From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Deletions Archive
2005 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4
2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
2014 Jan-Jun Jul-Dec
Years 2015 2016 2017 2018

This is an archive page for Moderation/Deletions. This page represents all Deletions archived in December 2005.


Reason: Proof of a PKing or something. Doesn't really belong here. --Raelin 02:07, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete What's this page for anyways? It doesn't show anything useful. --Carfan7 04:01, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete. Reasons already stated above. --Daranz-Talk 03:16, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete imageshack.us is where that belongs. --Flaunted 18:30, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Delted on 18:43, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT) by Daranz | Talk |

Bunch of coordinate pages

66,50, 65,54, 70,57, 71,56, 73,55, 75,59, 77,51, 6,1, 3,5, 18,9, 27,6, 41,16, 54,10]],79,15

Reason: no real content (just the name of the building plus a sig). --Shadowstar 02:35, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Extended by Moderator. -- Odd Starter 06:27, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Figured some folks might want names. But should certain folks be more anal retentive than Martha Stewart regarding asthetics... (And she loves names, based on the transcripts.) Well so be it.--B.Z.B. 03:16, 9 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - I'm pretty sure these only exist in the first place because folks didn't know how to make the [ and ], so inadvertantly created links for coordinates. Then well-meaning folks added content. --otherlleft 14:35, 18 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I use them as shorthand in the Category:Maps section, as then they could be linked to further information on the events that take place there. Ideally, I'd like them as a Redirect to the actual location. For an example, please look at Category:Forts.--GoNINzo 19:13, 23 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - There's no reason why the Maps can't list the coordinates but link directly to pages named after the buildings in question, rather than redirecting through an otherwise unreferenced coordinate page. And I think it'd be more useful and legible to have the Map page saying "Shuttlebank / Berrow Road, Perrie Square, Bubcar Road" for the fire station map, rather than an all-linked "Shuttlebank / 38,10 37,12 36,18", that any pages that merit links are going to be the "famous" ones, that players might have heard about but don't know the precise location of. --Spiro 20:46, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Can't you see this coordinates on the normal map? --Carfan7 04:53, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Moderator's Note: I'm going to leave these be for the moment, on the proviso that someone works on making them into redirects for the appropriate pages (as GoNINzo seems to want). I'll revisit the pages in another two weeks, and any that don't seem to link to anything significant by that time I'm going to delete. -- Odd Starter 06:27, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • The main ones I wanted, the multisquared buildings like forts and malls, have been set to redirect to their correct buildings. If people want to use coordinates to coordinate their movement, or maybe stake a home base some place, I think that would work as well. It might also facilitate bringing the individual suburb maps into the wiki, if people feel it's necessary. I have also seen a few people using it in their user information to indicate where they are in the world. I didn't see any harm in allowing people to create ones for individual hospitals and police departments and the like. --GoNINzo 18:45, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • With the exception of a few streets, I think all blocks in the city do have distinct names. I've no problem with people creating pages for their own safehouses, however minimal their content; it just seems much neater to use building names rather than human-unreadable coordinates (that you're more likely to recognise someone mentioning a safehouse you used to hang out at, than some grid reference). --Spiro 20:46, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • I don't think I was advocating much beyond a redirect page to the named location. The grid points are on the maps to make it easier to locate where a nearby necrotech building is and such based off the coords. Why not have it link to somewhere useful at the exact same time, like maybe to see if there is a siege going on right then.--GoNINzo 19:11, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • It's neater, but I can see some real good reasons for using coordinate redirects - Template-building, for example, becomes much simpler if coordinate links are used instead of named links. -- Odd Starter 13:00, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete I just looked at a bunch of them ... no information 'cept the building's name, not even a link ... and they all seem to be the work of one (well intentioned?) player. Rohstun 19:56Z 30NOV05
    • I just redirected 41,16 to the Catherine General Hospital page (and removed the deletion request on the page). If a mod/admin agrees, can he/she take 41,16 off the list of pages to be deleted? Thanks. --Nov 15:25, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: And it's well past end of voting. Most of the links have been turned into redirects, they are however still quite broken redirects. In the event that these pages start existing, people are welcome to recreate the pages, but for the moment, the deletes seem to have it, and I'm deleting all the broken redirect coordinates. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:23, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)


'Reason: I don't know why the person uploaded it, but it's unused and really doesn't seem like something that belongs here. --Raelin 05:43, 29 Oct 2005 (BST)

