Talk:The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2009

The old talk page is now located here

Six Months?

Has it really been that long? Good heavens, how time has flown! On a separate note, do we leave new copies of the templates on groups' talk pages, or replace existing ones? --Pedentic 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Link has lead with the template, plus the comment:

"Occasionally, general checks are done of group activity. This may seem like a stupid question, but it's for all groups, regardless of size."

and a dated signature, under the talk heading "The Great Suburb Group Massacre, 2009" I suggest we follow suit, groups can clean up the old checks if they want. --  RoosterDragon  14:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Six months is a long time on the Internet. I don't expect to find as many inactive this time, but we'll see :). Linkthewindow  Talk  22:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Good Cause

I think these group massacres are a great thing and I will happily help along this time.--Thadeous Oakley 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Failed Query

I was unable to query The Gingerbread Men who are listed on the Yagoton page because their talk page is locked. They note on their main page that their group does not update the wiki much, but are active as of December 08. --  RoosterDragon  15:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem. Requestion unlock at A/P.--Thadeous Oakley 15:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. Why didnt you change the colour? Make it more different. And I thought the gingerbread men were historic. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Colour of what? Anyway, that group is indeed historic, their page has been fixed and I'll update the groups template shortly. --  RoosterDragon  20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Argh! That's a great idea, shame I didn't think of it. Next time, methinks. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Screw just new colours, next time we'll have a proper table o' doom set up. I mentioned it in '08. We could get a table set up, sorted by groups listing which 'burb's they are marked on and with the advent of TGRGM, their radio freq too. For optional awesomeness, add a template that groups can use to list their name, 'burbs, freq and a timestamp. We can transclude that data to the table, and then whizz by every six months to any group that just need to update their timestamp. If after 2 weeks, any entry on the table is still missing a recent stamp, we can nuke their stuff in moments since it's listed.

So yeah, a table we can set up manually for ease of listing stuff, and an optional template for tranclusion if we like, sound good? --  RoosterDragon  01:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Raises Hand

Can anyone help with this? I'd be willing to do so, if I can! --Lois Millard 19:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Just choose a suburb, read the instructions, and jump right in! You didn't even have to ask. --  RoosterDragon  20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! and... I didn't know I didn't need to ask, so I did! *grins*--Lois Millard 20:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A problem

A group in Hollomstown has listed an external page as its group page. What should be done about this, since there's obviously no talk page to ask on? --Pestolence^(talk) 20:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As in, an external link in the actual template? Well that's annoying. Any way of contacting them through their external site? (And getting them to at least set up a wiki page and talk page, even if they just link back to their site) That and asking about activity. --  RoosterDragon  20:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, on their external site, there's a link to a wiki page. I'm going to change the link in the template to link to their wiki page, and query about activity there. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another question?

Shouldn't we ask specifically if a group is active in a particular suburb? Just because a group is active doesn't mean they are necessarily active in all suburbs that list their group name. I know of one group in particular that is active, but not in one of the suburbs where its name appears. Maybe we need to be more specific.--Lois Millard 21:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

From 'The Great Suburb Group Massacre 2008' :) You are asking if a group is active, not Where they are active. If a group is active in many suburbs, when you go to post your template you may already see one on the talk page, where another individual following a link from another suburb has asked if the group is active. There is no need to post another query unless a significant amount of time has passed since the last active request was posted. --Janus ^talk 21:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll be online this weekend, and try and cover any issues that came up last time If people have any issues. Fancy doing Borehamwood as well?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like we'll get this dead and buried tonight. So, yeah, Borehamwood sounds okay, assuming consensus says so. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Consensus: "so".

