The Usergroups of Halopedia have played a wonderful part in the history of our great wikia, providing the means for many users to aspire to greatness and articles to become of better quality.

Though it is quite obvious that in the past year, it has all taken a downward spiral, one that nobody could have seen (even with the rise in accounts created), or even thought of. Four terms have been in power across all usergroups since the lack of activity began. All they've really truly done is accept users into the group and take promotion requests. The current terms and the councilors from each of them during the last elections promised a real increase in activity and attempting to get more users involved. More than a month has passed since that, and nothing has changed a single bit. And as a side note, the Ancients and Gamers usergroups have barely had any activity, even user acceptance into their ranks.

This is why I propose that all of the usergroups, including the Monitors and Standard's Council, be disbanded immediately. In their place, I suggest an Administrator-supported effort to assist in the attention of Project: M.O.S.. Or perhaps even a restructuring of the current groups into focusing on smaller things (i.e. Weapons, Characters, Starships, Levels, etc.) rather than a wide and overwhelming arc of an entire faction's related articles. I also propose that the Monitors of Halopedia be replaced by active users, rather than just only Administrators, nearly half of which are currently inactive at the time. There are many good candidates for Featured Articles, though it is only hindered by (of course), a lack of activity in the usergroups.

I'm sure this won't come to a shock to some people, and many people will be infuriated with rage and hate. But there is simply no point whatsoever in hosting usergroups that are nothing more than a name and a group of users, disregarding their prime objective of enhancing our articles. I also remind you that they will not go away forever, as only the non-essential pages for the groups will be deleted.

Thank you, and have a great day!



Support (29/2)

  1. Support Support - As per my statement above. Grizzlei
  2. Support Support - User groups aren't that great. I, of all people, should know. Commander Silver Leaf Kougermasters (Talk) (Edits) 22:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Support Support - I had noted that in the past 2 months. Should be done.--Flood12345 23:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
  4. Support Support - Mild support, stronger under the conditions of my proposal. - Ghost Sangheili [iTalk] [iWork]
  5. Support Support - Overstrong support. - JEA13 [iTalk] 06:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  6. Support Support - I think more focused groups is the way to go. Also leaders that actually participate regularly, those that don't should lose their high rank. The wiki might need wider reforms though, for example the featured article has been the same for over a year or more. --Jaguartalon 08:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  7. Support Support - I honestly never saw the point in usergroups, it makes users neglect articles by only focusing on a specific category when editing. Colonel DA, Administrator 13:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  8. Support Support As per Subtank's comment. - Ascy 'Vamal Light your way with honour! 14:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  9. Support Support-ShadowBroker44 15:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  10. Support Support-As many others have explained.Surpreme Commander Sith-venator Wavingstrider Commander Grade One (Holonet) 17:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  11. Support Support - As much as I've liked the usergroup idea, I have to agree with Subtank's comment below, but I do like some of the other ideas given such as keeping a page protected by the admins for each group and keeping our userboxes. --Andrew-996 Haloforgheisonvv4 "Radio Frequency 9.96" "Confirmed Kills" 22:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  12. Support Support - They can be fun, but they really serve no purpose anymore. D1134 03:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  13. Support Support - Although I am saddened by the thought of the Usergroups being disbanded, I agree with what you are saying CT. You have my support. -- Lt. Mechanical-Menace Defense System: Active Communications Array: Online Construction: Complete Lieutenant Grade One
  14. Support SupportHalopedia neds to be changed KY4EVER Ultragruntfan
  15. Support Support - I think this is a great idea. Wjxhuang, the 888th Avatar {Talk} 11:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
  16. Support Support - you have my support in removing them. S-058
  17. Support Support - I see the logic and it will be painful to say goodbye, but they have had a good run. Captain Grade One §ubnova71 0:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC) (Now I will go to my corner and cry... XD)
  18. Support Support - The original purpose of them was to encourage group work, and that no longer happens. They no longer have a reason to be here. Blade bane 14:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)Blade bane
  19. Support Support - While I agree the Usergroups should be disbanded, I think there should be something more efficient to replace them. Halo-343 17:38, 30 May 2009
  20. Support Support -I have been personal witness to the total inactivity of the usergroups. They are nothing but a waste of memory crystal. Lieutenant Mcloganator 00:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  21. Support SupportSecond Lieutenant Keith Johnson 7thHelljumpers com link 17:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  22. Support Support- While I agree the usergroups be disbanded, this is thou the third time this event has come up something more effecient (not human controlled) should be brought to surface. Death Rider
  23. Support Support- Captain6 01:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  24. Support Support - Go ahead. I don't even take part in 'em, and I haven't seen them do anything noteworthy. DavidJCobb Emblem DavidJCobb  04:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  25. Support Support - DinoBenn 07:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  26. Support Support - I never liked em anyway... WraithAscendant Self-Pic WraithAscendant TacComm Classified Operations 07:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  27. Support Support - Alas, all the usergroups have turned into is a list of people joining up and then not doing anything. Its tedious going through promotion requests for the tiniest thing, and there's little incentive left for people to edit. -- Administrator Specops306 - Qur'a 'Morhek Honour Light Your Way! 10:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  28. Support Support - Begone with them. All they are doing is taking up space. --Thunderstream328 Scroll 11:04, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  29. Support Support - They seem to serve no purpose, and we should remove them. S-058
  30. Support Support - M3311|Robot | DPalive 17:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutral (3/0)

