Help Desk

Need help figuring out how to use / follow / get the most out of the new advert guidelines? Post here!
Previous discussions? Look in the archives(2 3)!
Try reading this guide for a quicker result!

Recruitment Ad

Hey, I've been trying to put my recruitment ad up, but DDR took it down because it wasn't in the guidelines. Its the same one we used for years, so what make it unusable now, as far as formatting go, so that I may condense or fix it so I my put it back up? Sorry. I just don't know what's wrong with it. I thought it followed all Recruit Ad guidelines. -- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 04:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Jerrel : you placed the whole code of your 82nd_Airborne_Division/recruit page onto the main recruitment page, instead of linking to it in the way that you're supposed to. Maybe check the code for the recruitment page here and you should be able to work it out (click on edit and see how other groups have added theirs.) It's also shown in the 'format for posting adverts' section at the top of the page, in the blue box. -- Xyu888 1 July 2015 07:28 (BST)

I have to link it? like a link to it wont post the whole recruitment advert though.-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

question

how do i join a group do thay meet you i need help on the game am a newbie—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jose (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Basically, just contact the group via their wiki page and they should be happy to give you further instructions. Most of the time you'll travel to their location within the game if you're interested in joining the group, since most of the groups are local to a specific region or suburb of the game. For the nomadic groups, they'll give you information on where to meet them at the moment. In the meantime, you should be fine to survive in the game as a newbie for as long as you need to. I started off alone in the game with all of my characters for at least their first few weeks, and had no issues making due. —Aich on— 03:17, 10 April 2010 (BST)

Aesthetics

Looking over the big ol' block of text at the start of the category, I get the feeling that improperly-formatted ads crop up so often due to the imposing nature of so much rules text. I'll probably knock up a more user-friendly approach to the rules tonight, provided I'm not shouted down. Anyone else feel this page could do with a sprucing up? 14:10, 2 April 2010 (BST)

Yep, spruce the shit out of it. It's ugly. -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 16:19, 2 April 2010 (BST)

Agreed. It's extremely imposing for newbies and throws them for a loop (or else puts them off entirely) quite often. If we can provide just a simple block of text to copy/paste here, some simple instructions for what to do on their template recruit page, and a few other guidelines for what is allowed in terms of height/width, etc., then we'll be good. Right now though, it's monstrous. —Aich on— 22:47, 2 April 2010 (BST)

While you're at it, move the contents list lower. Makes it more readable. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 22:49, 2 April 2010 (BST)

How does that look? I tried using the colour progression from my previous rehash of the SugHead template, though I think the bottom one is a little off. I might try it with all of the contents of the recruitment page as well, see how it stacks with the table of contents.

01:12, 3 April 2010 (BST)

The color progression is fine, but the text needs cleaning up (looks like you just copied what we had, which gives us a good starting place, but it still needs work). For instance, in the second box, all of the italicized stuff should go (you wouldn't believe how much it confuses newbies), and it really should be just a block of code that they can copy/paste and swap out a few keywords for. The third block of text needs cleaning up as well, in terms of what all it says. Right now, it's too wordy and too "wall o' text". If we could condense it down, that'd be nice. As for the fourth box, I really don't like the phrasing that some of it uses (e.g. "as a rough guideline"). Make it a concrete statement or else don't have it at all.

As far as the changes you made though, I like them. And in response to Ross, I'd keep the TOC where it is. Bumping it down would bump into some ads and would also detract from the point of the page by making the entire top part being about the rules of the place. I'm almost tempted to suggest we pull the guidelines out to a separate page where we provide full instructions. —Aich on— 05:09, 3 April 2010 (BST)

Condensed.

20:34, 3 April 2010 (BST)

You mind if I tweak a few things with it? I really like the way it's looking, but there are a few grammar/typo issues, as well as some other stuff I'd shift around a bit (e.g. the info about categories needs to mention <noinclude> and should probably be in its own code box as well; I have some ideas for how it could be done). —Aich on— 22:10, 3 April 2010 (BST)

Sure, work away. Don't you be stealing my European vowels though!

22:12, 3 April 2010 (BST)

Actually, as I started working on it, I realized I had a lot of ideas for changes, some of which kinda contradict what I was saying earlier, in fact, so I'm setting it up in my own Sandbox and should have an example up in a bit. It's a bit longer than what you have, but gives them a step-by-step set of instructions broken down similarly to how you did it...kinda. —Aich on— 02:40, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Make it pretty.

02:42, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Here. It's not any prettier than yours, but I tried to give comprehensive instructions while making them approachable and clear. A few issues I saw people having before were confusing what code goes where and forgetting to put the categories on their recruit page. By providing a clear delineation between the instructions that apply to the recruit page and those that apply to the Recruitment page, I'm hoping we won't have as many mistakes of that sort. It's definitely longer than your idea, Mis, but I'm hoping it makes up for it by having instructions that are spelled out a bit more (especially when it comes to the categories). Thoughts? Parts that can be cut? Bad ideas? —Aich on— 05:49, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Few spelling mistakes is all, otherwise perfect.

05:54, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Feel free to correct my "mistakes" if you'd like. :P I didn't see any American English spelling mistakes, nor did my spell-checker alert me to any as I was typing it up, but if there are any, or if you just want to add the extra vowels you folks use, feel free to do so. I've got no problems with that. Before we go changing things, any other opinions from the peanut gallery? —Aich on— 06:41, 4 April 2010 (BST)

Yeah, Aichon, that looks good. - Goribus 04:12, 15 April 2010 (BST)

Magic Words for timestamps

I just now noticed that a few groups were using the {{CURRENTMONTH}}, {{CURRENTDAY}}, and {{CURRENTTIME}} magic words in their templates so that they could circumvent having to update their timestamp. The rules for the page say no included templates, but the magic words are not technically templates, yet they still are handled like an inclusion and require processing by the server. Plus, they clearly circumvent the spirit of the guidelines by allowing the ads to be posted ad infinitum, even if the groups go bust. I was thinking it might be prudent to contact the groups and ask that they update by hand instead. Thoughts? —Aich on— 09:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wipe their ads, and tell them to re-add them without the magic words. As you tell them, they're templates in all but name, and are a pretty blatant circumvention of the guidelines. Linkthewindow Talk 10:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Awwwwww. :(

22:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Pull 'em. --Papa Johnny 22:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Since all three of the groups are updated by wiki regulars, I'll be nice and get in contact with them and give 'em a week to change them, rather than deleting them outright with no notice. Misanthropy, consider this me contacting you. :P —Aich on— 03:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Consider it changed as of several hours ago. :P

03:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You people suck. Moreover, this is in breach of no rules and I maintain that we have every right to use this method.

Format for Posting Adverts:
It is the group’s responsibility to update the timestamp to prevent the advert being deleted. Updating the timestamp may and should be done at any time while the group is still recruiting.

We're still recruiting and will be recruiting until such time as we or (more likely) the game are no longer around. I instituted this update method because I didn't want to have to make some bullshit form-stamping edit every so often for absolutely no useful reason. The timestamp is being updated, why should you care what method we use? Answer: You shouldn't.

Format for Advert Content:
No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons.

The "technical reasons" alluded to would be the template inclusion limit. The variables used are not expensive and are subject to no such limit, thus this does not apply. Nice try though. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 08:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps not in the spirit of the rules, I see no harm in the use of the magic words as long as the group is still active. A messege on the group's talk page (similar to the current Recruitment page warnings) every 3 months I think wouldn't be too much hassle. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree Revenant, you lack a timestamp entirely. Displaying the current time and date in no way replicates the function of a timestamp, which is used to record specific dates. Further, if we're going to play "abuse the wording" I would argue you don't meet this part either: It is the group’s responsibility to update the timestamp... since it's automated and requires no edits by the group. --

Rooster Dragon

17:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Bumping this topic for re-discussion, since two groups are still using it (looking at you again, Rev). My opinion hasn't changed. I think it breaks the spirit of the rules, and Rooster's point is very valid as well. —Aich on— 10:47, 12 August 2010 (BST)

Splitting up Recruitment

At the moment, Recruitment is so big it's unwieldy. It takes close to twenty seconds to load on my 1.5mbs broadband, and it would be unfair to assume that everyone has this internet. Also, with groups spread across different letters of the alphabet, it's difficult to find a group for a particular type of character.

I'm proposing that we turn this page into a disambig for three new pages:

Rules, etc, will remain on the main Category:Recruitment page. A reminder will be on all of it's subpages to check the rules.

This should make load times a bit more reasonable and make it easier for new players to find a group. Also, thanks to SA for providing the motivation to write this post :D. Linkthewindow Talk 10:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. But I'd propose that death cult-type groups go in both Zombie Groups and PKer Groups.

13:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Letting them double up is effectively extra/unfair advertising. We need to set up the disambig pages so that it's clear which one each group should fall under. —Aich on— 22:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It used to be like this! I didn't like it when it was changed to the current mess and definitely support changing it back :D --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Better. Do eet. Do eet naow. -- Rahrah doesn't remember the age of blinking text. 17:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

As Aichon. Most death-cultists seek out life on purpose so much they're pretty much the same as "ordinary" PKers anyway.--

Thadeous Oakley

18:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Vouch - :D --Haliman - Talk 17:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Going off what I was saying earlier, I'd just make it "Survivor", "Zombie", and "Other", and define the first two as groups who fight for and exist almost always as that side (e.g. traditional survivor and zombie groups, while death cultists are out, since they play as humans sometimes but fight for zombies). The third category would be for everyone else, such as PKers, death cultists, life cultists, dual nature, etc. I think that would fall in line with most people's expectations better, and it should deal with almost all of the fringe cases. —Aich on— 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

For On the condition that Aichon's idea is what happens.-- Adward 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Not actually a voting section, oh ze whoomanneeteee, get zis up for voting -- Adward 18:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting on mundane stuff like this is stupid. I've never seen the point for pages like this, Suggestions, etc. Consensus is a much better system.

That said, Aichon's idea is much better then mine. Linkthewindow Talk 05:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What he said. -- Rahrah doesn't remember the age of blinking text. 18:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

What about dual nature groups? Zombie groups that also pk when alive? Groups that claim to be survivors but PK (Like The Barrciade Enforcement Patrol?) We have 31 adverts. Thats not a huge amount. Why make the system more confusing for newbs? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 20:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Groups that claim to be survivors but pk will be allowed to list themselves as survivor groups - we don't need the unnecessary drama. 31 ads is still a massive scroll bar, and I don't see how changing this will make it too more confusing. I'm assuming a noob knows that a "survivor group" is. Linkthewindow Talk 05:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep <Is this how we should vote? I agree with the idea, as it will better organize the recruitment page. My reccomendation, add an Other page or separately add the PKer-zombie, Zker, and so on. An other page would be nice.--Supercohboy 15:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep Change PKer to Other. If you are a survivor or zombie it is obvious where to look and if you play a PKer/ZKer/Dual-Nature/whatever then you can take the time to look through Other as there are less of those kinds of groups.--Zakarus 20:50 16 February 2012
Nice work coming 2 years too late to the party D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

hELP REINSTATING?

Hi,

Just wanted to put the DK13 advertisement baqck in place now that i have internet again :) Can someone please help me? Im sure last time i edited the page i got a slapped wrist, so if someone could put the advert i8n place for me, i can just keep it updated!

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DELTA_KILO_ONE_THREE/recruit

Thanks guys!!! --T13 01:53, 31 March 2010 (BST)

If you can add a signature to your recruit page, I'll go ahead and post it for you. Just edit the page you linked and add in your signature there. I'd prefer not to post an ad that doesn't have a signature at all, even if you have plans to fix it later. —Aich on— 04:28, 31 March 2010 (BST)

Thankyou Aichon!!! I presume by signature you meant timestamp? So i put one in :) I will check back here later this evening, see if the advert is in place, and then presumably delete this series of posts? Cheers! --T13 19:21, 31 March 2010 (BST)

Common Sense

Just wondering why there isn't a rule in place that lets us keep groups in the top ten active on the list without being based on a timestamp. Just seems like common sense that we shouldn't be deleting groups like DEM or ACC(which was just done) from here just because they have a smaller wiki presence than groups like the RRF, especially since groups like ACC who have been around for a very long time should be being given the benefit of the doubt about activity since people would notice their absence. Then again this page is pretty outdated anyway since stats page links now go directly to the wiki pages for those groups, might as well just delete the whole thing altogether. --Karek^maps?! 20:10, 27 March 2011 (BST)

I'm curious to see a response to this since it's kinda a big deal. This is me bumping it back into people's watchlists. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:20, 13 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not a fan of one set of rules for one group and another set of rules for others. I'm not sure I'd be behind deleting it, either since not all active groups are on the stats page. There's probably groups with only 9 members that would be excluded from stats but still would like to recruit via wiki. Category:Recruitment may not be the best way to recruit but its pretty established and newbies do in fact look at it. ~

_{14:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)}

Good arguments for either way IMO. On one hand it makes sense because being that big implies that the group is still active. However, they might not be having a large recruitment drive compared to other groups so giving them a benefit other groups don't isn't so great IMO, especially when it's the smaller groups who need recruitments more. If this were to go to a vote though, I'd probably vote for it though, unless I get convinced otherwise from here on in. -- ϑ^anceϑ^ance ℜ^evolution 14:35, 13 May 2011 (BST)

I'm not sure it's really understandable to say that a group with 60+ members for over five years isn't actively recruiting or active. That's the only way those groups can maintain those numbers. Take a group like MOB for example, that horde roughly changes all active non-leader member ship about once a year because if they weren't recruiting at that rate they'd largely be an idled out group. The standard rate of laying down in this game, or any for that matter, is enough that to maintain any group size over about 30 core members this has to be the case. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:51, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Also to note, we already do have a seperate rule for one type of group over another.

“	Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one advert. This includes groups such as the DHPD and the DEM, they may use their advert to direct players to the separate sub-groups.	”
—Category:Recruitment

Which is funny because I thought the consensus had been to remove this rule in place of something more general. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:18, 13 May 2011 (BST)

Current page is broken?

I thought for a second my advert had somehow done it, but I undid my change and it was still broken... I am no wiki expert. Can someone please fix it? Apologies if it was somehow my fault (like I said, I undid my change and it looked already broken...) --Lieutenant Tux 20:58, 2 June 2011 (BST)

It's not your fault, it's this ad. I'm trying to find what's wrong with it now. I blame Aichon, it's a mangling of a page of his.

21:16, 2 June 2011 (BST)

Ok thought it was the SoC ad. Glad to know I can stop barking up the wrong tree and someone else has eyes on it. ~

_{21:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)}

I accept no responsibility for misuse of my code without my consultation. >_> I wasn't even aware they had done that until I read this. —Aich on— 22:23, 25 July 2011 (BST)

AZDC ad

Why is this ad creating a separate 2nd level heading? I looked at the ad and the page code but I can't figure out why it's creating the "2.2 ANTI-ZOMBIE / DEATH CULTISTS" line in the page summary. --Uroguy^TMZ 20:12, 15 April 2012 (BST)

It's something in the AZDC ad's page code. Does it matter? It's not breaking the page or anything. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:24, 15 April 2012 (BST)

Nevermind, I'm blind. It's because the AZDC ad is using a header. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:33, 15 April 2012 (BST)

Yeah it has a subheader. Just checked and its not allowed. I'm a member of said group so will fix the subheader issue. I think it was for stylistic purposes more than anything. ~

_{20:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)}

I swapped the header codes for big and underline codes for a similar effect. It shouldn't screw up the Recruitment page now. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 20:39, 15 April 2012 (BST)

That's fine. ~

_{20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)}

Need a clarification

The rules says, "No templates are allowed in your advert for technical reasons. Before you put up the advert, use subst to replace any template calls with the template's code." Can I get a clarification on that, please? When we say template, is this every single thing in the brackets, or are such things such as Template:Lgradient and other utility templates excluded and "Templates" here means something like Template:DramaLlama? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:02, 25 May 2012 (BST)

There are no exclusions for "utility" templates. A template is a template, and that rule is in place for technical reasons, so it draws no distinction based on the purpose of the template. —Aich on— 22:31, 25 May 2012 (BST)

I really don't know...'cause the RRF's ad is using utility templates as well...They're using Template:c. That's why I'm pretty confused about this template stuff. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:36, 25 May 2012 (BST)

800x600

Out of complete curiosity, I adjusted my PC's display settings to 800x600, and adjusted my browser to view things in full screen (without that Status Bar in the bottom of the browser or the URL and Bookmarks tabs and stuff on the top of the browser), and, well... state two things.

"When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, as a rough guideline your advert should not exceed 800px in height."
"When viewed on an 800*600 resolution, your advert should not cause a horizontal scrollbar to appear."

