User talk:Boxy/Suggestions

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


NavigationPlaypen POV SugImage Archive

Handgreen.png Archive Page
This page is an archive page of User Talk:Boxy. Please do not add comments to it.

Humourous suggestions change

I cycled your Suggestions Policy Change as successful but I wasn't 100% certain of the changes needed to these cycling instructions. It's just a matter of removing one category and adding another, right? When voting closes, which template is added? {{rejected}}? ~Vsig.png 08:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no need to close voting once a suggestion has been moved to the humourous section. Other than the ones deemed to be vandalism, they've always been left open indefinitely. Actually, we could probably look at re-opening those suggestions too, and removing the {{notfunny}} template -- boxy 09:49, 14 August 2011 (BST)
Ugh there's like 30 of them. Also it was discussed during voting that this policy change wouldn't retroactively negate past escalations. Reopening them now would open a can of worms in that regard I think.
So other than the change you made, is there anything else to update on Cycling Instructions? ~Vsig.png 17:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Maverick Farrant

has just thrown up his own suggestion space in his user area covering a couple of the ideas you've worked on, namely collapsing barricades. I think he might enjoy bouncing ideas of you, if you were so inclined. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:07, 28 April 2010 (BST)

Thanks for the heads up -- boxy talkteh rulz 16:19 28 April 2010 (BST)





Are on the orphaned list. Should they be archived somewhere? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:26, 30 September 2009 (BST)

They are archived, where they are ;)
But no, I don't think rejected archived were linked to any central list. Man, that old system was convoluted, with built in duplications... If I had the time, I wouldn't mind moving all of it into the Suggestions namespace, perhaps all on individual suggestions pages, but it would take some planning to do it right first time -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:41 1 October 2009 (BST)
It does sound like a massive job. How many pages we talking about? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:15, 1 October 2009 (BST)
Well, not that many pages at the moment (that's not including the peer reviewed ones though). But if we were going to make them all individuals, I guess there would be more... I haven't really looked into it. Would be hard making sure that links (for dupes mostly) were fixed though -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:23 1 October 2009 (BST)
So moving all individual suggestions to the current system? As a stop gap could you Remove each suggestion to a new page and leave a link in its place on the original multi suggestion page? You could then return to fix the redirects later.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:32, 1 October 2009 (BST)
Yep, guess so. Would make for easier targeted searching of suggestions, especially if they are appropriately named pages. I've even been meaning to go through the current suggestions namespace, and renaming some of the more randomly named ones with something descriptive of the actual suggestion -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:43 1 October 2009 (BST)

Right rather than discussing this here, where might be the appropriate discussion page? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:32, 1 October 2009 (BST)

Oh, one of the suggestions talk pages... so many to choose from. I'll have a look next time I'm on -- boxy talkteh rulz 15:08 1 October 2009 (BST)
Moved here -- boxy talkteh rulz 03:19 3 October 2009 (BST)


I suppose there IS not much difference. What is see is that those suggestion that go to Peer Rejected are dead. No chance of resurrection. However, the ones in Undecided have SOME redeeming quality or potential for it. It may have just been happenstance that the vote wasn't enough or maybe changes in the game would allow for a retry for them (as opposed to Peer Rejected which, most likely, wouldn't work regardless of game changes). Undecided was ALMOST keepable, it just needs some little tweak to get it over the edge.--Pesatyel 19:00, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Well undecided are keepable... they did get a majority of keeps after all. It's not like getting in to Peer Reviewed is some huge WIN for a suggestion... most of them never get implemented anyway. I see it as just a way for Kevan to get new ideas and gauge the userbase's opinion on how the game is traveling -- boxy talkteh rulz 10:26 31 August 2009 (BST)

20090820 Zombie hunter Skill


Hey, I'm not the one butthurt enough to sockpuppet an internet vote on a games wiki -- boxy talkteh rulz 22:00 20 August 2009 (BST)
I prefer the part where he points out your vote was marked spam. God bless capslock.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:02, 20 August 2009 (BST)
Actually, your suggestion was losing. Even with your crazy alts, it was 17 to 7. Maths fail.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 22:14, 20 August 2009 (BST)

They are all from similar area, hmm? Have we a new BBK clique? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:39, 21 August 2009 (BST)

You say it like thats a bad thing.--CyberRead240 07:13, 21 August 2009 (BST)
Only because I don't want us to feel replaced, dude. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 07:19, 21 August 2009 (BST)
Many will try, but none will come close to the glory days. We still hold the power, its just hiding in the shadows waiting to pounce.--CyberRead240 08:31, 21 August 2009 (BST)
Ha ha!!! Don't let them know just yet dude --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 08:55, 21 August 2009 (BST)


Templated sigs don't seem to be showing up on this page. Is it like that for you? Any clues as to cause/solution?--xoxo 08:05, 7 May 2008 (BST)

Yeah. Solution ==> Don't use templated sigs :P -- boxy talki 09:45 7 May 2008 (BST)
Is there an easy way to do that other than copy and pasting from a word document every time you need to sign? --PdeqTalk* 09:51, 7 May 2008 (BST)
If your sig coding isn't too long, just put it in the nickname box (in your preferences) instead of a link to your sig page -- boxy talki 09:55 7 May 2008 (BST)
My understanding is when the page gets too big templates start breaking, so stuff needs to get moved to archives. Or something like that. --PdeqTalk* 08:07, 7 May 2008 (BST)
Yeah, that's it basically. There is a limit on the number of templates that can be displayed on any page (in the hundreds I think). Once it reaches the limit, all templates on the page are broken, not just the sig templates. The talk suggestions page requires regular cleaning out -- boxy talki 09:45 7 May 2008 (BST)
oh yeah i forgot you hated them...should have asked someone else. That page shouldn't be archived, i think if it breaks 'em again i'll just adopt the policy of if its no longer being discussed it can be deleted...--xoxo 10:21, 7 May 2008 (BST)
There is actually a policy for that somewhere. Something about 5 days with no discussion, and you put a warning. Karek used to do a lot of deleting of old stuff, so he's pretty knowledgable about (1) how to remove old discussions and (2) how to move suggestion discussion that have now been put up for voting. --PdeqTalk* 21:24, 7 May 2008 (BST)
There's no limit to number of template calls, there is however a file size limit so only so many kilobytes of data can be called. And it's two days without discussion for a deletion notice and 7 for removal.--Karekmaps?! 19:17, 8 May 2008 (BST)


