Talk:Suburb/Archive 3

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Nominations

Quarlesbank

Hi all, I think now since it's been a while I thought I'd put my vote in for Q'bank as a "noteworthy suburb". Now I can safely say that it hasn't had any major seiges or the likes (although the Mall Tour would have gone through the area where Calvert Mall is, and a lot of the 'local population' would say Pitman Mansion has always been a hotly contested place), but besides that, it is...

• The birthplace of the current no.1 UD survivor group (The Fortress) and home to the well known zombie Lord Pitman.

• Home to Pitman Mansion where a number of survivor events have been held in the recent past, one event being that of Malton Tours end party at the end of their 2007 tour.

• Recently saw a Beerhah invasion where the survivors tried to retake the burb but without any real success.

I leave it in your hands, I must admit i'd be surprised if you turn around and say you've never heard of The Fortress and related characters but I leave that to the vote.--LP 23:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I can't endorse that. There are more deserving suburbs out there that aren't noteworthy, I think we should focus on lobbying those. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:03, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Santlerville

I think Santlerville should be included as "noteworthy". It's had a couple of major sieges over the last four or so months (The Battle of Santlerville and The Battle of SantLUEville). It's also home to one of the most well renowned and organised groups, The Dribbling Beavers. Thoughts?--Nallan 10:38, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Nah, wait a while, see if anything else overly notable happens.--Karek^maps?! 11:36, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Alright.--Nallan 12:10, 15 August 2007 (BST)

Santlerville, home of the Finis Valorum Zerg Hunt known gamewide.

You just can't go anywhere without hearing about it anymore. But maybe we should wait for it to stop, because the more attention this guy gets, the worse he becomes. And of course the noteworthiness also comes from what Nallan said. Thoughts, anyone? --L33t 0wn3r 00:47, 13 June 2008 (BST)

The battles with LUE. Home to, as Nallan says, a very renowned and respected survivor group. And, sure, the Finis thing has helped Santler gain an even bigger rep. Santler and Dumbell Hills both ought to be noteworthy. --WanYao 21:09, 5 July 2008 (BST)

It's been a long time since I've been in Santler, but I really think it deserves noteworthy suburb status. I really think that in the past year, no suburb has done what it's done. Besides the Battle of Pitneybank. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:02, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Where is this burb?? Ii is about as notable as a tumbleweed there are far more undeserving burbs than this one, I wouldn't endorse this burb even if I wanted too. Never heard of any of anything going on there; some UD players are delusional sometimes. So it's a simple NO from me ;) --LP 01:15, 13 October 08 (BST)

Maybe if you bothered leaving your mansion once in a while. Also l2sign or i'll delete your comments.--xoxo 01:56, 14 October 2008 (BST)

LOL PWND!!!--Nallan (Talk) 03:03, 14 October 2008 (BST)

This idiot can't even sign a post. Ask him if he knows what Ridleybank is? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:37, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Dunell Hills

Why this is not "special" already I will never understand. It is home to one of the largest stationary groups ever, the DHPD, and it is where the largest horde in the history of UD originated, the dead. The man 20:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far after 2 days you still have 100% of the votes! :) Cisisero 06:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Because nothing happens in Dunell Hills, so much nothing that the DHPD spend most of their time outside of the suburb in the area they call the DMZ. Oh and the dead of Dunell Hills being in their name doesn't mean they originated there or even did anything of note there, they disliked the DHPD this happened around the same time and kinda makes the point itself.--Karek^maps?! 07:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah figures some pro-zombie person would come in here and shoot it down immediately afterward. Oh well. I dont really care, the DHPD will exist whether you like us or not. :P Cisisero 04:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, cause I didn't actively participate in your forum ever because I liked your group. --Karek^maps?! 05:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and read the section below.--Karek^maps?! 05:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I read below and you know who was the lone dissenter that time? Well I wouldnt be surprised if it was none other than YOU! Wow! Must be a coincidence im sure. As for you not participating in our forums, well same goes for your groups forums as well Karek. Dont get me wrong in this, the only reason I come to this wiki is to talk to all the awesome pro-zombie people like yourself. I could care less if our suburb's name is bolded on the super awesome biased suburb page. Keep up your good work reping the zombie cause everywhere you go Karek, as long as you put in the effort and always shoot for the end of the rainbow Im sure you will always succeed! Cisisero 20:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I could have sworn Dunell Hills used to be bold, if that was the case then I obviously wasn't saying Dunell should not be marked significant. But to claim it is notable because anything happens there is simply absurd, nothing significant has occurred in Dunell Hills since '05-'06. I'm sure you'll make it significant again, keep shooting for mediocrity, though, and you might succeed with an attitude like that.--Karek^maps?! 06:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