Sorry, lame. Anyway, yeah, might as well tackle BHW, few suburbs, fewer groups. Take 5 minutes. --  RoosterDragon  01:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand what our directives are, but I am questioning whether our actions are really accomplishing what we think they are. Using our current methods, we are determining whether groups listed on suburb pages are active. We are not determining whether they are active in a particular suburb. If I wanted to, I could enter our group name on every suburb page whether or not we are actually active in that suburb and the GSGM would not remove my group from any of those pages as long as my group is still active.--Lois Millard 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The point of the original massacre was the fact that no-one ever cleared the suburb listings in urban deads first 3 years . Pitneybank, for example had 40ish groups, only 20 of which were active. (its why it took so long to query them all, over a month as opposed to a day!) Making sure a group is active in the suburb's they state is harder. But would be a good test. Although I don't know how you'd do it. Other than reading all those wiki pages. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

There are groups in Borehamwood? *scratches head* Ok - I'm game... if it hasn't already been completed by the time I'm posting this! You folks are fast! I only got 2 'burbs done and came back on this morning to find it complete!--Lois Millard 17:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(Deindent before something explodes paradoxically) As far as groups in a suburb goes, most groups seem generally good about not spamming up the wiki. If they do then somebody tends to jump on them for general douchebaggery anyway. TGSGM is here to clean out the old junk that won't get attention otherwise. It really isn't as big an issue. --  RoosterDragon  17:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

It's happened before (here,) but that's one case, considering the number of groups around. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The Great Suburb Group Massacre

For future reference, we originally linked the title, as above on pages, so they knew what we were on about. just for next time, if its an idea.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

{{InactiveGroup}}?

I put this template on 250ish pages back in early January. What about putting it up on groups that are obviously inactive (no response on ether this or the radio one, no wiki edits for six months, no stat-page activity?) Linkthewindow  Talk  20:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, provided all those terms are met for any group before they get the template. --  RoosterDragon  20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Procedure Fixes

Ok, since we're only on the second run. We're still not doing this as well as we could. I'd like to suggest a few changes in procedure.

1. Do Not Re-query Inactive Groups - If an old massacre has already seen the group as inactive, and this has remained the case, just leave the report standing so we know how long they've been inactive. (If agreed upon, we could start using the inactive group template Link has mentioned in the post above in these cases)
2. Clean Up After Ourselves - We're spamming up some group's talk a bit. Whenever we do a run, the old request should be removed in its entirety and a new post made. This helps keeps the categories cleaner and also their talk pages. An exception is for groups already confirmed inactive in an old pass (see above).
3. Merge in the Radio Massacre - The Great Group Massacre can apply to radios and groups in tandom. If a group becomes inactive, we can eliminate both their group references and radio claims at the same time and reduce requests. This would mean removing radio queries next time, per point 2)
4. Posting Guidlines - Just some thoughts to standardize how we query groups.
   1. Initial Query - Post the template and sign. Do not add your own comment unless necessary. The template text should be adjusted if it does not explain the reason for the post fully. The header used should be "The Great Suburb Group Massacre" and also be linked.
   2. Inactive Response - Change the template and overwrite your old signature. Add a comment if needed.
   3. Confirmed Response - Adjust the template accordingly, and post a new message after their confirmation. A simple "Thanks" would suffice, but further comments are fine too.

Feel free to state where you think I'm wrong. I'm going to assume that we can just keep using this template system, since nobody responded to my early idea about a more complex template/table (In fairness, we see to cope fine with the current method). If possible, it'd be great if we could do points 1 and 2 tomorrow during the massacre. (For point 1, if still inactive, we can remove the more recent query) --  RoosterDragon  20:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts:

1. There's no harm in asking a group twice - especially as many don't use the wiki with much frequency. Alternatively, if a group has been asked and they have since re-added themselves, then they should be asked like any other groups.
2. Yes and no - I see where you are coming from, but at the same time I don't like it for the sake of the archives. What about a different template next time, and a new category?
3. Yep.
4. Yep.