I just added a new suggestion for voting and clicked save not preview.... now I can't sort out the vote section. If you are still online help would be much appreciated. --Honestmistake 11:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope that's what you wanted -- boxy talki 11:24 21 February 2008 (BST)
Exactly what I needed... thanks. I probably would have got there eventually but not before spamming recent changes with about 300 revisions and annoying the hell out of you and whoever else was watching. --Honestmistake 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Good oh. It could have been a real nightmare trying to get it fixed while getting edit conflicted by voters :) -- boxy talki 11:46 21 February 2008 (BST)
Yeah I was worried about that, especially as some asshat would probably have tried to crucify me for editing a suggestion after it went up for voting :) Anyway, thanks again and I promise to try not to do it again.--Honestmistake 12:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for moving to Removed Suggestions

I edited my own suggestion to put a clarification in, didn't realize it was not allowed when there are votes already in place. I apologize for my error.

Link to suggestion: Suggestion:20080208_Emergency_first_aid_kits_in_buildings --Aeon17x 12:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I rolled your edit back before anyone voted, so there's no harm done. If you want to withdraw it for revision you can. I would suggest putting it on the suggestions talk page before taking it back to voting however -- boxy talki 12:54 8 February 2008 (BST)
Instructions on withdrawing suggestions can be found here -- boxy talki 12:57 8 February 2008 (BST)
Cool, thanks for the instructions. I put it back into suggestion discussion for now while I work the kinks. --Aeon17x 13:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


You said:

  1. Change - make it so that this only applies from the street, not inside, otherwise there is no way to know if you are going to end up outside when you try to freerun -- boxy talk • i 07:03 20 January 2008 (BST)

I have two responses. The derisive and the sensible. Since i am in a generous mood for typing today, i shall present both:

  2. Sensible: If you get knocked out of teh free running system by a stealth ruin, you have an entry point right there with which to re-enter the system. It makes travel a little more hazardous for humans? Good! My Brain rotted Pker finds life far, far too easy despite shooting people up in MALLS. Humans had an easy enough time finding places to hide and entry points after ransack was introduced, and to be fair, this would serve as a nice hazard to the human mobility advantage. It would also encourage people to be a little more coordinated and fix ruins faster. As for seeing ruins from inside a building: How on earth could people see a ruin from inside a neighbouringt building when they cant even see ruin from outside? Are all buildings now equipped with X-ray windows? It would be a nice hazard that would *gasp* present a risk to human survival. Much better than the only risk being the tiny risk of being killed by a zombie or pker. The only way for a sensible human to die at the moment is bad luck. A brain rot Pker thriving in a suburb with semi regular breakins illustrates this quite ably. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hope you don't mind, but I moved this to the suggestion talk page -- boxy talki 12:10 20 January 2008 (BST)

Bang sticks

Assault rifle had 1 keep o kills and 5 spam, not o keep, 1 kill and 5 spam, at least give the author credit for voting for himself!--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

lol, yep, my mistake -- boxy talki 13:36 5 January 2008 (BST)
Yet more evidence i'm in love with recent changes--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 13:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
You jumped the gun by four hours. they have to stay up 6 hours before removal is possible. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, it looks like you're right, but Funt changed the rules... I thought extremely obvious spams could be removed early -- boxy talki 13:56 5 January 2008 (BST)
But then the old page didn't include that bit. I dunno, anyway, I'll leave it 6 hours -- boxy talki 14:01 5 January 2008 (BST)


Small change I made a week or so fly by night style, suggestions like this that have been put to a vote now have their own section as a way of making it easier to find what's where and to keep the list of suggestions under discussion short. Also, they are automatically considered ceased discussion, or at least that's what I had been doing before I left for a bit.--Karekmaps?! 06:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason to put them in that section rather than copying them straight to the individual suggestion talk page as soon as they're put to a vote? -- boxytalk • 10:33 29 November 2007 (BST)
Been doing both, the left over links to the voting are what is in that section.--Karekmaps?! 10:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