So in that case why is it not noteworthy then? :P If thats the way this works you even just admitted it was or should have been in the past. Ive never seen a suburb become un noteworthy. Weird. Seems to be that everyone is unanimous on this. Do we rally up a mod to do this or do I just do it myself? :P Thanks Karek! Cisisero 19:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not noteworthy because nothing of profound historical importance in the game has happened to it in a long time unless you count entertaining DHPD failures. The Dead's unfortunate early name aside, the hordes originally gathered in different suburbs which would invalidate the brunt of The man's argument. --Riseabove 05:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Thanks for the argument Karek, it was fun. Now that we have input from the Goons themselves, anything further just be spam from Something Awful. Riseabove, As much as I dislike Karek's input at least its not entirely biased in an entirely pubbish way. "Crush the DHPD, make them lose all their members! We are totally winning!". How many of our members have left? Like 3? Good Work! Rally at the apathy point! Cisisero 06:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck are you on about? --Riseabove 06:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Are you retarded? Or could you just not think of anything better to say? I was stating that now that YOU, a member of THE DEAD and SOMETHING AWFUL have added your opinion, any further conversation is pointless, due to the fact that both our groups hate each other and the fact that I play as a "roleplaying pubbie faggot" in general. Hence what we are talking about now. Cisisero 07:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't come here yelling pubbie at anyone, I came here with germane information to the topic at hand. Even though you evidently don't want to discuss it like an adult I'm just going to say good job not losing members but that doesn't make Dunell Hills a notable suburb in and of itself. --Riseabove 07:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but Im sure we did a couple of things before Something Awful came around that did. Im pretty sure only you and your group seem to be the only people who dont think that. Cisisero 07:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I helped smash Dunell Hills up with TSO and watched you recover fairly slowly/ineptly from that before I was a goon. Also Karek is by no means in or affiliated with our group and was the first to say it's not notable. Do you really want bold text over a ghost town that badly anyway? --Riseabove 07:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so much controversy over a completely un noteworthy suburb. Its kinda like alot of people hate us, and alot of people like us. Kinda like we are famous or something. Some might even say noteworthy Cisisero 07:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your group isn't Dunell Hills, Dunell Hills is 1% of the Urban Dead map (100 squares) where not much of note has happened for a decent while. The "controversy" here is an extended discussion between all of 4 people (counting the OP who has apparently abandoned it) and sounds like a canned talking point you were waiting to spring when you finally derailed the topic into your group (not the suburb) anyway. --Riseabove 07:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the first time someone from their group started trolling when their incompetence was mentioned. I suspect this all stems from the fact that the only noteworthy thing they've ever actually done was getting busted zerging. It's all pretty sad really. Especially since we haven't even been paying much attention to Dunell Hills and they still can't do anything about it. --Laughing Man 14:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would love for you to prove how many times we have been zerging within the last 2 years since that incident happened. I can do it far more times for your group. You might want to talk to a few members of your group. Its ridiculous how many times things like "oh I have 1 char in Santlerville, 2 in Dunell Hills, and 1 in Dulston." are posted in your forums. A direct quote from SomethingAwful - "Mr.Brinks posted: I have four total characters: active one in Caiger, two in Dunnel Hills, and another one that I'm not sure where it is (a throw away and I don't have the login info). How large is the anti-zerg zone? I have moved really far away (about three 'burbs) from where it first started happening, so I don't think thats it." How are you going to explain that one? Blah blah blah blah we dont cheat. That guy wasnt even told to move his charachters apart.... By the way you even just said DH was noteworthy for the implied fact that we cheat. Even if we did, you still implied that it is noteworthy. Not something you should do in a situation like this where you are trying to keep it un noteworthy. Cisisero 21:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Yo "us versus you" stuff aside, the point is Dunell Hills is not particularly notable. If for some reason the RRF was unable to exert any control over Ridleybank for the better part of 6 months I'd probably say that it could lose notability too, it's not some kind of permanent thing in a game like that. What's really funny is while you were totally unable to retake any part of the suburb your main argument was "well, we still have other areas of the DMZ lololol" and now that it becomes a question of suburb notability (aka another chance for you to shill your group on newbies who read the wiki, much like your overly encompassing category) it's suddenly notable as the DHPD's home. You're not gonna get it both ways because if your territory is this "DMZ" and the Dead didn't actually start in Dunell Hills that would invalidate both of The Man's points here. --Riseabove 03:52, 30 March 2008 (BST)