  • Moderator: Agreed, but my policy is to wait for a month before deleting unlinked images. --LibrarianBrent 05:01, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: Part of your reason is wrong, the image is linked to. It is part of a little project I started that seemed worthwhile, but not ideal as an ordinary article. So for the moment it is residing as a sub-page of my user page. Though it does seem you've already made your decision. --BenM 03:24, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Your image is linked NOW... :P --LibrarianBrent 03:26, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
And has been for a while, as are the other images. Interesting to note that this vote began about a month prior to the deletion tag being placed on the image. Now that kind of sneakiness is not cool. Moderators ought to know better. --BenM 03:35, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
That's maybe because this vote was called before the tag existed. Note that my reply was also from almost a month ago. --LibrarianBrent 03:36, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I'm curious as to why it's here in the first place, myself. I see no reason to provide picture proof of every time you've been PKed. It's really just a waste of wiki resources. --Raelin 03:57, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I can move the images to my own server, but they'll be on a PSTN connection until after I've moved house (this weekend) and get DSL (around Christmas). Having the images elsewhere means no image description or history too. --BenM 04:20, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Depending on what you need the descriptions for, they could possibly work as a caption. Although I'm not sure why you'd need an image history. --Raelin 04:51, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I might wait a couple of days (when I go back to work), then I can put the images on a test webserver with better bandwidth and move them back to my machine after I've moved and got DSL. I'll mess around with doing it in an un-wiki way later. --BenM 05:35, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - This image and the others are now hosted elsewhere. I'd delete them all myself, but don't have the access to do so. Maybe if an admin can delete them then every other self-important popinjay will stop vandalising various pages I've made with statements about the images (instead of just nominating them for deletion). --BenM 14:44, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: This page has since been deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 12:11, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason: I'm really not sure what the point of this page is, other than to get across the idea that the original author doesn't like groups based on pre-existing relationships that were formed on other websites. I'm not even sure it could be saved with heavy editing. — g026r 21:52, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete We don't need this kind of net-racism on here. --Stroth 18:26, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete I do not like the title and the page serves little purpose anyway. I also think it is badly worded. Alexei Yaruk 23:28, 6 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete. Doesn't really serve a purpose. --Chester Katz 02:59, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It explains the integral role of external message boards on clans and game socio-political scenarios. Alexei is an asshat. !1A 03:33, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Dunno about racism or asshattery, but the page seems pretty POV, if nothing else. --LouisB3 03:54, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Wow. Um. What crap. --Shadowstar 00:18, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Juvenile and abusive. Utterly unneccessary. --Drakkenmaw 19:20, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: Deletes have it. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 22:58, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason: A play off the original Imperium made by the User:!1A to make fun of them. Needs deleted. --YuriRuler90 18:26, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete ^-Quite. Alexei Yaruk 21:08, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Immature and unamusing at the best. Turns the wiki into a forum to prank friends. Maleficarum Maleficarum 01:31, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete !1A is becoming rather annoying. Mrdbeau 04:55, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, this was the agreed upon solution between !1A and the new 'The Imperium'. !1A 19:09, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment: Alexei and his cronies have so far submitted 90% of ALL deletion requests, surely these people can use a TALK PAGE to discuss issues instead of just arbitrarily deleting content, defacing pages and / or adding the {{delete}} template to stuff, it's getting out of hand .. !1A 19:09, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment: This is the point of view of YuriRuler90, examine the article and determine for yourself. -- (The preceding was posted unsigned by !1Ag026r 19:14, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT))
  • Delete Despite !1A's statement to the contrary, this was not in fact the agreement. What was suggested was that he make his own wiki page, when all he's done is put up an edited version of The Imperium's page, including a group listing which includes all of The Imperium's groups, none of which are a part of the so-called 'REAL' Imperium. - RosutoEnzeru 00:40, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Although I have strong doubts that !1A really has an Imperium group, I think that the existence of the new CoL page has already set a precedent here. If we allow for the deletion of one group's page based solely on similarities to an existing group, than we have to re-open the whole CoL/CoL debate. --Chester Katz 20:52, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment: There is a significant difference between what !1A is doing and the CoL/CoL debate. The CoL/CoL debate is only based off having the same name. This page created by !1A exists only for the purpose of mocking and insulting a real group. If you can't see the difference, well... I'm sure anyone can. Mrdbeau 22:27, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
To say that the CoL/CoL debate is based only on the name is either disingenuous or naive. If you can't see the similarities between your own desciption of !1A's group and the new CoL, well... --Chester Katz 23:17, 8 Dec 2005 (GMT)
This isn't the place for yet another CoL/CoL debate. Would there even be a CoL/CoL debate if the "new" CoL had not named itself the "new" CoL? No, or at least much less of one. 'Nuff said. Mrdbeau 04:04, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
You're right, it's not. But it is the place to discuss an Imperium/Imperium debate, and as far as I can tell a precedent has been set. To delete REAL_The_Imperium because it takes the name of an existing group would be using a double standard. --Chester Katz 04:29, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Don't be dense, the deletion of this entry has almost nothing to do with it's name and you know it. The entry exists for the sole purpose of mocking a group and has absolutely no point to it whatsoever. Mrdbeau 05:30, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I'm not contending that this page serves a purpose. I'd actually love to see it go. However, every argument I see made in this entire discussion could also be applied to the new CoL, so that's the precedent I'm following. Seriously, copy the text from this entire subsection and do a find/replace for these values: "REAL:New", "Imperium:CoL", "!1A:Katthew", and "Alexei:Daxx". --Chester Katz 06:07, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
While your point does have some merit, I still think it is fairly obvious that there is a difference between the precedent set by the "New" CoL and then this situation. For one, the "New" CoL is an actual group whereas this "Real" Imperium is questionable at best. While I realize that the "validity" of a group is not necessarily something which truly pertains to the creation of a page, as Rosuto pointed out a bit further up, the "Real" Imperium page says that it contains certain groups which it does not (and links to them). If these false links would be taken out, the page would have virtually no content. Not to mention a whole host of other things, some of which have already been pointed out. Mrdbeau 07:25, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Coment Well then, I think I will go make a page, no a Catagory, called 'Operation: Beard Hammer 2.0'. Its perfictly acceptable, the New CoL, and !1A did it. Hell, I will go make it a page of fart joaks... The wiki neads one of those. Then I can make it a sub catagory of EVERYTHING ELSE...
On second thought, it would be easyer to draw the line here and put a stop to this nonsense. Alexei Yaruk 00:51, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Yeah, I actually agree with you that this is a bad precedent, but it's a precedent nonetheless. As far as I can tell, if you want to create a group named "Operation:Beard Hammer 2.0" and set up a wiki page for it, you'd be within your rights to do that. A fart jokes page would probably get the axe pretty quickly though. --Chester Katz 02:27, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Just if you didn't know, I do vote delete. :p --YuriRuler90 01:06, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete This page has numerous links. Seems like !1A either isn't very good at making WIKI pages or is just trying to be obnoxious. Regardless, the page, as well as !1A himself, is offensive and immature and should be gotten rid of. --RivalLightning 10:41, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)
    • Comment: Wait ... you're objecting to the presence of links on a wiki page? Seriously? --Chester Katz 04:00, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: No, you misunderstand. There are entire subsections on alliance pages set aside JUST for pages created by this user. It makes the entire page look bad. I wouldn't object to a link if it was in the right place. ---RivalLightning 6:52, 9 Dec 2005 (EST)
  • Delete - Yes, the precendent is there. And it's a bad precendent. Do bad precedents have to be followed? --Daxx 18:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: Yes. That's what makes it a precedent. If we delete this page, we're basically saying that there's one set of rules on this wiki for standard users and an entirely different set for the SA goons. --Chester Katz 18:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
