From The Urban Dead Wiki
Revision as of 11:45, 25 July 2010 by DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

All respect to Drakkenmaw for his great guide, but I think that on the wiki we should have more of a group assembeled guide. Having a guide created by and attributed to one person discourages group editing and that is the whole point of having a wiki. --ShaneVsEvil 20:28, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

V good point. I've changed the intro to suggest that people should feel free to edit drakkenmaw's stuff -- it's a fine starting point for a wiki guide but we don't want people to treat it as inviolate. (Kinda like Larry's Text in the philosophy sections of the pedia, only with more zombies) Morlock 02:46, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Eh, we should have a guide which explains qwako's aphorism, with regards to zombie metagaming. My metagaming guides read too much like, "don't be stupid, use common sense, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF SHEARBANK etc."--Milo 01:28, 14 Sep 2005 (BST)

Could we do away with these guides altogether? Drakkenmaw's stuff could be moved onto the respective pages for character classes. Guides:XP could all be moved onto the XP page. Guides:Survivor Skills should go on the page for those skills. We need to cut down on redundant pages a bit, is all. --Tocky 11:10, 26 Sep 2005 (BST)

  • We do? In the age of 300 gig hdd for under $100, I don't see the point. Guides are gameplay suggestions and should be kept seperate from pure fact wiki pages. Brett Day 12:40, 19 February 2006 (GMT)

The "Supertrenchie" Guide

Guides:Supertrenchie is both stupid and useless. It provides NO useful information and should be moved to a humorous section, or to a private userpage.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  20:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one responds by Feb. 4th, 2008 I will remove it from the list of guides.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  03:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it should remain.--Karekmaps?! 05:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's gone.  Billy Club Thorton  T!  RR  08:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quality Control

The quality control on this area is nigh non-existant. People just post 2 paragraphs of rambling, factually incorrect text and call it a guide. We need to merge, delete, expand, and refine quite a few of these. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:09, 22 February 2006 (GMT)

Guides are not (in themselves) protected text. EDIT!!!! SIM Core Map.png Swiers 16:32, 2 September 2007 (BST)


I guess some articles were moved around because we have a couple repeats. --Lint 07:32, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Zombie Tracker

Looks like the Zombie Tracker is no more; removing it from the external links. --Spiffulous 16 April 2006 (BST)

  • The Zombie Tracker - Web based utility used to report zombie concentrations of the various suburbs of Malton.

Guide Ratings?

Inspired by Zaruthustra's comment above. Should we get together, round up some people, and get them to review the guides and provide a total rating so that we can have some form of quality control, or at the very least, direct users to the better guides instead of letting them fumble around in the mediocre to poor ones on this page. If so, how should we do it? Corral some old editers with over 1500 edits to the wiki (To prove oldness, or prolificness), then draft them into a review squad? Just throwing ideas around randomly so we can get a mesh of ideas together and hammer out something we can put up as a policy proposal. --The Grimch U! 11:19, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Sounds a good idea in theory. However, the only "wiki policy" way I can see to do this is to form a wiki group ("Crusty Editors Union" or some such) and put the reviews the groups (sub) page. You can't ust say "only these people have the right to edit", but you can say "only these people have the right to post on these groups pages / use this groups name". Onece you did that, you could either sign the reviews with the group name, or have the reviews themselves on sub-pages of the group page, and include them as "templates" where needed. SIM Core Map.png Swiers 16:41, 2 September 2007 (BST)
I was thinking more along the lines of giving guides a score out of ten for their content and use, so newbies could be more efficiently herded into the better ones, and away from ones that arent particularly useful, such as the Zombie Lexicon and Zombie song lyrics (Neither of which i feel should be in the guides section in the first place). Naturally, one editor cant go around and give them all a score, so i was thinking of getting a bunch of people, either quickly elected or suitably anceint to be given the task of reading and giving each guide a point score out of ten, which would then be averaged and put before the guides name on the page. Then we could argue here about removing all the 1/10's because they suck --The Grimch U! 23:31, 2 September 2007 (BST)

Travelogues are NOT guides

These BBK travelogues are fine and dandy, but I do not believe that they t belong in the Guides section... They belong... well... in a travelogue/user journal section. They should be moved, IMO --WanYao 04:06, 23 September 2007 (BST)