So its obvious then, we feel it is you feel its not. Its just another game of "us versus you stuff" as you put it. Hell you guys flip into little whiners the second a barricaded building shows up in DH. All that aside, Maybe it should be a vote that includes nobody from SA and nobody from the DHPD. Would that satisfy you? Or is that just to much of a chance to take with that the precious suburb that you are determined to hold onto? Cisisero 09:26, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Yo if we gave a fuck about Dunell Hills at the moment we'd love to have it's beautiful red or gray colors bolded but we don't. I came here to address what The Man said about the origins of The Dead, not to deal with your tireless defensiveness about sweet sweet Dunell Hills. If you want to keep up the crusade for your bold text go ahead, but I said my piece for why I don't think it's notable so I'm out. --Riseabove 06:12, 31 March 2008 (BST)

Actually, i think that Dunell HIlls can be called noteworthy... not because of DHPD, because they did nothing important there but to live there, but because of The Deads... ever since the deads formed and ransacked dunell hills, the entire city has turned into the big red blob that we currently have, so, this event on the history of malton begun in this burb and then followerd to the rest of the city. If the dunellers had managed to kept the burb, perhaps the history of malton would be completly different from what it is today. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:39, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Riseabove said:

It's not noteworthy because nothing of profound historical importance in the game has happened to it in a long time unless you count entertaining DHPD failures. The Dead's unfortunate early name aside, the hordes originally gathered in different suburbs which would invalidate the brunt of The man's argument.

Quoted from the above discussion.--Karek^maps?! 09:31, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Dulston

Proposing Dulston be promoted it is after all one of the safest places in Malton so ive heard not to mention the Alliance --Cardinal Ximenez 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I second Dulston. Besides being one of the two "safe" areas that survivors gravitate to, it has: seen every major zombie group, has the largest survivor group alliance, is rarely orange or yellow (just fluctuates between red and green), has the most survivor groups, and has only 1 barely active zombie group. Plus, its got DvB!P.S. Caleb approved! =P 23:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make it noteworthy. Definitions: You're doing it wrong. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 01:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If that doesn't make it noteworthy why is RidleyBank Special? It had the biggest zombie group for a long time, why not Dulston?--Cardinal Ximenez 00:29, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Dulston is and has been unremarkable. Your claim of "the largest survivor group alliance" is highly dubious unless you mean a lot of tiny groups start there. Every time zombies actually go up there in force to raid Treweeke Mall the survivors there cram into the most populated corner and refuse to sleep in the least populated, giving the zombies victory in a matter of days if they have enough numbers to take any mall. The only reason Dulston is generally safer is because it's an ignored moderate-to-low traffic suburb crammed in a corner. That doesn't sound tremendously noteworthy to me unless you want to go ahead and make all the corner suburbs noteworthy because they're corners or something fucking retarded like that. --Riseabove 00:39, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Wait a minute, by "largest survivor alliance" you didn't mean that recent united survivors ineffectual last stand or whatever it was called did you? I hope you didn't cause that was nowhere near the largest survivor alliance at any point in the game all hype aside. --Riseabove 00:41, 25 April 2008 (BST)

He means the Dulston Alliance, a largely ineffectual group of groups that has done very little in an area with very little activity. Also, still think that the DEM has them beat for sheer number of members. Neither group has done, or been involved with, anything really overly notable though, aside from just existing and being kinda big.--Karek^maps?! 06:49, 25 April 2008 (BST)