That's fair enough; perhaps in future if this behaviour becomes more widespread the basic decision might have to be re-examined (most likely each page on its own merits). --Daxx 19:05, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Besides the fact this group lists sub-groups inaccurately and without their consent, it is obnoxious and a deliberate insult. CoL(old) and CoL(new) are not appropriate precedence because the (new) CoL does not claim that the (old) CoL are members. This difference between the two cases (ie fraudulent claims of other group's sub-membership within your group) causing the deletion is the real precedent here, not the coincidental similarities in name. This is not a "bad" precedent, rather deleting this is a show that common sense and reasonable judgment, not mindlessly followed technicalities will prevail in deletion policies, which is a wonderful precedent.--Matthew-Stewart 21:33, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: I completely agree with you that those groups should not be included on this page. However, that is grounds for an enforced edit of the page, not for an outright deletion. The preferred method of correcting a wiki is through editing, not through deleting any page which contains erroneous information. --Chester Katz 18:01, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
      • Comment That is a very valid point, however I would point out that the sole purpose of the page is directly and unambiguously malicious, and not actually to support a group. Malicious fraud with no actual group supported are very reasonable grounds for out-right deletion. --Matthew-Stewart 18:10, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete It is nothing more then a sorry attempt at trolling. It should be dumped as well as User:!1A himself because he is a continual nuisance to people and this wiki. --Ashjwilliams 23:00, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment: I'd like once again to address the relevance of this deletion request. Many good points have been brought up by those favoring deletion, and if all other things were equal, I'd be on the side of deletion as well. The problem is that each and every argument for deleting this article is defeated by an existing precedent already established on this wiki. These precedents are as follows:
  1. The top of a group page should be NPOV, but the rest of the page can contain whatever POV material the group desires (ref: DARIS). !1A should be required to remove the links to groups which do not wish to associate themselves with REAL The Imperium, and perhaps change the NPOV text at the top. Apart from this, the current rule of thumb is that it's his page to do with as he pleases.
  2. The group doesn't have to have be sizable to qualify for a wiki article (ref: Category talk:Groups). Numerics aren't enforced for groups, just for Confirmed Groups. As long as !1A considers this to be a group, he can have a page.
  3. Groups created for the purpose of trolling an existing group and which even use the same name as that group are allowed to maintain a presence on the wiki (ref: Council of Leaders (new)).  !1A's intentions when creating this group can't be cited as reasons for deletion.
  4. Users can attack, berate, and belittle other users within talk pages as much as they want (ref: Katthew).  !1A may be a troll, and may not be capable of carrying on a discussion without resorting to childish attacks, but the moderators have specifically said that these actions are acceptable within this wiki.
I dislike each of these precedents on some level (with the possible exception of the group numerics), but they're established procedure for the wiki at this point. If we want to end the trolling behavior by !1A, then the policies and precedents which are in place on this wiki need to be reviewed and revised. In case anyone has the wrong impression, I do want this article to go away, but I feel even more strongly that the rules enforced on the wiki must be enforced consistently. As I've stated elsewhere in this discussion, we can't have different sets of rules for different users. I strongly believe that we can't allow this entry to be deleted without first having a serious reevaluation of the guidelines and precedents which have already been established on this wiki. --Chester Katz 19:36, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: I still hold to the contention that deleting this is a wonderful precedent. Perhaps previous precedents will be invalidated and current existing and future sumbissions to the wiki will have to be examined with a new and (in my opinion) higher standard. I don't believe that is a problem. Malicious and deliberate fraud should be dealt with more harshly. Accusations, point of view statements and so forth are fine but deliberate malicious fraud is unexcusable. Also Drakkenmaw makes a wonderful point. --Matthew-Stewart 20:54, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - The only reason to follow any set precedent is if it contributes to the smooth and effective operation of the wiki. If the letter of the precedent is being used to justify things which directly contravene the spirit of the site, it is justified to ignore the precedent for the more-pressing matter of preventing the abuse. Any rules here are operating conventions, not sacred maxims, and they really need only be followed in everyday running of the wiki. Situations outside normalcy, especially ones like this which are rather specifically abuse-oriented, easily provide a reason to ignore the normal conventions to fix the problem. --Drakkenmaw 20:04, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I would love to say delete, but frankly there is no way to confirm or deny there exists such a group then it is rather wrong to out right delete it. I suggest having the members of the groups listed delete their links or even have A1! prove that there are these connections. I'm sure there is a reasonable way to do this. Maybe, if the members of the groups with links could comment that they have no connection to the "Real The Imperium", then maybe a moderator, or even they could delete them and then we go on our merry way.--Axe-man 23:22, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment - Alexei and myself have been put in charge by the group The Imperium to be the guardians of our presence on the wiki. I myself removed every one of the Imperium groups from "REAL The Imperium" several times, and prior to that, removed !!!111AAA or whatever it's called from The Imperium several times as well. !1A can't even stop himself from posting links where they don't belong. As to the discussion that had been taking place in this section, I've taken the liberty of removing it to the discussion page of the wiki entry in question, so that it stops clutterring the deletion thread. Plus, if the page is deleted, it'll be gone and over and done with. - RosutoEnzeru 07:11, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's not trolling, because it's done on their own page. If somebody being insulted or offended by a page's mere existence was reason enough for a page deletion, half the content on this wiki would be gone in a week. Riktar 01:23, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Move - We should make clear the problem here. It is a dumb category, but a perfect player / group page. We should delete arbitary categories (makes navigation harder), but leave content well alone. Lets be inclusive not elitist. --Zalien 07:27, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - this is a combination of trolling with pure spam, and should be dealt with as such. --The Fifth Horseman 14:28, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: 12 Deletes to 3 Keeps, The deletes have it. The page has been moved to Category:REAL The Imperium, and in light of prevailing opinion, I have deleted both the Category and the redirect. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 01:28, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason: Seems to be a fairly worthless stub, which also seems pointless to try to expand. It's a fairly self-explanatory concept. --Daxx 18:33, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - "attacking is where someone attacks someone else" ... Need I say more? --Chester Katz 18:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - If you need an explanation of what "attack" means, then you need a dictionary, not an article on this wiki. — g026r 19:32, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - there's really nother left to be said, just get rid of it - RosutoEnzeru 19:42, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete unless somebody can put up all possible attacks plus hit percentages in that one article --Daranz|talk| 21:36, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason: Spam. Serves no discernable purpose. (Although I could understand doing a redirect to Category:Organizations) — g026r 03:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete You'll notice that this is just another page created by !1A to be a thorn in everyone's side. - RosutoEnzeru 05:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Or failing that I think a rederect is in order as well. Alexei Yaruk 05:48, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Or maybe do a redirect for the sake of those trying to reach Category:Organizations from the search box. --Chester Katz 05:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Delete current content, add redirect. Some people here are British. --Daxx 19:36, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment I'd be inclined to agree with that, except that there's a link to Category:Organizations of the main page of the wiki. No one would ever need to perform a search for it.
Comment What does being British have to do with anything? If you're referring to Alexei's spelling of "rederect," Americans, English, Scottish, Australians, and anyone who speaks English well spells it with an i.
"Organisation" is a British spelling. --Chester Katz 04:17, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
I would have thought that what I meant was obvious. By the way, I know there's a link from the front page but it would help internal links also. I don't really see why we can't have it as a redirect. --Daxx 17:55, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: Page has been effectively merged into Category:Organizations, with a redirect to that page. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 23:56, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Category:Human Grops