Now here's the funny part...Almost every single ad on this page right now do not meet the standards. Here are the groups not in accordance with the rules:

That is 15 out of 25 total groups on this page that does not meet the standards laid out in the rules. Rules are rules, and I'm quite reluctant to remove all of these...What should we do? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 23:41, 25 May 2012 (BST)

What the rule means is not to have a fixed width and/or height beyond 600/800px, whether by tables or by images. -- Spiderzed █ 23:53, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Neither of the items you cited are rules. The words "as a rough guideline" and "should" mean it's a guideline indicating best practice, not a rule. Most of the things up there are rules, but you picked out the two that weren't. So long as you make a good faith effort to not abuse the guidelines in an unscrupulous way (e.g. posting an obscenely tall ad), there isn't a problem. —Aich on— 00:05, 26 May 2012 (BST)

It's arguable both ways. One can say they're guidelines, another can claim rules. I think we need to be more clear on this guideline-rules thing. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 00:12, 26 May 2012 (BST)

What can be clearer than it saying "as a rough guideline"? And it's accepted everywhere that when something says "should" is isn't hard-and-fast. It's already clear. —Aich on— 00:28, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Yeha like aichon said, it's generally the case here that if it's a "should" rather than a "must" it's not a rule. Not that I'd be against changing it into one personally? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:00, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Since we've decided that words have actual meanings rather than bullshit wiki interpretation can we fix the historical voting. "Within two weeks of a nomination, the group must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, ..." Ya know, because despite the common opinion on the wiki, within doesn't mean exactly. However, if we insist within means exactly, I see no reason we can't say if within=exactly then should=shall. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 14:52, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Ugh, don't even get me started on Historical voting. But that's a separate issue that would need to be addressed elsewhere. —Aich on— 16:36, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Whatcha mean exactly? Having trouble following the specific problem you have. You think it shouldn't be a voting system? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:02, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Actually OP is right. It was never intended to be subjective or optional. The rule it replaced was likewise, non-optional. Only the height limit is in any way non-restrictive. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:24, 27 May 2012 (BST)

Should is not a restrictive word, it makes a suggestion. As for the previous rule, it's just that, previous. --

_{Org XIII} ^Alts 14:31, 27 May 2012 (BST)

What? yeah, all those examples indicate they are supposed to be rules... At what point did it get changed to should then? Deary me D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:08, 27 May 2012 (BST)

If the majority of the groups have been breaking the "rule" for years without complaint, that's a good indication it's a bad rule and should be replaced with the new de facto rule that has been in place. Rather than arguing what was or wasn't, let's just update what's written and call it a day. —Aich on— 22:33, 27 May 2012 (BST)

What's the most common low resolution these days? 1024×768? Although I try to make sure my pages scale to every resolution (and make complaints about those that do not, as I tend to run my browser windowed), we should really be trying for the lowest/most common denominator. (Mobiles are a special case, but that's why MediaWiki has mobile skins.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:13, 28 May 2012 (BST)

It's a standard internet design policy Aichon, y'all are just too lazy to actually check for functionality around here while enforcing the actually worthless rules and the people creating the articles don't know enough to give a damn. Here's a visual representation of various sizes along with the transmission types for them. 800x600(SVGA) is still the low end standard and will be at least until Win XP, and the Macintosh's go out. At which point it'll probably become 960x5/600 before going to 1024 because of things like the iPhone and Vita, etc that run that minimum aspect ratio. 1024 is the current generation set for Laptops and Netbooks, these standard exist to provide for last generational support.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:32, 28 May 2012 (BST)

I know the standard. It's about why this is considered a guide and not a rule. It has little to do with the actual... "rule" at hand (assuming it should have been one the whole time). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:38, 28 May 2012 (BST)

You nailed me. I'm lazy. It's by chance that the barricade plans have color-blind friendly colors, the Click template gracefully degrades, and my group's recruitment ad was tweaked before your comment to be friendlier at lower resolutions. Everyone else thought I was putting in extra effort and cared about this stuff, but I sure fooled them. :P

Now, if you're willing to entertain the idea that I might have some awareness of common knowledge (in my line of work, no less), could you kindly re-read my last comment again? I wasn't speaking out of ignorance, and your post doesn't seem to provide a response to the things I said. —Aich on— 06:50, 28 May 2012 (BST)

Actually I was mostly referring to the page maintainers who are spending time enforcing rules that don't actually matter to the usefulness of the page over rules like this one that does. Also previously that this was actually a de facto rule. I glossed over that because I assumed that debate was settled with the previous links to that effect, only the height(600px) should be being subjectively enforced and, actually, there's an easier way to do that here through CSS since we could just tie the whole thing to a restricted width of 800 px(less if you include the wiki-margins). So, why don't we just do that and call it a day? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:16, 28 May 2012 (BST)

No issue here. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:40, 28 May 2012 (BST)

I'm fine with slapping everything into an 800-ish pixel wide div, since I'd imagine, though I haven't checked, that most of the offending ads are likely designed with that in mind anyway. It's only when you add the navigation bar that they run into issues. That was certainly the case with the SoC's ad. —Aich on— 21:53, 28 May 2012 (BST)

I shrunk my browser window to probably a 600px width and only a few ads stretched it. The RRF, Reddit survivor, and the Fortress have their ad set at 800px. Malton Department of Defense has theirs locked in at 760px, Soldiers of Crossman at 705px and Annus Horribilus at 665px. All the other ads seemed to shrink perfectly fine. I would say with that in mind putting a div in is unneeded. Most ads look better on a larger window and as long as everything will compress down to 800px a div is redundant and just makes things look worse for those with larger resolutions. 21:49, 31 May 2012 (BST)

Maybe there's a way to put them in a div that grows and shrinks with the page, but which uses the overflow:hidden CSS property to hide any content that would have caused horizontal scrollbars? That way people with larger screens are happy, and people with smaller screens don't get scrollbars, though they do get cut off ads. Doing so would provide some motivation to the creators of those ads to make sure they worked at smaller sizes. Not sure if that's really any better than what we have now, however. —Aich on— 21:59, 31 May 2012 (BST)

You mean something like, <div style="width:(number)%; min-width:700px; overflow-x:hidden;">? I have that, or something close to it, used on my userpage where you can scroll down to see more templates. Although the width is fixed in that example. 03:21, 1 June 2012 (BST)

There's not and all that would do is make it so that the page is never smaller than 700px. All the proposed secondary idea would functionally do is nothing since non-overflow limited width ends up taking the last assigned element as the value instead of inheriting a value. Max-width:800px + overflow-x:hidden is the only universal way to enforce this rule 100%, and even that won't count margins, borders, or padding in it's element(which is probably the issue with the ad's in question). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:14, 1 June 2012 (BST)

So, all we've effectively done is make everyone with better resolutions have a worse experience while doing nothing to fix the actual problem of people at 800x600 since they still have to scroll because of the nav bar. I'm as much to blame as everyone else, since I said I didn't have a problem with it. Now I'm reconsidering my stance. Mazu's idea has all of the benefits we were wanting: it discourages bad behavior by cutting off large ads, it allows users with better resolutions to enjoy the benefits thereof, and it allows us to lock in a min-width so that ads that abide by convention aren't harmed. It doesn't prevent scrollbars (neither does the current fixed-width solution as it's currently implemented), but it does ensure that there is no visible content whatsoever there that they might be missing. I think that's a good compromise all around from what we had before and what we have at the moment. —Aich on— 07:59, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Sorry but you're wrong. The edit you just undid did actually prevented scroll bars on anything over 800px wide in that portion of the page. Your edit now forces a minimum page width with no other effect than to have an x-overflow prevention that does nothing now. Basically you've made the problem worse not better. My version was both tested and verified before implementation on a lowered resolutions. As is no content should be over 800px in that portion of the page per rules so any scroll bars it didn't cause, due to cutting the overflow, shouldn't have been there in the first place. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:17, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Also width:100% isn't a useful style in any way. It's default functionality, adds literally nothing other than code. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:19, 3 June 2012 (BST)

You are correct on most points, but incorrect on one or two. Unless we come up with a better solution, however, this is all going to be about choosing compromises. The 800px fixed width didn't account for the vertical navigation bar and margins, so it still forced horizontal scrollbars and clipped content at 800x600 (621 doesn't account for vertical scrollbars, to be fair, so even it should be knocked down another 10-15px). Granted, we could have knocked it down, but at that point we're ruining the page for the 99.9% of our users with resolutions higher than 800x600. Mazu's solution forces horizontal scrollbars, but no clipped content, meaning that they need never use the scrollbars. The min-width does have a purpose: it prevents ads that abide by the guidelines from being clipped if the window becomes too small; only those ads that try to use more than the allotted width will find themselves being clipped. As for 100%, you're right. Brain fart on my part. Late night editing FTL. —Aich on— 15:02, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Min-Width under screen width on a div that's 80% screen width has no effect. Min-width is for use with small content divs with adjustable width, etc. It's literally worthless when it's less than Max-width here. Also Mazu's code and mine use the same code to clip except his doesn't actually do anything since it clips at 100% width and uses min-width to make a portion of the page that's always over 700px be always over 700px. Literally all that can does is ruin scalability on Mobile Platforms, which is why it's always bad design to use fixed min-widths. Also on most all modern and current browsers x-overflow:hidden clips the content before it could add scroll bars so if they're appearing your browser is not CSS2.0 compliant. You'll only run into scrollbars if you're re-sizing your window manually, not actually changing resolution. If issue is that the whole page including headers was tied to that 800px that's an easy fix without reversion overkill, just put it subheader in each recruitment alphabetical section. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:09, 4 June 2012 (BST)

