Template talk:BurbNewsIntro

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Any particular reason...

...why you've been deliberately removing the new BurbNewsIntro template from the suburb pages when you post news on them? Even if you disagree with the content of the template, what you're replacing it with doesn't even have the relevant useful links (for the archiving, for example). At the least, you could've discussed this with me, as a quick check at the history would reveal that I spent quite some time standardising the suburb news pages with that template. It follows that if you disagree with the content of the template, the best place to address that would be on the talk page for said template. Please do not remove any more without further communication of your reasons. Thanks. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 06:53, 17 October 2008 (BST)

It's way too long, but worse, it's survivor-biased. There's no law that says we can't report "news about non resource buildings". Resource buildings are important to survivors, except for NTs, zombies generally don't care. Buildings with lots of food are important. It is ridiculous to ban news >80% of a suburb. ~~ Grogh 23:42, 17 October 2008 (BST)
Okay, I'll start with a few points. First off, I'm not survivor-biased, and I don't think that the suburb pages should be, either. I think they should be NPOV. Second important thing is that I don't claim ownership over the text of this template. That is, I copied it from a couple of suburbs that were already using it. One final thing, before we get into a discussion of the wording of the template: I hope you agree that a template is the best thing to introduce the news section. Assuming that you agree with me, there, then what we need to discuss is the wording of it, rather than it's use. What I'm getting at is this: I don't want to enter into an edit war with you, with me applying the template, and you removing it, which would probably spiral out of control and land us in an arbitration case. All that being said, I'll turn to your complaints about the wording. I agree that it does seem over-long. That is, it takes up a lot of vertical space, and it would be better if it didn't. Regarding resource buildings: I think they are of import to zombies. You only have to witness any MOB assault on a 'burb to see that zombies take down the TRPs first, especially as a precursor to a mall assault. I think what that part is trying to get across, anyway, is that it's not really suburb-wide news if "Blah Library" is operational, even though it might be that specific reporter's favorite building (target, hideout, whatever). On the other hand, it's fairly big news if all the hospitals are ruined, or the mall's down (or up, whatever). If the news was that 80% of the 'burb was ruined, well of course that's newsworthy. Maybe it's just the case that the wording needs improvement? Any suggestions? (And please, don't resort to your prior alternative text, because it didn't even have the useful links in it, as I said before.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:13, 18 October 2008 (BST)
I've altered the template to reduce it's vertical footprint. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:21, 18 October 2008 (BST)
OK, we agree on most things. The length is a minor issue. Using a template is fine, also. But you can not decide that only survivor-important buildings can be reported on. Well, you CAN, but that "rule" WILL be ignored. Come to think of it, a survivor group with a HQ in a bar or library, for example, might take exception to it (the rule) also. As long as there's no wiki policy supporting that line - I've checked, there isn't - I'll ignore it. I haven't seen a suburb that has a problem with too much news and I don't see anything negative about having another item or two in a report. Basically, lose that one line and I'm happy with it.
BTW - and slightly off-topic for here, sorry - you say you're not survivor biased, and I'll accept that. You are, however, survivor-centric in that you see things from a survivor side and not the zombie side. Unfortunately most of the people who play a lot on the wiki are like that. -- Grogh 02:09, 19 October 2008 (BST)
Just for grins I went back and made some minor changes, if you can agree with it, this is over. -- Grogh 02:17, 19 October 2008 (BST)
No problems from me. I think the line must have been designed, not to be anti-reporting in general, but to avoid too many inconsequential reports. I imagine something from newbs along the line of "Totally Unimportant Towers has fallen! ZOMG!". I'm totally willing to accept that there may be reports about important buildings that are not designated TRPs. There's actually no solid wiki policy supporting any of what the template says - I mean, there's no actual NPOV policy in place. It just seems generally accepted that there's too much drama when a suburb page becomes too pro one side or the other. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:27, 19 October 2008 (BST)
On the other topic, sorry if I seem survivor-centric. I think the fault lies in the danger levels - which are POV by their very nature. It's danger levels for survivors. Red is actually safe for zombies. So, when I make reports where I'm trying to judge the danger levels, it's all about the TRPs. (However, I know you find those useful from a zombie perspective, as you posted such on the MOB page regarding, Gulsonside, I think it was.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 02:27, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Great! Glad it all worked out. Just for grins, make a zombie alt and come pay us a visit. -- Grogh 02:51, 19 October 2008 (BST)

Longer on the page

I suggest we change the time news spends on the suburb page to about 3 months, since right now, most suburb pages' news sections are simply empty. Any objections? PB&J 20:10, 23 May 2013 (BST)

Go for it. --  AHLGTG 22:46, 23 May 2013 (BST)
Personal tools