you get bored.

   <rambling> It is the different way that different people play the game and contribute to the wiki, and what they get out of it. Large, active groups make an enormous difference to the game - boards taking revivication requests etc. being invaluable. Plus you moderators do a lot for the wiki, make it operate, while no doubt having busy lives to cope with.

   I'm in a small group with a few friends, as an example. I've, for example, been out of the country a couple of times this year. One member of the group I know has had to deliver lecture courses at work as well as seminars and also to travel overseas for work which can be intensely busy. (He has a very exciting life.) Another member of the group I know has had final year exams (yes, the spread of ages is wide). What do we get out of Urban Dead? I know we all log in most days to play. And that is what it is, play. If someone mails our group to form an alliance or ask for help or join, it enhances the game.

   As for myself, I have often clicked the random page button and very much enjoyed reading the pages of defunct groups that are snapshots on a few people's views of the the game. They didn't change the Malton forever, but they were funny, and clever, and showed a particular point of view. Us lot will probably be playing and contributing to the wiki next year, and even the next, given the chance. I am not going to put 'leave note on wiki group page' on the same priority list as 'redirect work email' and 'pay electricity bill'. If we lose the contributions we have made we will ofcourse survive, but it will be disappointing.</rambling> --GrownUpSurvivor 16:31, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   <rant>Four months as the standard? Please tell me you are kidding me. Most groups don't even last that long, have a no content page and didn't even have to courtousy to say "we've disbanded". Those pages are the reason for this policy. Useless pages that add nothing to the wiki, and are confusing for newbies. I can understand that you might be busy for, say, one or two months. But a full third of a year? If you are going to take that long to make even a minor "Yes, we're still alive" edit, then you don't deserve a wiki page. Is two minutes of your life that much to ask? You'll still have the 175,198 minutes of those four months to spend as you wish!</rant>

   –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:45, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Listen, Xoid, mate, if you don't think we deserve a wiki page then - you are a moderator- there is probably not much we can do about it. All of those people that voiced their views in the 'Creating a Group Page' voting probably have no idea that this debate goes on. I do disagree with you, but mine is only one vote, and you can of course ride right over it. --GrownUpSurvivor 17:02, 8 August 2006 (BST)

   Eh - this isn't Xoid's dog in the fight. I don't have a problem with you voting against, though I do wish that you had weighed in before this was sent to a vote. if a mojority weighs in against this policy, it will be reworked and submitted again. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:07, 8 August 2006 (BST)

2. I don't think they should be deleted totally. I think they're page should be archived somewhere, perhaps in a sea of dead souls. I'm all for extinguishing dead groups, but they're prior existance should be kept somewhere. Besides, what if the player(s) return and want to reclaim their group but it has been deleted? Maybe I will archive some of the groups I like on a messageboard, and maybe redirect some of the dead groups I am interested in to a relevant already existing page. Nevertheless, I'm gonna vote for this policy because I'm tired of finding old groups that I might be interested in that are inactive and/or dead, but the player/creator never bothered to come back and say so. --Luigi Galleani 20:14, 11 August 2006 (BST)

Is there a place where it will be logged which group pages were deleted? Will they be 'candidates for speedy deletion' or just deleted on the spot? --Luigi Galleani ^{MAC | BB} 18:22, 18 August 2006 (BST)