I don't quite follow where the 80% stuff came form, but min-width serves a purpose here. Shrink your browser below 800x600 and you'll see that it keeps the ads from getting cut off any further. I also just tweaked it to work properly at 800x600, since before I failed to account for vertical scrollbars and UI chrome. Anyway, your last comment and your edit note have me convinced that we're simply not on the same wavelength, whereas I'd like to be working together coherently. I'll follow up below in a new section. —Aich on— 18:26, 4 June 2012 (BST)

Quick note: my issue was not that the headings were also at 800px wide. My issue was that we were effectively wasting space for users at higher resolutions, forcing them to scroll vertically unnecessarily. Also, yes, this is a reversal on one of my earlier stances. Anyway, follow up discussion below. I just wanted to clarify what my issue was. —Aich on— 18:32, 4 June 2012 (BST)

Ok, I'm not seeing in what way this would effect vertical scrolling at all. It also shouldn't have an impact on adjusted browser size since that doesn't actually impact pixels used in a div, if you have a small browser window you have a horizontal scroll because the div space you have is less than 800px, probably due to the left hand margin on the wiki. The 20% is a rough estimate of the left hand margin size. It's probably fixed width actually. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:41, 7 June 2012 (BST)

By using a fixed-width div, we were making the ads taller for people with higher resolutions (i.e. most of our users) while creating unused whitespace to the side(s) of the ads. That's what I meant about wasted space and extra vertical scrolling. As for everything else, could we follow up below? I think the two of us got hung up on details, and I'd like to get back to the big picture. —Aich on— 20:26, 7 June 2012 (BST)

Anybody else experiencing the sidebar disappearing to the bottom of the page because of this edit? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 22:34, 2 June 2012 (BST)

It means there's an unclosed div somewhere in the page. Probably in one of the templates. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:25, 3 June 2012 (BST)

New_Roman_Republic/recruit had embedded unclosed tables. Should be fixed now. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 02:35, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Ack. Could we at least center it? Might not be as bad then.. 03:19, 3 June 2012 (BST)

Center what now? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:09, 4 June 2012 (BST)

He was talking about with your solution. It was left-aligned. —Aich on— 18:26, 4 June 2012 (BST)

Goals and Solutions Discussion

I think we need to back up and get on the same page as far as what we're striving for, then figure out where to go from there. Here are the goals I'm currently hoping to achieve:

Don't force horizontal scrollbars at 800x600 or greater resolutions
Ensure that ads which follow the guidelines do not get clipped at any resolution (e.g. 640x480, other mobile resolutions, etc.)
Allow ads to use the full width when the resolution is over 800x600

I see #1 as a requirement and #2 and #3 as being good things to have (#3 in particular, since it applies to the vast majority of our users). Do we all agree on these points? If not, how should these points be expanded, reduced, reworded, or rethought? Near as I can tell, the current implementation (min-width:598px; overflow:hidden) seems to fulfill all three, which leads me to think that I'm not on the same page with everyone else regarding what we want out of this. —Aich on— 18:26, 4 June 2012 (BST)

Just make it so any Ad with a fixed width either by property or image is under a certain width so it wont force horizontal scroll bars on the 800x600 resolution. My understanding is that the 800px width includes all screen elements, nav bar, scroll bars, etc. Have this accounted for, as it seems Aichon has done. In that fashion higher resolutions don't see any negative aesthetics but lower resolutions are accommodated. Lastly revise the directives, orders, acts, laws, statutes, edicts, canons, mandates, commands, dictate, decrees, fiats, injunctions, commandments, stipulations, requirements, guidelines, directions, ordinances, et. al any other synonyms I missed... accordingly.

Clarification/TL:DR- I'm suggesting a plain and simple rule change saying your Ad can not have a fixed width, by image or property, that is above (600?) pixels. 02:50, 6 June 2012 (BST)

I'm pretty sure the only reason the rule exists in the first place is so that people don't use giant page consuming images in their ads. I doubt seriously screen resolution has anything to do with it at all. It was just a bad attempt to make the guideline make sense to the layman. Oh and you're all mentally retarded. ~

_{03:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)}

How is throwing down a screen resolution more in layman's terms than giving a simple width value? 01:56, 7 June 2012 (BST)

Operative words: bad attempt. ~

_{02:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)}

The previously linked conversations show you're wrong. Oh so wrong. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:41, 7 June 2012 (BST)

What if, rather than mixing rules and suggestions, we break it into rules that must be followed and a different section which gives guidelines/suggestions. And if the main goal or side goal or whatever is stopping massive ads, really there should be a maximum ad height rule. --

_{Org XIII} ^Alts 22:49, 6 June 2012 (BST)

Spicer Hills Rangers

I got no idea what they've done but they have two listings and neither looks like it's done right. Can someone fix that? I got no clue how the recruitment page works. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:00, 11 October 2012 (BST)

Done a quick bodge job. Should look better at least. --Ross Less Ness ^{Enter Stranger...} 23:10, 11 October 2012 (BST)

scroll bar

Might just be me, but I get an internal scroll bar for just the group listings (the scroll bar stops before the text listing of groups, it's just for the adverts. I'm using (probably) the latest firefox. Should that be there? --_K 21:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be something specific to you. I'm not seeing it in a (relatively) clean copy of the latest version of Firefox, nor am I seeing it in Chrome. See if disabling add-ons/userscripts affects it? I'd be interested if you can figure out what's causing it, since I've not heard of something like that. —Aich on— 22:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Question

Could we move the formatting instructions to the end of the page, so the groups appear closer to the top? I do notice {{:Recruitment/intro}} includes both the top section (which should stay, about this being where to post ads) and maybe add a line that the formatting help can be found at the bottom of the page. --_K 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, makes sense, Recruitment/intro is open to editing and a new transcluded formatting section can be put at the bottom of the page. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 16:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I probably should have waited for more consensus, but eh. Anyways, I left the original recruit intro alone, so undoing the revision will put everything back. --_K 17:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Just wanna say I endorse this move. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Help with a advert for the Malton Anarchists Union

PLEASE!!! I need help making the Malton Anarchists Union advert. Could you actually help me build it, or at least give me pointers? Thanks!--Anarchist115 (talk) 07:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Recruitment Rules Voting

Timestamps MkII

Groups who show on the game statistics page are to be exempted from having to update the timestamp on their advertisements. They simply link to the stats page on the recruitment page (not inside their own recruitment template), with a timestamp (to indicate how long ago they were confirmed as being active), and as long as they show on the page (by having 10+ members) their ad remains valid regardless of the timestamp's age. This will allows the recruitment page maintainers to independently verify, at any time, that they are still active (and to update the timestamp themselves whenever they do it so others don't have to check for a period). Timestamped ads (as currently used) would still remain valid.
I'll open this for voting if no issues are raised -- boxy 11:22, 13 February 2012 (BST)

I support this for the reason of it's common sense and makes page maintenance easier. Let's see if it's swung back to where it was a few years ago as far as the view of making Recruitment work for the users AND the maintainers. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good enough to me. -- Spiderzed █ 18:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Voting (Timestamps MkII)