Reason: Spam. Serves no discernable purpose. — g026r 03:57, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete You'll notice that this is just another page created by User:!1A to be a thorn in everyone's side. - RosutoEnzeru 05:38, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Pointless! Alexei Yaruk 05:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - I'm hoping against hope that this was just a typo. --Chester Katz 05:53, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment - I don't think it was. Around the time that he created this (and the other category), he modified the Imperium page to be included in them. I'm not sure what he was doing with this page; I'd almost warrant a guess (based on the attempts at a redirect in both) that he was trying to get them to appear to be members of his little group, or something. — g026r 17:47, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Yet another useless page created by User:!1A --Technerd 14:00, 14 Dec 2005 (PST)
  • Delete - Why are we discussing this? --Zalien 07:28, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 15:20, 23 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Category:Groups which do suck unwashed penis

Reason - Should be obvious enough just by reading the category name. I can't see a reason for this existing, save as a method for people to insult groups they don't like. — g026r 05:42, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete, obviously. --LibrarianBrent 05:43, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, do I really need a reason?--Axe-man 06:12, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, Um ... --Chester Katz 06:37, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, Who the hell created that? --Kryten 08:30, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, Devin Wright, from the page's history. --Daxx 13:16, 14 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, Looks like it was created to cause hate & discontent. --Technerd 10:47, 14 Dec 2005 (PST)
  • Delete, Aside from the obvious, blatantly offensive to those with an aversion to soap. --Reverend Loki 20:09, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep omg why don't you people understand humor?!?!1 See [Independent]. (All right, not really.) --LouisB3 01:52, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment, I wouldn't say it's humourous, rather offensive to any group that's listed on it. --Daxx 17:58, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment, I would agree, this isn't funny but a category specifically made to facilitate crude and tasteless attacks on groups to be listed. Also this Wiki isn't a sexual fetish site where such a thing may be appropriate category. --Matthew-Stewart 01:35, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Yeah, try Red Versus Blue forums for that. --ALIENwolve 01:36, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep: It could only be offensive to people who have either never sucked dick or never had their dicks sucked. I mean, come on, people: in the heat of the moment, does one really stop short and demand that one's partner scrub up? If you say yes, you're either incredibly prissy or lying. And, in any case, it's just a lousy joke. Why would one even bother to be offended by it? --Ssto 00:46, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment, I agree, the joke is lousy. I like humor, but it should be good humor. --Matthew-Stewart 01:37, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Comment, Nice to see you can determine a persons sexual history from a wiki, and yes, I've had a girlfriend ask exactly that.--Axe-man 21:54, 22 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete--Arathen 20:13, 24 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • DeleteUm, how pointless must a page be? -- General Maddox 0317EDT, 28 Dec 2005
  • DeleteKinda funny but inappropriate on the wiki. --Stresshog 21:55, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deletes have it, Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 05:24, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason - Unused screenshot image. Unlikely to be used for anything productive. The wiki should not be used like imageshack. --Daxx 13:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - garbage images need to be dumped! - RosutoEnzeru 19:39, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Should not be hosted on this site, but rather linked externally, per that page's instructions. --Reverend Loki 20:00, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 21:38, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason - Unused screenshot image. Unlikely to be used for anything productive. The wiki should not be used like imageshack. --Daxx 13:51, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - garbage images need to be dumped! - RosutoEnzeru 19:39, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - The PKer images, by that pages standard, should be hosted elsewhere anyways. --Reverend Loki 19:59, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 21:38, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason - It's a PK report, and I don't think that these serve any purpose on the wiki. On top of this, where this image is linked there is a secondary link to photobucket. We need to come up with a block policy on deleting PK report images because they can be hosted elsewhere and linked to. --Daxx 12:52, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete - garbage images need to be dumped! - RosutoEnzeru 19:39, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment - I posted it, and I have no problem with deleting the image. I posted it as an embedded image and a link because there were no other PKs listed on the wiki page titled 'Player Killer List' that I could use as a format guide, and no instructions as to format. It just said, "If your survivor character was killed by another survivor you'll must place their name and a link to a picture supporting that they have killed you." If a link is the preferred method with the mods of this wiki, that's fine by me - it would be helpful if that were stated explicitly on the 'Player Killer List' page. As for whether PK reports 'serve any purpose on the wiki,' that is a much larger question than relates to this image. It would be nice to have some place to report these, but where that place is doesn't much matter to me - as long as everyone can actually find and access it with a link on the PK page. But that is a discussion that seems appropriate to vote on under a page deletion request, not an image deletion request. - Clay 07:14, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Yeah, no reason for it to be hosted here. --Reverend Loki 19:57, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 21:38, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason - No content, orphaned page. Nothing relevant can really be added to the page. --Daxx 13:52, 10 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:46, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Ludwig Controversy

'Reason: This page is causing far too many knickers to get twisted. As has been noted elsewhere by SA-TA-EK-Rumisiel it really doesn't belong on the wiki at all, being forum related. I have tried to NPOV it a little but it obviously has been and will continue to be a revert war. --Daxx 02:03, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Part of the game is the community, and the forums are part of that community. If the page goes then the only record of the event will be the (incredibly biased) one on Ludwig's user page, and nobody wants that to happen. It's a useful resource for people who are interested in what exactly happened on the first forum, especially now that it's useless and unused. --Katthew 02:09, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Silly Katthew, the forums are "completely unrelated" (bonus points if you can guess who said that). However, it is a useful resource for people who are interested in what happened on the first forum concerning me (and why you people make so many threads about me. --Ludwig 17:45, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, the community is an important part of the game, and events inside it should be recorded. Also, Ludwig needs to sign his posts. --LibrarianBrent 02:36, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Kill' - The entire page seems rather childish, and seems rather irrelevant to anyone not personally involved. -- Odd Starter 10:51, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- If ludwig wishes to make alligations against the SA people and vice versa then there should be a neutral page about it. Otherwise it will simply turn into a baised war which is against the ideal of wiki.--Axe-man 12:36, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This page was made to prevent the entire conflict from spreading all over the wiki, and if it were to be deleted, that's what would happen. --Daranz-Talk 18:05, 30 Oct 2005 (GMT)

