VRCWiki talk:Notability

Notability for groups.

I'm curious for the ability for Groups to be added to the Community section, So where "worlds,avatars,guides" are. I belive adding a new section for groups within community content to allow users to create Group Info pages for groups such as Offline, The Cauldron, Ministry promotions and more, However I'm not sure where this could fall under notability. My most optimal out-look for groups being able to be listed on the wiki is if they are demonstraghting the ability to maintain events such as music events or have a certain member count, Say 250+ to be fair to smaller communitys(?). Comfy Chloe (talk) 14:14, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

The inital idea behind the community space is to have informative pages. We decided to not allow groups directly to prevent repeating just another "gaming, drinking, party" group with a million users. We expected groups with the same goals to share the same page. Communities with own worlds (meating criterias) could also have there worlds on the wiki.

Me personally are all for allowing more content in every direction on the wiki, but I'm mostly alone in the wiki Team with this mindset. Hackebein (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't intend to just "write" about groups, My thoughts on having more public information on user groups were to focus on "Active" and general to promote, I understand the potetional issues, but everyone on the wiki should remember that this Is indeed a Wiki, Everything here should be unbiased and easy to understand, If there is content restrictions it should be for vaild reasons, Notiability is the Only primary reason I can come up with that can cause restriction on "what" or "which" groups could be publicly displayed here, Generally speaking I see no problems talking about Known public rave groups aslong as I withhold to using the standard of posting the Wiki asks of me, I see no issue or restriction, Since no pages exisits for groups are user pages free-create?

Say I were to make Community:Groups:Offline, Would that work for wiki links? I'm still relevetivly new to editting and want to make sure I don't mess-up an edit or miswrite anything, If the wiki-team can't even answer my question I will make the page(s) and leave the team to Move the page where appropriate. Comfy Chloe (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

> Since no pages exisits for groups are user pages free-create?

You are always free to create as long as it follows our guidelines and policies. Pages in User-Contect (starting with "User:") are excluded from most guidelines and policies.

> Say I were to make Community:Groups:Offline, Would that work for wiki links?

yes you could make the page but it would mean the page is in "Community:" context and the name of the page would be "Groups:Offline". i hope that makes sense. You can always check if you can create a page if you navigate to the page: Community:Groups:Offline Hackebein (talk) 08:03, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok thank you, I will work with the creator of Offline and other groups before I create the page to confirm I don't make any mistakes or provide incorrect information, However I would really appritate if other members of the wiki-team could help clarify somethings such as my inital request, I understand you are a moderator but you are one of, However meny moderate this wiki, I've seen quite a few changes under "recent changes" and would like to gather as much knowlage what is and isn't ok, Its very difficult to be in my position without feedback from the full-team (or atleast 2 more members), No offence to you @Hackebein Just more perspectives from more wiki members are diverse and more helpful to get an issue resolve more smoothly without bumps/issues. Comfy Chloe (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

In past edits, for pages, such as VRRat, Steel 'n' Gold, and Community:Trans Academy, I double down to mention their notable groups. I'd say that if a user has a page for a world, and the same user has a notable group regarding that community or content, I think it would be safe to say that it can be added to the article. I like Hackebein's answer too. DAG-XR (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not that we don't want to add groups, it's how we should add them. IIRC last time we discussed this, we're more in favour of "communities" then groups. For example, groups like "Adam Sandler Fanclub" or "I Miss My Wife", shouldn't get a page. But communities, like "Refuge" or "Community Events", could get a page. The way I see it, if your group is somehow hosting sometimes that allows people to interact/congregate/etc, then it's fine.

The more important thing, is whether said group is notable. Since we don't have any notability for it yet, I think if you can show that the group is notable in some way then go ahead. If I had to make something up on the spot, purely based on numbers, if the group has at least 1000 members than it should be good.

If you do decide to create a page, I think it's fine to name it "Community:Offline", as long as you mention it's a group in the first paragraph. We still don't know if we want to namespace it, or leave it be. ~Pausbe (talk) 04:07, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I do strongly agree with you, I was wanting to write/add groups that have noticable "events" or way users congregate, Such as if you were to take a look at general rave groups, 6/10 groups you will see announcements declaring what DJ's Play that night or when they are upcoming.

Groups that are what I call "meme" groups, Such as groups which are there to respresnt a users intrest or have an example peice of text such as "Verified somethingsomethinggoeshere" would Not earn a spot on the wiki Unless exeedingly large, say 10 or 20,000 members. (for the stake of historical recording only).

I inteded to use Community:Groups:Offline, mostly because it would help control the future of the Wiki, Sure its small now, But in the future there maybe Alot more people adding to the wiki.

Their for having a extra namespace won't be harmful, and if we Don't do it now, Imagine in the future when we want to move all these groups to another namespace, Thats alot of manual labour that could be avoided by being efficent now! Comfy Chloe (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I recommend to use "Community:Group:Offline" (Group instead of Groups) to align with namespace names Hackebein (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with this besides Community:Groups:abcd looking a little clunky.

It would likely be better to just have it community namespace, we are considering making more individual namespaces for things such as worlds, groups, and so on.