For - It means less work for both groups and for maintenance, without allowing defunct recruitment adds to remain -- boxy 08:41, 14 February 2012 (BST)
For Common sense over procedure! --Ross^lessness 09:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
For don't know what i'm voting for, but i doubt if anyone pays attention to timestamps →Son of Sin← 11:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Against If you want a recruitment ad spend the 1 minute to update the timestamp. --Bad Attitude Kirsty _{K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII} 15:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Against takes 1 min, stats page inaccurate when showing actual group activity, etc etc D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 18:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Against - DDR has a point, actually. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 19:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
For -- Spiderzed █ 19:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Against - Aichon's arguments have swayed me. It would increase workload on the janitors for little benefit. -- Spiderzed █ 18:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Against Per above. There's also something backwards about the big groups with plenty of active people no longer having to do the pitiful task that is maintaining a timestamp, while small and new groups, who are in much more dire need to recruit, do. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
For -- This is a stupid rule historically used primarily by people who want to power trip on big groups. The accuracy argument is an excuse, and an inaccurate one at that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:30, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I would counter that at the moment the Malton Police Department is on the stat page but not Red Rum. --Bad Attitude Kirsty _{K.C. R&D d.b.a. Org XIII} 21:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
So the MPD has active members and RedRum has a very small member base. That doesn't change anything, especially not any arguments about accuracy. It doesn't even stop you from removing the recruitment advertisements of stated dead groups. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Red Rum is historically known for, shall we say, creative tagging. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Question : What about prolonging the time required before the timestamp needs updating? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 21:32, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That would just make the recruitment page even worse. The reason for the timestamp is so that all those groups that get created, and then die within weeks don't clutter up the page. The whole timestamp thing is there to get rid of short lived groups so that newbies arn't trying to contact someone who has left the game already. That's why the current system, and this one as well, favours large groups. They are more stable, and reliable, and therefore a better bet when someone is actively looking for a group to join -- boxy 07:28, 15 February 2012 (BST)
I'm not sure if there are very many short-lived groups being added to the page frequently. Most of the edits seem to be updating timestamps or re-adding recruitments. Checking the recent history will show this, and I skimmed it mostly, so I think we can disregard that point now as it's no longer relevant (and the real reason for timestamps is not shunting the little temporary groups, but rather primarily to make sure recruitments are for active groups, which can be of any size). The groups that benefit are those that are active on the wiki, which isn't precisely the same as those that are active in-game, and those who are active in-game don't always comply with stat page group member numbers for whatever reason. I suppose the point to all this is reducing the workload, which is why I offered increasing the time before a timestamp ought to be updated, making the need less frequent, although what I said fails to fix a problem that doesn't matter anyways. This game is becoming less frequented, little here is of much consequence except perhaps encouraging more platers, this recruitment page updating thing is more of a minor annoyance; and I'm going with Thad because, with what is proposed, it is discriminatory against groups for being not on the stats page, although "discriminatory" is too heavy a word here. Against. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 00:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
The reason this isn't that is the same people now claiming it's an inconvenience for small groups were previously claiming it's "very little work" down below even though it was a massive inconvenience at the time and they'd just used it to harass a group right before that vote. This is more or less a status quo is good and I've never been put out by this vote for a number of these same people. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Against - This idea creates more work and spreads it among less people by replacing one type of timestamp with another, shifting the responsibility of updating the timestamps from the people reaping the rewards to a few janitors, and forcing the janitors to individually verify about 2/3 (currently 19/29) of the groups by hand (i.e. extra work that no one currently has to do). It also favors the larger groups, as Thad said, and gives the timestamps inconsistent meanings (some get deleted outright while others need to be checked first, then deleted or updated), leading to mistakes. I'd support something that reduced the net workload, but this isn't it. —Aich on— 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
In what possible way? This idea means that anyone can confirm activity for these groups and mark that they're on the stats page w/ timestamp for last check. The suggestion that it's more work to click the stats page when it's flagged than to click edit and DELETE automatically is fictitious, the assumption that this would cause more work to do one link click than having to repeatedly re-delete these groups(as current) is also kinda bull. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Even though anyone could confirm it, we both know that only two or three people actually will. Also, you should be editing the ad regardless, either to update the timestamp or delete the ad, so having to verify their activity is indeed extra work. As for re-deletes being more work, only three groups on the stats page in the last two months have been deleted then re-added. In contrast, you'd have to verify activity and edit the ad for 19 groups every two months with this new suggestion. Also, see below for why I don't think re-deletes would be going away. —Aich on— 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
No, you wouldn't. You cut off half of the work just by doing this. Yes, I know MOB, DEM, the RRF, and FU are around, I know they will never not be recruiting. I just saved those maintainers some time and the server some process by not requiring they needlessly do a small edit every two months so show us they are still around(something we already know and can check with easily). I just stopped you from having to re-delete them, as all of those groups have had happen for no good justifiable reason other than some false fairness of "if I have to prove I exist you have to prove it twice". Three less edits, less hoops for people maintaining advertisements, don't encourage bad maintenance by claiming that they should be doing less work than verifying the groups existence, it's a shitty excuse. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
This suggestion keeps timestamps on all of the groups. I'm trying to reconcile that with what you just said, which, from what I gather, is that we shouldn't bother updating timestamps for well known groups or using them to decide when to delete their ads. It makes sense on the surface, but if we did that those timestamps would be vestigial text with no purpose. Admittedly, it'd mean less overall edits (but still more for janitors), but I can't imagine you proposing that we put text that we have no intention of using on a page. Help a guy out? —Aich on— 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Personally I think that's where it's at anyway with good maintenance practice(sometimes a rarity in this part of the wiki). However, the time stamp isn't useless, it's just something that serve a useless purpose, which is that it tries to gauge if a group is active and has an interest in recruiting, which all of these groups already do and show through game standard methods. We're needlessly doubling their work with something 90% of the people ignore anyway and for a page that already doesn't show dividends. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. It's obvious we're going to disagree on this suggestion, though I do like that you guys made an effort to do something about this problem (and I definitely agree that it is a problem). Also, I think this page is still valuable. At least with the SoC, probably half of our recruits who mention where they first heard about us cite the wiki. And as I said, I'm in support of decreasing the necessary work involved, but all of the ideas behind this suggestion have tradeoffs I don't like. —Aich on— 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you considered that anyone who regularly patrols the recruitment page would know that they don't have to check quite a few of the groups, because they would know they are still active, and have 10+ members without even looking -- boxy 07:28, 15 February 2012 (BST)
I had not, but that practice encourages the sort of problem Zach just described. If the timestamps aren't being reliably updated, the groups hovering around 10 members (roughly a third of the 19) will be subject to being removed immediately if they just happen to have a day when they dip below 10 members. It definitely would be less work if it were done that way, but I feel the tradeoffs are not worth it. —Aich on— 17:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Groups that hover around 10 members would be much better off using a normal timestamp (as everyone uses now), and there is nothing stopping them from continuing to do so -- boxy 19:39, 15 February 2012 (BST)
Also it'd have to be a week-month at below 10 members so that's a nonstarter anyway. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't matter when a group gets delisted. It matters that they got delisted. —Aich on— 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It does because your claiming it's something that happens left and right, it's not. It's something that takes a very long time to do and there are numerous opportunities to avoid that fate. It's very easy to just get one more person to set their tag for a day.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I never claimed that. And five days, which I believe is the lag with the stats page reporting inactivity, is not "a very long time". Finally, the point is that it's something they may be unaware of that nips them in the bud when they're not checking for a few days, but which is easy to avoid, as you point out. That's a trap. As boxy said, better that they just stick to the old style timestamps. —Aich on— 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it makes sense for them. But that feels odd to me, since it'd be a system that introduces additional risk to groups that fall into that trap. It would also reduce the benefit of this suggestion to only about a dozen groups. —Aich on— 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
What's wrong with that? Those dozen groups are the only ones who have had to keep updating their timestamps year after year after year. But, whatever. The majority have made it clear that they're going to have to keep updating those timestamps until the game dies... and so it shall be -- boxy 07:39, 16 February 2012 (BST)
It still favors the big groups, and reducing it to a dozen just emphasizes that fact. And I long for an alternative solution now that I've stepped out of wiki life and have a different perspective. I just don't think this is the right one. Abolishing the timestamps to make it like Community Projects, increasing the time limit, or allowing longtime advertisers to update less frequently are all ideas I find interesting to consider, but someone would need to actually think through them to figure out what the issues are and whether or not they're workable. Some of those have very obvious issues, but I'd be curious if there are solutions to them. —Aich on— 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Go at it -- boxy 07:49, 17 February 2012 (BST)
Against it's really not that much work. --User:Sexualharrison22:26, 14 February 2012 (bst)
Against Use one set of rules for everyone and don't punish those not yet or no longer on stats. ~ _{00:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)}
Against - Simply because I could see problems arising when groups are still active, but slip off the stats page and don't bother checking.--~ Zach016 ^D.H.H.S. 01:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Against - Thadeous Oakley makes a valid point about the fact that small groups are more affected than larger groups with more people. However, I think the real problem here is that it takes very little effort for the groups, while increasing the necessary effort for the maintenance workers.--Shortround 13:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
For - Hibernaculum 21:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
For - As boxy and Ross. Billy Club Thorton T! RR 02:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Against -- So, for some groups, you are trading in a timestamp for a different timestamp? Asheets 19:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Against -- As V4por. I think this is unfair toward smaller groups. Jesus Sante ^CFT 03:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
For - clean and simple. why not -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 19:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
For - MHSstaff 03:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
For - A reduction in wanky, self-important bureaucracy on the UD Wiki? About time. --Papa Moloch 14:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Timestamps

Lets just remove timestamps for group advertisements. It's better to have maintainers actively contact groups to check on their advertisements anyhow since that's what they should already be doing. Seems best to get rid of the single most needlessly frustrating and generally useless requirement for using this page.