I'd say that Dulston is noteworthy, as it was the home of one of the game's most famous players, Caleb Usher, as well as a spot which numerous zombies want control over. It also recently had one of the biggest seiges of all time, featuring nearly every major zombie group in Malton, as well as Red rum. It also tends to be more safe than other suburbs, despite being attacked numerous times by numerous zombie groups, and it also has the most annoyign radio spam in Malton, Courtesy of the FEZ. Yonnua Koponen 19:50, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Caleb Usher is no Petrojsko, KotD, Jorm, or Ron Burgandy. No one outside of the DA and it's "associates" knows who he is, or cares, the Dulston Alliance has never done anything worth note, there has never been any large sieges in Dulston(contrary to your statement), there have never been any large hordes that destroyed the whole area that came from Dulston. All Dulston is or has been is a corner of Malton's map, and of the four it's the most notable only because Arkham hasn't had anything going on since 2006. It's not more safe, it's less populated, you want more safe look at Pitneybank or Santlerville.--Karek^maps?! 03:50, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Dulston had an event of note! The 1st (and only) Ice Cream Social of the WCDZ happened there. For that, i fully supposer Dulston for noteworthyness. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:54, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Read over Dulston. Plus, What about DORIS? And, Who's Petrojsko? And I've vaguely heard of Ron Burgandy. What has KotD done to be noteble? Founded something, Run chunks of DEM? I've never actually many of DEM. Plus Dulston has a Mall. >.> I know Jorm next to only because of NexusWar.. Safe area, Big Bash? Also, Why would me, A new player (At the time, Perhaps I still am.) Travel to Dulston? _■^■ 00:09, 2 July 2008 (BST)

Havercroft, Pennville, Whittenside

I'd like to nominate three new suburbs for noteworthy status- Havercroft, as the home of Ackland Mall and the location of the Battle of the Bear Pit (the Channel 4 News Team's first major battle and a rather large battle anyhow) as well as several subsequent battles, and Pennville/Whittenside, as location of Fort Perryn, which was also the site of several major conflicts. I'd also like to recommend the updating of the Pitneybank entry- one would definitely think holding off the Second Big Bash for an entire month deserves some note.--Boris 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ketchelbank

I nominate Ketchelbank for noteworthy status. It is the home to malton's only zoo as well as the group The Malton Zookeepers, A group that has been in the top 15 on the stats page for the past 2 years, and even reaching the top 5 on a few occasions. It is also a constant target for many famous zombie groups as well as having many event's. one of the most famous being the Annual Gingerbread Men Zombie Fishbake with the The Gingerbread Men.--'BP^Tmz 04:35, 27 April 2008 (BST)

I nominate this as the oldest recurring joke on this page. It's not gonna happen, nor should it, specifically because of the fact that it's not a constant target and most zombie groups never go there.--Karek^maps?! 10:22, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Not true many zombie groups have visted ketchelbank at least once, A big one being the MOB, and it's not just zombie groups. PK groups vist from time to time, Red Rum's "One True Vois Tour '08" was based mostly in ketchelbank.--'BP^Tmz 00:57, 28 April 2008 (BST)

The group is noteworthy, the suburb ain't. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:55, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Then that at least covers the "An important and/or historical group was formed in that suburb" part in the guidelines does it not?--'BP^Tmz 01:09, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Your groups is less noteworthy than the DHPD, yet both groups never did anything that caused an impact in the game... and that's why both groups fail to gain support from the community when they nominate their burbs for noteworthiness... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:30, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Fair enough.--'BP^Tmz 05:36, 28 April 2008 (BST)

West Grayside

I think West Grayside should be included as "noteworthy". It has seen both the big bashes 1 and 2. It is home to the malton euro commision. Just face it a mall and a stadium. This suburb is also known to be a safe haven.--zinker 15:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Zinker^{T!Z!A!R! F !} zinker ^M! Brainzz

