Forum:Bringing Back the Usergroups

Forums: Index → Archive → Bringing Back the Usergroups

UPDATED Please read updates and edit your opinions.

Greetings Halopedians. Kougermasters, General5 7, Halo-343, and Smoke. present to you a proposal to reestablish the Halopedia Usergroups.

Introduction

The Usergroups first started out as the Covenant of Halopedia (CoH), quickly followed by the UNSC (UoH or UNSCoH), Ancients (AoH), and Gamers (GoH) of Halopedia.

Their purpose was simple; the CoH would take care of the Covenant-related pages; the UoH would monitor the UNSC-related pages; the AoH the Forerunner and Flood pages, and the GoH the game-related articles. In addition, all the usergroups featured an individual ranking system based on their respective factions so that the members could progress, mainly by the amount of edits they had. For quite a long while, everything went well. Then, in early 2009, usergroup activity began to rapidly decrease, until it reached an all-time low.

One problem was that many users signed on to join, and just as quickly, left. This caused a large mess on the members page, and made it very disorganized and cluttered. Groups leaders attempted to counter this, and other problems, to no avail. Another problem was that more users became focused on progressing through the ranks, not the pages themselves, which was essentially what the points system we have is for. Less and less progress was being made on the pages the usergroups were made for, and productivity declined. When the usergroups were disbanded in July 2009, group activity was basically zero.

Proposal

Now, however, Halopedia faces a new problem. To quote Kougermasters, "Halopedia has A LOT of articles to maintain. It may look shiny and perfect on the outside, but it's rotten to the core with bad articles." There are many articles that lay forgotten and messy that could be fixed if the usergroups were brought back. Take the game-related articles (maps, gametypes, achievements, glitches, etc.) as an example; they are terribly messy. The Gamers of Halopedia, if brought back with a more effective system than last time, could change that. And with Halo: Reach fast approaching, there's going to be possibly hundreds more articles, and a lot more work to be done. A large group of determined and hard-working users concentrating on their faction could make everyone's jobs easier.

Of course, we have to learn from our mistakes. Bringing back the usergroups as they were before will solve nothing. We are proposing a possible list of requirements to join a usergroup. (Remember, these are just examples, and are not finalized.)

1. At least 200 edits on mainspace pages.
2. Must have been active and editing on Halopedia for one month prior to joining a usergroup.
3. If a user has been inactive for at least three weeks without a proper excuse, they shall be removed.
4. Must not have any history of vandalism, or any other serious infringement of Halopedia's Guidelines and Policies.

Due to recent enlightenment, we have decided to change the aspect of our proposal. Instead, we are opting to abolish the rank system of the usergroups, as they are too competitive and lessen the effects of the usergroups. In the place of the ranking system, we are proposing something similar to the WikiProjects on Wikipedia (for more info, see here). To sum it up, "A WikiProject is a collection of pages devoted to the management of a specific topic or family of topics within Wikipedia; and, simultaneously, a group of editors who use those pages to collaborate on encyclopedic work". Each usergroup will basically be a WikiProject on their respective faction.

We are also considering keeping the leaders part of the usergroups, as without leaders, the group would be very unorganized. The leader(s) would be chosen via elections, and would hold their title for two months, at the most. A week before they were to be replaced, a new election would begin. The leaders are responsible for upholding the above requirements and for finalizing any other proposals, etc. There would also be a list of requirements, which can be seen below. Like before, these are not permanent.

1. At least 600 edits on mainspace pages.
2. Has been in the usergroup for at least one month (of course, when the usergroups first begin, this requirement would be pointless...)
3. No history of vandalism or rule-breaking.

In addition, the ranking system has been slightly rethought to counter users simply making useless edits just to promote themselves. If a user wishes to be promoted (or join, for that matter), providing they have a required minimum number of edits for their next rank, they may submit a request for promotion to the Leaders of that particular Usergroup, as before. The Leaders will then review that user's edits, judging by quality over quantity, and if the said Leaders agree that the user in question has proven themselves in the quality and productiveness of their edits, they will promote the user. Generally, ranks will stay the same, as will the overall idea of promotion requests. We are also considering the idea of "competitions" involving the usergroups. Hopefully, these will combat the excessive amount of users that sign on.