Suicide points

Reason: And some associated pages, including a category that isn't being used as a category. This is covered by Building Types and the map.--'STER 23:29, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Delete. What the hell? -Daranz-Talk 01:05, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Now looking deeper through the history, I see where were beginnings of suicide points. I suppose if someone can revert and organize the page, it'd be useful. --Daranz-Talk 04:49, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. Mustsa been a survivor voting this one out. It's very useful for zombie players to have this information all in one spot, and it seems to fit as a subcat just like a PD or NT. --John Ember 01:28, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. I think this is probably legit...there could be a number of different building categories, from cell-tower buildings to suicide points to who knows what might be implemented in the future. This is a good reference for the unwillingly revived. Rpeinert 02:22, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete. Not relevent. You can go into any tower, just use your areas map. Most of the buildings listed have nothing in their pages anyway. --Alexei Yaruk 03:04, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, could be relevant. --LibrarianBrent 03:06, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete, this game is supposed to be player role-play style, voluntary suicide is just plain silly.|--Elmore Nkele 17:52, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: It is a feature of the game, you know... --Daranz-Talk
    • Comment: Um, zombie players make use of this all the time. Do we get to have a say in what's in the wiki? 'Cause you know, we're playing the game too. But yes, by all means improve the page. Just make sure the info's somewhere. --John Ember 20:28, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, because Alexei is an asshat, so whatever he votes, it's generally the intelligent mans duty to vote opposingly. !1A 03:40, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep The point of the page is good but they should format it like the Mobile Phone Mast page for easier referrence. Shouldn't be a "category" --Matthew-Stewart 08:00, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Currently a blank stub. --Drakkenmaw 20:23, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Voting expired. Keeping. --Daranz|talk| 21:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Category:Malton Confederacy

Comment This poll has been compromised because Alexei Yaruk's changes and intention have been misrepresented as destructive vandalism. I think the issue needs to be looked at from scratch with a clearer understanding of the actual issue, vis a vis groups recategorising themselves to get better exposure & appearing in categories that they shouldnt be in (eg, alongside "Human Groups" is "Malton Confederacy"). This poll isn't an effective measure because it got turned into a set of attacks on a user, not an objective decision about the validity of a page. Elliothatman 19:17, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment Let me clarify for the benefit of all parties:

various users have been discussing...

a) Whether a group page can be a category or an article, or whether it must be an article.
b) Where a group may list its page (be it an article, or a category.)
c) Whether having more members, or possessing sub-groups, entitles you to a category, or any other aspect of wiki-usage/editing that regular groups don't have equal right to, or affects your eligibility.
d) Whether or not the Malton Confederacy has a publicity-related motive for using the category organisation, and whether this should affect their right of usage.
e) Things to do with subcategories (nothing, it's an automatic sub-heading - it can't be renamed, moved, or deleted.)
f) did I forget anything?

These various issues have gotten somewhat confused. I have been dismayed by the various posts by people regarding point C, because it's nonsense. Whether or not you should have access to a category is not a factor of group size, it's not some special status to confer, it's just a folder to stick stuff in, which you should have if you have so much stuff lying about that you need somewhere to put it to keep it organised.

User Alexai objected to the fact that they weren't using a traditional group page - and his response is to make a new category for them. So what happens when the group I belong to lists itself as a category (we haven't done it yet, as for a good month we have been changing the format of our pages, but it won't be long now). We aren't a coalition of groups, we don't belong in Organisations, and if you remove the Confederacy, etc. then we alone shall reside in the subcategory area and be in user Alexai's eyes a problem, standing alone, and prominent above all the other groups. To be honest, we'd prefer that there were a bunch of subcategories, and a bunch of articles, and see no problem with having both. The nail that stands out gets hammered down, as the Japanese say, which is probably why we are all here.

What happens too, when someone adds a coalition to the organisation category, which dares to have an article for it's group page, probably for aesthetic reasons. This will mean that once again, a category contains a mix of listings, some of which seem visually more prominent than others, and once more, certain people will object.

Another course of action (besides category creation, and moving of the group) was his conversion of the group category page into a group article page. This does address his concern regarding the type of page a group can use. He did both the edits at the same time, but they are seperate issues, and require different justification. I'm not going to discuss whether he was right to edit that way.

Prominence: Oh but wait, one is higher up the page than the other, they are on the first, rather than the second page, and I can't bear the thought of that group being a little bit easier to click on than my group - on second thoughts, I'm not a child. I'm not worried if my group gets buried on page 12, because our in-game actions and our work on the wiki will draw people to read our pages, so I would be extremely unamused if a multi-group coalition or similar were to run around fretting about such things, as they should be more news-worthy and more productive than my group ever will be.

Category Location: The only part of the debate that I find to have any merit, is where a group should be placed in the category structure. However, you must remember that wiki-categories do not function on a traditional, easily visualised tree structure, and also remember that things like page-inclusions and templates apply their category tags to the page that contains them (inheritance, go take a peak at the MetaWiki help files if you don't understand). I know of at least one legitimate example of a recursive category on this wiki, as a result of inheritance.

Motivation (Publicity?): Lastly, I don't care whether the Malton Confederacy's sole motive is to looking bigger than another big-group-of-groups, if they are willing to produce worthwhile content to justify the existence of their category, and thus work hard for the benefit of their members and others, then let them.

Regarding the user in question, I never heard of him or his organisation prior to him raising the issues of wiki usage, I hold nothing against him personally.

