|
|
| (9 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)
| |
| | |
| ::I think you're overreacting a little.
| |
| | |
| ::Yeah the documentation sucks, yeah so does the lack of any common system, so do a lot of things, the wiki is pretty messy all things considered.
| |
| | |
| ::I see where you're coming from but in this case the edits you made were not in line with the current method of doing it. That current method is a bit inconsistent and it's not documented anywhere and that's just how it is. You just got unlucky and picked on a system where there was already a pseudo-rule. Most of the time (and particularly with edits to backwater stuff) there's nothing in place so you can fix away.
| |
| | |
| ::We're lazy maintainers, so usually a bit of discussion to decide on what to do is a good thing since then you won't have to edit lots of pages, then edit them again when you realize there's a better way. We do a lot more than the wiki-at-large who are generally all discussion and little action. There was in fact some discussion on NPOV that resulted in a standard format for suburb pages, but nobody ever got around to actually using it. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 16:34, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :I reserve the right to overreact; I think ''Kittithaj'' was overreacting ''and'' poorly reacting. Anyway, if "it's not documented anywhere" then how can any claim there is even a pseudo-rule? I was scouting around and updating DangerReports mostly and got a look at the suburb maps of places like [[Crowbank#Suburb_Map|Crowbank]], which clutters up so much with entry points that it is impossible to even see the scare "RPs".
| |
| | |
| :OK, I'll ''try'' to be constructive instead of a jerk: my suggestion is to come up with a reasonable consensus, then put big '''<nowiki><!-- HERE ARE THE STANDARDS FOR THE SUBURB MAP. PLEASE SEE THE DOCUMENTATION PAGE AT blah blah IF YOU FEEL YOU HAVE SUGGESTIONS TO MAKE. --></nowiki>''' comments between the heading for the suburb map and the map itself. I.e., something that guides people towards whatever community guidance there is, instead of letting them discover that (a) there is no standard, but (b) some people will react like [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martinet#in_English_terms martinets] if you violate the "standards" they've hallucinated into existence.
| |
| | |
| :BTW, do you know of any reasonable way of doing date math? I'm trying to figure out how to determine the age of a DangerReport without using a bot. I'm thinking clever subclusion could be used to insert a standardized month-and-date timestamp into the form without the user having to do it. Then date arithmetic could be used to show how old reports are and alter icons appropriately. But we don't have the parserfunction extension that would make this easier. See my [[User:Lariat2301/SandBox2]] where I'm tinkering, if you're interested. --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 16:57, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ::Meh, we all make errors, I'm sure you two could come to a solution about the tags, they're pretty minor so a well informed change would sort that easily enough.
| |
| | |
| ::Math wise, I know one user who tried but pretty much ruled it impossible without parser functions, I also imagine it'd break the inclusion limit for things like the [[NT Status Map]] which already weigh it pretty heavily on it. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 19:06, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Sigh, I knew posting above comment would cause a problem, but I didn't have much choice. I'll break down my points (and yours) one by one:
| |
| * ''First, I'm castigated for taking some initiative, then I'm applauded?''
| |
| :You made good changes and you made bad changes. I fixed bad changes and told you about it. I appreciated good changes and I told you about it. I think that's fair. It would be unfair to criticize your bad changes but say nothing about good ones, wouldn't it?
| |
| * ''And in both cases there was no clear standardization -- or, at least, certainly not documented so.''
| |
| :That's true. This Wiki is not well-documented like Wikipedia. But one thing you can (and should) do is to look around for how things are done. This game, and the Wiki, has been around for many years. All standards are in place. ''De facto'', if you will. If you're "fixing" something, you have to make sure you don't upset or disturb the way things are too much.
| |
| :I remember the first time I made my edits, I kept looking around for cross referencing on how I should write, which style I should use, etc. It wouldn't hurt for you to do the same before making major Wiki-wide changes like what you did to the maps.
| |
| * ''But how on earth should I have known that you or The Rooster are the masters of this domain?''
| |
| :You don't. So that's why I have to make myself clear here. There is no other way to do that except telling you outright. And some way or another you'll think that I'm a jerk wanting to bash new editor's head. Trust me, I'm not.