In the case of the acceptance of this proposal by the Administration and general public of Halopedia, it would be prudent to hold a leadership election before or immediately following the re-instatement of the usergroups. Kougermasters is willing to take on the responsibility of co-leading the Covenant of Halopedia, as per the last election and his prior interest, and the Gamers of Halopedia, since he is an avid Halo gamer himself, and feels that he has much to contribute to such a task as maintaining the gaming articles of Halopedia.

In conjunction with the MOS, the usergroups could make great progress on Halopedia, and bring it back up to its former glory. Remember Halopedians, this is your decision, for without you, usergroups are nothing.

Thanks for reading!
Signed,
  General5 7    talk    contribs    email  

Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits)

Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits)

Smoke^{Sound off!}

PS: We will be open to any suggestions or ideas you have, so feel free to speak your mind.

Voting

Support (19/3)

1. Support - As per our proposal above. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   00:36, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
2. Support - Smoke^{Sound off!} 00:40, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
3. Support - Hell yes. The Gamers of Halopedia will have their return! - Scot 113
4. Support - As per proposal above. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 00:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
5. Support CF⁰⁰¹ 02:24, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
6. Support - The usergroups always seemed like a good idea, and I don't really understand why inactivity merits deletion. If I was to join a usergroup, that wouldn't stop me from editing other pages, too.--Fluffball Gato 03:03, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
7. Support - I was always a big fan of the usergroups, I was disappointed to see them go. Hopefully with these new rules and standards in place, the usergroups can be more productive this time. Col. Snipes450 05:02, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
8. Support - Belatedly, as per above proposal. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 08:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
9. Support - A great way to get involved and excited about editing. - S.B.44 ^[Talk] 16:45, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
10. Support - As per the proposal above. EtErNiTy92 Revolution! 22:40, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
11. Support - The usergroups were great. Disbanding them was dumb, so this is only appropriate. - SNES Lover
12. Support - All the people opposing are stating that "It would become inactive and fare the same as the old usergroups." and "Editors who pop up, edit for a month or less then leave the wiki would crowd the usergroups." Only users who have had 200 edits would be able to join a group, that doesn't sound like users who would become inactive or leave after a short period of time!Sergeant JimMy Stacker 06:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
13. Support- Lol@Phailure 23:48, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
14. Support - --^{Odysseas-Spartan}53 10:36, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
15. Support - Ultra Force 17:39, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
16. Support-User:S-058 these new requirements should prevent the Usergroups from becoming what their predescessors were.
17. Weak Support - I still find the premise fundamentally flawed, but users do need to organize in group projects. I just urge the hierarchal structure to be removed. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 03:02, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

    Oh yes, since the proposal has been formulated, we have decided to remove ranks and almost every trace of a hierarchal structure, though I'm not sure if we're keeping leaders, I haven't been that well informed. Speaking of which, I must get around to rewriting part of the proposal to fit said changes. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:21, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

18. Support-I would like to propose that all willing, active users will have their ranks restored. I see this as being essential to maintaining hierarchy immediatly after recreation of the groups. Dragonblaze-052 20:37, June 21, 2010 (UTC)
19. Support Mr. Emile, 200 edits is nothing compared to the work of the admins. I support as per the usergroups rocked. - —This unsigned comment was made by EliteMaster117 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~

1. Support - putting the usergroups back is a great idea. as per main statement, with halo reach coming up just around the corner, putting up the GoH again would make the page for halo reach a great success TickToXsiK 02:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

   User does not meet voting requirements. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 14:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

2. Support-User:Emile-A249The disbanding of the usergroups was a step in the wrong direction.They must return.However,200 edits is a bit much. 21:30, June 19, 2010(UTC)

   User does not meet voting requirements. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

3. Support i believe that this is a good idea. even if the usergroups at a low point, it would give at least a few users incentive to edit articles.User:Theelitefan/Sig

   User does not meet voting requirements. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:32, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral (4/0)