I see where you are coming from with a complex template/table system, but this is rather simple (it took a day this time, compared to a month before,) and Occam's razor :P Linkthewindow  Talk  05:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a few people going nuts and spamming talk seems less ridiculous now we're down to a manageable amount. I'm not sure about archives though. I mean, groups are eventually going to start either plain deleting the old requests or leaving them in their talk archives. The project doesn't need it for archival purposes. I can't imagine groups are particularly worried over losing it anyway. Though a new template each run is still nice. --  RoosterDragon  17:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In the Olden days

When we edited the suburb listings we left a note on the suburb page saying that we had removed groups? What's the thinking behind not doing that this tine? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Also for the future, now its a lot more manageable are you going to challenge the big groups? (I'm looking at the undeadites and the DEM here) About ACTUAL suburb activity?

Look at the Malton Fire Department. They have 71 members, yet are listed on 51 suburb pages (1.3 members a suburb) Including Lamport Hills, Millen Hills, Randalbank, and Jensentown all interestingly lacking Fire Departments. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a magic 8-ball capable of telling you where they are "active"? Cos, you know, without that any group can just swat it aside saying they're active everywhere. You might be able to convince them to check where they've listed themselves but no third party could possibly police this fairly in all cases. --  RoosterDragon  17:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It says (Shakes) Please try again later. I was just asking if you could, well ask them? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading too far into your wording then. We could ask them, but hardly challenge them. "You active in Barrville? You got proof sucka? Well then nuts to you!" *murderous rampage ensues* The preceding non-sequitur brought to you by --  RoosterDragon  19:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've been leaving a note on the suburb pages >.>. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It was some of the ones in the South East I noticed. looking further they seem to be the only ones missed. Sorry. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been leaving a note, as well, and was working in the SW. Did I miss one?--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 20:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

To make mass-page messaging easier, I've made a template.

There are instructions on the page, but as an example, for Chudleyton, I typed:

{{SuburbMessage|*[[Image:5punk.gif|25px]] [[5punk]] *[[Image:skulls.PNG|Extinction|25px]] [[Extinction]] *[[Image:Zombah.png]] [[Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah]]|2=~~~~}}

-- Linkthewindow  Talk  10:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dentonside Power

Transferred from the Main Page --  RoosterDragon 

Group Dentonside Power doesn't appear to have been contacted. (Unless I'm mistaken?) --YoHoho^Talk 18:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Meh, we were bound to miss something. I've posted a belated message on their talk, they can have the usual two weeks grace. --  RoosterDragon  22:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix. --YoHoho^Talk 23:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I noticed a couple that had been missed, as well. I left the first template and will give them 2 weeks to respond. *shrugs* It happens! --Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Some of them may have added themselves after the groups where checked, and others simply removed the message from the page, hoping it would go away (I saw it a few times here, and a few times with the radio massacre.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I did check the history of the page so the message was not deleted. It is possible that they added themselves after we checked the groups, however. In any event, I'll see what the response is in 2 weeks and that should clear it up.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've seen some add their groups back also... not active enough to respond to a two week long request, but enough to edit themselves back within a few days. =P --YoHoho^Talk 15:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a few groups contact me over that - some rather civilly, others just flaming >.>. I suspect the message showing up on the suburb pages would give a few groups a poke. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Dentonside Power are a really sporadic group, they come and go all the time. Besides you've hardly been flamed at all! Pitneybank's looking good, and I'm sorting out the MFD myself. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment when deleting a group

I belong to the Bandit Queens and pretty much all our members are inactive on the wiki and as such I was the first person to see that our group was removed. Now I'm not very good at editing the wiki so I was wondering if next time you guys go and do this massacre thingy you could add a comment to your edit so that it's easier to find where you removed our group so we can either just roll back the page or work out what's changed between the two pages and re-add our group.

I'd imagine there might be a few people in my situation and it might be a nice thing to do to make it a little bit easier to re-add deleted groups. --Danmal 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually never mind it appears that it's stored on a separate page. Perhaps just adding instructions on this articles page explaining how to re-add a group might be helpful. Sorry for wasting your time

--Danmal 22:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the template on your group's talk page and this note on the suburb's main page.

When you need to revert an edit just go to "history" and press "undo". Or ask the user who made that edit for some explanation :) --Janus ^talk 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)