UDWiki:General Discussion

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Shortcut: GD General Discussion The General Discussion page is a page for discussion not suited to other areas of the Wiki. For some discussions, other areas are used: For developing a suggestion, or suggesting something for inclusion in the game, use Developing Suggestions and the Suggestions system For bug reports, use the Bug Reports page If you wish to have an page moved, use the move requests page If you wish to have your own page removed, use speedy deletions (criterion 7.) If you wish to have any other page deleted, use deletions For discussion pertaining to a particular page or user, use the page's talk or user talk page

When starting a new discussion on this page, please add it at the bottom with a relevant title. Please sign all comments using four tides (~~~~), or the button. This page is for shorter discussions - please don't add irrelevant discussions (see the column to your left) or spam to this page. Older discussions will periodically be moved into archives. See also: Open Discussion

Let's see if this works

Testing if my url hackage to allow the use of the + button on a regular page worked. Looks like it did.

Everyone okay with this (particularly the big blue box above)? Linkthewindow  Talk  08:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Add some big pretty links to CP and stuff. We should try and integrate all the community links within one another's pages. It'll promote usage. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll add a navigation bar, somewhere then. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 30 March 2009 (BST)

AP loss for actions that don't actually require things to be done

I've noticed after reading some suggestions such as "make clicking spray can less painful and more helpful" that certain people have a view that losing an AP for clicking a spray can, for example, is a good sort of negative reinforcement, and that the AP loss that results from said clicking will discourage you from making the "mistake" again. Why should clicking on something that doesn't do anything have an AP penalty? If someone suggested having no AP cost for speaking (which really does make sense, as speaking doesn't require much energy or action at all, other than opening your mouth), I would have to disagree as making speaking "free" would result in a lot of random useless conversations pertaining to people's mothers. However, I don't see why clicking on something that doesn't do anything (like clicking your binoculars in a building other than a tower) costs an AP. The only reason I can see that people would advocate such a penalty is like I said above; as a penalty and discouragement from making the "mistake" again. However, I feel that (for actions that don't result in any effect to players other than the person clicking, such as the binoculars or spray can example) this shouldn't result in an AP penalty, as simply pressing the wrong button shouldn't take up energy or whatever AP symbolizes. In fact, I'm pretty sure that using up one of your 160 daily hits allowed on the main page is enough of a punishment to anyone who clicks on something that doesn't actually do anything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScaredPlayer (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Quantifying Danger

So, I've recently been messing about with my EMR Bot to allow me to more easily update the danger level of suburbs based on the given report. I'm having it pull up suburb news so I can take that into account obviously, but for suburbs whose news is too outdated to affect the current report, having the bot automatically select a half decent status would be handy. I can always manually change the status based on what I see, or can instruct it to just leave the suburb alone if needed. What I'm really trying to get at here is: given statistics from an EMR, and given no other recent info, what danger levels would a human user tend to choose? Personally, I think the current descriptions are a little off given their age and trends in gameplay (very dangerous should be 100 zombies since there are less players these days, and ghost town should have a lower "max zombie" limit, 60 zombies in a dead suburb is pretty dangerous)

Anyway, for the uninitiated, the current descriptors read as follows:

• Safe - Break-ins rare, max 50+ zombies in suburb and no zombie groups above 10.
• Moderately Dangerous - Active zombies and break-ins, but no 50+ hostile hordes.
• Dangerous - Zombies inside many resource buildings; OR hostile mobs of 50+.
• Very Dangerous - Most buildings wide open or zombie-infested; OR hostile zombie mobs of 150+.
• A Ghost Town - At least 2/3rds of the suburb's buildings either Empty of Survivors or Ransacked/Ruined AND having no zombie mobs of over 10 and no total zombies over 60.

For those unfamiliar with EMR, you might wish to pay a visit to EMRP and read up on what the shorthand means. Anyway, I started with the basic idea that the four infrastructure levels can map pretty neatly onto the four danger levels. *** being safe and --- being V.Dangerous. This makes sense.

