UDWiki talk:Operation Prune

Current Status

Would it be possible to cross reference the current statuses with either suburb news, danger reports or EMRs, either through clever templating or bot-related shenanigans?--Shortround 09:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the idea is just to remove the "current status" section entirely and rely on the Building Information Centre. Keep in mind most of those pages had the status section added before the BIC was a thing that existed. It's redundant now, though if there is something that is for whatever reason notable it could probably just get added to a history section.--Labine50 ^{MEMS | MHG} 05:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Step 2: ..., Step 3: Profit?

Not to kid too much, but what are the next steps? How about outlining a complete plan so that you can get some discussion going, rather than just suggesting one change? —Aichon— 17:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Aichon. Yeah I totally agree a complete plan would be great but my hope was that it could come about via discussion and consensus rather than by diktat. Since you asked though, what I had originally envisaged was a culling of all the extraneous and unneeded rubbish that has accumulated over the years and then from there seeing what can be built upon and expanded.

To give you an idea, what I was hoping to do with the location pages was to remove all the out of date status and metagame information which is better located elsewhere, and then once that was done create a "bank" of flavour text which can be used as building blocks to create histories of each location in the game. From there, who knows what could be cleaned up next. Gordon 20:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, for my first comment since coming back to UD after a long hiatus - I'm totally supportive of this proposed project. Current Status seems completely redundant (and frequently detrimental) when there exist simpler and more accurate ways to check the status of locations. I don't have any idea of other things that could be pruned from the Wiki, but the general concept seems like a good one and I think it should be explored further. I'd say people ought to propose any other features of the Wiki that are systemically ignored and practically useless. – aClashInRedSnow^|talk 02:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The Community Portal, like it always has, needs some work. I think a convenient list of things would do best. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Why not, perhaps, start using them again? It wont be much, but it will be something.--Zaphord 19:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

"Current Status" is just so manpower-intensive. It takes a significant (not huge by any means, but significant) amount of time and effort to write a Current Status report for just one little block on the map. It's also redundant. Practically a textbook case of redundancy, and not the good kind. If anything, various groups could maintain Current Status pages for their associated suburbs, at their discretion - as it stands, Current Status is just a sloppy and frequently-unreliable blemish on most location pages, and it's unlikely that anyone will commit to updating them frequently when there are more efficient means of checking the status of a location. (Also, shouldn't this be on the Talk page?) --Nic LesFlics^|?| 21:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Nic got it absolutely bang on. As I said somewhere earlier, there are 10 000 locations in UD. It is simply unrealistic to expect even a small fraction of these to be kept regularly updated. As a result current status is worse than useless and makes the wiki look neglected. I am in the process of moving house at the moment, so am stuck on an intermittent 3G signal. It is my intention in the absence of any compelling reason not to to start work on removing these in just under a week. Gordon 01:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest poking a few of the active janitor types on their talk pages to see what their thoughts are, then seeing if you might be able to get The General to use his bot on it. Using his bot would probably clean up 99% of pages nearly instantly, and it could spit out a list of the ones that need to be checked by hand, making the job a piece of cake instead of a weeks-long ordeal. —Aichon— 03:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming it wouldn't change the ones that have a current status listed, which we'd then shift in to the history section by hand?--Shortround 10:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To be honest Shortround, the history section is another bit I have in my sights. Similar rationale to current status, and frankly at risk of sounding like a denizen of wikipedia, most locations simply don't have enough of a notable "history" to justify it. While it may be super interesting to them that embryonic survivor group 22G took back the Suburbton NT building from the zombies last month, to everyone else, not so much. I am of the opinion that the locations pages on the wiki do need to be made more interesting, but posting niche interest metagame information is not the way to do it. Gordon 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's counter-intuitive to make pages more interesting by removing all of the flavour that's been built up over the years by groups actually relevant to those locations and then copy/pasting in some paragraph of text which is used on hundreds of other locations. Sure, remove sections which aren't being used, but don't just delete information for the sake of deleting information.--Shortround 18:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

^This. A lot of location pages have existing history sections (The Blackmore Building and Caiger Mall being two of the foremost examples) and many others could have future history written. Sure, most locations will not have an iota of history written about them but I don't see the need to remove the section simply for the sake of removing it. ~ _{18:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}

WE PURGE SPAMMER PAGES, WHY NOT REGULAR ONES!11111!??//??!!! --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Aichon. I'll wait a few more days and then hit up the General. Gordon 01:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent Idea

We should also cull the following:

• Historical groups. After all, they aren't playing anymore, and a ton of dead groups might give people the idea that the game is dying.
• Location descriptions, pictures, and history. New players might be off-put by the idea that someone described a building before them.
• Previous Suggestions. New players might be off-put by the idea that someone suggested an idea before them.
• Vandal data. New players might be off-put by the glorification and record-keeping of infractions. We want to foster a place of open ideas, not create a oppressive and totalitarian regime.
• Amusing locations. New players might be offended by the raunchy inferences.
• Zombies & Zombie Groups. New players might be off-put if they found that their role-playing sessions were (in)frequently disturbed by hordes of undead.
• Kevan. New players might be off-put that Kevan no longer cares for the game and never updates it. With him gone, someone might end up taking over and actually running the game again.

--Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:00, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference between those things and Current Status is that everything from historical groups to amusing locations need only be updated once and then left alone. You could let the Historical Groups pages sit untouched for a year and they wouldn't look odd, because it's not implied that they need constant updating. Current Status has the firm implication that it is current, whereas the very nature of the section typically prevents it from ever being so. It's redundant, it's misleading, and it's practically impossible to make useful. I don't agree that the History section should be removed, though, no matter how insignificant the information may appear. (In fact, one could even suggest that Current Status be turned directly into a History section - even if the history is very recent.) --Nic LesFlics^|?| 19:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just put the danger report under the current status header?--Shortround 19:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

i think akule was being sarcastic.--User:Sexualharrison19:30, 11 February 2012 (bst)

Whhaaaaaaaaaaat?!? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I caught that, yeah! --Nic LesFlics^|?| 21:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Change the name to be "Last Known Status" to give that air of mystery and tension: "Is it that way now?" "Is there danger lurking around every corner?" "Le-gasp!" --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 19:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I know it just sarcasm, but seriously, historical groups should in fact be culled. Or at least historical voting. That whole system was part of a policy aimed to allow sysops to skirt the deletion voting system for those crappy group pages that never went anywhere. Once a noble policy, it was abused and Crit 12 was subsequently abolished. Historical voting was left though, like some ghost in the machine. Today, historical group voting is nothing more than a platform for inflated egos and uninformed nitwits to argue over a useless cause. The criteria doesn't even make sense. People make their own rules. So what you end up with is a list of groups that were esentially either more popular or able to drum up more meat puppets, leaving the casual observer to think that anyone not on the list had nothing to contribute to the history of the game. Prune that system if you want to do some good. ~ _{20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)}

So why did you vote in the current historical vote again? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 23:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For the lulz. It should be pretty apparent from my comment on that vote that I think its a joke. ~ _{23:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)}