Apologies in advance for ignorance of the correct comment system for this page, for my irritated tone, for the fact that I must sprint to catch my train and thus can't edit this down to something more diplomatic, and also if it's actually me that doesn't understand while everybody else does. --Timothy Askins 09:26, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Reason: I have restructured a large swath of the Wiki to Remove this obnoxious 'sub category' and replace it with a traditional group entry. The Category page is now linked to only by watch pages. It no longer serves a meaningful function. --Alexei Yaruk 04:31, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep, users restructure left in excess of ten orphan sub-category articles. Reverted the restructure to prevent confusion whilst this issue is discussed. The above user did not use the discussion page before making what we could concieve to be a major article and category manipulation, which is really the wrong foot to start the wiki project out on to begin with. I believe this deletion, from the above vilification in the deletion reason, to be purely point of view oriented and therefore not in the spirit of the wiki project. BrianSutherland 09:26, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Comment: I would also like to point out that the above user didn't follow the correct requests for deletion protocol, he merely threw {{deleted}} in the category listing and removed all the content, pasted it into Malton Confederacy and then deleted a heap more content in other articles relating to the alliance, leaving orphan files everywhere, a mess which took in excess of half an hour for me to clean up. Really unimpressed with the lack of protocol. Not even a "I think perhaps having a category isn't acceptable because X." on the comments page, just walked in off the street and removed -everything-, deleted the category manually, then threw it up the TOP of the queue (there are plenty of more articles that were entered for deletion well before this person even registered a wiki account here). BrianSutherland 12:20, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Re: Comment: I have, noting the Increasing number of so called 'Groups of Groups', Created a area just for that. You will note I did this before removing your 'sub category'. What you reverted in half an hour I spent 3 hours accomplishing. Orphan files could have been redirected, or moved, I was tired and went to bed. Your ludicrous attempt to boost your visibility has been noted. I am not a mod, however this is why we use a Wiki. We are ALL expected to act to keep this a Quality area equally shared by everyone. I Acted in accord with that underling precept. You attempted to shove your way over everyone else, I threw you back down. Nothing more. --Alexei Yaruk 20:17, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
PS: I thought that this page was Structured in a 'newest first' pattern to promote speedy handling. I have now shifted this request to the bottom. I would also like to add that voting on your own page is somewhat 'below the board'.
  • Keep. It doesn't serve a meaningful function because you went and lobotomized all pages within the category, to keep the category from being useful. This is equivalent of blanking the main page and recommending it for deletion on basis of lack of content --Daranz-Talk 17:58, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. The contention that this category "no longer serves a meaningful function" is predicated entirely on Alexei Yaruk's vandalism of other pages within the category. Those who might argue that vandalism isn't Alexei's intention here should take note of the fact that removal of the category links is not the only edits he's been making to entries related to the Malton Confederacy. Even if these were the only changes he's making, this drastic restructuring of "a large swatch of the Wiki" was done with no discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Malton Confederacy is indeed a "group of groups" and naturally fits as a sub-category of such. -Chester Katz 18:24, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. There's a way of doing things - unilateral deletion of another groups page can also be called "being a dick"
  • Keep. I am of the belief that we should be very reticent to so quickly categorize what is a natural progression of the process of organization as "obnoxious" or a "ludicrous attempt to boost your visibility". Such quick categorizations, while most likely not intended as such, are viewed at best as short sighted and highly subjective, and at worst as the strike of an ad hominem attack. If we refocus upon objectivity, it would seem that a sub-category for the Malton Confederacy does make sense. As game-play progresses, it is only natural that player groups (be they survivor or zombie) would form. As more and more players come on board and enter such groups, challenges facing the groups as a whole increase (exponentially as is the case with Caiger Mall). More zombies are created, more zombies need to be killed. Zombies organize. As would happen in the real world, allegiances form and as these allegiances grow, confederacies form. While each group within a confederacy can act independently in their region, or towards their individual goals, they can be gathered together to act as a coordinated whole. As it happens, the Malton Confederacy was the first to announce it's organized presence on this wiki. There will be other wide-scale confederacies formed, sooner, rather than later. It is too be expected as it is the natural, predictable progression of organization. When that time comes, other confederacies/unions etc. should be given their own sub-categories. Whether you like it or not, these "so called Groups are Groups" are a very real thing and should be recognized as such and due to the impact their dynamic makes on overall game-play. They should be recognized with sub-categories.--Verveonica Maudlin 15:42, 27 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. I basically agree with Verveonica, and also take a dim view of making massive changes without first discussing said changes with other people on the wiki. Unilateral deletion or massive changes to pages created by other people (without discussion) generally isn't a good idea. --SL 03:13, 28 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, furthermore revert widespread vandalism by AlexeiVorYaruk. --LibrarianBrent
  • Keep, Also i would say revert the pages admitted vandalism at the hands of alexeiVorYaruk, As he clearly has no concept of usefulness and is intent on Neutering the pages effectiveness. --Dark Wingstalker 14:50, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep, They are a group of groups, having a sub category seems to make sense and is more organized. --Flaunted 18:29, 29 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep. This outright erasure and backhanding of someone's contribution of a section of the Wiki is not an action one takes unilaterally, and I really don't care how much time you spent destroying other people's work, it's still vandalism as far as I'm concerned.

Do you really want to do things this way? Syncline 02:37, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Response^ I did not distroy it. I MOVED it, that was all. --Alexei Yaruk 03:08, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Alexei Yaruk doesn't understand the relationship between Categories, Sub-categories and Articles. His changes completely fail to address the problem he percieves. I am voting for right of usage. --Timothy Askins 10:46, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Because Alexei is an asshat.
  • Keep Alexei is way too young to use a computer, let alone use a wiki. His grasp of grammar and spelling is far weaker than his grasp of wiki use.
  • Comment Seeing as how the above Keep vote was by a user (User:A Concerned Wiki User) whose only contributions were insults against Alexei Yaruk, I personally consider this evidence that he's a clone of !1A. (Although I don't follow this whole argument about the categories.) --LouisB3 04:01, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Reply to comment: The moderators have the ability to check IP's. I am not surprised that users are willing to register accounts just to condemn Alexei's asshattery, he and his associates have caused more drama, defacements and idiocy on this Wiki than any other user. !1A 09:22, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment The 'organisations' page solves the problem. The two groups in 'subcategories' can be relocated to 'organisations' and the subcategories can be removed. It makes no sense to go to the 'groups' main page and find 'human groups' in the same section as 'malton confederacy' (which is a subset of 'human groups') so to preserve the heirarchy in a coherant, logical manner, the organisations section should be used, not subcategories. Elliothatman 16:11, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment Read my comment at the top of this post. --Timothy Askins 09:26, 2 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Terminus While many individuals have spoken on this subject it is all rather moot now. Thanks to Timothy Askins insightful comments I have hit upon a much more simple and judicious answer to the problem.
I have un-catagorized both the confederacy, and The Imperium. I then placed both of their original article pages, which now redirect to the categories, into the categories they were formerly part of. Thus neither one appears at the top of the pages but down among the rank and file where they belong.
Having solved the issue completely, I formally withdraw the request that they be deleted. Alexei Yaruk 22:23, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)
PS. If you all start gripping about this, I have only this to say. "This is why we use a Wiki, so anyone can improve things and fix problems. "
This is beginning to get tedious, Alexi. This issue does not automatically become a "moot point" simply because you decide it is. You haven't "solved the issue completely", rather you've arbitrarily made changes while this issue is still being discussed. You are once again claiming that the issue is closed because of unsupported edits which you have made.
You've once again taken it upon yourself to unilaterally take actions which go against the consensus, and you've done so while the issue is still being debated. This goes very strongly against the accepted way of doing things on the wiki, and you have already been warned not to do this.
I think the main issue here is, as Timothy Askins has pointed out, that you continue to misunderstand the relationship between categories, subcategories, and articles on a wiki. --Chester Katz 18:21, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Comment: I am going to leave this request up, however, please continue the discussion in Category_talk:Malton_Confederacy. This is the page for requesting deletions, and not discussing what steps should be taken to resolve issues that people might have with pages. --Daranz | Talk | 19:02, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: This can be archived now... Keeping. --Daranz|talk| 21:35, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Sutherlands Defence