Voting(Timestamps)

Author Vote -- This really doesn't need much discussion, either it'll pass or it won't. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:24, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Against - many groups are barely to completely inactive on the wiki, and so are not easy to get in touch with. Time-stamps are the easiest and most manageable way to check on activity and to keep the page from getting cluttered. We could talk about using longer durations to reduce hassle for less active groups, but the principle should be kept. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed █ 15:42, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Comment - This change allows quicker response times to vanishing groups. If the concern is groups going inactive requiring a set time frame before following up is actually at the expense of the page's usefulness. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:53, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Against - As Spiderzed. Many groups aren't active on the wiki and only come on to update their timestamps, and some who are on the wiki never check their group talk pages.--Yonnua Koponen^{T G}^P ^^^ 16:09, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Against as spidey and yon -- bitch 16:37, 13 May 2011 (utc)
Means no trawling the page for the timestamps that are about to run out. Asking the groups all at once if they are recruiting means the process becomes a bimonthly task, not a constant one. - User:Whitehouse 16:56, 13 May 2011 (BST)
I actually don't see too many problems with removing timestamps that can't be worked around. As long as shiny templates are involved, I can get behind it. ~ _{17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)}
Against-MHSstaff 17:59, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Note - The above was an against that had no comment because someone altered the vote format. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:17, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Against - Keep the bastarding things. Reduce the overall wait time to remove ads, though. 19:26, 13 May 2011 (BST)
Comment - The wait time isn't going to change. Here's why .and the unanimous vote. The purpose of the timestamp has always been to have an activity check to make sure the groups still exist. There are easier ways to do that namely, [www.urbandead.com/stats.html Stats.html] or Talk Pages. This is the approach taken for things like the GSGM and it has proven more reliable and less hostile than timed check-ins on many occasions. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:21, 14 May 2011 (BST)
♪Do it now, because you can and I think you should. ♫ ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:51, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Against - As Mis. —Aich on— 02:37, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Against - no need to fix something not broken... it's not hard to remember to update the timestamp --surfincow ^U 06:34, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Against - Not a good reason to remove timestamps. --Private Mark 23:44, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Against - As Spiderzed. Jesus Sante ^CFT 18:36, 16 May 2011 (BST)
Against - As SurfinCow -- Asheets 19:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Amendment to Page Rules

Given the relatively low traffic of the game overall now compared to its heyday, individuals now seem to spend a lot more time on maintenance and appearance on their groups' wiki sections, including recruitment ads. Couple this with the relatively high rate of groups crashing and burning quickly, and this page is often full of a mix of well-pruned ads for active groups, and dead ads for groups that haven't yet expired for a full two months, but inevitably will. I propose reducing the linger time from two months since the last timestamp down to one month from the last timestamp, before an ad is removed. This will have minimal effect on active groups, due to both their activity keeping the ad alive, and their ability to re-add it if it's removed, due to the fact that, well, they're still active. This will only have a genuine effect on housekeeping as it will allow for the pruning of ads sooner, rather than waiting for them to hit the two-month mark when it's clear they won't be updated. No other inclusion rules will be amended by this, simply the length of time a timestamp will keep an ad on the page for. Just a cursory vote should settle this, there's no need to go to A/PD for it.

So, there's actually no policy or guideline regarding how long these things are up for vote, last I checked (though I may be incorrect). While I'd prefer one week, just to get it done faster, two weeks would probably be better, just to give as many people as possible a chance to chime in while also avoiding any allegations of trying to railroad the changes through. Thoughts? —Aich on— 00:28, 27 July 2010 (BST)

Give it one. Every group on the page has been notified already.

00:29, 27 July 2010 (BST)

Give it two. Especially as you've directed them all to the wrong page, and this is the kind of thing that could be included simply on the main page. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:53, 27 July 2010 (BST)

I did?

15:55, 27 July 2010 (BST)

Yip. Category, instead of category talk. You could of even linked this specific header. Ive added it to the news box. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 15:59, 27 July 2010 (BST)

Oh I thought you meant I'd linked something completely different entirely.

16:01, 27 July 2010 (BST)

After one week, the votes were at 11 For to 8 Against, and after two, the votes were at 14 For to 16 Against. The archives give no help regarding how long voting should last (though I'd say it's safe to assume we shouldn't let it go beyond two), and I can't find any definitive guidelines or rules for how voting on this page should work. Since the archives mostly show consensus polling and straw votes, however, and it's clear that this is a divisive issue lacking support across the board, I'd say it's probably best not to move forward with it, despite the fact that I would have preferred otherwise. Thoughts from those involved? —Aich on— 20:50, 9 August 2010 (BST)

20:55, 9 August 2010 (BST)

Policy votes run for 2 weeks, right? Use the timescale for PD.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 21:02, 9 August 2010 (BST)

That's effectively what I'm suggesting, except without the whole "changing the rules after the fact" aspect. If we had agreed on it beforehand, that'd be great, but since we didn't, choosing one or the other will inevitably be met with strife. Instead, I'm basically saying we shouldn't worry about whether it was one week or two, since it doesn't matter. What does matter is that there is no clear consensus, and in the lack of a clear consensus, the status quo should be maintained, based on the history of this page. —Aich on— 21:19, 9 August 2010 (BST)

Rule of thumb is always two. Nothing on the wiki really runs longer or less. --Karek^maps?! 21:28, 12 August 2010 (BST)

A/RE.

22:15, 12 August 2010 (BST)

For

That Misanthropy guy makes sense to me. 03:54, 24 July 2010 (BST)
I'd never known this to be a problem,... and had never really thought about it. Perhaps, instead, we could do away with the two month period, and timestamps altogethor,.... and do a once a month cleanup, like the Great Suburb Massacre,... just for ads instead. And I'd be willing to oversee that myself if people are interested, and once it's hashed out.... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 04:01, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Way too complicated, the timestamp method is nice and simple. 04:03, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Wouldn't you have to check the space somewhat regularly to verify the timestamps, and remove the outdated ads? My suggetion requires this to be done not necessarily more than once a month. My suggestion seems to save time, not add to a burden... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 04:06, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Aich and I tend to check it regularly anyway. Your way would require contacting groups and waiting for replies, the current system is instantaneous. 04:08, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Yeah, Mis, myself, and sometimes a few others (Rooster sometimes, when he's around) keep it tidy on a regular basis. Adding extra overhead just creates more work. It's not so much a matter of doing the work of cleaning, as much as it is being allowed to clean them out regularly. Two months leaves us with a lot of groups that only lasted for two weeks at a time. —Aich on— 04:18, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Well, one month is still two weeks to long isn't it? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 04:24, 24 July 2010 (BST)
It's all about striking a balance between getting rid of inactive groups, and not having to constantly hassle groups about their status in-game. A month is ideal for this. Linkthewindow Talk 13:04, 24 July 2010 (BST)
As Misanthropy. —Aich on— 03:57, 24 July 2010 (BST)
I'm pretty sure I suggested a one-month period last time we did this. Still a good idea. Linkthewindow Talk 06:44, 24 July 2010 (BST)
As Link. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 09:08, 24 July 2010 (BST)
As Misanthropy. That guy really do make sense. Technical Pacifist 11:41, 24 July 2010 (BST)
For it, provided all currently listed groups are notified on their talk page, as not everyone is going to catch the subtle difference in the small print. -- Spiderzed ▋ 14:39, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Out of about 40 groups currently advertising, only 11 would be affected if we enacted it right now. Looking at those 11, I can tell you right now that none of them have a great track record of maintaining their own ads. Five of the groups are veteran groups that regularly let their ads expire and then simply repost them sometime later, four of them are veteran groups that let them expire about as often as they remember to renew them, and two of the groups are brand new and have never renewed their ads. —Aich on— 00:07, 25 July 2010 (BST)
If this is this is something this user is interested in seeing happen, I'd be willing to contact all the groups currently advertising. Otherwise, slap a notice on the front of the recruitment page, and be done with it? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 00:14, 25 July 2010 (BST)
I'd probably contact them myself when it comes up - it's 15 minutes of work to C&P some notice on ~40 group talk pages, and that's taking the time for the original write-up into account. -- Spiderzed ▋ 00:22, 25 July 2010 (BST)
At that, I'd be willing to make your job easier. A-M and N-Z. You take one set, I'll take the other. -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 00:30, 25 July 2010 (BST)
I'll take N-Z. That way I don't have to contact my own groups, which would be... bizzarre. -- Spiderzed ▋ 00:42, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Mis is already on it,... never mind.... anyway,... if I had A-M,... I'd have to contact my group.... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 00:46, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Done. Figured it made more sense coming from the author. 00:52, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Sounds good to me, if groups don't like going onto the wiki often then that shows they don't really care about advertising their group.--Raddox MurTangle 00:55, 25 July 2010 (BST)
It makes sense. --Austin Hunt 01:59, 25 July 2010 (BST)
One month sounds good. I do believe that active groups should be able to have at least one single person visit the wiki twelve times a year. G F J 11:08, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Sounds like a plan. --Dawkins ^{[T][P!][W!][♞]} is currently: having his arm torn off by a zombie. 17:56, 27 July 2010 (BST)
I like 1 month. I actually wouldn't mind 1 week either. Asheets 20:18, 27 July 2010 (BST)
I agree. --Colette Hart 06:43, 1 August 2010 (BST)
Agreed, it helps all parties involved.User:Delt 04:02, 3 August 2010 (BST)
As Misanthropy. -- Goribus 08:52, 4 August 2010 (BST)
Twelve times a year. Deal with it.--Ryvyoli^{Y R} 08:29, 7 August 2010 (BST)
Sounds like a good plan to me Symbiote spiderman14 13:20, 7 August 2010 (BST)
Also I would like to point out that it's not my fault that no one but me voted on that vote DDR linked! - User:Whitehouse 21:18, 8 August 2010 (BST)
Makes sense to me -- Rooney 16:35, 12 August 2010 (BST)