Which is right? To leave it as it was or to change it to the new version that some are trying to change Template:SugVoteBox to?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shit about to hit the fan, I would suspect. I am going to revert the justification rule back in. The change was never voted out, or even seriously discussed until after it was changed -- boxytalk • 00:47 18 November 2007 (BST)
I changed it back before it was protected; it says "justified" right now. The "optional comment" version is what Karek has requested it be changed to after protection.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Isn't it great how the community gets no say in the rules they can enforce foolishly in suggestions.--Karekmaps?! 00:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
No say? What's stopping you going through the proper channels to get the rule taken out, if it means that much to you? Eh? The way it was done to remove that rule didn't allow any community say in the issue. It was requested, and done within 10 minutes without any community consultation -- boxytalk • 00:56 18 November 2007 (BST)
I could say the same to you with a bit more legitimacy, what's stopping you from going through the proper channels too get the rule added. Especially considering people have had problems with that rule in the past but no sysop removed it.--Karekmaps?! 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The rule has been there since the suggestions system was set up. I'm adding nothing -- boxytalk • 01:02 18 November 2007 (BST)
Yes my all knowing overmind, what am I thinking disagreeing with a Psyop who was obviously put in place to decide what rules always existed.--Karekmaps?! 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Are you really going to dispute what I said? Do I need to show you how it has existed for as long back as the wiki history goes. I happen to agree with the rule, even though I've never had to enforce it. It makes the suggestions section a better place to read because it makes it clear that justification is expected. It could be toned down a bit, I'll give you that -- boxytalk • 01:11 18 November 2007 (BST)
I know exactly how old it is Boxy, and I also know how many times and how many people have disputed it since the day it was added. It hasn't always been around and it has almost always been contested.--Karekmaps?! 01:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Linking for your benefit.--Karekmaps?! 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
And yet you've never got off your arse and fixed it? You'd rather just bitch about it and how you've no say in the matter, eh. Lame -- boxytalk • 01:18 18 November 2007 (BST)
Not my job, especially on protected pages. Nor too look until someone caused a shit ton of drama because of it. Maybe you should have actually tried finding that out before making the template that allows everyone to strike the votes.--Karekmaps?! 01:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's your job. You don't need special powers to start a vote on the issue. You don't fix these things by editing the rule out. You fix them by actually starting a discussion about it, getting support, and taking it to a vote if it's contentious. This whole process was ignored in this case. Funt requested the rule be taken out, and it was done within 10 minutes. It was totally without due process, and an abuse of the system. It would have been fair enough if community consultation had happened, even for a day or so, and it was shown to have widespread support, but that has only happened now -- boxytalk • 01:26 18 November 2007 (BST)
Good too see you keep informed, so please, tell me, who started the discussion on it's being there? I don't control Nubis or Funt, but the rule shouldn't have been left there, especially as long as it was. The community should be consulted on which rules they should follow and in this case that never happened and cases of users trying to enforce the rule have even been deemed vandalism.--Karekmaps?! 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
That vandalism case was the biggest load of crap I've seen on that page in ages, they got the penalty wrong twice, and I still say the original verdict is suspect, at best. The best you could say is that it was ruled that the removal was done in bad faith. I bet if I'd have removed funts suggestion vote nothing would have come of it -- boxytalk • 01:41 18 November 2007 (BST)
It's still drama created by that rule. Although in the case of Funt's vote Sockem's mistake was ignoring funt's comment on the talk page. --Karekmaps?! 01:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Does it even matter? Wait till the community decides on which version they like best.--  AHLGTG 01:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a clarifier, do you really want to read votes like "lol u r n00b!!112one!! GTFO stoopid!" --  AHLGTG 01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
We already do, no rule that causes drama will change that.--Karekmaps?! 01:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it's friggin' awesome [/sarcasm].-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nali, how about you put forth an official vote on this?--  AHLGTG 00:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Votes that do not have reasoning behind them are invalid. You MUST justify your vote." is the piece in contention (the SugVoteBox will change to comply with that rule automatically), I suggest it should be changed so as to allow leeway... can be deemed invalid, should be justified -- boxytalk • 00:53 18 November 2007 (BST)
Mhmm, sounds good.--  AHLGTG 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put the vote on there... if it needs a news announcement, tell me and I'll put that up there. If I have it in the wrong place, I'll move it. But I've posted it, that's the important bit.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Change it to what boxy said, seems a fairer compromise.--  AHLGTG 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll consult the community... where do I consult them and ask for their opinion? What page would be the most appropriate?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing Category talk:Suggestions.--  AHLGTG 01:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Done. Okay, I'll now put that a change is under discussion on the wiki-news.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I've put it up for discussion and I am waiting for feedback from....The Wiki  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Ugh, now they're contesting the legitimacy of my discussion being there.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  01:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Slight Alteration Request

Hi - I just noticed another oversight on Template:SugVoteRules. Where it says "Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described below in the Removing Suggestions section", they are not described there, but instead on Suggestions#Removing_Suggestions. Could you please change it to "Suggestions can be removed with Spam votes as described in the Removing Suggestions section"? Thanks in advance. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 19:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this link be better? -- boxytalk • 00:15 17 November 2007 (BST)
Yes - I hadn't noticed that before - good call. If you've got the time, the link to the Dupe rules (on the same template) could also be changed to that one, because it's currently linking to the old suggestions page. I guess we should delete the old section, because with two existing, if one gets changed, we'd have two different sets of rules. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Justification Recommended

Would it be too much to ask that you add spam next to kill in "It is strongly recommended that voters (especially in the kill section) justify their vote..." in Template:SugVoteRules? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I didn't get back to this. Is it even still there. So much damn drama to trawl through, on so many pages... anyway, y'know, I'd rather encourage reasoning from the kill voters, than spammers. They're much less likely to be rude about it, and more likely to have something constructive to say, because spam votes are for totally irredeemable suggestions, kill votes are for suggestions that are worth recommending fixes. I'll do it though. Let's see if it stays there -- boxytalk • 16:06 16 November 2007 (BST)
Thanks. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 16:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


I would appreciate your opinion on the controversy brewing over at suggestions. A(nother) Jon Pyre suggestion and its being DUPED on a very dodgy link. Both suggestions contain the words "wave" and "emote"... their functions and uses are however very different and I am very tempted to strike the votes as invalid. I know this would normally cause a shitstorm of drama and given recent history (and the fact that Grim is one of the Dupers) I really don't want to do that! I do think your having a look and making comment might go a long way to stop this exploding though. Thanks...--Honestmistake 10:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I answered on the suggestion's talk page just now -- boxytalk • 10:56 16 November 2007 (BST)

Where Too?