1. Neutral - I'm staying out of this one for now. Both sides make good points.-- Rusty - 112 19:46, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
2. Neutral - Sorry guys but, while I agree with bringing back the usergroups and utilising its capabilities. Remember though they were removed for inactivity. I would have to though with commander tony in regards to HaloProjects. User:Sub-71/Sig 10:28, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
3. Neutral - The hierarchy system is flawed. The premise itself needs to be revised. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 02:25, June 17, 2010 (UTC)
4. Neutral - The benefits just about balance the drawbacks. There's no way to stop users from being inactive, as per Sub-71. GySgt. Gonzalez -Comm Open- -Body Count- 21:27, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Obviously we cannot stop users from being inactive, it would be naive to assume the possibility. Our aim is to create groups to tackle Halopedia's messy and poor articles, and usergroups seem the best way to do that right now. While we're trying to reduce it, inactivity of some users is inevitable, and using that as an argument against the proposal is somewhat single minded in my view. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:32, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

My point was that inactivity was the reason we disbanded the usergroups in the first place. While re-establishing the usergroups would greatly help this wiki, what's to stop the usergroups from choking up this time? GySgt. Gonzalez -Comm Open- -Body Count- 23:20, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

1. Neutral - Staying neutral on this one, I mean yeah, I had fun in the old CoH, but I'm not sure it should come back, nor am I sure that it shouldn't. -- Mechanical-Menace

Oppose (11/4)

1. Oppose — Even with the activity and minimal requirements you've put in place for this new usergroup proposal, I doubt any serious activity will return to the groups. Usergroups based on a broad spectrum of different topics have shown that groups focused on a very specific element within the universe are far superior. I'd like to see the usergroups come back, but I have a nagging feeling that they will suffer the same fate as their predecessors, and that specific-element groups are better worth our time. User:CommanderTony/Sig

   The requirements we posted above aren't set in stone. They are just examples that could be changed anytime. If you have any suggestions, just say them. ;) --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   01:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

   Regardless if you change them or not, activity will gradually slow down as members are removed from the group for being away. A general lack of interest sets in quite quickly with these types of groups. If anything, Halopedia should focus on "HaloProjects" which focus on a particular element or product that exist on a temporary basis.User:CommanderTony/Sig

   I would support such a proposal if it was put forward, but so far this is the best we got. - ShadowBroker44 19:32, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

2. Oppose - Users should edit pages that need to be edited, not pages they feel they should edit. I supported the disbanding of the Usergroups for this exact reason. I never really saw a point to them. Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 01:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
3. Oppose - As I may have mentioned before, usergroups are not the only way to help improve articles. As it may be, usergroups are also not the ideal solution, at least for this wiki. The general problem in having a usergroup is the difficulty of maintaining it. I know the feeling because I was once a group leader myself; and trust me, the idea isn't as easy and "cool" as it looked. The problem with our usergroups, as CT said, is the lack of interest. Along with that comes another issue: the lack of "permanent residents" to our wiki. Yes, by this, I mean editors who stay here to edit for more than just a while. That number has been decreasing a lot recently, notably for me, since the end of last summer (IIRC). Some have left, while others are not as active as they used to be. We have others taking their place, but the number of such editors is still not as it used to be. Most of our editors are users who may stay for some time, make good/bad edits and then leave. Its a cycle, one that's always been happening, and is what makes up at least half of the wiki's activity if not more (and that's not an exaggeration). The problem with this is that you can't make up a usergroup with hit-and-run users. You need a sufficient number of long-term editors, and for 4 individual usergroups, its not easy. Editors can be Lone Wolves, or work with their colleagues as a team. You don't require a usergroup for that. This is what happens in other wikis that may have less activity than us, but are several times bigger (I'd use the Ever Quest 2 wiki as an example). That's why you don't tend to see usergroups or something similar to that on such wikis. Their editors know how, what and when to edit. We need to carry out the same. We have articles that we need to improve for the next FA; usergroups are not going to help if there's a lack of interest or editors. For all these reasons I've stated, I feel what the others opposing above me feel: that they will eventually have the same fate. To sum all this up, we're a wiki. You can add, remove or replace a factor, but you're always going to have problems, because you can't totally control what's going on. You have another 200 to or users who also have free access to editing, so the contents are always changing. You can only do your bit of editing to make improvements of your own, but a usergroup isn't going to exercise much difference in control. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 06:48, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
4. Oppose - I was going to support but from what I've seen very little changes have been done so the usergroups will become inactive after awhile. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117
5. Oppose - Nicmavr nailed it and like what I said before...- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 08:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
6. Oppose - I agree with Nicmavr. If drastic changes haven't been made, things will just end up as the same they were before I left. Inactive. So even as much as I liked the usergroups, I disagree. Whitehwk 08:37, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
7. Oppose - No disrespect to the work you guys put into this, but I doubt there will be any interest from the older, experienced users. Also I agree with Nicmavr. - JEA13 ^[iTalk] 18:42, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Like with Nicmavr, if there isn't any serious changes, it will end up being a big mess like before. The other thing is of those that 'point-whore' to get a higher rank for a promotion in the Hierarchy. I think that usergroups are interesting, but there're way to many flaws with it. Grunt Minion22 11:07, June 17, 2010.