Next comes accounting for zombies, any suburb is V.Dangerous if it has 150+ zombies in. Dangerous if it has 50+. These are stated. I prefer 100+ for V.Dangerous myself. One can logically extend this basis whereby certain levels of zombies present moderate danger or safety given certain infrastructure. Infrastructure of **- is usually moderate danger, but no zombies in the area? Then it's safe anyway.

Next comes fitting in the unusual ghost town. This isn't as hard as it first seems, a suburb with little to no infrastructure is dangerous to survivors, but at the same time a low zombie presence offers some sense of safety. So for *-- and --- suburbs with low zombie numbers, we can use this designation handily to avoid the weirdness of trying to use moderate or standard danger.

I have given a rough diagram of the actual numbers I would use in my sandpit. It should be pretty self explanatory, infrastructure levels along the top, zombies down the side and the colour gives the danger level. If you were updating a danger level based on a report, would your status tend to fit the diagram, or would it vary significantly? --  RoosterDragon  01:08, 31 March 2009 (BST)

Maybe, you have to take into account of who the zombies are and where they are located. A mob of 125 zombies is fairly dangerous, but if all they're doing is sitting outside a mall, then they're not posing as much of a threat to the suburb as a whole. I might say moderate, instead of dangerous or very dangerous. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:38, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Aye, and I would agree, but say I wasn't privy to such info because the burb news hadn't been updated in a while and so I only have the report for reference. I would be stuck with my initial assumption. Although the program suggests a status, I have it look up the recent 'burb news for just such info so I can adjust the level manually if I need to. Regardless, given even just 100 zombies, I would always go for V.Dangerous no matter how intact the 'burb. The core question of my discussion however, being "Would you?" --  RoosterDragon  20:54, 3 April 2009 (BST)

If someone told me there was "100 zombies in the 'burb" I would go by whatever the guideline said (so V.Dangerous). I suppose, it should be defaulted to the guideline, unless there is reason to change it? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:59, 3 April 2009 (BST)

PLEASE remember that EMR don't include zeds inside buildings. both ghost towns and "Safe" Zones with groups of 20+ zombies in a single building aren't really covered. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:00, 3 April 2009 (BST)

I know that, but without omnipotence or somebody with a recent update on suburb news, I won't know that there are 20 zeds in wherever. If my choice is a not-totally-informed, but recent, EMR or an outdated bit of suburb news (whose accuracy varies). I personally would go with the EMR every time. However, in order to account for likely zombies in buildings, one might suggest that as a burb gets progressively more ruined I should assume a certain proportion of zombies are inside, thus things become more dangerous more quickly based on this limited info. And I assume higher levels of danger at lower zombies counts. In my diagram, the green/yellow/orange blocks shrink in size a bit and red takes over even more room. --  RoosterDragon  21:19, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Fair enough. Unless a bit of recent news contradicts the EMR, I think its the best we're going to get. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Project Userboxes

I've been thinking about making a page for a while with most of the userboxes made on the wiki - like they have on wikipedia. It will make it easier for newbs to make userpages (and we could expand it to have several common themes for userpages as well.)

Thoughts? (sorry if I was a bit unclear.) Linkthewindow  Talk  11:16, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Short and simple, I think this is a good idea. :) --D.E.ATalk 12:28, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Works for me, and would definitely help those who are new, because it's hard finding out how to edit your page properly, do what you want with it, and all of that. What about copy-paste templates or something? I know I would've used it... --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 00:01, 9 April 2009 (BST)

You know, I think I might do that. I'm going to make a template that new users can just copy and paste into their page, and then change it to their preferences, and presto! Easy. Here's the link: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/New_user_template --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 00:08, 9 April 2009 (BST) Actually, now, its a list of code that they can use if they wish. I do believe it would help, though.--The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 16:49, 11 April 2009 (BST)

Building Status

I have only used wiki for a short time. I would like to help more. But I have a problem, I don't get how to update the building stats. Can any one help me? --Robert Egleton 03:11, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Yep, lets say you want to update the report for Dowdney Mall. Well, see the danger report at the top? Click the (update) button on the top right of it, and then 'edit' that new page that comes up (it'll be the single danger report by itself). From there on, just update the information with what is more recent (there'll be a guide) Make sure to sign your posts over the older users, some people get anal about that (including me). Good luck. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:15, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Thanks mate. I see now. --Robert Egleton 03:18, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Don't forget to post at the bottom :) Linkthewindow  Talk  04:12, 13 June 2009 (BST)