Laughably, no. These are not a "noteworthy" elements. Also, your sig sucks and is irritating.--Jorm 19:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well what does make a noteworthy suburb? Ancient history that has little relevance to the game today, like Caiger sieges? ... or a bunch of PKer has-beens vs. newfags -- all wannabes -- in Shearbank? This is a serious question... I mean, why is Sheabank noteworthy? Nothing of importance there that I know about, unless hot air counts. Or the Caiger burbs, considering that Caiger is merely an old, dead myth that some people still like to flog... What about Pegton and RMF vs. CDF? Hell what about Dunnell Hills, Dunnell Hills is certainly noteworthy... --WanYao 22:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple major historical events that have effected how the game was played, a massive amount of players in the game, or the game itself. Shearbank was the biggest PKer victory in the games history, Pegton has been a major centerpoint for conflicts since the games creation with numerous massive historical battles, and Caiger changed how zombies go about mall sieges and survived two of the biggest sieges the game has ever seen. West Grayside has done nothing close to any of that, the next in line for a shot at being a Special noteworthy suburb then? Santlerville probably.--Karek^maps?! 00:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunell Hills? --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 07:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't stroke survivor groups egos as a force of habit. Do I really need to answer that though?--Karek^maps?! 10:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Whittenside

Im nominating the suburb of Whittenside since the Feral Undead have been based there since 2006. It was the site of several of our groups events and since soon after we moved in we claimed it as our homeland. There are monthly, sometimes weekly battles over Fort Perryn, and the buildings throughout the rest of the suburb are constantly changing hands between survivors and the horde. (and yes, i saw its up there lumped in with a few other burbs, but i feel its important to gets its own nomination)--Bullgod 11:08, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Seconded --Gus Thomas^SpartaZHU 16:31, 7 August 2008 (BST)

Third-ed -- Necrodeus ^{T M!} 22:17, 11 August 2008 (BST)

Fouth-ed -- Wst50 20:33, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Discussion

Get rid of noteworthy

What's the point? All it seems to do is create drama... and all for a few bolded names on the suburb map. Meh -- boxy ^{talk • i} 07:02 25 April 2008 (BST)

I agree. Any noteworthy things can be added to the suburb pages.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:37, 25 April 2008 (BST)

Absolutely not. If people create drama around this feature of the suburbs page, it's those involved fault. Do not remove a feature that have been working in the suburb page since day 1. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:22, 25 April 2008 (BST)

As a compromise, could we talk about a set of objective criteria for determining whether a suburb is notable or not? Something other than "I hang around here, and stuff seems to happen" that the current criteria seems to be. I mean, with The Dead's rampage across Malton, everywhere has been having huge battles lately, and the places that haven't are notable because they are harboring the exiles of the places that are. So what should distinguish notable from non?

In the case of "Home of Large, Organized Groups" how does that interact with megahordes roaming the city? What is the threshold for "Large"? What is the threshold for being located in that suburb?

In the case of "Large, Notable Battles" what qualifies? Is it simply by survivor death count? Zombie (temporary) death count? Length of time it took to crack the barricades? "Swingyness" of the battle (that is, how many times it went back and forth)? How is it defined? Also, how long ago should it matter? If a large battle took place five years ago, should we still care? When is the cut off point?

Let these questions be answered, and I'd be happy about the "Noteworthy" system staying around. Without these questions being answered, I don't see the point. All bold means is that someone is stroking their own ego, and is getting pats on the backs from other wiki regualrs in a wiki circlejerk. Iunnrais 22:55, 25 April 2008 (BST)

We have criteria, they're what keep noteworthy actually useful as a way of finding out the safest and most dangerous(read zombie friendly) suburbs in the game. Most of the time suburbs get added to the list it is because most everyone agrees that they should be so, if you need to whine about it not being fair because a suburb you like isn't added there it doesn't deserve to be there. This is one of those things that has, and does, work out insanely well and just because a few people bitch about how "unfair" it is and you don't want to read it is not a reason to remove it.--Karek^maps?! 01:08, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Remove! It serves no real purpose and the term 'noteworthy' is stupidly ambiguous, pretty much any suburb with a mall or fort is note worthy for that alone. What 'burbs are 'of note' should change as groups grow and die, but they haven't. Correct me if i'm wrong but the list is much the same as it was when i joined over a year ago...--xoxo 09:32, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Then suggest a way to remove them instead of getting rid of it entirely. But it should probably be noted that only about 3-4 of those actually aren't currently noteworthy in anything but a historical status. Ridleybank is still one of the safest places for zombies to gather, Stanbury is still in a state of perpetual siege, Eastonwood is still a death zone to enter, Pitneybank/Giddings is still one of the strongest malls in the city(and has, since the days of Caiger, been the second strongest mall in Malton). And even then, two of those, the two notable because of Caiger, are still vital to the survival of a whole corner of Malton, even if they aren't as consistently safe as they once were.--Karek^maps?! 14:02, 26 April 2008 (BST)