   If you read the proposal, you would know that we devised a system to get around "point whores", although due to recent enlightenment, we are likely to abolish ranks altogether. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 19:24, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

9. Oppose What's the point? User groups have been brought fort, disbanded, revived then disbanded again. All that will result is a short burst of 'ZOMGZ, GROUPS!' then a slow but certain death. Ajax 013 11:12, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

   The point of this proposal is to forgo what you described, we're trying to get groups together to clean Halopedia as it desperately needs, and the usergroups seem the best way to do that right now. There seems to be a strong enough interest to warrant their revival, and we have plans to hopefully ensure that slow death does not occur. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 11:59, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

10. Oppose — Old habits die hard and I don't think bringing back the user groups will be any different. That guy WRAITH.... 08:53, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
11. Oppose - First of all, having a usergroup means nothing. Sure, you have an article or two you can say that you want fixed, but in reality, it is not up to us to decide how one another edit, clean up or enhance. A person on the CoH can work on a Covenant-related article, but does that stop them from working on a Forerunner article, or a UNSC article, those that are designated for the AoH and UoH respectively? No. The only way to make people conform to this is to restrict members into editing only their respective articles, but this counters productivity. Secondly, would it not be more efficient to instead have a feature that functions like the Featured Article area, but with multiple pages that are designated for clean-up? This would remove the need for extra pages that the usergroups will present. Third, these extra pages may confuse and frustrate new users if they have missed a detail or are simply ignorant. I'm sure the Administration has much better things to do than deal with messages in their inboxes about not being able to join usergroups, having not met the requirements. In conclusion, bringing back the usergroups, while a creative and very well thought out idea, has major flaws that will either be dealt with or they will deal with the issue in itself. -DinoBenn says "Fight to the End, Never Give In" 03:08, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose - Not the way to go about it, imo. It's a wiki, if people want to edit it, they will. If anything this will scare people off seeming like a requirement. "Oh, there's a typo, I'm just going to fix i-... oh, nvm, I'm not part of that usergroup - I might get into trouble." I'd support the idea of articles needing work done on them grouped with similar ones also needing work, then every week (or whatever) the "foucs" changes from, say, species to weapons. Perhaps the Site Notice (main page?) could be utilized to alert people to what type of articles are the focus of the week, and inviting them to look at such articles to see if they can improve them. Make sure whatever you do, it comes across as "hey, would you mind looking at this?" - which invites people to contribute - instead of "this group of users are in charge of these articles" which sort of comes across as a requirement or such. (Why get groups of users responsible for a page, if being in the group or not is irrelevant to if you can edit the page?) It, frankly, doesn't sound welcoming at all. I understand the idea - but new contributors may not. tl;dr: You want more people to actively edit articles, but you're suggesting something which could scare people away. Think very carefully about that. A F K When Needed 18:13, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

   Voter does not meet requirements. (Less than 50 edits) - ShadowBroker44 23:35, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

   Following my suggestion below, the usergroups would simply choose the articles needed to be improved in their faction. That way, users (whether or not they are in the group doesn't matter) could find a large variety of articles for improvement. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   18:22, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

   I believe the same could be achieved with one or more categories. I see no reason to risk turning away well-meaning contributors in this way.

