|
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| This is [[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]]'s discussion page. Add a new section to the top if you have any new questions; the color character (:) is used in wiki discussions to demarcate subsequent additions to a thread. | | This is [[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]]'s discussion page. He reserves the right to remove comments, sections, or the entire contents at will. |
|
| |
|
| == Catherine General Hospital ==
| |
|
| |
|
| Hi. All merged pages (like the hospital page) are being deleted. Each location is supposed to have its' own page. [[Catherine General Hospital (Stanbury Village)|This]] is the correct page for that building. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:24, 7 May 2009 (BST)
| | Hello! I was wondering if I could also use your excellent flagbox about donating to the game? Also, I noticed we do have one thing in common in spite of my alts low levels-Kerosyrup PKed me as well. I then went on an information campaign over the radio freqs and with the talk function. Last time I checked (I always put the Pkers in the contact list) he was still a zombie. Thought you would like to know in case you were looking for him. Great page you have built! Regards,--[[User:Belisarius17|Belisarius17]] 20:51, 8 October 2009 (BST) |
| :Got it; I searched for "Catherine" but got a result that didn't indicate any other page for the place. Probably got caught with an incorrect cache.
| |
| | |
| == Flares! ==
| |
| | |
| Saw three flares coming from your direction last night, although you said that everything was quiet at the fire station yesterday morning, you guys need some backup??--[[User:Dr. David J Wedge|Dr. David J Wedge]] 11:22, 8 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| :I can only assume you're talking about my character ''Generos'', since he's the only one that was previously linked to this wiki account. (I've since added documentation to my user page). Most of the action he's seen is north in southern [[Stanbury Village]]. There appears to be enough of a zombie mob that they can take down any building they want, even if they can't hold it. Central [[Shackleville]] where ''Generos'' bivouacs has only seen a few transient zombies in the days he has been in the area; probably mostly revive-candidates shopping for an active revive point. --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 22:09, 8 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Ah, yes my apologies. I meant [[Doig Road Fire Station]]. Saw a few flares coming from that way and checked it out on the wiki, then saw that you were the one who last updated the page. Thought you might still be around. I have a couple of friends there that say it is wide open at the minute. Although yeah, not too many zombies..--[[User:Dr. David J Wedge|Dr. David J Wedge]] 17:38, 12 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ==Status reports==
| |
| | |
| You are being way too diligent. I understand if you want to make a note of things that are overbarricaded, but if something is underbarricaded, perhaps instead of scouting relentlessly, you could cade it yourself. Keep in mind that not all players go onto this wiki, and most that do don't listen to the barricade plans anyway, because most of them are out of date. I would also suggest ''only'' noting overbarricaded buildings, and then putting it on the news section for the suburb. Casual users ''rarely'' read individual location pages, so your notes may actually get read that way. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 09:42, 15 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Well, if I'm going to update current status, it pays to be complete. I don't want to simply edit those sites that are overbarricaded, since the lack of updated info on the others might be misinterpreted. and if I'm going to update, I might as well note which sites could use stronger barricades. And I can't cade it myself ''yet'', since I haven't earned enough credits to get construction. Yeah, once I've got the experience I'd rather barricade than just complain. But most site's reports are really out of date, so getting updates in also helps while I wander around looking for head-bashing opportunities... --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 09:50, 15 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == [[St. Ferreol's Hospital (Kempsterbank)]] ==
| |
| | |
| Rather than simply remove the danger report, would it not have been sensible to just update it? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:12, 23 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| :I thought it was created by a robot. Not? [Checking...] Darn, now I feel like an idiot for the oversight. Even has an obvious "update" button right there. Odd; for some reason when I first noticed the danger reports I investigated and they didn't seem this user-friendly. I'll do better in the future. --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 22:29, 23 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::No problem, the wikis a pretty complicated place. I like the little entry point/baricade stuff you've been doing. Give us a shout if you get stuck! --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 22:36, 23 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::Danger report seems correct, only issue is the categories at the bottom of the danger report page, those need changing. Danger reports are done by automatically, by modifying all pages the begin <nowiki>User:DangerReport/</nowiki>. Have a chat with [[User:The Rooster]] he's our bot expert.
| |
| | |
| The combined template for barricade plans is a really good idea. Movement is easy through move requests. Special users is just for ease of use. Bot accounts are listed seperately, to show that they are operated by other users, and in case of error people realise its a programming error, not a massiv vandal attack. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:44, 24 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :Yeah I forgot to update the bot's page after you mentioned it before, I shall take care of that to try and prevent future confusion. The danger reports are all created manually, which is why some buildings don't have them and also why a few have category errors and the like. The bot just marks reports that are over a month old and nothing else. The PIN system was knocked up by somebody not too long ago, but only as a test I believe, it hasn't entered use on the wiki at large. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 12:36, 24 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == New Danger Reports ==
| |
| | |
| Hi there, thanks for filling in the blanks, but you're missing a few of the categories off.
