User talk:General5 7/Drafts/1

I would support this proposal, but what you have right now is nothing different than what we had back in 2007/09. The requirement system is easy to overcome/pass and to actually motivate users to actually help is the real question; how do you intend on motivate users to contribute constructively? The rank system used in usergroups is archaic, if not, not as effective as Halopedia's current Point System. One common problem is that users will generally spam their way through the edit count to obtain the ranks they want. How would you solve the problem of quality/quantity contributions?

You mentioned some new organisation/form of structure, but what you have at your proposal is really not at the level I expect it to be. True, it would be nice to have usergroups to manage articles but without proper organisation/structure, it is just a fanclub that supports a certain content of the Halo Universe ("I liek Ee-1337, I hate Oonsk" kind of thing). The Standards Council of Halopedia is somewhat useless to revive; most users take a lot of time to actually propose something and it will take more time to execute it. It would be best to leave standards up to the Administration team, but they will always love to hear ideas for more improvements. I know I do.

I would suggest you go over the proposal and think critically on how to improve Halopedia. To simply revive the usergroups and have such small requirement system is ineffective and is easily exploited. A suggestion for new usergroup structure as to competing with Halopedia's Point System would be nice. -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 14:46, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that you've outlined them, I can start to see the flaws more clearly now. Yes, I think we should rethink the proposal, maybe up the requirements and rethink the rank system, for which I actually have a reasonable idea. - Black Mesa.jpg Halo-343   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  14:54, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems we have work to do. I suppose the Standards Council is rather pointless. Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Kougermasters   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  18:11, June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fire away your suggestions. I was up last night thinking about adopt-a-highway...maybe an adopt-a-page thing would be pretty cool. You know, have a little contest where a user has a month or so to make the page he chose the best he can. Nothing like some competition to hype things up. But this is just my brain rambling away like a maniac...--Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   03:14, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

(NOTE: This is just my ideas not official information.) Maybe we could have groups within usergroups which would be like groups of members in a usergroup to edit different groups of articles, example: for the UoH you could have different groups of members in which one group of members would edit articles related to UNSC/Human weapons articles and another would edit UNSC/Human vehicles related articles then one for UNSC/Human character related articles and same for the other usergroups but a bit different because they are different usergroups. And you may be selected by any of the leaders of the usergroup to be in one of the sub-groups depending one what they view of your skill at editing different types of articles via contributions. Also you could have more than one leader because it is hard work for one leader to control an entire usergroup and each leader could lead one of the sub-grous. This quote might be a good one: "It is better to do several things at once with the help of others than of doing it one at a time by your self.". --


 * Actually, there were already 3 to 5 leaders of a usergroup. The subgroups idea... I don't think so. Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Kougermasters   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  18:30, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Whats wrong with because I thought that it would help a bit more (Sugestions). Plus give a reason. --


 * To put it simply, the subgroups idea is rather pointless. It would do nothing but separate the groups, create unneeded work for the users and leaders to organize things, and most people won't want to just concentrate on weapons or vehicles. Group unity is needed, not dis-unification, even if it is specification and organization. Plus I'm pretty sure a user might want to edit a bunch of Covenant articles relating to each other, not just vehicles, and the group featured article page is awfully complicated enough without splitting it further. Four usergroups will be just fine without subgroups. However, don't lose hope yet, I'm wondering what General5 7 and Halo-343 have to say on the topic.... Commander Silver Leaf.PNG Kougermasters   ( Talk )   ( Contribs )   ( Edits )  19:32, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Meh. Kouger said it for me already. --Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   19:34, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rather agree with Kouger. Subgroups just do not sound like a good idea. - S.B.44   [Talk] |undefined 19:39, June 15, 2010 (UTC)