Against

Hmm. I'm not big on recruitment page but I like 2 months cause it means less hassle for groups that don't like going on the wiki. Maybe change the rules to say that groups may have their recruitments removed without notice if they aren't on the stats page? --

06:56, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Wouldn't that mean that the groups most in need of recruiting are effectively not allowed to recruit? —Aich on— 08:44, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Well, that's the reason why I said may, hopefully if it happened it would be used with more tact than to just kill the recruitment if it's been a week since signing. Ah well. --

08:52, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Also, lol @ this vote! --

08:58, 24 July 2010 (BST)
It doesn't get much more definitive than that! —Aich on— 09:12, 24 July 2010 (BST)
Is it possable to put these kind of votes on the wiki news template? -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 22:57, 24 July 2010 (BST)
I don't see a reason to, honestly, since any involved parties would have this page watched already, and this voting isn't governed by any policies. It's more or less just tradition. If we wanted to get technical, aside from the concern that people would get upset over it and try to start an A/VB case, there's really nothing to stop us from just changing the guidelines unilaterally and then acting on the new guidelines as such. —Aich on— 23:53, 24 July 2010 (BST)
I see. Like in the case DDR presented, it seems foolish to have it decided by one person. Whatever though... -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 00:32, 25 July 2010 (BST)
The point of putting it on the community page is mainly to raise awareness. "There's a recruitment page?" Plus it encourages more people to get involved in the maintenance of the wiki. We don't want to have to rely on Boxy forever. (On a side note, I only have 2 pages on my watchlist.) --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 13:15, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Against The recruitment page is much smaller than it used to be, and now encompasses only one city. 2 months is fine. Plus I'm massively drunk. Thank god for spellcheckers.--Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 01:16, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Against Well, as you asked. I understand why the wiki-maintainers would want to make this change, makes perfect sense from their side. But as a user of this page it's already a hassle having to remember to update the dates every two months, let alone one month. Of course, if other members of my groups weren't so fucking lazy I wouldn't be the only one doing the updating. Such a hassle to be updating things with deadlines, am so busy already, weed doesn't smoke itself you know! x -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 02:18, 25 July 2010 (BST)
Goddamn it I love you Clitoria. Marry me. --

16:01, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Clitoria Revolution? I'm sure I've seen that. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 16:15, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Another downside, those of us who "watch" the rec-page will get twice as many fucking subscription emails. -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 19:21, 2 August 2010 (BST)
Not necessarily. A lot of the ads have their dates embedded in the ad itself, rather than on this page. See MOB, for instance. You won't get e-mails for them. —Aich on— 21:06, 2 August 2010 (BST)
Super Against - Both against the policy and against DDR's suggestion. As Ross.--Yonnua Koponen^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:33, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Against - Two months is fine, and I'm also the only member of my group that checks it, I'd go with without making a hassle even more annoying. --Thadeous Oakley 16:34, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Against - Makes a ridiculous amount of work for groupies. --VVV^RPMBG 18:56, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Having to update a timestamp six more times a year is ridiculous? —Aich on— 23:21, 27 July 2010 (BST)
Having to remember to do it is more of a hassle than actually doing it. I hate doing it, even six times per year, yet alone 12. Just having to remember is a ridiculous amount of work! -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 16:50, 31 July 2010 (BST)
As DDR. You don't see the C4NT updating every month, yet we're as active as can be, despite our numbers having dwindled... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 07:36, 28 July 2010 (BST)
The point's not really about group activity, it's about actively maintaining a group's ad. When you come to this page looking for something to join, odds are you're going to be turned off on a group that hasn't fixed it in months, so it's not really going to hurt any group to update more often. Also C4NT aren't on the ad page anyway! 12:19, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Against - I can't speak for The Fortress here, but I don't often remember to check to make sure our Ad is still up. It's a bother to see that it's been down for a month just because we don't loiter around the wiki. Why not use the stats page to check group activity? Most groups that have been around a while are on there somewhere ... ~ Prep ^{Fortress - BS} 21:18, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Yeah, if a group isn't on the stats page, it should have to update, but if it is, then you know they're active, even if not on the wiki. --VVV^RPMBG 21:28, 28 July 2010 (BST)
Against - Basically the same thing as my mate above me; Just check the stats page to see if they're active or not. Paul Henderson 16:24, 31 July 2010 (BST)
but active groups with <10 wouldn't show up. -- ▧ ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 16:47, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Against - The Fortress are very active, but I can still see this being a problem, to us and other groups.(in my own opinion) Puppiemaster 18:46, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Against -_∞ Poodle of Doom _∞ 22:28, 31 July 2010 (BST)
Against-- Jerrel tlk _{(82nd!) (Project Unwelcome!)}. 21:54, 2 August 2010 (BST)
Against This is just going to be more hassle than it is worth for users. Sanpedro 10:24, 3 August 2010 (BST)
Against Isn't going to help groups with lazy wiki reps, or smaller ones, or ones which rarely use the wiki. --Athur birling 12:16, 3 August 2010 (BST)
Against This just feels unnecessary. There's usually only one or two people in a fledgling group that bother to update their wiki page, and requiring them to remember this every single month is only going to frustrate them. --Shatari 20:07, 5 August 2010 (BST)
Against - Not just fledgling groups. I've been the only one doing the RRF's, and it's been removed at least once recently. They're not really a small group.-- Adward 21:14, 5 August 2010 (BST)
It's a little embarrassing that 117 people can't type 48 characters over the course of a year. 21:27, 5 August 2010 (BST)
Again, most people in a group don't have wiki accounts, either because they don't like or know how to edit a wiki, or because they're casual gamers. The chore typically falls on one or two people, and it's easy to forget something. I don't know about you, but 30 days can slip by pretty darn fast here on the farm. --Shatari 22:53, 5 August 2010 (BST)
Exactly. Back at the MoM thing, I got a few of my strike team to vote. Several didn't have wiki accounts at all. I'd be willing to bet that's commonplace as well - most of the RRF considers this place to be a drama filled bucket of dicks. Hence why it is so infrequently used by the majority of the group.-- Adward 22:23, 6 August 2010 (BST)
Fun fact: Only 2% of game characters have a wiki account. Even accounting for multiple accoutns belonging to one player, that's tiny.--User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2 22:28, 6 August 2010 (BST)
All the same, it's essentially free advertising being handed out, refusal to use a site shouldn't really go hand in hand with gratis bonuses on said site. :/ 22:29, 6 August 2010 (BST)
And yet it does! Isn't it wonderful? When the whole game, and everything to it is free, you don't really get to complain when groups use the free advertising. Every mode of group advertisement in the game is "free". (Unless you count the ads on urban dead itself.)-- Adward 23:18, 6 August 2010 (BST)
Yes, but if you spray an ad on a building, you need to remain vigilant to replace it when needed. When you go word of mouth you need to actively find people. When you post on a forum you need to remain active so the thread doesn't die and drop off the front pages. None of those things can be left for two months before they'll disappear (unless you tag a really quiet building, but in that case you're not going to get anyone seeing it anyway). 23:23, 6 August 2010 (BST)
The difficulty of advertising in-game is a poor excuse to make it harder on the wiki. --VVV^RPMBG 23:55, 6 August 2010 (BST)
Against Wiki management within a group is one of the more thankless tasks that can be assigned to a member. Making them work harder at it isn't going to motivate them to do a better job. -User:Space Tyrant | DHPD 08:02, 8 August 2010 (BST)
Against-- Skoll ^Die 03:42, 9 August 2010 (BST)
Against. It's a tiny chore, but it's a chore. It's also easy to forget. Also, people who don't want to edit wikis shouldn't be made to edit wikis more, just so that people who like to maintain wikis don't have to maintain wikis so much. Billy Forks 11:32, 10 August 2010 (BST)
Actually, it would mean more maintenance, since we'd likely be clearing more advertisements than we currently do. Despite that, the primary maintainers of the page (myself and Misanthropy) think it's a good idea. —Aich on— 03:28, 11 August 2010 (BST)

New method of Organization

I posed the idea of reorganizing the recruitment page to be more useful while talking about adding in a link on the wiki side bar. So here it is. In hopefully the least drama filled form. Groups would be separated into general types. Pro-survivor, Pro-Zombie, PKer and Unique. The sections would be ordered in A-Z then the groups in each section would be ordered A-Z. Here's a short mark-up as an example:

-Player Killer Groups- Cobra
Philosophe Knights
Red Rum

-Pro-Survivor Groups- The Abandoned
DEM
The Fortress

-Pro-Zombie Groups- Feral Undead
Militant Order of Barhah
RDD

-Unique Groups(or miscellaneous groups)- Discosaurs
Organization XIII

I think this would simplify the process for people finding a group they like. If they are pro-survivor looking for that type of group instead of wading through 20 other groups they can just jump right to the pro-survivor section. If this gets implemented I would place groups in their respective sections by what I can assume from the information they provide on their advert and group pages. Lastly to solve any placement issues(read: drama) people could just move their group to where they wanted it and BAM problem solved. Other than the way the adverts are organized nothing else about the page would change and life would go on as normal. Thoughts? 22:14, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Instead of that, and in order to help avoid any bias by ordering the types of groups that way, why don't we break the page up into multiple recruitment pages, then make this page a rather nice looking splash page that explains the types of groups and has prominent links to the sub-pages? Also, you may want to look over this (it starts there and continues for the rest of the page and onto a few other linked pages), since you weren't around for it, and you should expect drama to erupt over your use of "Pro-Survivor", "Pro-Zombie", and "Unique" if you really try to push them forward. "Player-Killer" is just about the only type everyone can agree on a definition to, but then they start arguing about whether or not it should be lumped in with other types instead of having its own listing. The drama over something so trivial is really stupid. —Aich on— 22:34, 25 July 2011 (BST)

I'm 99% sure that all of this has already been voted down before, and for the record, I'm against it. This isn't a long or difficult page, and with each group stating its orientation plainly, simply searching for what you want is easy and quick.