   I respect your opinion; I just don't share it. A F K When Needed 18:30, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

   It appears you have a very misguided idea of the usergroups. The usergroups are simply an informal group of users that work together to improve articles related to their faction/category. Didn't you read the comments? Were you a part of the usergroups last year? Of course you can edit other articles; UNSC articles simply won't count for praise/credit/etc. within the CoH, and vice versa. You can even join all of the usergroups, or none. It doesn't change what you can or cannot edit, or what you should edit. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 23:11, June 18, 2010 (UTC)

   You don't appear to have grasped my point. I quote myself: "I understand the idea - but new contributors may not."

   The idea risks turning away new people - particularly but not limited to those with little Wiki experience - and imo the potential gain is not worth the potential damage caused to achieve it. A F K When Needed 14:44, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

   Please note that a requirement was suggested to be 'over 200 mainspace edits.' By the time they hit that, they aren't new anymore.--Fluffball Gato 18:11, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

   Hi, please take greater care to read a discussion before joining it.

   I'm arguing that not being in a user group could give people the impression they are not entitled to edit a page. Despite the fact I've already outlined my concerns, you show little sign of understanding (or having read) them. A F K When Needed 00:24, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

   Hi, try to be less impudent to respected veteran contributors. Thanks. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 22:20, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

   Thanks for sticking up for me, Kougermasters! You rock! A F K, I fully understand your argument, but I frankly don't believe it is such a concern. When I was only an unregistered contributer, I had no idea what the usergroups were. By the time I understood and wanted to join one, I wasn't afraid of editing other articles. (Unfortunately, they had just cut the usergroups days earlier, but the point is still existent)--Fluffball Gato 00:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

Comments

May I suggest a return of the Standards Council of Halopedia? It has uses, too. - Scot 113

It has been officially decided that the Standards Council of Halopedia will not be returning. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 00:48, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

In response to Fluffy's above comment, they'll only be deleted if they've been inactive for a month without a reason, an excuse, or a notice, and if they are removed, at any time later they can return and request to have their rank restored. @ Devout Atheist, it's a concentrated group effort to improve pages related to the usergroup topic. Like Fluffy said, you can edit other pages, of course, and you can join multiple usergroups. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 03:13, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