Overall I agree with the assessment that ideally groups that are moreso communities (or otherwise offer large events such as Ministry) are what should qualify most. TrixxedHeart (They/Them) (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposal: Notability revision (April2025)

Our notability policy was implemented on July 25th 2024, only a couple of months since we started working on the wiki. We had a small revision for the inclusion of Avatars, but it remained the same. Since then, a lot has happened, such as the release of the Creator Economy.

This revision aims to better align the notability policy to the release of the Creator Economy, and the upcoming Avatar Marketplace. It also aims to broaden and simplify the notability criteria. This policy revision does not include an update on the exclusions section, as that is a bigger issue that requires its own talk subject.

You can view my draft for the revised policy here: https://wiki.vrchat.com/wiki/User:Usr_c0fd3826-5fbd-465b-869b-142f974af714/sandbox/notabilityv2

My reasoning behind the changes:

• Criteria expanding
  • By broadening the list of criteria and including clear examples, it should be easier for users to understand what makes a world or avatar notable. This added clarity helps reduce confusion and sets better expectations.

• Manual worlds/avatar rows
  • By limiting rows that been manually added with "admin" tags, it ensures junk doesn't pile in. Compared to "system" tags that get assigned automatically, or "game" and "avatar" tags, each world has been seen and approved by a VRChat staff member.

• Creator Economy guideline
  • This is another way to ensure junk doesn't pile in. VRChat will obviously continue to open up the Creator Economy to the general public, these types of worlds should not get a "free pass". For example, "club world #657".

~Pausbe (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see more content on the wiki, regardless there popularity. Therefor i would like to remove the amount of visits and favorites. I don't see any reason why we should add any additional limit to VRChat's world release system. Nor why we shouldn't trust VRChat's worlds release system.

• Statistical
  • Worlds that have made it out of Community Labs AND

**have at least 10,000 visits or 1,000 favorites.

On top of that i would like to include all Creator Econemy Worlds. These Worlds and Creators got previledged and are hand selected by VRChat. Hackebein (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

There are plenty of reasons not to trust the release system. That's why Community Labs exist, and even then questionable stuff will still slip out into the public. The reason the visits and favourites are considered is that it's an objective way to measure notability. I agree with you that more content should be on the wiki, but policies like this exists because you want more of notable quality, have you scrolled down the "New" world row? Quality over quantity.

VRChat is going to expand the Creator Economy to the public, we should not be playing catch-up when VRChat eventually does. You're correct that the creators that applied are "privileged", but the worlds are not "privileged". There is no review process for udon products that you add in your world. Also, the creators that applied had to meet VRChat's engagement (notablity) criteria. If it exists for that, why shouldn't exist on the wiki. ~Pausbe (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

I notice on the Draft there is still no direct mention of "groups", My personal belive is there should be a Clear definition of groups, Otherwise it could lead to users creating pages anyway and well, Yeah, You get pages which doesn't fit the notability catagory because It wasn't written.

My personal say on group notability should go as follows

Groups should earn the right to creat a page Only if following mentioned catagorys

- Public facing group, not private

- 500 group members with visable group announcements demonstraghting they are a Active and encouraging user engagement. (Groups not displaying activity within announcements but use external apps such as discord to promote acitivty should be 1,000 min as theres no way to prove they are active without external resources which the Wiki doesn't rely on.)

- Should not display any Exessive rules which breach VRChat TOS Or Wiki Rules, such as no visitor rank or anything silly. (fully following the NPVP & COI Policy, This also follows images within announcements and any other forum))

- Any groups under Creator ecomeny should fit, This is due to the process and what I belive is still a "beta" system, Theres no need to list items for "sale" within the wiki page but could be optional to help users if they were to find the page. (I don't want to call this a speical snowflake case, But some could consider it that, Its more so pushing information into the light and making users aware of usable content within the game)

There are more variables to consider, But this is my personal take.

If you would like a helpful example to my thoughts I would encourage processing how each of these 4 example groups could be wiki pages Or Why they Couldn't be wiki pages.

Mochies Shaders, Ancients of VRChat, VRC Dönertreff and a Much Much smaller example to help concern thoughts about notability verses Tool creators VRCOSC Community.

I hope my response provides great insite and encourages more users to come provide feedback here so we can Really settle the new notability down for the future. Comfy Chloe (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

> - 500 group members with visable group announcements demonstraghting they are a Active and encouraging user engagement. (Groups not displaying activity within announcements but use external apps such as discord to promote acitivty should be 1,000 min as theres no way to prove they are active without external resources which the Wiki doesn't rely on.)

In short this means with above 1000 group members, can always create a group page. Or above 500 group member, if the group has any public visible announcement? Hackebein (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Persistent visable, Looking at VRC Dönertreff is a Perfect example of a sub 1,000 group with active community engagement looking to cause users to congreate and enjoy music together. Comfy Chloe (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason why Groups is not in the draft because the draft was made before this discussion topic.

I pretty much agree with you, minus the creator economy exception (for reasons listed in the above). The 500 member exception, I'm a bit iffy on. Not the biggest fan of "exceptions" it should be clear without variables. ~Pausbe (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2025 (UTC)