| |
| | |
| <pre><nowiki>
| |
| <noinclude>
| |
| | |
| ==How to Update==
| |
| {{Updatedr_norot}}
| |
| | |
| [[Category:Building Danger Levels|LONG NAME]]
| |
| [[Catgeory:BUILDING TYPE]]
| |
| [[Category:SUBURB]]
| |
| </noinclude>
| |
| </nowiki></pre>
| |
| | |
| {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 17:50, 26 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| :That seemed like an oversight -- the addition of the categories, I mean. Are they necessary for the bot to update something? Because otherwise they'll just end up creating a huge "U" section in the category listings that are also used for the buildings themselves. For example, a single suburb will already have 100 buildings in its category, but this would double that to 200, at least half of them in the "U"s. Are you amenable to changing this? Perhaps new categories specific to Building Danger Levels? (Can't a wiki do something clever with subcategories?) I'd also like to see another category between "Safe" and "Under Attack". Something like "Threatened", for use when there are a lot of zombies in the neighborhood and barricades keep going up and down, but the specific building in question is at full 'cades. --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 17:57, 26 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::Well, most of them already are (go check out any burb's category) and handily the U's help separate the reports to some extent. They're only there for organization. A while back the reports were an utter mess and I ran a script to try and standardize things. The categories are consistent now at the very least, though in retrospect I've often thought maybe it was too many. In any case, it's hellish changing so many reports.
| |
| | |
| ::As far as actual danger levels go, under attack already covers your problem. Under attack covers a medium group of zombies attacking, but with survivors maintaining overall control, this includes repelling temporary breakins. The [[:Category:Building Danger Levels|definitions]] are mostly based on number of zombies outside/inside and ruin status. Cade levels vary too quick. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 20:44, 26 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :The definition for "under attack" only apply to the building under attack, however. But when a hospital is under attack and goes down, the firehouse right next to it might be the next target. So when the person updating the firehouse notices that there are '''''no''''' zombies in front of the firehouse, should it be "safe"?!? It seems to me when a zombie mob starts attacking they don't stop at the first building they cluster in front of, and move on to new targets quickly. "Under attack" and "Under siege" really should have a penumbra effect, depending on how big the mob is and how close other critical buildings are.
| |
| | |
| : For example, [[The Dewes Building]] is an NT building in [[Santlerville]] and had something like 60 zombies early today. Right next door is the [[Dowdney Mall]], with no zombies present. Isn't the latter under substantial threat?
| |
| :*I think the "safe" rating should be color-coded '''green''' and reflect not just none or very few zombies at the building, but few in the neighborhood. If the building is a critical one under frequent attack, that neighborhood might be a 5x5 region, not just the local 3x3.
| |
| :*Color code '''yellow''' should be "on alert" or "threatened" something, reflecting a larger concentration of zombies in the area that indicates an attack is probably imminent somewhere nearby.
| |
| :Thus the "Under Attack" and "Under Siege" ratings should usually trigger an increase in the security level of nearby likely targets from green to yellow.
| |
| | |
| ::I remember a similar discussion some time ago when some people were being over-pedantic about it. You can get around it by noting it in the comments, and if the mall was suffering breakins you can have 'under attack' just for that. Just use some common sense and set the status to whatever seems appriopiate.
| |
| | |
| ::The whole system of danger reports and ratings was created quite early in the wiki's history, long before I got here and it's all become rather de-facto. A colour coded system might prove problematic as you probably don't have enough colours. I had enough trouble deciding on a colour-key for things like the [[NT Status Map]] and I had a lengthy discussion with another guy on the best way to do it. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 13:28, 28 May 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Categorization ==
| |
| | |
| Dear lord, you're not planning to do that all by hand are you? {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 14:16, 9 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :On closer inspection, I imagine you're running a script on it. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 14:19, 9 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| :: lol, no, I can see how absurd that would be. But I've got some podcasts plugged into my ears that I've been meaning to catch up on, and some brainless stuff that keeps my fingers busy also satisfies my borderline OCD. I actually started with experimenting with how Subcategories can help and just got on a role...