That's what I'm suggesting. I'm saying the current criteria are insufficient, because what "everyone" agrees is notable is simply a group of people who would prefer keeping status quo in order to feel good rather than provide useful information. Since change is something that upsets things, in order to establish change, there needs to be RULES for it. To force the issue. Iunnrais 18:48, 26 April 2008 (BST)

Yes and those rules need to define the current system, not make it so that anyone who meets a small number of criteria can get a suburb marked notable. This is one of those cases that works out better with less definition.--Karek^maps?! 03:45, 27 April 2008 (BST)

So the reason for having noteworthy suburbs bolded on the map again? What is it? It serves no purpose that isn't adequately covered by the colouring system... in fact looking for red or green is much more important than looking for bolding which only seems to signify historical interest (something that fits better on the individual suburb pages) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:48 27 April 2008 (BST)

It exists to make those who were in the suburb at the time it became worthy of note feel good about themselves and to further confuse noobs/everybody else.--xoxo 01:04, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Oh I don't know Boxy, the fact that the suburb coloring is useless kinda makes your argument not worth the time it took to type. The fact that suburbs basically need unanimous agreement that they are notable to get marked notable makes them somewhat more significant than a temporal map that is wrong 90/100 times. The notable status shows the long term state of things and represents the direction of the game at large, just because you've never used it as a guideline doesn't mean others don't frequently, when I was a casual player who checked maybe once a week and those notable suburbs were easily the most useful portion of the danger map, albeit this was in 2006 but I have little doubt that the users who don't actively use the wiki still do much the same thing and there's no reason we should out them of a useful resource because some users that do use it frequently don't like drama or favoritism regardless of how realistic it is(see how useless Historical Groups and Historical Events have become because of the exact thing you're using to justify your complaints here).--Karek^maps?! 03:45, 27 April 2008 (BST)

As a new(er) player, I found the most "noteworthy" suburbs during my 9 months of playing this to be the Riddleybank-Barrville-Stanbury area, Pitneybank, Whittenside, Eastonwood, Yagoton, Dunnell Hills, and Dulston. If y'all were really trying to make this a helpful resource for new people, you'd let those other two onto the list. And would get rid of the Caiger area burbs (and probably Eastonwood, now that the Eastonwood Ferals have disbanded), where nothing of note has happened for a very long time. The "noteworthy" list is practically useless as it stands. At least two suburbs that really are noteworthy aren't listed, and several suburbs listed as noteworthy most certainly are not noteworthy anymore. To new folks, it's far more pertinent that The Dead, one of the four largest zombie groups in the game, have taken up residence in Dunnell Hills, and kicked out the very large survivor group there, than it is that the Eastonwood Ferals once roamed Eastonwood. And it's far more pertinent that since the fall of Caiger, the NE corner, particularly Dulston, became the focus of a ton of permanent-residence survivors. (Err...until the zombies went for the NE recently. And it sent some major shockwaves everywhere I looked when Dulston fell, and didn't recover, because it'd been a "green" area for so long). --Jen 16:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

General Discussion

Remove the groups in this suburb tab from suburb pages

There is no way to objectively list groups in a suburb at any time. It has caused nothing but drama when groups who want to sate their egos but are not present are removed from the list (Example being the DHPD/The Dead spat that i was taken to misconduct and cleared over). The listing is supposed to be for informational purposes, not dickwaving, and unfortunately a lot of people have lost sight of that. As such i propose it either be removed entirely from the system, or a working independantly verifable system be put in place to ensure dramastorms over this issue dont crop up constantly.