But I mean, why don't you just edit the pages the entire Halopedia community deems necessary to edit? Like the articles marked as stubs or cleanup. Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 03:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my language, but Halopedia has gone to shit, it'll go to shit again when Halo: Reach is released, and it'll go to shit every time new content is released, like it has every time. We need something more, and usergroups are a great answer. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 03:26, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Won't Halopedia go to shit if we spend our time arguing about Usergroups and focusing on our ranks in each group, instead of just editing the damn pages? No need to pardon my language. Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 03:39, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Good answer. I can't argue with that, old friend. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 03:42, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Kouger, I'm not trying to be mean. We had some great times on XBL, you're a great editor, and honestly I would like nothing better but to be in the GOH with you as well. But in the big picture, there's no point for it, and Halopedia editors need to focus on, well, editing. The one thig I remember is high ranking users' boards being flooded with complaints about not being promoted in a certain Usergroup. A lot of time was also focused on the elections. Time that could have been spent editing articles. We already have a rank system, and in my opinion it works fine, we don't need another to keep track of and consume our editing time. It's nothing personal. I myself haven't really been a good example, editing at random intervals. But imagine if I was busy worrying about my rank in the UoH, how many less edits I would put out. I hope this doesn't effect our relationship. ;) Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 03:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Umm, what? I think you completely misinterpreted my reaction! I never thought you were being mean. Now I'm just really confused. Oh, and another reason the usergroups are a great idea is because they help attract new users and inspire them to be active in editing and the community. One of the most important aspects of a wiki is communication. Usergroups are a fun way to increase productivity and communication, and they actually work fairly well. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 04:02, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Really, in my opinion, if you can make it work, I support it. Go for it. Whether or not it fails really is no concern to me. Smoke^{Sound off!} 04:07, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I felt I sounded kind of like an asshole in my explanation, thus my apology. =P And when I first joined, the first thing I did was apply to a Usergroup, I believe the GoH. And you know what happened? They never got back to me. >:( I feel people will do just fine without Usergroups (I did, it took me a while to get the hang of it, but I ended up ejoying editing articles), I honestly don't want editors whose only focus is to rank up in a user-created system. I want editors who edit for the sake of editing. Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 04:12, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about ranks. I care about a concentrated group effort to edit specific faction categorized articles and embark on group projects to improve said articles. About the GoH, it was completely and utterly inactive because the leaders left a long time ago, and no one like me was there to fix it ;) Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 04:15, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier if an individual just focused on editing the pages they wanted to edit in that case? What if I wanted to only improve articles that have the letters D and A in the title, should I make a Usergroup for it? Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 04:19, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone is a Lone Wolf. Teamwork is very important, and like I said, group co-ordination is more effective than a bunch of random users running around without guidance. But I'm done with this argument, debate, conversation, or what you want to call it. I've had a long day and I'm tired (PLUS I FEAR TEH BANHAMMAH!) Goodnight. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 04:24, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I like to think the whole Halopedia community works as one big team. I remember when I started I got plenty of tips on how to edit (most of them in the form of What the hell are you doing, idiot? No one edits a page 56 times!). I still do get updated if the article format gets changed, or if one of the other users wants to stop by and say urdoinitrong. I don't mind constructive criticism, it makes me a better editor, and helps me find the smartasses that make my banhammer finger twitchy. But in all due seriousness, I'm done with this convo, and Kouger brings up a good point: Fear the Banhammer. It's always there. And it's waiting. Night! Colonel DA, Halopedian Administrator 04:31, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure of what stance to take on this matter so I'll remain neutral for the time being. However, I do have another idea that is somewhat related to the concept of usergroups. The reason I'm posting it here is because the concept could work with usergroups or without. The basic idea is to have a certain selected set of articles each week or month, that are specifically highlighted as needing improvement. It's not intended to be a contest or a club with a complex hierarchy, just a way to bring articles needing improvement to people's attention. Of course, all kinds of improvement templates already exist but having a weekly or a monthly list would seem like a much more concrete and efficient way of directing the users' attention to those articles. Having them gradually removed from the list after they've been successfully improved to match our quality standards would bring a nice sense of achievement.--Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 15:49, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

That's not such bad idea. It could very well work with the Usergroups, and even if this proposal doesn't pass, it could still work. - Halo-343 (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 16:33, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'm with Jugus on this one. In my opinion, a link in the sitenotice to something like a notice board would suffice. - Nìcmávr ^(Tálk) 16:36, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

If the above proposal doesn't work, then I wholeheartedly support Jugus' option.  General5 7    talk    contribs    email  

Why not have WikiProjects like on Wikipedia? I really don't like the hierarchal nature of the usergroups. It shouldn't be about rank; it should be about progress. Leave the fame to HOTM. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 02:23, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to confer with my fellow proposers and abolish the rank system. We don't need a revolution, and besides, I have a much better idea. Kougermasters (Talk) (Contribs) (Edits) 03:24, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. We could instead abolish the ranks within the usergroups, but then implement the WikiProjects in them. For example, each usergroup votes for their articles of improvement. That way, we keep the collaboration, but without the competition. --  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   16:37, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Support - S.B.44 ^[Talk] 18:41, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

But the usergroups seperate the users from cooperating with each other as a whole, this wiki should work together as a whole not just groups of users who want to do different things. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

Well, it's users who like certain subjects coming together to focus on bringing articles of such subjects to a higher level of quality. It's not like you can't join all of the groups. --Dragonclaws^(talk) 00:27, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

I am saying is that the whole of Halopedia should work together and I kinda think that the usergroups sort of seperate most of Halopedia but if the usergroups do come back then they should all work together. --SPARTAN-125 Cally99117

While the old usergroups became useless, I believe we should try to revive them. I always liked and supported the idea of being separated into editing groups that will work on the improvement of their favorite articles. And I also missed CoH :P . Ranks may not be used this time in order to avoid the rank hunting but I support them as well. For now.--^{Odysseas-Spartan}53 18:45, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

@Dragonclaws- Wait, you can join all the usergroups? Is their any reason why a person wouldn't?--Sangheili Commando 021: Fluffball Gato 16:49, July 7, 2010 (UTC)