UDWiki talk:Administration/Policy Discussion/Suburb Historical Groups

Discuss this policy proposal below. Numbers and specifics are subject to change depending on community consensus. 23:20, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Requiring 15 people is a bit much. I'd say 10 or possibly less, since most of these talk pages get very little action on them. I'd also give it the full two weeks, since a lot of groups don't check it frequently, as the GSGM has taught us. Otherwise, I like the idea. The subheading effectively has no meaning at the moment, and this would give it the meaning it desperately needs. Eagle of Fire and I were just discussing Yagoton's situation with historical groups this week, in fact, and there was obviously a lot of confusion involved in our conversation, since we needed to spend a lot of time clarifying the purpose of various parts of the listing. And since most of that isn't in writing anywhere, it's not good. —Aichon— 23:36, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Say minimum 12 votes then? I like the divisible-by-three thing for some reason. 23:40, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I think 15 is a good number. The harder is it to get into those sections the better. If the group can't muster 15 of its own members to vote, then they probably shouldn't be there. -- LEMON #1 23:58, 18 October 2010 (BST)

I've got my doubts about 15. Unless there are plans to post this on the wiki news template, I highly doubt the talk pages will get enough people to notice the vote and drop by. As for DDR's point, a group doesn't have to be very big to leave an impact. I know plenty of "notable" groups in the quieter northeast suburbs that barely make it onto the stats page, and most of their members don't care much for the wiki. I'd rather go for nothing higher than a 9-10 vote minimum, given the lack of traffic most of the suburb talk pages get.~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:03, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Oh, this would probably be posted to Wiki News too. Though multiple votes would probably be best clustered into one news item. 02:05, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Even then, I doubt the smaller suburbs would be able to muster 15 interested individuals. I highly recommend you rethink the minimum number. For that matter, why would thins need a minimum? GR and GA don't have one, and they can easily receive more attention than a low profile suburb. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:10, 19 October 2010 (BST)

You know, you're right. Probably safe to scrap the minimum then. 02:14, 19 October 2010 (BST)

No, keep it. Seriously think about it. If you can't get even 10 people to vote ON the thing, let alone for it, then I'll be boned if it's worthy to be recognised indefinitely as a historical group. -- LEMON #1 02:19, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Quick tally in new section below. 02:35, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Let's look at, say, Spracklingbank. It's talk page doesn't even have 900 views. Pretend a small group that maintained the suburb for a few years went under, and one of it's members put it up for historical/notable status in the suburb. Are we going to shoot them down simply because there aren't enough people that care about a random, no-name suburb to meet a minimum vote requirement? ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:34, 19 October 2010 (BST)

If you can't get even 10 people...then I'll be boned if it's worthy to be recognised indefinitely as a historical group. As opposed to the one person it takes for them to be listed now? :/ —Aichon— 04:30, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'm not sold on posting it to wiki news. These nomination should mostly attract people that are intimately familiar with the suburb. Posting to wiki news will both clutter wiki news and reduce the number of worthy local groups getting listed that actually were important but didn't get widespread recognition. —Aichon— 04:33, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Calling it historical is BOUND to create a shitload of pain and confusion, perhaps consider renaming it to "notable" or something? -- LEMON #1 23:58, 18 October 2010 (BST)

Yes, rename it to notable. It's redundant to have two historical group categories, if you've made history it should be for the whole game and not just a suburb. --Aeon17x 00:00, 19 October 2010 (BST)

See, 'notable' would imply current. It still needs to retain a sense of past-tense. 02:05, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Yeah, well we'll think of something else. But Historical implies something already on this wiki, and it'll just create confusion and double meanings etc. imo. I'll play with the synonym databases later. -- LEMON #1 02:19, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I subscribe to Wikipedia's idea of notability, which doesn't imply currentness. --Aeon17x 02:21, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Or maybe call it "Suburb Historical" groups or something? :S -- LEMON #1 02:21, 19 October 2010 (BST)

Works for me. 02:35, 19 October 2010 (BST)

How about "Local Legends"?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:36, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I'm up for giving each suburb some "notable groups" Anything to keep the GD "Historical Groups" page votes free of clutter.--keepster33 14:32, 20 October 2010 (BST)

