UDWiki talk:Moderation/Policy Discussion/Group namespace
Discussion
Nice idea, but let's say that it's approved. What kind of groups are to belong to these pages? Let's say that the RRF manages to have his own page on the group namespace: How do we avoid every user that tries to update it to get flamed and embroiled on an edit war because his edits, being NPOV and true, reflect poorly on said group? --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:27, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- There is arbitration and mods to back every edit in question. I am a Ridley, and i know that we are losing (bigtime) the war in our home. It's all a matter of people being neutral and assuming their defeat sometimes. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:32, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Ok, but we need an unquestionable limit to the groups that get on the namespace and groups that don't. A case by case decission may be a poor choice because it could include (all in a fashion of example and not trying to say that some group belongs or not to this new namespace) The Gingerbread Men because they're pretty much known, and not to include the Sebright Union, that is rather unknown tough it has 25 members, and the former only 10. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:38, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- The entire confirmed group thing could be used here. If a group is confirmed, any user ask for its page. After some period of time (like, two weeks), if the group is still in the stats page or has received feedback from other groups, then it gets its page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:56, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Well, now a new Group template should be built and added to this policy, and a way to determinate the groups that should be included written to the policy. Until then, this policy is incomplete and can't be voted on. Still, I like the basic idea. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:15, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- I'd really rather not have a template messing up the feng shui on my group page. --Ron Burgundy 18:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)
- Could always make it so that when there is an edit, there will be vote on whether to keep it or not. Dont they do that on the regular wikipedia?--Mercsenary T•RCDC 06:22, 21 September 2006 (BST)
- I'd really rather not have a template messing up the feng shui on my group page. --Ron Burgundy 18:07, 18 September 2006 (BST)
- Well, now a new Group template should be built and added to this policy, and a way to determinate the groups that should be included written to the policy. Until then, this policy is incomplete and can't be voted on. Still, I like the basic idea. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 19:15, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- The entire confirmed group thing could be used here. If a group is confirmed, any user ask for its page. After some period of time (like, two weeks), if the group is still in the stats page or has received feedback from other groups, then it gets its page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:56, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Ok, but we need an unquestionable limit to the groups that get on the namespace and groups that don't. A case by case decission may be a poor choice because it could include (all in a fashion of example and not trying to say that some group belongs or not to this new namespace) The Gingerbread Men because they're pretty much known, and not to include the Sebright Union, that is rather unknown tough it has 25 members, and the former only 10. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 18:38, 14 September 2006 (BST)
Don't like it
People can already add NPOV sections to any group page, and it would be far too easy to abuse the namespace since it's editable by anyone. Groups would have to keep track of multiple pages to ensure that the neutral POV stays neutral. –Bob Hammero Mod•B'crat•T•A 20:49, 14 September 2006 (BST)
This seems like twice the confusion for only four times the effort. --Max Grivas JG•T•M•F! 20:54, 14 September 2006 (BST)
- Seconded.--Gage 01:39, 15 September 2006 (BST)
- Wrong. twice times the confusion at a low low five times the effort, with a thrown in uselessness factor, in addition to flame wars and pointed fingers. --Gold Blade 01:43, 15 September 2006 (BST)
I'd much rather people find out about a group for themselves than read through some sterile NPOV section. This would also be very problematic for any group that makes wake, since its page would be heavily, heavily scrutenized by its enemies. Can you imagine what a disaster this sort of thing would be if we run into another Gankbus? You can make perfectly objective NPOV statements and still get a point across if you're selective about what you say- and a page that claims to be unbiased is a really dangerous place to put that sort of thing. If the only intention of this policy is to make a coherent history of UD, you can use the suburb pages or a few grains of salt. --Ron Burgundy 06:36, 16 September 2006 (BST)
- This idea has potential but it needs to be ratified before voting. Make it so you can edit inactive group pages (no members), but with a group's page they should list only editable by: Name, name, name, name then you know if the group page is normally "hands off". --MrAushvitz 05:13, 29 September 2006 (BST)
Define 'noteable'. Whats important to you may not be important to someone else, and vise versa. Is it determined by the SIZE of users in it? What about their effect in the game world? A good example would be my own YRC. There aren't many of us offically in the group, but in my opinion we have a significant effect on the game world as a whole...and so do the 30+ OTHER revive clinics in Malton. Where would it end? Who is more important than who? I believe that we're all too interconnected to one another in Kevan's little experiment to start handing out such reservations. --MorthBabid 19:59, 5 October 2006 (BST)
Though it sounds good in some ways, it looks to have many drawbacks. I agree with MrAushvitz comment on ratifaction. --Ablesentinel 09:14, 6 Octoer 2006 (CST) :
Indeed, "notable" is a very vague requirement. And allowing anyone to edit's a group's entry is just inviting vandalism and edit wars. Enough of it's already beingdone. -Certified=Insane☭ 03:03, 16 October 2006 (BST)
Abandoned
This policy has sat longer than a month and the author has discontinued editing the wiki. Moving to withdrawn. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 18:23, 25 October 2006 (BST)