Where would I go to propose a change to the deletion rules on Talk:Suggestions, it really needs a shorter time for what is inactive, 5 days is way too many. --Karekmaps?! 23:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd start a topic down the bottom of the actual page, Karek, and just start doing it if no-one objects after a day or so. See what people think first, there may be a need for policy, but it just seems like a bit too much red tape for a talk page -- boxytalk • 23:58 9 November 2007 (BST)

Thank you

For finally striking my vote that had no reason given. I'd been doing it for awhile now, and no one ever said anything. I had begun to wonder if anyone even cared anymore. One question though, do you think you would have noticed it if that new(ish) guy hadn't shown up and said something?-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:01, 20 September 2007 (BST)

SA, like Nalikill and 73, you don't have to disrupt the wiki just to prove a point. An user got in plenty of trouble for that, just as a reminder. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 22:06, 20 September 2007 (BST)
Yeah, thanks for that SA, you're really helping things by making a fuss about a nothing rule that is just there to encourage feedback to suggesters. It's one of those rules that is only worth the drama of enforcing if significant numbers of voters start ignoring it... so yeah, thanks for encouraging others to test my patience... it's really appreciated... NOT!
Oh, and Matty, "an user" should be "a user"... don't ask me to justify the rules of English, they're insane, but it just is (I've seen you use it often, is why I mention it) -- boxytalk • 15:25 21 September 2007 (BST)
that is something painful to be learned, and your past tense form. here is a discussion about this, with some explanation on why this works this way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:04, 21 September 2007 (BST)
Yeah, I was told a while ago, but sometimes my instinct is stronger than knowledge XD. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 19:48, 23 September 2007 (BST)
Oh, and it wasn't the newbie reply that did it, it was your comment. I'd noticed you wanting to get struck a few time before -- boxytalk • 15:27 21 September 2007 (BST)
Maybe once or twice. Before that, the only time I did when I was absent for a few weeks, and then I went on a voting spree. That in my opinion would be understandable though, as there was a lot of votes. Don't worry though, I'm going to actually start helping a little more around this place. Oh, and I'm sorry that others have started to break the rule too. That was never a goal of mine, I just wanted to see how long I could get away with it.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:16, 21 September 2007 (BST)


Just wondering why this was added to peer reviewed and not duped as it has more than three(four actually) dupe votes with a provided link.--Karekmaps?! 20:31, 10 September 2007 (BST)

Same with this, with the new link not the old.--Karekmaps?! 20:32, 10 September 2007 (BST)

In the first case, the suggestion isn't to just get rid of wirecutters, but to include them in toolboxes. In the second case, ruining automatically wrecking doors is a different suggestion to making doors and attackable target The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 12:45 11 September 2007 (BST)

Cycling Instructions‎

Heh, I see that my (unauthorised) change has stayed with the rules. Kinda funny when you consider that Xoid removed a different "unauthorised" change yet left that one. Such is =P Anyway more importantly looking at the cycling instructions under humorous at point 6, rule 9 of making a suggestion is about not making any more then 1 suggestion in a day, I belive you want rule 10. Just pointing that out. If you want help with the instructions then I'll be happy to help out, just let me know. - If Jedaz = 10:56, 3 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Oh, you're free to change those instructions if you want, especially if you notice stuff like that The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 11:02 3 September 2007 (BST)


When I try to edit the suggestion,it says that it is am not trying to spam or anything--Timo 1 09:38, 10 August 2007 (BST)

Dupe Vote

I didn't want to "overstep" any authority. However under the voting rules:

  • Dupe, for Suggestions that are exact or very close duplicates of previous suggestions. For a Dupe vote to be valid, a link must be provided to the original suggestion.--Pesatyel 05:30, 7 August 2007 (BST)
    Yes, I can see how it could be seen as meaning that the dupe vote can be struck if there's no link, but the interpretation that has been applied in the past is that the dupe vote can remain, even without a link, but wont count until a link is provided (it is often provided by subsequent voters who are better at searchin) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 09:22 7 August 2007 (BST)

One Suggestion Per Day

Each author should not make more than one suggestion per day (i.e. in a 24 hour period beginning at 00:01 BST). This limit does not include suggestions which the author has removed for the purpose of revision. Suggestions may be revised once per day at most. Suggestions must be removed prior to revisions being posted. Frequent removal of suggestions to avoid having them spaminated is considered abuse of the system. Removal of suggestions in order to post non-revision suggestions the same day is also considered abuse of the system.

I think it's time we relaxed this rule. Newbies come on, full of ideas and want to post a couple of suggestions straight off the bat. This gets them involved in the community. Removing their multiple suggestions isn't much of a welcome. We don't have a heap of suggestions these days, but still need a limit to guard against spam. I probably favor limiting it to something like 3 or 4 suggestions in 48 hours, but I guess for simplicity we could go for, say, 3 per day? What thinks ye? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 14:17 1 August 2007 (BST)

(ps. if you're wondering why I posted this on my own talk page... well the Talk:Suggestions page is too long to save at the moment, and I'm too lazy to do the deleting right now... soooo, I'll wait ;) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 14:17 1 August 2007 (BST))
Heh, well luckily I've got your page on my watch list, but the suggestions page needs to be shrunk down because it's reaching the 300kb mark which is the limit that Kevan set. Anyway as we all (should) know the main reason that we don't have 3 suggestions per day is that a few contributors were posting ill thought out ideas. Thats not to say that bad ideas can't happen with this system, but they arn't going to occur as often. I'ld like to point you to here. There has been much discussion on the subject, and really in the end there isn't going to be a solution which everyone will be happy about. Anyway why don't you use Category_talk:Current_Suggestions? - If Jedaz = 15:00, 1 August 2007 (BST) then pi = 3
That and most of the people that break this rule(that I've seen) are posting multiple suggestions that do get spam votes and/or get spaminated/duped.--Karekmaps?! 17:30, 1 August 2007 (BST)
As one of the few people likely ever affected by this, I find it is still a good rule. Eager noobs should be encouraged to post several suggestion ideas on the talk page, and then pick out the best ones each day and bring them up for voting. Hell, they probably should be discouraged from putting ANYTHING up for voting until they have used the talk page a time or two- that way they will at least get the template right. IMO offering such guidance is friendlier than letting them shoot themselves in the foot by posting 5 crappy, unformated suggestions the first day they come here. Gonna go ahead and add that advice to the page(s), in fact. ΔΔΔ  Swiers BigEYEwitnessLOGO.png 17:44, 1 August 2007 (BST)
Karek: Thats because the people that make good suggestions don't tend to break the rules in that regard. And for posting them on the talkpage? I've yet to see a single suggestion improve after it's posted on a the talkpage. It's like a duck designed by committee. It always end up resembling a platypus. But seeing how little suggestions get posted anymore I doubt that a rule change is really needed. It certainly wouldn't hurt. What's an single idiotic suggestion more per day? we used to get 15 idiotic suggestions per day without problems. It's not like we're to good for them, We're on a free web-game wiki for bleep sake. That's not right the place for snobbery.-- Vista  +1  18:00, 1 August 2007 (BST)