The problem that you will run into is that this will bias the suburb listings toward newer groups, not because they are more historic per se, but because more of the current community has likely encountered them in game. I've noticed that many voters who vote no on Historical Groups, basically parrot "Who?" for groups that disbanded years before they joined the Wiki in 2009/2010. It's like "No shit you haven't heard of them; their impact was made years before you even joined the game." I don't know; it seems like you are adding unneeded bureaucracy that for a fifteen minute browser game, probably isn't really needed.-MHSstaff 03:04, 19 October 2010 (BST)

You wouldn't however, argue that there are groups that don't deserve historical status that are popping up requesting it. They are simply cluttering the "Historical Group Voting" pages. And some of the TRULY historical groups don't have a page for reference. I guess what I'm saying is: Don't complain if people don't know who you are if you don't have a somewhat readable wiki page. I'm not saying that "If you don't have a wiki there's no way you can be historical." But, for those of us that don't know or weren't around for a group/event. A wiki page can be a godsend for voting intelligently.--keepster33 14:43, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Vote Minimum?

Have one? >10? Something else? I'm leaning towards none or quite low, maybe 10, maybe 9. 02:35, 19 October 2010 (BST)

1. None some of the suburb pages simply do not get the traffic to justify anything but the lowest vote limits. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:41, 19 October 2010 (BST)
2. None The entire concept is a joke. Given that equal weight is given to the votes of community members who 1) may have no knowledge of a what groups actually operate in a given suburb, or 2) may have no knowledge of which groups operated during a given time for a given suburb, pretending that this is some historical peer-review on suburb group notoriety is somewhat far-fetched. -MHSstaff 03:11, 19 October 2010 (BST)
3. None - Most of these nominations should have low turnout, and ideally they should be mostly locals anyway, which cuts down on the potential/interested voting pool even further. —Aichon— 04:30, 19 October 2010 (BST)
4. None - Most groups in my home suburb are less than 10.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:35, 19 October 2010 (BST)
5. >10. Nut up you bitches -- LEMON #1 12:16, 19 October 2010 (BST)
6. None The entire policy is stupid and most suburb pages wouldn't have traffic enough to get to 10. Sanpedro 05:27, 20 October 2010 (BST)
7. None - Little traffic on suburb talk pages, especially on those of the less notable ones. -- Spiderzed▋ 06:42, 20 October 2010 (BST)

None it is then. Draft will change accordingly when put to vote (after I make some fud). 21:47, 20 October 2010 (BST)

More Voting?

Dear god no. Lose the historical box entirely, add the relevant groups to the blurb on the top of each suburb page. And yes, even now SFHNAS is historical. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:22, 19 October 2010 (BST)

I agree with Ross here. It doesn't take a vote get get listed as a Survivor, Zombie or Hostile group. Why should it be different for Inactive groups. I say just name it something other than Historical (Inactive?) -or- keep the Historical section for actual Historical Groups and add a fifth heading for you inactive groups. --~ 06:24, 20 October 2010 (BST)

It's not an "Inactive" section. It's a "Historical" section. If it was an "Inactive" section, it would be massive for every suburb. We don't want every single group that gets formed and then dies two days later to have a permanent listing on the suburb page. We do want those that made an impact at the suburb level to be remembered, however, but I don't think that the blurb on each page is the way to do it either, since that just adds bloat to the text that's unnecessary. —Aichon— 06:53, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Ah, very true. I read the discussion in a hurry and misinterpreted the part about past-tense wording. I can see how it would create a problem, too. Anyway. I still don't think there should be voting. Either use the section for approved historical groups or get rid of/change the name of the section heading. --~ 07:31, 20 October 2010 (BST)

We're talking about doing some combination of both. The problem then is how do we define "approved groups" and/or choose which groups go in there? —Aichon— 10:08, 20 October 2010 (BST)

It's that problem that this policy is trying to address. 14:12, 20 October 2010 (BST)

Scratch the entire policy

It is stupid. Sanpedro 05:29, 20 October 2010 (BST)

i sorta argee. but i think you should at least give a few reasons why it's "stupid"----sexualharrison ¯\()/¯ 21:35, 20 October 2010 (BST)