22:39, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Also, more stupid drama over stuff related to naming the different types can be found here and here. —Aich on— 22:44, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Oh not this again. Leave as is. --DT

^PK 22:48, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Wouldn't breaking the page up into several recruitment pages has the basic same effect as just using headers? or am I misunderstanding your idea? Anyways, I figured broad titles are a way to avoid drama because you can't deny GKer's and RKer's along with death-cultist are Pro-Zombie as they aren't benefiting anyone else. Same for bounty hunters and Life-Cultist being Pro-Survivor. I chose Unique instead of Misc because it fits with the A-Z order(so no possible bias there). If it turns into too much a drama-fest I'll just kill the whole idea, simple as that. And Misanthropy on the off chance this game comes back to life the page could get long and hard to find what your looking for and besides there's no reason to not make searching easier. I'm about to say piss on it because i've been edit conflicted a dozen times now 22:49, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Not to mention the instant negative response :P 22:51, 25 July 2011 (BST)

There's only 40 groups advertising. Leave it on one page. --Rosslessness 23:01, 25 July 2011 (BST)

I wasn't planning on making additional pages. 23:09, 25 July 2011 (BST)

It was a general comment Maz, thats why I didn't indent. --Rosslessness 23:41, 25 July 2011 (BST)

Honestly, I'm with Ross (and everyone else saying it's a bad idea). The reason I suggested it was as an alternative to grouping them on one page, which inherently puts some ahead of others and will create drama. By breaking it into multiple pages, it doesn't feel like survivors are ahead of zombies or vice versa, since they're in different places. —Aich on— 00:00, 26 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah I see where you all are coming from. I'd hate to raise the wiki's drama level :P Maybe in the distant future people will get their heads out of their butts so common sense can win out. 00:51, 26 July 2011 (BST)

Reorganising the page

I thought I'd open this discussion up again. There are only 4 survivor groups listed, 2 zombie groups and 2 all play styles. It seems fairer in a lesser-populated Malton to give each group a similar chance of recruitment by having them all listed by type. I would suggest having it set out as "survivor, zombie, all-play styles". I have read through the previous discussion on it all but that was 6 years ago, and since times have changed on both the wiki and in Malton, maybe it's time for a refresh on this page too. stelar (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll endorse this. There are no current PKer groups, but I'd be satisfied with a Survivor-Zombie-PKer(/death-cultist)-Other order. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Re-Reorganising the page

I find the current playstyle order to be inadequate. Zombies should come first, then survivors, and then DCs & PKers should be in a single category together, and then finally the "all" groups. Zombies have a harder time recruiting in general and eternally have had the disadvantage in player ratio. Also, many players choose survivor by default, and only *maybe* play zombie on the side with an alt or two. I believe zombie groups should receive more attention to slightly boost zombie recruitment, in order to make the game more fun for both zombies and survivors in general. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}11:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

The ordering has also come up in a different discussion on Discord, regarding where to place PKers, Bounty Hunters, DCs etc. I am a big believer that DC and PK groups should be separate (based on the desires of the members of those groups), and my guess was the ordering was from most useful to the average person searching for a group (who, like you said, is most likely to play Survivor). I didn't think of the alternative, that the ordering should be designed to be most useful to the game, which would put Zombies first.

In general my philosophy towards the wiki is that it should be defined by usefulness to users, since any influence on the game itself is user-driven (see: the lack of updates forthcoming from the Suggestions system). I'd love to hear others' thoughts on the best ordering for the Recruitment page with these possibly-conflicting goals in mind. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:38, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I genuinely think there is no reason to believe that putting zombies on the top of the page will actually help their recruitment. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

As DDR. Also, inasmuch as it’s able to avoid doing so, the wiki shouldn’t be engaging in activism to promote a particular side. I agree that zombies could use a boost, but this isn’t the way to accomplish it. The wiki is fundamentally a resource for the players and about the game, rather than for the game and by the players, so it should remain user-focused in how it provides its utility. —Aich on— 08:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, if there were a chance it would make a difference, I wouldn't have a problem with it, I'm all for helping groups or demographics that require increased exposure. In 2009, it may have been different. But it took me under two minutes to read every survivor entry before getting to the zombie section. Of all the largest hurdles of being a functional zombie teammate, including requiring high-level coordination, communication, higher early-game difficulty, etc, a two minute delay in recruitment surely will not be the difference between a zombie recruit and a lost opportunity. A ZOMBIE ANT 12:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I can also vouch that at least one zombie group (the one I'm in) has been getting quite a few new members from our wiki recruitment ad. People seem to know what playstyle they're aiming for before reaching this page. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 13:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you really care about the order, you could set up a schedule to mix up the order every now then. Although for the same reasons as Aichon and Bob I don't think it would have a great effect. -- Spiderzed ▋ 20:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Page breaking

Does anyone else notice that Malton Danger Updaters' recruitment template is substantially wider than the others? it's the only one that goes off-screen when I scroll on my browser (note: not full screen). Is there really no guideline on advert size?

Also, something seems to be affecting the text size of the UDWiki sidebar and top tabs outside the normal editing area of the wiki. Only had a quick squiz, but couldn't find the culprit. Thoughts? A ZOMBIE ANT 10:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure about your first point. It doesn't shrink like some of the other ads if I make my browser narrower, but when I have my browser maximised, the MDU ad is slightly less wide than The Scourge ad.

As for the sidebar and top tabs, I went through the history of the recruitment page, and it seems something happened when the Rolt Heights Caliphate recruit ad was put in, but I'm not entirely sure what it was, as that ad on its own page doesn't cause the sidebar/top tabs to shrink. stelar ^{Talk|MCM|EBD|Scourge} 12:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the RHC issue. They hadn’t closed a div. As for widths, yeah, MDU is getting chopped off for me on my iPad, rather than shrinking down to fit the available width. —Aich on— 20:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

As a purely hypothetical scenario, what’s the standard with which we would put as a pixel limit on width? Im sure we’ve had a standard somewhere elsewhere before. A ZOMBIE ANT 21:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Purely hypothetically? How about the existing standard which apparently got removed from the page? It might be a good starting place. :P These are the original formatting guidelines, but these are what is at the bottom of the page right now. Looks like the latter two sections in the original guidelines, which address this topic, got dropped for some reason. I don’t recall whether that was intentional or not. —Aich on— 01:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, this is a trip down memory lane. The second I sent that comment off for input on where we have discussed size standards in the past, I scrolled this page going ‘I swear to god we did this here’... and you found it. I could be wrong, but I recall the removal of it was deliberate, with, by my memory, myself specifically saying ‘I haven’t had any problems with an 800px standard on a monitor for over 5 years’ or something equally as shortsighted ;) Perhaps the solution was to update the width limits, not remove them. Doh me. A ZOMBIE ANT 03:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Here is the most recent discussion from 2012. There was no conclusion on whether the old 800x600 standard should be changed or abolished, so I think someone just went ahead and changed it. -- Spiderzed ▋ 10:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for find that. Looks like I was recalling a completely different conversation. So, what are our thoughts on it? Should we throw in a token restriction? Or not worry? Also, my god Karek was an exhausting human being. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I figured up what's up with the MDU ad. The red dashed lines are just dashes, and they don't linebreak, which prevents the width from shrinking below the length of the dashes. I reduced the number of dashes and the minimum width percentage, so it should look smaller on desktop & mobile now (I hope). If it's still too wide let me know.

And thanks for fixing out the issue with the RHC ad! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 12:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the probs Bob, Stelar and Aichon. A ZOMBIE ANT 08:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Category talk:Recruitment

Contents