UDWiki:Open Discussion/Community Portal News Usage

Community Portal

Featured Article Guides:First Day in Malton is for people who come to the wiki after (or hopefully on or before) their first day in Malton — or for those who wish they had done so. (more...)

Community Projects The Cult of Personality Tour has begun! Why not join in the fun? Kill a survivor today! Listen to the Urban Dead community's first podcast, the RCC Fireside Chat, while you play! The Minor Mission List for survivors has been set up. Current target: N/A.

This month in Urban Dead history: November 2008: Reclaim the Nich November 1st, 2009: Samhain Slaughter 3 at Dowdney Mall November 5th, 2006-2010, 2012 and 2015: The 5th of November takes place in Ridleybank November 10th, 2005: First Siege of Caiger Mall begins. November 10th, 2006: The Third Siege of Caiger Mall ends with the first fall of Caiger Mall. See the other November events from UD history...

I've been looking for ways for the wiki to promote in-game events from battles to comps to travels, since the games numbers and organisation has been declining. I think over the last 3 years I've seen the wikis community become much more wiki-centric rather than accessible and useful for the gamers.

The above template appears on the main page and has usually been connected to the highly worked on but seldom used Community Portal of UDWiki. It generally has been solely used to announce Wiki projects, but recently has had a small resurgence thanks to personal user projects that ask for help, and other cool things such as the current Mayor of Malton event.

But how far could this go, to add a bit more flavour to the in-game presence to the wiki again? Should the Big Bash 3 be allowed an update once every 2weeks in the page even though it's just a touring group? I would like to think so. What about Axe Hack's Third Manhunt? as a fun community event would it be able to just give a quick notice out to the wiki for people who are interested? I'd like to think maybe, and I know the bias is obvious but this is just an example.

We use the page for Wiki-centric roleplaying events like Mayor of Malton and it's proved hugely popular so far. Does anyone else think we could extend this opportunity to more game-centric things, in a lighthearted and positive way (no one would want it to turn into another recruitment page) for in-game events? Perhaps we could split it up into two boxes, one for ingame and one for wiki, but since the updates for either are few and far between it's probably better looking if it just stays the way it is.

The only reason I'm making a big fuss out of this is because I'd love to just start doing it now, but there needs to be boundaries and I guess this would be the best non-official, positive way to discuss it. Perhaps something as simple as arbitration can be used if a big dispute happens (which will happen eventually, knowing people on the wiki) to simply decide whether something should or not be on the main page. A set of guidelines could help this perhaps. I think since the death of Current Events this would be a good replacement.

What do you all think? Do you think there is a bit of potential for more in-game... not "advertising", but "updating" or "informing"? I feel we're in a good position to start bolstering a positive game driven community thing here. --

 

 

 

 

05:55, 24 June 2010 (BST)

discussion

I think there is certainly potential for it, but we need to think of some way of defining what is okay and what is not. Something like the Manhunt I think should be there, but I wouldn't think Big Bash 3 would be appropriate short of a blurb saying something like Survivors have spotted Big Bash 3! They'll be visiting you before you know it!

I suppose the way I see it is that the "articles" should not be things that need to be updated. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:31, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Yeah. The way you worded a potential Big Bash message is simply roleplaying, which is much similar to the way Yon treated Mayor of Malton, which I think is a good thing to add to something like UD imo. --

 

 

 

 

09:00, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I like this quite alot (anything to bring players back to the game), but I have three words in opposition. Battle. of. Krinks.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 08:57, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Frankly Ive been using the portal for my own wiki ends for years. How about, minigames and major events. Fine. Both the Manhunt and Bigbash effect multiple suburbs. The major pk events involve hundreds of players. Krinks, did not. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:55, 24 June 2010 (BST)

As far as I'm concerned, Krinks only took place on the arbitation pages. The Big Bash, Manhunt, etc, I agree should be added though. Oidar 10:35, 24 June 2010 (BST)

On a side note, I like mini games, and wiki competitions, but my group was thinking about doing some as well, through subpages. We were hoping to use it as a sort of marketing ploy, and I assumed I could post it on the community portal. So... if mini games are okay, but group specific things aren't, what would your thoughts be on that Ross? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 23:55, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I like the reception so far, it ties in lots with what I think. However, should there be a definite line to help in BB3 but stop Battle of Krinks? Or should such a matter be solved via conflict arbitration? Personally I'd trust Arbies, and it'd be a much more personal judgement than having to abide by guidelines determining what can be on the main page, but the process could be streamlined by quantitative guidelines. --

 

 

 

 

10:47, 24 June 2010 (BST)

you know what. We could just give it to the crats to decide. Protect it up, add a note. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:12, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I love the idea but am terrified of the ramifications. Still, I'd like to support it, just to give it a shot. I was thinking that it might be a good idea to have a stipulation that the event being announced is of interest to the general population of the city and not merely a local population, that way we don't get flooded with dozens of local group events. And though I too share similar biases to DDR, I have to agree with the examples of AHMH3 and BB3 being events that could have done with more announcing. Of course, even with the stipulation, we'll still have problems. Running through a few that we need to consider (if we take the arbitration route, these types of things will come up almost certainly, so it's good to at least think through them a bit, even if we don't codify them):

1. If we allow events like BB3, why not RRF and MOB? After all, BB3 is effectively just a group (albeit, loosely organized).
   • Possible response: groups are coming from across the city to join the BB3 event, making it of general interest to all zombies, regardless of group, which isn't true for RRF and MOB.
2. If we instead assume all major hordes are of interest and should be allowed, how do we define "horde"?
   • I'm up in the air on this one. I do find all of the horde locations to be of interest to me as a survivor, but have no clue how to answer this question well.
3. Would we have forced BB3 to hold off announcing until it was classified as a "horde", even though we all knew it would be big?
   • I say no. Ignore the whole "what is a horde?" question and go with the stipulation. BB3 is of general interest, so it can be announced. End of story.
4. Why would Axe Hack's Manhunt 3 be allowed, and not the Battle of Krinks? Both involved roughly the same number of people.
   • I actually think I might be okay with the Battle of Krinks being announced. Not so for the "Second Battle of Krinks" (see below).