They're guides as to what each suburb is like in its own different, querky ways. They're like tour guides to Malton. Sounds fair enough to me - I reckon they should stay.--Nick 12:00, 23 September 2007 (BST)
Course you would, you're BBK. Personally, i think they should go. Guides should be there to help players play the game, not tell them whats in each suburb. So very little sets any suburb apart from any other that its a waste of time. If people really want to know whats in a suburb, they can use any one of a number of maps of the city. --The Grimch U! E! 12:59, 23 September 2007 (BST)
Sure, I'm biased, but honestly, they do help players play the game. They give outlines of the different kinds of people and places in each suburb in a way that the suburb pages don't. Telling people what's in each suburb is help - I don't see how you can deny that. Besides, I don't think they should be in a travelogue category by themselves, that would be a waste of time - there's not enough similar pages to constitute a whole category dedicated to them.--Nick 07:18, 24 September 2007 (BST)
Guides need lasting power. The population of a suburb changes over the course of a few months, which means that within a few months, possibly even as little as a couple of weeks, they wont be accurate. Guides are how to play documents, not "Oh look who is here". The rest of the wiki provides this information for people, in a lot greater detail, if they care to go and find it, and it is a lot more up to date. Even a breif glance at a suburb page is more useful than the "travelogues" your group has provided. Suffice it to say, they are a curious fanfiction, not a guide to the game. Please relocate them appropriately. I am removing them from the guides list. --The Grimch U! E! 08:44, 24 September 2007 (BST)
Guides are NOT helpful. No one reads them. Bring on some entertainment. DanceDanceRevolution 08:47, 24 September 2007 (BST)

Haha I'm sold. Shotty not changing the category.--Nick 08:50, 24 September 2007 (BST)

"Different kinds of people and places...". Okay. That was a pointless statement. No suburb is completely unique. Simple as that. What may make them slightly different can be found on the 'burb pages. Which negates that part of your discussion. Now, different kinds of people....funny. Very funny. The only kinds of people are trenchcoaters, which are everywhere, "humanitarians", Grims (as in the kind of people in his guide), sheep, and semi-Grims. There are no "different kinds" of people from place to place, as there are always trenchcoaters running around looking for zombies, even in the middle of And, like Grim said, places change, people move.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 08:51, 24 September 2007 (BST)
Guides are intended to help players who read them. Your fanfiction, interesting though it may be, does not meet the definition of a guide. Please reclassify it here --The Grimch U! E! 08:52, 24 September 2007 (BST)
Alright, geez it's been done. No biggy guys.--Nick 08:53, 24 September 2007 (BST)
Thank you --The Grimch U! E! 08:54, 24 September 2007 (BST)

New Guides namespace?

Simple suggestion - make Guides: a proper namespace. This has the effect of fixing Talk:Guides, so it's no longer Talk:Guides:Guide, but becomes Guides talk:Guide. We'll have to move some guides (ones that are in the Guide: namespace) if this is done, however. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:16, 1 June 2009 (BST)


  1. I support this. Simple change that will make good of the underused guide system. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:22, 1 June 2009 (BST)
  2. --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:23, 1 June 2009 (BST)
  3. Yarp. -- Cheese 13:29, 1 June 2009 (BST)
  4. Good idea. - User:Whitehouse 14:53, 2 June 2009 (BST)


(Votes no go here)

Fixing up the Guides system - version 2

Yes, I know this has been tried before - here. Instead of simply reviving that project, which I feel has it's failings (not to mention the fact that it's creator, Zaruthustra is inactive,) I feel it's a better idea to start a new one. So without further ado:

The Guides page, as well as Category:Guides is a complete mess. To the point of near uselessness, especially for it's target group (new players.) The page is filled with obsolete guides, spam, and guides that don't carry information. To fix this, I think the best system is a system of peer review, a mixture of that of the good article system and did you know system. Guides that are peer reviewed get "officially" listed on the Guides and Category:Guides page (as well as having a template placed on the page,) while guides that aren't peer reviewed still have [[Category:Guides]] on them (so they show up in this category,) but aren't listed on the page. Guides which we don't find up to scratch aren't visible as soon as a newbie looks at this page (but can still be found relativity easily,) while guides that are good are presented to newbies.

The system of peer review which I think should be used follows:

All current guides will stay on the page for the duration of this project.

A subpage of guides will be created (at Guides/Review) on which all current guides will be placed and listed there. Voting will take place, and there will be three eligible votes:

  • Support - to indicate support for the guide's inclusion
  • Abstain - to not formally vote, but still offer comments about the guides (obviously not counted)
  • Against - to indicate disapproval with the guide's inclusion

Derivatives of these votes are allowed - For is just as valid as Support.

After (two/one) week(s) voting will finish. If:

  • The guide has more then 75% Support votes, then it will be placed in a "featured" section, at the top of the page.
  • The guide has more then 50% Support votes, then it will be placed on the page
  • The guide has less then 50% Support votes, then it will be not be placed on the page

Of course, all those numbers are completely negotiable.

Running all these guides through at once will clog up the page, and discourage contributions. For the current guides on the guides page, ten (again, number negotiable,) will be run through at once. Once all of these are voted on then we will change the page in one go (instead of in bits and pieces.) Once this is completed, the guides page will be protected, with a link at the top pointing to the peer review page. If a guide passes review, it is added on the page.