Thanks for your thoughts guys. I guess I could just do up a template (like the spam or dupe templates) for these types of removals explaining that sort of stuff (when I'm not so busy, unless someone else wants to). Still, with the low number of suggestions we get these days, is it really a problem to spam a couple more suggestions every now and then? The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 13:29 2 August 2007 (BST)

I think I'm with Swiers on this one. Although the main reason for the 1spppd limit was due to the high number of suggestions that were occurring anyway, and we could easily accommodate the occasional extra suggestion or two to spam, it's better to limit the newbie spammables so that they learn how to use the template properly, and possible even benefit from going to the talk page first. If the suggestion is that good, they'll still want to suggestion it a day later. A negligible number of suggestions are going to be good, and in the right form/balance, to get to PR if they are one of a selection right of the top of a newbie's head. It's not about snobbery, but what's better for them. They certainly don't want to have all 3 suggestion spammed simultaneously, it doesn't feel nice! 'arm. 11:47, 3 August 2007 (BST)

Template:Multi The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talkcontribs) at 12:35 29 August 2007 (BST)

RE: Suggestions

"You arn't allowed to edit your suggestions after people have started voting on them. If you want to get ideas on how to improve a suggestion, do it before you put it up for voting, on the suggestions talk page. I'll ignore it this time, because it's so minor, but just for future reference -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 17:39, 27 July 2007 (BST)"

What can I say? I'm a total newbie at Wiki, thanks anyway for telling me, probably wouldn't have understood it otherwise =)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sachaztan (talkcontribs) 17:13, July 27, 2007.

Motion for Suggestion Rules Policy Change

There is a motion being discussed on the Talk:Suggestions page? Should this be noted on the main page so that more people become aware of it. Or should that wait until voting opens? Or not happen at all? 'arm. 14:31, 25 July 2007 (BST)

I'd be announcing it here -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 14:42, 25 July 2007 (BST)
It's ready to be announced now. 'arm. 01:43, 29 July 2007 (BST)


Noone voted on my suggestion for Molotovs except me, the others were spam. Doc Crook 11:04, 19 July 2007 (BST)

Spam is a vote... they're saying your suggestion is spam -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 11:07, 19 July 2007 (BST)


I spent like three minutes fixing that suggestion! Man. I thought I was actually doing something useful for once too.*Sigh*-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:00, 19 July 2007 (BST)

**Pats SA on the head** next time :) -- boxy T Nuts block it! DA 11:10, 19 July 2007 (BST)


I don't know if it was intentional or not, but the link to the suggestions page hasn't been updated to Category:Current Suggestions on the Navigation Template. I thought I'ld point that out because I have nothing better to do. =P - JedazΣT 13:01, 5 July 2007 (BST)

Thanks, fixed it up -- boxy T Nuts2U DA 01:24, 6 July 2007 (BST)

my suggestion

"Spam/Dupe - There are already power stations in Malton"

What i was trying to say sub stations its not a power source and the power plant must be on for it to be in use. Who do i talk to since i cant get my thought across the way I want to. I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm kinda annoyed that no one really read my suggestion and understood it. --User:lighterdark 02:14, 11 June 2007 (PST)


As indicated, I am I think asking you to move my pervious suggestion to the ?suggestions page? To be honest I just got on here yesterday, I have almost no idea what I am doing, I am not sure why you moved it, and I am not sure why it needed to be moved or should be moved back, so I basically am just going along with... whatever. lol (very muddled) Please bear with my inexperience. --BlackScarletLove 10:04, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Also, I knew that any suggestion to regen AP would probably be scoffed at, that's why I mentioned that I forsaw the reaction, within the suggestion, therefore eliminating the need for people to scoff at it. It is also why I put or between the two options, and in any case, even if no one can get over the second part of the suggestion, I still thing HP regen while sleeping w/ running generator is a valid suggestion to be considered, so I really don't think that that whole thing should be 'speedily deleted'. If it is that insane and mentally debilitating for anyone then hell, I'll just wipe the part about AP. Shit... *goes and does that right now* There, a valid suggestion is all that remains. =P --BlackScarletLove 10:27, 17 May 2007 (BST)

I don't know if this is the way it always is around here but it seems to be very competetive! Like n00bhating cutthroat i-kill-you-cuz-I-think-you-don't-know-shit. =( I think these will be the last suggestions I post, it is not pleasant! --BlackScarletLove 16:43, 17 May 2007 (BST)

=P I guess so, but that's what suggestions are for, right? People may have loved it. You never know if someone will scorn your suggestion until you post it; it's ridiculous to brutally shoot down the plane and hunt and scalp the survivors just cuz one feels the suggestion is stupid. But whatever. --BlackScarletLove 00:44, 18 May 2007 (BST)

--BlackScarletLove 07:37, 19 May 2007 (BST) Please delete the HPregen post. It is lying contorted and gurgling on its own blood.