Another Question

Can you add a building status to a building that doesn't have one? If so how? --Robert Egleton 00:34, 14 June 2009 (BST)

You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when

On You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when, there are a couple entries that I wouldn't mind moving to a page like You know you've been using UDWiki too much when. Some of these are wiki-specific, and I have a few wiki specific ones that I would like to mention. What do people think? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:30, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Sure, go ahead (perhaps as a subpage?) Linkthewindow  Talk  08:42, 23 June 2009 (BST)

I don't think we'll even need that, if we just made it similar to something that I mentioned above, we could just interlink the two together on the top of each page. I'll get started on it when I have the time and mindset. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:48, 23 June 2009 (BST)

UDWiki:Featured Articles

I'm putting this here because there are 4 or so FA related articles with little content and no audience, so this is a better method (presumably) to get a response.

The FA method is failing us, people. The system we implemented means that all GA's have to go through yet another vote to become a featured article, something all good articles easily could become without a second vote, particularly because nothing makes it through good article voting if it has any type of scrutiny from the community.

Without the Featured Article system, the prestige behind good articles dies because there isn't anything to show for it, hence why we got bored of Good Article voting within a month. I propose we entirely get rid of FA voting and start cycling Good Articles as Featured Articles for a month, in order they were voted in. I would suggest a small area on the Main Page for this to go, but for now I am only interested in getting the FA system running, so we can actually give some of these articles some reward. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:10, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Basically picking a Good Article to be featured? Therefore no need for FA/V? Ok! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:36, 28 June 2009 (BST)

God I wish this place got used more. Love yoo gnome. Next step: Getting this GA's featured on main page. Your views? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:11, 28 June 2009 (BST)

Plus a featured article section on CP too. Why will people bother if the only place FA's are featured is on the Featured Article page? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:28, 28 June 2009 (BST)

We have a spot on the ComPort, but it may be redundant to have it on the main page too, in the CP box. I was thinking of putting a "improvement drive" in that box in the main page for a particularly needy poor article. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:00, 28 June 2009 (BST)

That's probably the best idea, with a link back to the CP. Linkthewindow  Talk  01:20, 29 June 2009 (BST)

My only problem with having it on CP and not main page is that it'll never get seen. I vote main page and not CP. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:30, 29 June 2009 (BST)

It's on the sidebar on the CP page right now, but it might look empty, if nothing else is added. Or unless someone has a better CP page design, or something. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:41, 3 July 2009 (BST)

The CP page design is fine at the moment, instead of a FA section just replace it with the newest General Discussion topics maybe? And just cycle them as they die? Maybe that'd make this place a little more used too. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Aye. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:52, 15 July 2009 (BST)

Category:Good Articles - Someone can pick one of those and write something short blah blah? Or I will, and it will be terrible and you all be sorry you didn't. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:52, 15 July 2009 (BST)

REVOLUTION!!!!!!!!!!!

	Anti-Bureaucracy
	This user hates bureaucracy and encourages wiki-revolution!

DOWN WITH THE CRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!--Imthatguy 01:41, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Cute. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:15, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Its not 'For The Lulz', its serious --Imthatguy 04:35, 4 July 2009 (BST)

Wrong. It's just stupidity. You're not the first self-proclaimed revolutionary this wiki has had. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:31, 4 July 2009 (BST)

And spam. Spam spam wonderful spam... Linkthewindow  Talk  09:31, 4 July 2009 (BST)

• Rollseyes* We've seen how 'Trustworthy' the admins can be over the past few days --DOWN WITH THE 'CRATS!!! | Join Nod!!! 08:34, 17 July 2009 (BST)

Updating the status of a building

I always get stuck at the first step of updatin because it doesn't tell you how to check the building status. How do I check the building status? --Aion 22:09, 5 July 2009 (BST)

What do you mean by "checking?"--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:11, 5 July 2009 (BST)

Go to the building in-game, look at your screen... come back and report what you see? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:20 5 July 2009 (BST)

I thought thats what you meant. But it just seemed. Weird. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:29, 5 July 2009 (BST)

It's Here...

