Talk:The Many

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Clock.png Historical Group Talk Page
This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history. Please do not edit this page or the corresponding group page without good reason.

This article needs The Many's victories as well as defeats so as to fulfill NPOV. --Talain 00:17, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

"Neutral POV" and "The Many" doesn't go together very well. You're either on one side, or on the other, in the game. I do agree that the article should list the major events in the history of The Many, as they're a major part of the history of the entire game themselves --Daranz 00:21, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

If Wikipedia can do NPOV on the Nazis, I'm pretty sure we can do it on the Many. --Talain 00:25, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

People need to stop messing around with this article. This article is currently as objective as it can be. --Shaqfu

WWII didn't exactly happen yesterday, but yeah, we should have an objective article here. That means no bragging, and no accusing. And I think we got us a first edit war in history of this wiki.--Daranz 01:00, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

I agree that it should be a NPOV article. Though, it is fact that we (PA) only knew about the horde's assault through one of their nearby ones. We had been in the mall two weeks and had no idea the pretorians were in the mall with us until today. --Yarrio

Please move all POV discussion or controversial portions of the articles in question to Operation Windmill Scrotum controversy. This should help stop the editwarring to some degree, as well as letting both sides have an opinion here. --LibrarianBrent 01:15, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

You may be on one side or other in the game, but this is neither in the game or in character. As for the "edit war" - if the article about The Pr(a)etorians wasn't so egotistical about themselves (non-NPOV) and an attack on a small part of The Many which had been leaked via multiple communication channels, I wouldn't be bothered.

Stop posting unrelated crap on the page. --ShaqFu 06:21, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

The September 8th attack was not the many. Removed. --Talain 06:57, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Is it necessary to have Giddings under sucessful attacks? While the Many delivered many casualties in the attacks, the thing has its own section and they've yet to be entirely successful. Unless they manage to completely purge Giddings, I don't see much point in having it in sucessful attacks when it has its own section -- Yarrio

Understood. When I added it originally I had no other place to put it. Then, when I added the section the other day I meant to remove it but must have forgotten. --Sankis

Should the Siege information be listed under the Giddings Mall entry, instead? I was going to ad some updates about the rapid ping-ponging control in different areas around the mall, but running news about the siege seems strange to put here.--Jeff 16:11, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't want to sabotage the entry, so I'm not going to edit it. However, should Giddings be moved to defeats now? It's been a week of inactivity, lots of rumors going around about members getting bored with the game, and PA rebel alliance was never driven out of Giddings. --Yarrio

The Giddings Mall entry might be the best place for it at this point. Given the several-day gap between major attacks, and greater zombie activity in areas farther away from the mall, it might be fair to say that The Battle Of Giddings was a human success. Subsequent conflicts should be considered 'The Second Battle of Giddings' or what not. It's a bit difficult, because it's easy to simply say, 'We're regrouping' or 'It's a siege' indefinitely.--Jeff 21:17, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

Fiddled with the part about the September 8th attack on Giddings a bit, pointing out The Many's continued denial they were responsible for the attack. Summarized the info on the Seige of Giddings a week or so later under Defeats. Will move more detailed info on the siege to a new, seperate page. -CWD 01:37, 25 Oct 2005 (BST)

Insomniac By Choice, that was an amazing little piece you did there. Nicely captured the feeling of that time(which I remember clearly). Congrats. -Eater.

Thank you. Also, while some may believe "Scourge bias and faggotry" was once present, those quoted words in sniperwulf's first edit were also mine, albeit from a forum. I personally believe the Many is incredibly overrated and probably got more credit than they were actually responsible for, but at the same time I'm a member of a zombie horde (the Scourge) and know my roots. The Many is the father of the modern horde and took us from small roaming squads to the overwhelming armies we see today. I don't like them, I don't particularly like Something Awful, but they added something to the game that might never have been present otherwise. Anyone can edit this, but I think future edits, regardless of what you think of them personally, should acknowledge this.--Insomniac By Choice 22:20, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)
*whistles, cheers*--'STER 23:04, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Personal tools
advertisements