| |
| :: but, nope, no script either. I figure I'll finish PDs just for a sense of a good stopping place, leaving the rest to the task of figuring out how to automate it. [[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 14:22, 9 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| == Suburb Map styling. ==
| |
| | |
| I see you've contributed a lot lately, and I think you have good intentions. However, your edits on suburb maps are breaking the consistent style of them, which are in use for a long time. Here's how:
| |
| * All those bold abbreviations don't look too good. You see, ''subtitles'' such as EP, RP, and NT shouldn't be more visible than the ''main title'', i.e. buildings' names. Besides, they're visible enough with all caps. No need bold them further.
| |
| * All those "--" are unnecessarily breaking the tables.
| |
| * "Mast" tags are out of places with other abbreviations. People usually go with MPM, if they bother to specify the suburb's mast at all. The location of the mast does not affect a suburb's mobile phone network - only its status does. And each suburb has survivor groups which take care of that.
| |
| * In fact, even the NT tags are unnecessary. All NT buildings are color coded and easily visible.
| |
| * EP tags are optional here. Some suburbs have them, some don't. EPs can always be seen in each suburb's barricade plan, which usually situated above the suburb map for easy viewing.
| |
| * Too many tags will only serve to confuse readers. Like NTs, each type of building is color-coded any way. So no need for PD, FD, H, or others. The only tag that is universally used is RP. Let's leave it at that.
| |
| So please stop altering the suburb maps further. I'll try to trace what you've done and revert them back, or at least standardize with what is already in use. If the maps don't break, don't fix them. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 18:54, 10 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''P.S.''' Pennville, Scarletwood, West Grayside, Kinch Heights, Santlerville, Rolt Heights, Osmondville, and Pashenton. I think I'm finished. Please consult me and/or [[User:The Rooster|The Rooster]] before you make major, Wiki-wide styling changes in the future.
| |
| | |
| '''P.P.S.''' I like what you did categorizing the Building Danger Reports though. Much better than before. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 19:50, 10 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :Hmm, I see a bit of contradiction here. First, I'm castigated for taking some initiative, then I'm applauded? And in both cases there was no clear standardization -- or, at least, certainly not documented so. The lack of documentation is an obvious problem with semi-anarchic forums such as wikis, so that isn't a surprise. But how on earth should I have known that you or The Rooster are the masters of this domain?
| |
| | |
| :And I didn't innovate any of those. I recognized the utility of putting additional notes on the suburb maps and tried to spread those innovations. For example, "mast" didn't make any sense to me when I first saw it -- I had to do some research to discover that it referred to phone masts (here in California we'd be much more likely to refer to them as towers or antennae). I only saw "MPM" once after seeing "mast" several times. (Frankly, I think "MPM" is useless without an explanatory key -- it won't mean anything to someone that isn't already clued in; mast is marginally better since it follows the phrasing used in the right-side <nowiki>{{Surburb}}</nowiki> box. I would have prefered "phone" if it had been my innovation.
| |
| | |
| :Same with the other tags. In doing those roll-backs you might not have looked closely, but the "EPs" were already there and I never added any of those building specific tags such as "FD", etc., that you mention. Frankly, I would be happy to see no extra symbol besides"RP" on the maps. None of the others were my ideas -- I just try to make things consistent. Show me *one* place where I *added* an "EP", for example? And you say that "The only tag that is universally used is RP. Let's leave it at that." That is definitely not evident looking at scattered maps. Some maps don't use it at all, others use it with single dashes on each side (again, not my innovation), other have two, and plenty of maps have other icons. You haven't even mentioned the "bulletin board" icons. I think it is pretty obvious there is no de facto standard.
| |
| | |
| :As I said, the one thing I think is valuable on those pages is the "RP", but on the dark backgrounds used I thought having it consistently bolded would make it easier to see, as would the paired dashes bracketing it. I'm not sure how or where that "breaks" the maps -- I looks at these on Firefox, Safari and Opera (all on a Mac) and have never seen any problems.
| |
| | |
| :If you value the contributions of others -- including mine -- then I would ask that you to back off the attack and the orders. For example, you could have said <i>"I've noticed a lot of edits you've made on some Suburb maps. Why did you feel that such changes need to be made? Could you look at the documentation the community has produced [[Template talk:EXP Suburbblock|here]] and see if it is consistent? And hold off on those Suburb Map edits for a bit? You might even want to go back and remove some of those edits if you agree that they seem extraneous."</i>
| |
| | |
| :Ironically, I agree with you that the only thing that really needs to be on the map is "RP". (Well, I think "MPM" or "mast" is still a good idea to make it easy to check on the phone mast's status, which otherwise is too easily to completely overlook). But your attitude is coming really close to making me walk away from doing anything on this wiki at all. None of us are getting paid here, so our only payoff is the hope of an occasional "thanks" -- but from you I get slapped a few times before I get any thing half positive. [[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 03:12, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