The Building Information Center is now up and running in each suburb. A big thanks to all those who contributed.~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:33, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Thanks a lot for this. It was a project that a few other guys thought about doing back in the day, but it never really took off. Now, just keeping those reports updated... Linkthewindow  Talk  08:56, 9 July 2009 (BST)

This might be asking for a bit much, but is there any chance this could go on the "Wiki News" sidebar? It just seems to me that this is a fairly big deal (or at least that's what my hand's telling me).--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Sorry, but I'd say no. In relation to wiki projects, the Wiki News template is only really used at the start of a project, to get users to help. Once it's finished the news is deleted. We don't put completed projects on the news template. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:40, 10 July 2009 (BST)

A general reminder to keep the reports updated might stick. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:20, 11 July 2009 (BST)

Trenchcoater

I've never liked this page. Sure, it's humorous but it doesn't even have a definition of what the term actually means and it's use as a pejorative term. Humor's good and all, but not when it gets in the way of providing a definition for a term that's used very commonly in game.

I suggest we move the current trenchcoater page to Trenchcoater/Humor. We can ether create a totally new trenchcoater page (and I'll make a sandbox for this task,) or use Grim's trenchcoater page. It's not finished, but it's a good start.

Thoughts? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:20, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I dunno... I do really like the page at the moment. --ϑϑℜ 09:31, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I had a brain snap sorry. To elaborate, I'm not sure, super serious is obviously first pick in most situations, and Grim's page is really good, but I really think the page is a work of art itself, demonstrating the position that Trenchcoaters hold in the community- a joke. Make it serious and then more morons might think its a legitimate following, etc. Which, in my opinion, it isn't. --ϑϑℜ 09:37, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Humor's good and all, but it's getting in the way of a clear definition for a very commonly used term. Also it's the wiki's job to be neutural. Sure many people dislike combat reviving but we don't make the combat reviving page "lol cr sucks". Linkthewindow  Talk  11:55, 18 July 2009 (BST)

*Pokes this discussion* I really don't like the trenchcoater page as it stands. I would like to get a few more people's opinions before going ahead with this or forgetting about it. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:06, 20 July 2009 (BST)

The only users that will reply to your poke are AHLG and Ross. Oh, and Imthatguy squirting his rebel semen everywhere. As for me, I think its truely representative of the Trenchcoater mentality. But I'm not really going to care if you change it. --ϑϑℜ 09:25, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Opinions of four > opinions of two ;) Linkthewindow  Talk  09:28, 20 July 2009 (BST)

I don't think it should be made a subpage of a more serious one, simply because the humour really is that good and there isn't all that much to be said as far as definition goes. Maybe an extra section at the top/bottom of the page? --Cyberbob 09:29, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Quick NPOV section on the top of page? --ϑϑℜ 09:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)

*Points to Grim's trenchcoater page* Linkthewindow  Talk  09:31, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Not small enough for a disclaimer. I'd prefer disclaimer. --ϑϑℜ 09:33, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Make the definition page a sub page, and leave this one, minus the glossary category? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:35 20 July 2009 (BST)

Acceptable. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:38, 20 July 2009 (BST)

But even then, we should still make it obvious that the main trenchcoater page is humorous and the proper glossary page is located at a subpage (probably using {{Notice}}. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:39, 20 July 2009 (BST)

If it's done right, and is concise enough, the definitional sub page could be include on the main page (template like) as a sort of NPOV section. That way, both have the neutral explanation of what a trenchy is, but the main article isn't included in the glossary -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:43 20 July 2009 (BST)

I'm planning on using Grim's page as a template (literally, not in a wiki-sense.) That'll obviously be too long, but I'll add a concise NPOV definition at the top of the page. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:47, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Good. Using Grim's is probably the best encyclopaedic method we have. --ϑϑℜ 09:52, 20 July 2009 (BST)

When people started complaining about the WCDZ page, we added a disclaimer at the bottom of the page. Maybe this could help this page being humorous and informative at the same time. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 12:32, 20 July 2009 (BST)