| |
| :Anyway, me and The Rooster are few of the Wiki editors who are concern with style. In fact, the first time we met we were in edit war with each other (or edit-skirmish, according to The Rooster's words.) In the end we try to work a common solution. Now I'm supporting him in his [[EMR]] project. And now I'm hoping that you and I can turn our clash into something productive.
| |
| * ''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''
| |
| :[[MPM]] has been in use since 2006. And [[MPM Status Map]] was created in 2008 by The Rooster. So I believe it is known well enough. Besides, using MPM is more consistent with other abbreviations such as RP and EP.
| |
| * ''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.''
| |
| :Oh, trust me, I '''DO''' looked closely. I carefully compare between your edits and previous edits. And I didn't roll back anything by reverting; I did it all by hands to make sure nothing new was reverted by accident.
| |
| :As for FD, PD, etc. that was said, those weren't aimed directly at you (although I saw you added "NT" and "mast" tags, which aren't really necessary.) They are examples of how tagging can really get out of hand fast. See [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Greentown&diff=prev&oldid=1438579#Barricade_Policy this edit] to see what I mean. Sorry if I made you think that I was criticizing you for what you haven't done. I didn't mean to do that.
| |
| :Even with all the unnecessary tags removed, I still think there are too many tags left. But I didn't remove them because A) Schools, Auto Repairs, Factories, etc. are mentioned in the legend, so I think they're important enough to stay. And '''B) I don't want to upset things that were done before too much, especially on a suburb I never visit'''. See the pattern here?
| |
| *''(RP) 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.''
| |
| :True, some maps use RP, some don't (haven't seen one, though), and some use more tags. But the fact still stands, RP tag is the most used tag. And it's the tag that matter the most. As for dashes, I believe most maps don't put them in, besides, inserting dashes cause side effect (which I will show you later.)
| |
| :I didn't talk about bulletin board icons because you didn't add or edit them in anyway. Besides, I'm not sure people still write and read those boards. In fact, I completely forgot about it (and I'm sure many do.) If any suburb want to have their own bulletin board icons, that's fine by me.
| |
| :As for the lack of de facto standard, I believe the standard that is used the most by the people is de facto. Isn't that what de facto mean? '''"Something generally accepted or agreed to without any formal decision in its favor"''' What the Wiki lacks is ''De Jure'' - written or formal - 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 don't see how RP tags on dark background are harder to see. And nobody seems to have that problem either. If it it is hard to see then it would be fixed (by bolding or other means) a long time ago. But no map that I have come across has been that way. So you're trying to fix something that wasn't a problem, '''across all 100 suburb maps'''. Don't you think this should be reconsidered?
| |
| :In fact, blue letter links on the dark background are even harder to look at than black tags because they tend to sink in rather than stand out. By bolding the black tags, you managed to make the location names '''less noticeable''' than their tags. And as I said earlier, subtitles shouldn't be more visible than titles.
| |
| :As for dashes, I don't think most maps use them. If you try to add them in then you have a lot of work ahead of you. It's easier to remove existing dashes from maps that have them, or just leave them that way since they don't make much differences either way.
| |
| :However, sometimes adding dashes becomes a problem, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Rolt_Heights&diff=1478486&oldid=1463620#Suburb_Map like this]. Look at Dunsdon Lane, the dashes were stretching the cell, and its column, unnecessarily. Combined with the already existing billboard icon, the cell looked really cluttered.
| |
| *''OK, I'll try to be constructive instead of a jerk: my suggestion is to come up with a reasonable consensus''
| |
| :I don't think it would really work. Very few people are interested in the styling changes. There may be me, The Rooster, and a few others, and that's it. But as I said, the styling is in use consistenly for a long time and nobody seems to have any problem. You either have to fix all maps or leave them as they are. Why bother doing huge amount of work just fixing little things that weren't need to be fixed in the first place?
| |
| *''If you value the contributions of others -- including mine -- then I would ask that you to back off the attack and the orders. ...your attitude is coming really close to making me walk away from doing anything on this wiki at all.''