This appears to be largely a duplicate of Distributed Defense, which seems to be a more NPOV tiile. --LouisB3 22:52, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Keep - Sutherland's Defence is the original article, Distributed Defense forwarded to it, the asshat Alexei above who is waging a personal one man war against anything that isn't to do with his own little group reversed and changed stuff. Unknowing editors corrected his hideously ignorant typographical errors, then you stumbled across it and thought "lol what". !1A 03:32, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete Uh, by the way, you're a vandal. --LouisB3 03:36, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment, pertinent evidence in relation to Alexei and his cronies war against anything bigger than them: -
Edits & fixes
I editted Distributed Defense, I wiki-ized it for gereral use. I hope you approve. (also put it through a spell checker*Shudders at Sutherlands Defence*) --Matthew-Stewart 22:36, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
Thank you Mr. Stewart. It is good to see that not everyone here is as Obnoxious as its origonal author. --Alexei Yaruk 23:11, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
I think I safely speak for the entire community when I say Stop Using The Wiki. Your edits are usually useless and achieve nothing, not to mention you can't spell and you have horrible grammar. Need proof? Look at your user page. Immortal is spelled with two M's and Guardian is spelled with a U. Stop it.

Fresh from his user talk page, and for the record, the anonymous abusive post was not mine, although, seeing the trend, I feel I shall add a similar post in a moment once I submit this. !1A 03:43, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Comment What trend? And what cronies? And who's bigger than anyone else on a wiki? --LouisB3 03:49, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete - Distributed defence is more of a NPOV title (given that the concept was developed before BrianSutherland started playing the game) and at present contains more content. No need for a duplicate page. --Daxx 18:49, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep If you look at the history for the Distributed Defense page, you can see that it originally was a redirect to the Sutherland Defense page. I don't know where along the line the Distributed Defense article actually gained text, but I think it should be reverted to that original status. Dinferno 20:44, 9 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - If they both forward to one another, and someone actually DID promote use of the concept in this manner to the results indicated on the site, I do not see why it is necessary to delete the page. One references the general tactic, the other a specific use of it; if anything, they should be combined instead of having the content of one of these completely removed. --Drakkenmaw 19:18, 13 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Keeps seem to have it. Page not deleted. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 12:11, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)


See Novelty's contribs (dunno what the wiki formatting fro getting to that page would be) for the list. Pointless categories with nothing on their pages and one or two articles in them.--'STER 19:42, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

As a note, the set of pages considered here are:
  • Keep: I'm not sure that Novelty's quest to put a page for every block in the game is useful at all, but the actual Suburb Categories may be useful, if they turn out to be anything better than the suburb pages that already exist. -- Odd Starter 00:09, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Delete: Actually, I've decided that there's nothing that these Categories do that the current Suburb pages don't do just as well, with the added benefit that they're already linked everywhere, and have simple linking procedures. -- Odd Starter 00:26, 5 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - They are an easy way to store on a page the locations of every (important) building in a suburb. --Nov 14:48, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment - People are setting up pages for each individual block in Malton anyways. I picked up a few and added the category links to those. It's normal practice for people to put the infomation on a page for the location where something has occurred instead of the suburb page - see the list of Category:Monuments or PDs in Ridleybank for example. --Nov 18:13, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Say you're in a suburb and you want to know about all of the groups, all of the important buildings, it's past incidences.. Most of these things are not going to be found on the suburb's main page. --Aiden H. 10:40, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
    • Comment: They would be useful, this is correct, but for the moment, their use is restricted by the fact that we can't do redirects to categories well, and linking to Categories is different to other links (thus, linking to these pages is a pest, and difficult to do correctly). If/When the wiki software is upgraded, I'd agree that this is a much better idea, but for the moment technical issues stop this from being a useful system. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 12:03, 18 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Odd Starter has a point but Dulston instead of Dulston isn't hard to learn if we post a note on the suburb category page. I also think it would be good to move the content of current suburb pages to these pages. It wouldn't take very long for the shift, perhaps a week (or less if dedicated wikizens pitched in).--Matthew-Stewart 04:52, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Resolution - It occurs to me that Category:Suburbs should be like this, with the big map stuff on Suburbs and the list on Category:Suburbs. Just put each Suburb page in it's respective Category page, and this should work out reasonaby well - easy access to those who want to find every page associated with the suburb, and the regular Suburb pages as easy-to-link front pages. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 01:03, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)


Reason: A snide "humorous" page. Obviously created to be linked by the Game Stats page as a group. Obviously, no such group exists. --LouisB3 02:44, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)

