Suggestion:20080102 Make ' 'Bloodsoaked' ' Clothes Less of an Eyesore

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Stop hand.png Closed
This suggestion has finished voting and has been moved to Undecided Suggestions.

Suggestion Navigation
Suggestion Portal
Current SuggestionsSuggestions up for VotingClothes Suggestions
Cycling SuggestionsPeer ReviewedUndecidedPeer RejectedHumorous
Suggestion AdviceTopics to Avoid and WhyHelp, Developing and Editing

20080102 Make ' 'Bloodsoaked' ' Clothes Less of an Eyesore

Ms.Panes 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion type

Suggestion scope
People sick of seeing "bloodsoaked" in front of every article of clothing in everyone's inventory.

Suggestion description
I've been thinking about it, and I've decided that there is in fact a way to maintain the beautiful gore we love so much without it being ugly or interfering with our outfits. I think the best way to explain how it works is with an example: "Wearing: a white lab coat, dark blue jeans, and white boots. The coat and jeans are bloodstained, and the boots are battered and bloodstained." Requisite gore without interfering with my outfit - perfect.

So, basically, you have the outfit listed as the same way as it normally would be if it were in perfect shape. If anything is damaged, in the next sentence it would name the item followed by it's condition. Any items that are undamaged would not be listed in the second sentence. IE, if the boots are fine, it would read: "Wearing: a white lab coat, dark blue jeans, and white boots. The coat and jeans are bloodstained." Note that items in the exact same condition are grouped together. Other than that, the second sentence would list items in the same order as the first.

Now let's take a look at how things are *currently*: "Wearing: a bloodstained white lab coat, a bloodstained pair of dark blue jeans and a battered and bloodstained pair of white boots"

If you think my way is easier on the eyes, please vote keep. If you think the old system is better I will admit that I'm entirely shocked.

Note: all this does is reformat the way the description is written so as to be easier on the eyes. It neither removes any details, nor adds any that weren't already there.

Voting Section

Voting Rules
Votes must be numbered, justified, signed, and timestamped.
# justification ~~~~

Votes that do not conform to the above may be struck by any user.

The only valid votes are Keep, Kill, Spam or Dupe. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote.

Keep Votes

  1. Keep - Repetition is annoying. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Keep - cant see anything wrong with this.--'BPTmz 22:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Change - Wearing some bloadsoaked blue jeans, white shirt and a jacket and battered shoes. Something to that affect. --  AHLGTG 23:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Keep Clears up some annoyance. Good work.--SeventythreeTalk 23:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Keep - good idea, needs implement--CorndogheroT-S-Z 00:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Keep - OK. Less spam. --Heretic144 02:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Meh - Sounds okay because it does organise the clothes a bit. But not really more than that. ~AriedartinTalkA KS J abt all 14:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Author Keep - Can't believe I forgot to vote on this. --Ms.Panes 17:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Keep So this would read"Wearing: a white lab coat, dark blue jeans,Mirrored Sunglasses and white boots. The coat and jeans are bloodstained,the Mirrored sunglasses are scratched."? Its a bit long with all that.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Wearing: a white lab coat, dark blue jeans, mirrored sunglasses and white boots. The coat and jeans are bloodstained, and the sunglasses are scratched."
    Oh, and in the suggestion I forgot to mention that adjectives like "white", "mirrored", etc. are dropped in the second sentence. I knew I'd forget to mention some detail of the sentence structure (which is why I listed the example first) and I hope this clears things up. --Ms.Panes 18:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. KeeppBloodstained hat, and bloodstained hoes, and blood-stained shirt, and blood-stained pants and bloodstained...-- Quizzical  Quiz  Speak  18:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Blood-stained keep - And a blood stained explaination, which is also covered in blood. --Uncle Bill 20:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  12. Keep - It is difficult to read the descriptions of people's (mainly zombies') clothes with the redundant blood-soaked text. A cleanup like this should be easy to implement and unspam the description box.--Kolechovski 15:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  13. Weak Keep Meh..--Darth LumisT! A! E! SR 02:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  14. Keep Meh... ~A`Blue`JellyTME*V*I*L*? 05:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
  15. keep I Agree. Especaly if u just went out to get new stuff Daniel camburn 21:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  16. Keep - Much needed cleanup --Themanwhocares4 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill Votes

  1. Kill - If it bothers you, change your clothes. It doesnt cost any AP. Besides, i love it the way it is. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Zombies can't change their clothes and not every building has the desired clothing available. And I can't change other people's clothes so that I can read their descriptions more easily, either. If you really like the descriptions as is, perhaps it should be a toggleable option as to how it reads. Personally, I can't stand it because, for me, it gets in the way of seeing what someone is wearing. --Ms.Panes 05:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    So? Zombies are always blood drenched. Its their nature. Its the fashion of malton that never goes out of style. And here we have Serena Darkrose, formerly of the RRF, lurching down the catwalk in he stunning blood drenched custom shredded designer dress by Petrosjko and wearing a Pidgeon hat by Gordarmes, also drenched in blood. Look at how the gunshot residue brings out her eyes. If you want to be fashion concious, adapt to maltons fashion scene, and try not to be a zombie. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Now, if the descriptions read like that I wouldn't be asking to change things. Beautiful imagery, Grimch. --Ms.Panes 20:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Kill - Grim my main man hit it on the head --/~Rakuen~\ 01:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. Kill - Fine as is, and you are just moving the bloody description further down the queue. I'd rather something like he/she is sparsly/moderately/heavily covered/soaked in blood at the end of the clothing description. Not that anything needs fixing. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 01:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  4. Kill - You can change the clothes to remove the "bloodstained" part. --Z. slay3r Talk  03:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  5. Kill - current system is much better than yours. --~~~~ [talk] 09:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  6. Kill - Makes it longer without adding any content. --Pgunn 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  7. Kill - As Pgunn.Studoku 14:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  8. Kill - As Karek, and Grim. And to be honest, I'm getting just as sick as Karek on seeing all of these clothes suggestions. --Ryiis 15:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  9. Kill - Oh no! I got blood all over my clothes! UCFSD 15:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  10. Kill - I actually enjoy having a reason to change my clothes. In some cases (blood-spattered mirrored sunglasses), I leave as-is because I like the way it reads.--Actingupagain 16:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  11. Kill - You know what they say.... "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." --Private Mark 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Spam - And I'm sick of seeing crappy clothes based suggestions, go play Sims.--Karekmaps?! 02:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    I hate Sims. You let your characters do what they want, they #$@% up the place. You take them over, you have to watch them every second and manipulate every $%##ing little thing they do. And there's no &%$* middle ground where you control them a little, 'cuz then they still start doing stupid $#!7. --Ms.Panes 17:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
    Spam - While I'm powurin mah lazur, I promise to take the time to consider both sides to the arguement in a balanced and logical manner. It's not necessary, and it's a minor edit, but it would be welcome, and it's only a minor edit. Hm! Unsigned vote struck. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  2. Spam - current system fine as is. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 14:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  3. I am on a voting spree, but to make this vote valid, I'm in agreement with those above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Personal tools