RE: lol It is the suggestion page that was moved all over the place by you.  :p lol. I thought since we talked so much about it, you would have known what I was talking about. After all, the title was insanely long.  ;)
Thanks. =) *salutes* --BlackScarletLove 05:37, 21 May 2007 (BST)

"New" Suggestions Page

By jove, I think I've got it! Thanks for the help, things went a lot more smoothly the second time around. --Uncle Bill 04:22, 21 April 2007 (BST)

Shopping cart.jpg Gift Certificate
good for $50 at Ackland Mall


Son of a.. I just wrote down somthing that took me an hour to write.. Let me guess it wont save it and place it up tomorrow? --Konuso 15:31, 24 June 2007 (BST)

I've moved it into your userspace, and left a link on your talk page. Resubmit it tommorow -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:36, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Thanks man. How / where did you find it if you dont mind me asking? --Konuso 15:43, 24 June 2007 (BST)

It was right where you left it, it's only that someone had removed the link from the suggestions page. If you look through the page history, the link is still there in old revisions -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:49, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Alright thanks again man. Dont suppose you looked through either of them huh? Just curious. --Konuso 15:55, 24 June 2007 (BST)

I just voted on the one that's still there, and read a bit of your other one. To be honest, I think you've got to play this game longer, and also play as a zombie character to get a real feel for what makes for a balanced suggestion. All the zombies are players too, and you've got to ensure you don't make survivors too easy to play. It's not a problem when you've got NPC targets to kill, but this game depends on both sides being more or less balanced -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 16:04, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Yeah I realize that. These were just my suggestions from my point of view. Im sure theres suggestions out there for just zombies and these would give them some space to make improvements if they were wanting to. --Konuso 16:12, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Non author re

I keep getting amazed how strict and structered the suggestions page has become. How long has the difinition of the non-author re rule included comments within the votes themselves?--Vista 11:42, 29 March 2007 (BST)

When you go back and re-edit your previous vote so as to comment on opposing votes that come later, that is totally against the spirit of non-author Re's. The only reason I didn't strike your comment directly against my vote, is that you dodged the letter of the non-author re rule, while actually managing to non-author re me -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 11:48, 29 March 2007 (BST)
Actually that is a new interpretation that was never part of the original rule. The rule was set-up to prevent escalation comment trees that made the page hard to read and the vote difficult to count. (this was before the current system, even before we introduced the # counters and still used bullet points *. The current far more strickter interpretation has developed when I was away. When the rule was voted upon it was agreed upon that it should be laxly applied so that discussion whould not be stiffled. And that laxly applied was for real "re"'s not addamentums in votes. nobody even dared to try to forbid those.
Now I understand that interpretations and editting cultures change. but it is worth remembering that when the rule was made it was with the express thought in mind that the letter should be stricter then the application and that discussion was encouraged. But if this sort of thing is not done nowadays, so be it.--Vista 12:02, 29 March 2007 (BST)
Well it obviously is done these days, but I find it a particularly cowardly way of Re:ing someone on the suggestions page. How the hell was I supposed to reply to you? I'm not allowed to re: your comment directly. You want to talk to me, but you're forcing me to go to the trouble of moving it to the talk page. It may well be within the letter of the law, but I'll be buggered if I'm going to take it willingly -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:07, 29 March 2007 (BST)
Actually my argument here was that what i did used to be within the spirit of the law. But I think we got off on the wrong foot here. it was not my intention to cause offense. I was used to the fact that voters used to argue amongst themselves without it causing offense. I took with me a mindset that appearntly is outdated.
It used to be that while non-author ré's where not officially permitted they were allowed as they followed a certain rule of comment-re-re-rest on the talk page. and only moderators were allowed to strike non author re's. They only did so when there was substancial abuse. (insulting comments or sheer volume made the page less readable, etc.) addementums were not only within the letter of the law, they were considered extremely normal. And nobody thought them cowardly because they would either reply themselves in a "re" or more usually add a addementum to their own vote themselves replying to the comment.
Nowadays it is obviously from your reaction quite different. I didn't know that, and again I was not out to cause offense. I'm still used to a far more playful suggestions page, were this would've not be considered cowardly, but an invitation to discussion. And where that would be allowed within reason. As the system is different nowadays and doesn't work that way any more my expectation that you would simply add a note to your vote explaining why I was wrong or would "re" me was outdated. And again it was not my intention to piss you off. the whole page has a very different dynamic these days and has quite reversed on this point. "re's" are authomatically struck and addemtums impolite, Wich I personally find regrettable because the user interaction that facillitated brought a lot of traffic to the wiki and to the page. The spirit of the law was never meant to have this effect. Perhaps it is worth trying to loosen the effect that the letter of the law had so that the spirit of the law is once more clear. But in the mean time I'll refrain from causing this sort of discussion again.--Vista 13:15, 29 March 2007 (BST)
I'm sorry Vista. I over-reacted.
But as I see it, the suggestions page's main purpose is to filter out extended discussions on proposals, and present them in a graded, condensed form so that he who shall remain unnamed can easily review them for useful changes to the game.
I'm just a bit grumpy, I fear, from other sources, and took it out on you. "Cowardly" was a totally wrong thing to describe it as -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:10, 29 March 2007 (BST)

I thought you were/are allowed to respond to an RE directed at you. This is regarding this In which he states he is Re-ing two voters, one of which was me.--karek 09:20, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Oops, I missed that he was talking to both of you... still, you're only supposed to reply under your own vote, not someone else's. Anyway, I put it back -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 09:23, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Suggestions System Bug

boxy, there seems to be a mistake in the new suggestion system. In the bottom template the link to the vote's talk page is incorrect. It does not link to the talk page for that vote, but instead links to a non-existent page. For example, for bounty hunter should link to Suggestion_talk:20070503_Bounty_Hunter not Talk:20070503 Bounty Hunter. --SporeSore 13:46, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Hopefully that's fixed it -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:21, 4 May 2007 (BST)

New Policy Congrats

Just wanted to post a Well Done for creating the new suggestions system, and to such a complete degree that it breezed through the policy vote. Good work. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 15:34, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Ah thanks. I'm just stressing out, waiting for the first total stuff up of the system by some total n00b... I was sure it woulda happened by now actually :) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 16:02, 4 May 2007 (BST)

Congrats and Note

boxy, you are a template god! The new system is truly a work of art. There is a small problem with the text on the main suggestions page and I can not fix it because it is locked. The following text:

==Rules for Discussions== '''Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions'''. This page and archived suggestion pages only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss any of the suggestions or votes here, please use this page's Talk page ([[Talk:Suggestions]]). Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The Suggestions talk page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

should probably read more like this:

==Rules for Discussions== '''Votes are NOT the place to discuss Suggestions'''. This page and archived suggestion pages are only to be used for the Suggesting and subsequent Voting of these suggestions. If you wish to discuss any of the suggestions or votes here, please select a specific vote's page by clicking on its link under [[Suggestions#Current|Current Day's Suggestions]] and use the associated Talk page. Suggestions do not have to be submitted in order to discuss them. The [[Talk:Suggestions|Suggestions talk]] page can be used to workshop possible suggestions before they are submitted.

with a span id called Current applied to Current Day's Suggestions. I thought that all talk regarding a suggestion under vote was to be made on the vote's talk page to further ease maintenance.--SporeSore 13:36, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Thanks, I went through all those rules, but must have missed that bit. Should be changed now -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 13:52, 9 May 2007 (BST)
Ooops. Replace text above:

[[Suggestions#Current|Current Day's Suggestions]]


[[:Category:Current Suggestions#Current Day's Suggestions|Current Day's Suggestions]]

Or add the span id Current to Current Days Suggestions on the main suggestions page.i.e. =<span id="Current">Current Day's Suggestions</span>=

--SporeSore 14:12, 9 May 2007 (BST)

What does the span id do -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:21, 9 May 2007 (BST)

It might be worth thinking about putting that vast amount of text behind links and replace it with a simple navigation rule box.--Vista +1 14:21, 9 May 2007 (BST)

I always thought that there was far too much "rules" text on the page... but I think I've stuffed around with the page enough for now ;) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 14:44, 9 May 2007 (BST)
You're quite right. and kudos btw. I'll go take a look what can be done later in the evening myself.--Vista +1 14:48, 9 May 2007 (BST)

Span id allows links within a page .If you add:

<span id="spam">whatever</span>

then you have created an anchor called spam which will place the user right at text whatever. If you want to link on the same page all you need is:

[[#spam|take me to spam]]

which will create a link to spam with the text take me to spam.

To link from a different page you need the page address before the # sign:

[[SpamPage#spam|take me to spam]]

Will link from any page back to a page called SpamPage and take you to the anchor(span id) called spam.--SporeSore 16:22, 9 May 2007 (BST)


Why did you do this?. I think that the =====headers===== were far better than the current bolding. Let me show you an example of what could hapen when people forgets to add a simple "#":

Keep Votes Keep - blablabla --Example user 10:21, 16 May 2007 (BST) Kill Votes

  1. Kill - blablabla --Example user 2 10:21, 16 May 2007 (BST)

Spam/Dupe Votes

  1. Keep - blablabla --Example user 3 10:21, 16 May 2007 (BST)

--Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 10:21, 16 May 2007 (BST)

I did that because it was causing too much clutter in the Suggestions page table of contents (when all the current days suggestion pages were included)... it seems we may move away from that system, so yeah, may well put it back -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:32, 16 May 2007 (BST)

About that voting template

You know the section that says "Other suggestions still open for voting"?. Could you perhaps change that to "Other suggestions are still open for voting"? Thank you. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:15, 15 June 2007 (BST)

I don't know that that would be an improvement -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:43, 16 June 2007 (BST)
It's a grammatical error Boxy. 'Other Suggestions still open for voting' is incorrect, and should be 'Other Suggestions are still open for voting'. --User:Axe27/Sig 00:04, 17 June 2007 (BST)
No it's not, it's a description of what the link leads to. ie, this link leads to "Other suggestions still open for voting"... perhaps it needs a comma, I dunno -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:44, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Suggestion:20070601 Inhuman Anatomy

I don't mean to complain, but in the interest of keeping the process, did this suggestion qualify for peer reviewed? It was close, but I only see 16 out of 27 votes as keeps, and .59 !=> .66 ... 12:30, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Opps, thanks for picking that up. Percentages, bah! :) You guys should be taking over I think -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 12:55, 17 June 2007 (BST)
I have a LOT of other projects on my plate, but if you;d write a "quick guide to vote processing" type thing, I'll do what I can. 15:36, 17 June 2007 (BST)
I'll work on that. Doesn't take much time these days -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:59, 17 June 2007 (BST)
I'd imagine not, but I always have trouble locating the old category tags within the suggestion page and removing them, figuring out which template(s) to use, etc. 16:14, 17 June 2007 (BST)

Poodle of Doom

Hey,... I noticed my suggestion on your page, and liked the way it was written. I'm going to resuggest it. I didn't realize how big of a topic and was and never did re-suggest it. I just wanted to let you know I was doing so. I'm also going to add a little bit. Care to come give me your vote? --Poodle of doom 21:07, 9 April 2007 (BST)


I thought of something like that, with moving trains doling out supplies when they're present. I was concerned though that it'd be considered as npcs by some people though and spammed for that reason. --Jon Pyre 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another GPS

While talking handles most information it often is worthless for groups that want to coordinate where to go because of the 50 person limit. A group leader might say "I'm going to the hospital. Meet me there" and only 50 complete strangers will get the message. This way the group leader could just travel there. --Jon Pyre 01:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, making it to easy for humans to group up, they already have the overwhelming in-game advantage in that department without this -- boxy T L PA DA 07:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting Your Vote

I have a PK balancing suggestion up for voting in previous day's now: Lower The AP Cost To Use Syringes On Murder Victims. It lowers to cost to inject a syringe into a PK victim by 5AP. I figure that a fair way to balance out a PKer's cheaper cost to kill people is to have a slightly cheaper cost to revive those they slay. The logical explanation is that reviving someone killed by a human is easier than reviving someone that's half devoured by a ravenous ghoul. If you like it I would very much appreciate your keep vote! Thank you! --Jon Pyre 06:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, can't promise a keep though, so just remember, you did ask for it! I don't really want to balance or level PKing, it seems to work pretty well as is... I just get frustrated that anything to do with PKing gets spammed to buggery, just for being about PKing. Some suggestions would make it more interesting overall I think -- boxy T L PA DA 07:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Striking Invalid Votes