  1. 15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral While I agree that work efforts in groups are down, I don't one hundred percent agree with disbandment. Perhaps if they were disbanded, they could be replaced with a small cleanup group, or maybe more emphasis could be put on Improvement Articles? Elimination. Decimation. Annihilation. 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  2. 15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I don't care either way. SmokeSound off! 05:46, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. 15px-Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not that I completely disagree nor agree with the entire disbanding of the usergroups, but I, too like, SevenCycles, also admit that the usergroups are becoming more and more inactive. I still believe that the usergroups are still attracting more users to edit, but at a much smaller scale than ever before. They provide a sense of who's been the most hard-working and constructive, and I believe this shows other users, members of the usergroup or not, who to turn to for help. (Although technically, Halopedia isn't supposed to be a hierachy). I agree with the second and third (and obviously first) paragraphs of CT's proposal and I do believe in the reconstructing the groups into weapons, characters, ships, and etc., but I was wondering with all these different categories, wouldn't the number of groups just double and cause even more confusion and/or disorganization? I may be wrong or have read it wrong, but that's the way that I'm picturing it at the moment. Again, I'm a little on the support side, but unfortunately in my infinite wisdom, I always like to contradict my own strong beliefs, and abstain for now until further stronger comments. If the usergroups are to be disbanded, I strongly hope that Ghost Sangheili's "Save the Page" idea of keeping the usergroup pages and userboxes as a chance to remember them by as an old ancient Halopedian relic. On a different note, I congratulate Tony on his proposal. Rawr and forever, --Blemo Progress Wheel TALK CONTRIBUTIONSEMAILCALENDERMESSAGE

Oppose (4/0)

  1. Oppose Oppose-Dragonblaze-052 03:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  2. Oppose Oppose-Same reason as my comment.Kasa 'Makonee 19:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  3. Oppose OpposeGalacticdominator 12:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC) why not simply create sub-groups? the usergroups are an importaint part of halopedia
  4. Oppose Oppose- I think that Usergroups are a more enlightening side of the Halopedia community. Although the community as a whole is a fantastic one (aside from vandals and point whores), the Usergroups add a fun side where people can find a sense of belonging and group together with people that have similar likes and interests. Yes, the usergroups have been inactive; but it is still fun to have a group of people that can help each other and work together to help the community. We can't blame the inactivity of the usergroups on its leaders or anything of the sort. I think that a major part of the inactivity is that many people join the groups, but then stop helping the group a few days after they join. There are still many loyal users that help each usergroup with page edits as well as aiding the community. The groups should remain. User talk:ThirstyGrunt 11:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Oppose- I agree with galacticdominator. It makes more sense to sub divide the groups than undertake a radical restructuring; that would take more time to develop and iron out a new system than to revise the current one. User talk:VYPER117
    Oppose Oppose:Read my comment. But the hint is, it is hard to find mistakes or stuff to edit in great wikias like this one, Zeldapedia, etc.--Shade Link 19:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.