When a guide is up for voting, the author(s) should be notified (for guides created before the purge, this isn't applicable if the author can't be found through the history,) and a template added onto the page.

To pass a vote, a guide must fulfill all of these criteria to a satisfactory standard:

  1. Formatting - There must be no obvious formatting errors in the text. The guide must work in all major browsers
  2. Accuracy - The guide must be accurate
  3. Clarity - The guide must be easy to read, with no obvious spelling or grammar errors.

Please note that neutrality is not a requirement. Likewise, it isn't necessary for a guide to be civil.

Finally, while we are doing this all guides in the Guide: namespace should be moved to the Guides: namespace, in preparation for the namespace move (see above,) assuming there's still consensus at the end of this. To request a move (for non-sysops,) post on A/MR Linkthewindow  Talk  09:07, 20 June 2009 (BST)


Everyone happy with these proposed guidelines? This has been long overdue, and I've finally defeated laziness and decided to do it. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:07, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Good, as long as it is stressed that civility is not a criterion (cause I love grim). DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:32, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Done, although the lack of requirement for neutrality should be enough. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:34, 20 June 2009 (BST)
What do we want from the guides section? Is it just tactical stuff, or do we want all guides stuff here, technical stuff like how to set up a group etc? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 14:29, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Everything that is actually useful to new users. Some of these are garbage and out of date. By the way, we'll need a new guides submission system. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:39, 20 June 2009 (BST)
That'll come next - it will just be a modified version of this. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:57, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Pointlessly complicated. I have a better idea: simply put the crap articles up for deletion and be done with it. Then, from what's left, we reorganise the section. Yeah, I know no one will like that idea... oh well. --WanYao 17:39, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Good stuff putting this together link. Come on Wan, it's not that complicated. It's just a voting method to present the more useful articles to new users.--GANG Giles Sednik CAPD 18:16, 20 June 2009 (BST)

Anyone got any urgent, last minute problems with this? If not, I'll start ramming through the guides when I've got some free time. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:25, 27 June 2009 (BST)

Go ahead. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:57, 27 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think all the current guides need to go to voting. Only those that are nominated by someone as worthy of consideration -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:01 28 June 2009 (BST)

Yes, some of these will be pretty much guaranteed to be kept or deleted, but once we've got the current lot done, the amount of guides will slow to a trickle. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:41, 29 June 2009 (BST)

Fuck you people make everything so complecated. Just make an oversized novelty navbar, stick it on each guide and be done with it.--xoxo 22:00, 28 June 2009 (BST)

A few more things

Firstly, I suggest we make this page (Guides) a redirect to Category:Guides. With a lot of guides being removed from this page and added to the category, it seems like a good idea that we also make the category more noticeable. This talk page will be moved to Category talk:Guides.

Also, the external links section on the guides page is outdated. The forum that is linked to ([1]) hasn't had any posts in it's "Urban Dead" section for several months. I suggest we ether remove it, provide a link to Unofficial UD Forums or a major forum (or two) of the community's choice.

Likewise, the link to the FAQ is broken.

Other then that, we should leave the map (and obviously,) the main UD FAQ.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  04:03, 16 July 2009 (BST)

The same external link appears on the main article. You might consider moving his attribution to his guides for consistency. Also, the link to his profile is broken, as it no longer exists. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 04:37, 5 August 2009 (BST)


Couple of housekeeping points you may wish to consider:

  1. The categorization of the guides with the "Guide:" prefix all show up under G, you might want to sort key them by their title. You can't use the PAGENAME magic word to do this since guides isn't a real namespace. Manual work I'm afraid.
  2. A few guides with the prefix have a space before the title, eg: "Guide: Title" rather than "Guide:Title". It would be worth moving them. The latter is better and more prevalent anyway. Further if it ever became a real namespace any pages with a space would get irrecoverably eaten by the wiki software.
  3. Some guides are also categorized as tactics. Even some with the guide prefix. Unless they're actually similar to the stuff we have on tactics already, could they be uncategorised as such?

Also, whenever you chaps get close to wrapping up the guides, might you care to take a look at the stuff in Category:Tactics and it's sub-categories? No need to go mad with featured/reviewed or anything. But there's some utter trash in there that should probably be sorted for deletion. Or at least recategorized as "inane ramblings" or something. -- User:The Rooster RoosterDragon User talk:The Rooster 04:28, 5 August 2009 (BST)

I'm planning on asking Kevan for a new namespace (for guides, see above,) and I'm planning on fixing up the namespace soon. We could sort tactics through the guides system, but I might leave that a while. These have been up for voting for about two months now, and you can only hold people's attention for so long ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  07:39, 5 August 2009 (BST)