Talk:Organizations

From doktorsleepless

proposing merge with "Groups" page

I'd like to see this merged with "Groups", under a combined "Groups & Organizations" heading. Neither are very big, and members can be grouped by different headings under the new page. "Groups" are mostly informal (except for musical groups); the "Organizations" are a mix of formal/informal. The current separations are almost a Controlling-vs-Controlled split (pro-Establishment/anti-Establishment) (presumably excepting the musical group Pod, which seems to be part of the pro-Establishment sphere). Any thoughts? --Taz sometime earlier...

The OCD in me says no, only because it will make for a long title in a group of short titles, which screws with the page flow. What about a title that encompasses them both (that's short), with each of them under a sub-header in that's titles page? That way both are combined, but the main page still moves well. --Spiraltwist 17:07, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

No qualms with finding a short title. That's a good thought. Not sure what an appropriate title would be. "Groups" might fit the bill... Of course, since these are groups/organizations of People, both pages could easily be folded into that. My page-layout-OCD just wants to see fewer entries on that main page categorical breakdown; "groups" and "orgs" are just too close to the same thing to have separate pages. --Taz 19:50, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Agree there - I would have put them under the same title, separate heading also - but it was already done when I got here. I'm not comfy enough on the wiki to code it without having a cheat sheet to look at. Needs to be a word that can describe both. I'm going to have another glass and think about it. --Spiraltwist 21:51, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Names: Alliances, Crowds, Liaisons, Unions....and I have to sleep now. --Spiraltwist 23:00, 25 September 2008 (PDT)

Mobs? --Taz 11:39, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

Associations? Partnerships? Circles? I'd like the new page's title to be fairly neutral... "Groups" or "Associations" fits the bill, but "Alliances" or "Liasons" sound a little too fan-site-ish. "Circles" suggests mysticism; not sure that's entirely appropriate. --Taz 12:27, 26 September 2008 (PDT)

"Groups" fits the best, I think. Also agree with you on the "Circles" part - there's too much tech involved to suggest mysticism (though some of the tech is so far advanced it might as well be magick). I like "Groups" best, though I'd want to find another tittle for the subtitle "Groups" now that the main heading will be "Groups" (dislike the redundancy; perhaps the "Mobs" you suggested?)--Spiraltwist 07:43, 27 September 2008 (PDT)

I was thinking less of a "I. Groups / II. Organizations" type of outline and more of a "I. Government / II. NGOs / III. Private Industries / IV. Social Groups (Mobs) / V. Music Groups" type of breakdown. The current Groups page already does some of this, but it could be cleaner; the listings on this current Organizations page don't. But revamping the Groups page into cleaner categories would effectively merge the Organizations page at the same time. (And btw, there's plenty of mysticism here, between the Cthulhu stuff and the Science Jesus and the Angel constructs... but until actual mystic groups are identified we'll hold off on the "VI. Circles & Covens" heading...) --Taz 18:31, 30 September 2008 (PDT)

Merge complete. Take a look: Groups, Main Page. Full report on Talk:Groups. --Taz 18:59, 30 September 2008 (PDT)