Hi - ironically, you're incorrectly formatting your strike-outs of incorrectly formatted votes on the suggestions pages. To maintain the counting mechanism, each new line must start with a #. A strikeout line should start with #:, and your comment below it would be #:: (alternatively #*, then #:*, if you want bullet points.) The wikiHTML strikeout is achieved using {{s| ... }}. Cheers. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 09:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thought the # woulda brought up a number, my bad! But irony is gooood, life's way of keeping yer ego in check ;) -- boxy T L PA DA 11:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My Suggestion Voting Style

I vote Spam on suggestions that I would never vote Keep on. I reserve the Kill vote for suggestions where I think a change might result in my voting Keep. I do vote Spam a lot - but that's because there are a lot of suggestions that I would never vote Keep on. I don't criticise the way you vote, so... --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 00:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cades Suggestion Edit

Boxy, your edits to the Suggestions page completely deleted the text in the Seage topic. Please repair. I would suggest deleting all the voting template. And just pretend it is a new developoing suggestion.--SporeSore 15:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Tried to fix it, but failed. It is really nerfed.--SporeSore 15:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks --SporeSore 15:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out, just trying to work out what I did wrong. There must be an easy way to transfer a suggestion from the voting section, to the discussion section without loosing the votes, by god ;) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Map Links to Wiki Locations

Congrats - your talk page now links to your map links to wiki locations suggestion in Peer Reviewed. --Funt Solo Scotland flag.JPG 18:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks for the pointer to where it ended up -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Antisocial Wanker Voting

Hey, you chose to vote kill, it's not my fault. But thanks for the heal. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 03:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You slimy bugger! I can't belive you actually slapped my head! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 01:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Eh, I just needed some afternoon drama-lamaa-ing. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 01:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


I have always counted you as one of the clear headed individuals on the wiki. As such, you vote on my latest suggestion confounds me. I'm trying to suggest things here for zombies, not "flood the archives" in any way. I'm trying to hit on some skill or something that could break the strike. I think we both know that "surivors can't barricade when zombies are inside" and "they can barricade when zombies are inside, but have to wait 10 minutes" are totally different suggestions. These suggestions are only similar in name. Would you please reconsider your vote? You've got me all wrong.--Gage 23:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page: We can talk here. I'll add this page to my watchlist.
May as well use this one I guess, in reply to your post on my talk page, I considered a keep, but 10 minutes is a long time for a horde. A damn long time. And what happens if you get it up a couple of levels, and it gets opened up again? Another 10 minutes of wide open doors, another 20 zombies get in. And you're fucked. It would be a great addition if the time the doors remain open was somehow linked to the zombie numbers in the area. 10 minutes is probably not enough time in Pescodside normally, but a lifetime when a horde comes to town. And the response to your last suggestion has me totally disillusioned with the suggestions process. If it had of failed, as it should have (IMO), then I probably would have tried to make a workable solution for weakening barricades so that a balance could be reached. But no, that one is getting jammed through to peer reviewed. Why the hell should anyone be willing to even consider a balanced barricade nerf now? You've got your zombie rocket launcher in already -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 00:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I have seriously considered removing that suggestion. Would it help you to take me seriously if I did so?
Could you elaborate on what you think the mechanics would be for linking zombie numbers to time remaining open? Would they be open longer or a shorter amount of time when more zombies are in the room? What is the max time the barricades should be open? What about the minimum? I'm a math major, and I think I could whip up a fairly simply equation if you would tell me what you think.--Gage 00:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it would help.
I was thinking that there should be less time, the more zombies there are about, simply because you want to allow zombie players more time to get in with usable AP to do actual damage, but you don't want to open the place up so that it automatically falls within a day. Where's the accomplishment in sacking a mall just by turning up, and coordinating your attacks in two or three 10 minute windows, thereby getting everybody inside at once? It's a problematic suggestion, and it's going to mean a lot of frustration for a lot of people who will continually hit either barricade or refresh, for no result, until they can get some barricades happening (but I guess survivors deserve their fair share of frustration too).
A few ideas on mechanics?
  • Allow survivors to barricade straight away, but allow zombies to squeeze through the barricade for a (#) minute period.
  • Limit the maximum number of zombies that can squeeze through in one opening (max of 5 or 10 per opening?).
  • The gaps in the barricade (that they squeeze through) remain open for longer if there's no urgency (ie if there are less zombies outside). If there's >100 it may only stay open 5 minute, if <5 open for 30 minutes).
I may move this to another, separate page, but I'll leave a link if I do -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 01:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I have moved it to User talk:Gage/Nerf.--Gage 04:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


This on the suggestions page:

boxy said:
Keep - If the descriptions can somehow be taken from the wiki locations pages and transfered across, maybe by entering a special field on the street location pages? -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 01:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

you put it in the 'against' area. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 04:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Opps, did I? Damn, better go fix that up, thanks -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 04:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Response on Thulsa Doom's Temple of Set

Hi Boxy. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your message on my discussion page at User_talk:Plinker#. Hope this helps.

Hi Boxy. I just wanted to let you know that I responded to your message on my discussion page at

User_talk:Plinker#. I'm having trouble getting the location grid and the picture to co-appear at the top. Advice on formatting requested. Thanks.

Hi Boxy. Thanks for the tip on the web page formatting. I think it worked. See my response at

User_talk:Plinker# and see for yourself.


Contacts Colourized in Dropdown Menu! Victory! Yeah! WOO! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 11:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This is one small step for a man.... One giant leap for mankind. Well, maybe not so much.--Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 12:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I dunno. Kevan just said it was implemented, so he might just be pulling a sick practical joke on me. Bastard. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 12:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Blackmore? That's where my zed's at. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 19:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll be munching on your brains before the day is through, dog-less. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 02:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, not quite munching your brains, but Zombie For Bob attacked you three times. :( --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 08:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Not if I get you first! --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 08:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Haha, killed you at Blackmore today, along with two others. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 06:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hehehe, that'll teach you to be helpful in a siege. --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 08:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 :( --Cap'n Silly T/W/P/CAussieflag.JPG 20:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Personal tools