Regarding that last point, it was the "Second Battle of Krinks" which was a complete non-event. The first one was actually decently attended, including by a well-known group (again, my bias shows), and though it ended up being a bit anticlimactic in the end, since it ended when everyone died suddenly, it still attracted decent attention (e.g. Misanthropy, DDR, and others had alts in the area to watch the action) and was very event-like. It may be borderline, but it shouldn't be so readily dismissed, if you ask me. Had it just been local groups, sure, ignore it, but as soon as you involve groups coming in from other corners of the city you have something interesting (which is increasingly seeming to me like it might be a good way to judge the worthiness of something for an announcement). —Aichon— 13:04, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I'd leave it open purely for events and happenings. However, given the transitory nature of the Big Bashes, they're pretty much just events in group form - when the bang dies out the players will return to their former groups just as before, pretty much making it an event - a bit like how On Strike and Escape used group tags and might have been called groups, but were events instead. Also fuck Krinks, McBeaner ganked me before I could kill DDR. :( 13:22, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Why everyone want to kill me? OUTSIDE the manhunts!! :)

The thing about the manhunt is a positive, open event. Krinks was not (well from only one point of view). Protect the page, add blurb saying to add an event request so on protections. Even the worst sop can discern the special from the mundane. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:30, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Sounds good, other than op bias if there is any. Doubt there will be, what with the community faith thing, but I'm sure it'll get called alot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:59, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Doubt it, when are Sonny, DCC or those clowns ever going to organise anything? 16:06, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Sonny? Disorganised? Im guessing youve never read the did you knows.... --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:38, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I must say, Ross, I'm highly impressed that you've got a time machine that'll bring you back two years in the past. 19:49, 24 June 2010 (BST)

2 years? Thats easy. Its all about 1985 baby. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:05, 25 June 2010 (BST)

Pffft. Manhunter didn't even come out til 1986, how were you supposed to amuse yourself? 00:08, 25 June 2010 (BST)

Manhunter is indeed amazing. It doesn't matter though, its The 80's! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:13, 25 June 2010 (BST)

I suppose Vice, Transformers and First Blood would all have been around. Oh and the first Wrestlemania was 85 I think. 00:32, 25 June 2010 (BST)

or just state that if its not linked from my sig, it aint an event. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:30, 24 June 2010 (BST)

I'm completely okay with having a request page put up for the announcements. Similar to Protections or any of the other admins pages, but only SysOps can vote on it. Majority votes puts the event on the template. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 22:05, 24 June 2010 (BST)

Some of the suggestions noted above are interesting, for example, protecting, crats deciding, sysops voting, etc. but I think that the more red tape we add, the more we are going to turn away the appeal of freely having a game-community driven section on the main page. In an unrelated note, in response to what Aichon said as to how BB3 is discernible from RRF is that BB3 is an event and RRF is a group. If RRF had their own event, say, the "RRF Eat-Mall-athon" it could easily count. The idea of Krinks being a battle which is only appealing to those involved and therefore not really "marketable" is a good idea I think, though if they wanted to make a note of it on the CP, I don't see why they shouldn't as long as it's an apt size/impact, I dunno. It's ironic that this discussion had made the situation much harder to decide on than before.

ATM there seem to be a few options to allow for a way of consistently monitoring events posted on the page, and what should count as an event worth putting on the CPbox. I'm gonna start with a small thing of options of the former for now:

• monitoring:
  • allow free reign on the CPbox until a questionable event appears on it that is ineligible or not large enough, and it is settled via just being removed, and in more extreme cases, arbitration. this is much like, say the Wiki News on the Main Page is treated. pros include it more accessible and only moderated on a case-by-case basis rather than having to "qualify" the event. cons include possibly long time-frame of arbitration cases which is abuseable if someone is willing to stall a case to force something off the page, and the possible mass of crap pages appearing on the CPbox (though I dont' think the latter will be such a problem)
  • protect the page and either a)let crats/ops decide or vote. pros include "reliable" group of voters and moderators of the page. cons include potential bias in sysop group and the red tape, possibly redundant in obvious cases. also will make more red tape for the non-game related things like Mayor of Malton and project pages.

Opinions? Critiques? Alternatives? What do you guys think would be the best method for this situation? --

 

 

 

 

06:58, 25 June 2010 (BST)

Speaking as a crat, I have literally nothing to do here. yeah sure every month or so I promote, demote someone, but the day to day responsibility is nothing. And how am I biased? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:44, 25 June 2010 (BST)

It's not about you being biased now, it's about this system standing in a years time and different crats in the job, who knows what biases they may have, they aren't elected as crats because of their ability to decide what should be on a main page, etc. --

 

 

 

 

01:44, 26 June 2010 (BST)