| |
| :Well, I '''DO''' value your contributions on categorizing the Building Danger Level, and I know you put a lot of work into improving the Wiki. But if something isn't preferable, then I've to fix it and tell you about it. I know it's hard when you have good intentions yet criticized for what you've done - I, and most of us, have been through this before.
| |
| :But you should also know that when you're new, and you make sweeping, radical changes across the Wiki, which is a community property, you're going to upset things or people up. As I said again and again, these styles, while maybe not perfectly unified, are quite consistent and in use for a long time. They have been accepted by almost everyone. I don't mean that they are written in stone and cannot be changed (they're written in Wiki after all), but changes should be done very carefully. Perhaps asking people who have been there for a while is a good idea.
| |
| :And I want to make myself clear here; I made no personal attack on you in my previous comment, at least not intentional. I also don't think I ordered you to do anything either. I was merely giving suggestions. And when I had to ask, I try to do as politely as possible by saying a few "Please" along the comment. If there was something that I did wrong then I'm guilty of being blunt. That being said, I might be a little bit grumpy that I had to trace back your edits, from those hundreds you made in a few days, and fix them, but no harm were meant towards you.
| |
| :Don't be discouraged to contribute - just be more careful. Try joining the [[Community Portal]] or [[Project Welcome]]. There are veterans Wiki editors who're willing to help you in your quest to improve the Wiki. Also, they're a lot more tolerant than me, and not as blunt.
| |
| '''P.S.''' I see the problem with [[Crowbank]]. With the barricade plan in place since 2008 there is no need to label each building with barricade levels anymore. I'll fix it later. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 22:45, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''P.P.S.''' I also see that you're creating a lot of building danger reports during the last few days. There's nothing wrong is that, I suppose. And in a perfect Wiki, all buildings, or at least important ones, should have their own danger reports. However, there are reasons why most buildings don't have theirs - lack of interest and lack of importance. Buildings that have danger reports updated constantly are important, most visited, buildings. If a building doesn't have its report before, that means nobody cares about it enough to add a report for it. And it is likely that when it finally has one, nobody will care enough to update it anyway. An obsolete report is a useless report. So you may want to keep that in mind before adding your next batches of reports. -- [[User:Kittithaj|Kittithaj]] 23:23, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :You know, I was creating a response to your previous lessons when I got the message there were more. Apparently you have already found a bright line delineating what is useful and good and proper on this wiki. And you'd rather tell folks what they are doing is wrong and/or useless long before you ask "I wonder what he has in mind"?
| |
| | |
| :What I see is a system that doesn't provide enough information. The BICs tell that status of critical buildings, but don't relate them spatially, while the suburb maps show position information but don't tell which buildings are problematic, or even which ones need scouting for updated DRs.
| |
| | |
| :If you've seen all those DRs, you might have noticed that the overwhelming numbers were, first, hospitals, then PDs -- both of which should be almost completely covered. The remaining categories I've added only as my characters stumble over them, and still focus on resource buildings. (Take a look at [[:Category:Hospital Danger Levels]] versus [[:Category:Auto Repair Danger Levels]]) and you should notice the focus).
| |
| | |
| :''And if you'd asked'', I would have pointed to what I was doing in my [[User:Lariat2301/SandBox#Testing_multiple_experimental_boxes|SandBox]] regarding trying to figure out how [User:The Rooster|The Rooster] build the templates that graphically depicted the status of NT buildings. Goal: create a template that will depict the status of critical resource buildings as a minimap. If users see this combined information as more useful, they might come to depend on them as well as see the need for updating DRs more regularly. Right now the value of the DRs is obscured by the difficulty of relating them to one another, and only a small number of folks see beyond that.
| |
| | |
| :So, now that you have an idea of what I'm pondering, I'm sure you have plenty of reasons why it is irrelevant, wrong, misguided, non-standard, and probably a few more critical attributes I've missed. You seem to be very good at seeing the downside.
| |
| | |
| :If I seem bitter -- well, I am. I've somehow acquired my own personal babysitter who has the time and inclination to find fault with much of what I'm doing. I'm reluctant to put any effort into this wiki at this point, if all my work gets a '''''"There's nothing wrong in that, I suppose."''''' --[[User:Lariat2301|Lariat2301]] 23:59, 11 June 2009 (BST)
| |