  • Comment: To LouisB3: Please read the deletion queue guidelines at the top of this page. Specifically "please make sure that the original content remains on the page". I've added the original content back in and added the {{delete}} tag to conform with the guidelines. --Chester Katz 04:27, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Apologies. Jumped the gun a little, there. --LouisB3 04:30, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - I find it amusing, it's not doing any harm, and it's not like anyone's going to mistake them for being a legitimate group anyways. — g026r 17:00, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - c'mon, it's funny! Leave it alone.-RosutoEnzeru 19:38, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - It's an entertaining little page. If half of the "real" groups were able to match the writing on this page the wiki would be a better place. --Chester Katz 04:27, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Vote deleted by voter. --LouisB3 01:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep people spelling with greater proficiency is a good thing. --Matthew-Stewart 04:42, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep I agree that people with the ability to spell independent should be permitted to remain a group as it sets them apart from the other 'unattached' players in the game. --ptangzoot
  • Keep - I created the page. There were 20 "independAnt" then, there are fewer than 10 now. Was going to update this. There's specifically no claim that "independent" is a group, and I didn't act to defend the page's real estate when someone added the (in my opinion, lame) "anonymous independent" bit. I honestly don't feel the page does any harm, and if about 10 people learned to spell a word, isn't that a good thing? Goldenboots 20:19, 12 Dec 2005 (GMT) PS: Chester Katz, you flatterer you!
  • Comment Deleted by poster. --LouisB3 01:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep -- Oh, sorry, maybe that should have been "Delete". After all, The Internet is Serious Business. Please, there are many "legitimate" groups with similarly lax recruiting (of the "anybody who wants to act in our name is a member" variety), as well as similar "joke"-based groups. Just because you don't like it doesnt mean you can delete it. Cf. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. (And, yes, I realise this isn't Wikipedia. DO YOU???) furtim 17:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Grow a sense of humour LouisB3. --Grim s 17:53, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep You goddamn fascists, what the hell is wrong with you people? -User:phungus420:phungus420 1758, 16DEC05
  • Keep Proper spelling? Independence? Humor? What's to dislike? --ssto 16 Dec 2005
  • Keep - Frankly, I think it's funny. --Drakkenmaw 18:10, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What crawled up your arse, died, and stood up with the intent of eating your brain? Geez. --Graaaaaaagh 18:26, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Its' not doing any harm to the "quality of the wiki". C'mon, get that rod out. Dhiquad 18:43, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - What is the wiki running out of room or something? -- Shaolinzombie 18:52, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is almost a waste of my time voting on this matter, but I kinda' guess that it's the right thing to do, seeing as LouisB3 wasted his time by putting the page up for deletion in the first place... I mean, like, lighten up dude, if everybody took this thing so seriously, where would the fun be in it?! *COME OUT WITH YOUR HANDS UP, THIS IS THE MORALE POLICE, WE HAVE THE WIKI SURROUNDED, LAY DOWN YOUR HUMOUR AND COME OUT WITH A STERN FROWN* --RitchieB 19:20, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - No. This is a legitimate page, any mathemetician will tell you that 'nothing' is still a quantity. I'm surprised there aren't more 'anarchic' groups in UD. Leave it be. --Empath 19:23, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Urban Dead wiki- serious business. Petrosjko 19:25, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The snide see snideness in others. LOTS of people list "independent" in thier profile, and anybody who wants could edit the page to reflect thier own persoanl take on independent status. Shouldn't even have come up for vote, IMO. --Swiers 20:07, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment -- No kidding. It's like the #9 largest group on the stats page, no doubt due to the Wiki page. Think of the Wiki page like group recruitment rather than a "joke". (And even if it's considered purely as a "joke", what's so wrong with that?) furtim 22:29, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me --Fat Charlie 20:07, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The Petorians are still there, so why not this group? CthulhuFhtagn 20:31, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - When will the persecution end? Nervie 20:44, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - The snarling, gibbering hordes of UDwiki users who feel that this is THEIR site and THEIR game are doing nothing but ultimately bringing the whole thing down for everyone. This is meant to be a game, you jerks, and games are fun. Stop assuming everyone wants to play as deathly serious as you and lighten the Hell up. --Katthew 21:05, 16 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • KEEP - What's wrong with you? Preacher Tom 00:36, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- No harm is done in letting the entry stay. This is a game, people; there's nothing wrong with showing a sense of humor! --Kanuri 01:28, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Comment Well, I didn't expect to invoke the ire of a bunch of rude assholes. It seems you've gotten much more worked up about the proposed deletion of a page than I ever did about the existence of this page. Clearly, my assumption that the wiki was the place for information was mistaken, and I'm willing to leave it at that. --LouisB3 01:51, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep- Some people are too self important. Yeesh. Leave it alone.-edit-Also, LOL @ LouisB3 getting all butthurt because no one agreed with him. Don't be such a prig next time, imo. --ESOB 01:40, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It takes all kinds to make a wiki. This is one of those kinds. --DJRJ 22:44, 17 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Don't be a fag, LouisB3. The page is witty and funny, leave it alone. --Crabs Quartucci
  • Keep For all the above reasons. --Kerosine99
  • Keep FFS, its just a 'joke' page. Wheres the harm in keeping it? --Myo
  • Keep Almost laughed out loud reading this. Joke pages have their merits, certainly if their non-griefing and educational as well. --John Cooper 12:19, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep - This is a wiki about a GAME. It's here to help us have FUN, for crying out loud. And what could be more fun than a humorous page? It's not as if that page name is needed for something more useful towards the game. Rhialto 13:02, 19 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep It's a fun idea, and they do have a large amount of people. Besides, they were organized enough to put it in their group name, so they deserve it as much as other teams do. Darrik 22:51, 20 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Keep Yet again an example of Moderator Jack Boots.--Celt Mac �ireann 10:48, 29 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Moderator: Kept. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 21:38, 26 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Deletion Queue Requests

One-month unused image deletion

Reason: Images that have been uploaded for one month or more and are unused should be deleted. Wikis are often (ab)used in order to gain free offsite image hosting, and this should be stopped so that we can cut down as much as possible on server lag. --LibrarianBrent 04:15, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)

  • Yea - It's a useful idea, methinks. -- Odd Starter 04:21, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Nay - It's a good idea, but I see no reason to wait longer than a week or so. If your intentions are to prevent image leeching, waiting a month isn't going to do much. Most of the image leaching that's been going on has been for stuff that, more than likely, will have lived out it's purpose within a few days time (such as PK reporting). Also, people who actually intend to use an image for the wiki usually only upload right before they put it into the relevant page. --Raelin 08:36, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Aye - Can some supporting evidence that such is required however be provided? How many unused images do we have on here, ball park estimate even? BrianSutherland 18:25, 26 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Yea with the obvious exception that image files can also be deleted as a result of a successful voting. --Daranz-Talk 01:01, 30 Nov 2005 (GMT)
  • Aye It should be at least two weeks, though a month is much better, if the server can afford such kindness; some people have busy lives.
  • Yea - Good idea. There are sites such as photobucket for a reason. --Spook 18:08, 1 Dec 2005 (GMT)
  • Aye, because Alexei is an asshat. !1A 03:37, 7 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Moderator: The Ayes and Yeas have it - Schedule has been approved. -- Odd Starter talk | Mod 06:24, 11 Dec 2005 (GMT)
Personal tools