Because i know, right off the bat,l that far, far too many peopel are attached to their petty dickwaving to ever consider letting go of their pitiful midgit soldiers, i may as well presnt an alternative system:

It be rearranged from Pro Survivor, Pro Zombie, and Hostile (Which is ridiculously survivor biased anyway) to Human Groups, Zombie Groups, and PK/ZK/GK group sections. If there is ever any doubt over a groups presence in a suburb, the group will be asked to present evidence of 20 individuals in the suburb wearing their tag (in the next 24 hours), in their "natural state" (Zombie groups as zombies, human groups and humans, PKer/ZKer/Gker as their own). If they cant, then they get removed. After a request one must wait a week to bring them up again, and if the constantly do it without due cause, they can cop a warning from the standard escalation tree. If a group doesnt have 20 members, fuck them. They arent a force in the suburb and shouldnt be listed anyway. Its an informational tool, not a dickwaving or recruitment one.

Something needs to be codified about this, and it needs to be done now. Id much rather the whole mess be removed and save us all a lot of bother, but if we cant have that then something sensible needs to be put in place. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:17, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Look at the Template:suburb talk page grim. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:18, 13 July 2008 (BST)

I chose this as its a much higher visibility page where the matter is still on topic. I can see your project may have merits, but its just a fuckload of work that doesnt solve the problem. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:27, 13 July 2008 (BST)

I know it doesn't solve this problem, I just felt some of the discussion above it, with some agreement on renaming sections etc might. As for 20 members, all well and good, but lumping pk and gk in the same boat? having to prove their numbers? isnt that going to hinder some of the benefit of anonymity? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:32, 13 July 2008 (BST)

(Gorram edit conflicts) 20 members? Fuck that. Fuck the BIG GROUPS... with their ego-waving bullshit and self-aggrandisement. Seriously, you're playing right into the hands of the asshats here, because the BEST groups 9 times out of 10 are smaller groups. It totally screws over smaller zombie groups who desperately need all the help and exposure they can get. You should know better than this, Grimch... I do support a re-arrangement into Survivor/Zombie/Other categories, though, get rid of the bias. But... btw... It's "survivors" not "humans". Zombies are humans -- undead humans. Calling survivors "humans" is yet more pro-survivor bias and I personally edit it out EVERY chance I get. --WanYao 12:36, 13 July 2008 (BST)

And... smaller groups CAN be a presence in a suburb. Totally. Seriously... Your proposal is utter bullshit, Grim, and an affront and an insult to all the awesome and dedicated smaller groups who help to make this game what it is. Again... you should know better than this, Grimch... instead of playing into the hands of people like the CDF, USAI, DEM... I'm opposed to this HORRIBLE idea... to the death... sorry, but yeah. FOR GREAT JUSTICE! --WanYao 12:40, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Heh, you both missed my point, though ill admit it was subtle as... welll... something very subtle. The example was pretty much an administerable system that could work, it just fucks everyone over. Its a clear representative of the kind of system you would need to ensure something workable that would minimise drama and shitflinging. Its also clearly broken, for the reasons you both brought up. thus it serves to back up my proposal to simply remove the damned thing entire from the wiki and be done with it. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 12:45, 13 July 2008 (BST)

For all its flaws though, it is useful for metagaming. Which I thought was one of the reasons for the wiki? (or at least what it should be for). You think a lot of the larger groups wouldnt have 20 members if it wasnt for the wiki? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:57, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Its so innacurate that its useless though, and impossible to maintain at any level of reasonable accuracy. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:30, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Categorising groups on the suburb page as pro-survivor and pro-zombie is the most informative way to do it. If people come to the wiki wanting to know which groups are in a suburb, and are likely to be willing to work towards the goals they are interested in (be they zombie or survivor), then they need to know the groups intent, whether or not they are getting pwned at the current time or not is secondary (and should be obvious from the state of the suburb danger colour and news).
Rather than cut down on dickwaving, this will actually increase it, but only for zombies. After all, it is absolutely impossible to force pro-zombie players out of their "natural state" for any longer than it takes them to find a tall building -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:17 13 July 2008 (BST)

Oh, I meant to say that classifying PKer/GKer groups as "hostile" perhaps isn't the best... but I've yet to hear of a better suggestion for them -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:19 13 July 2008 (BST)

Oh boo hoo boxy. As an informational page, it should be accurate. If a group is entirely killed, they arent active as a survivor group at that time. They are in a state of temporary undeath. You cry that this is unfair in favour of zombies? Well thats not a problem with a proposal, its just a result of game mechanics. You dont like that, whine to kevan. And so called "hostile groups", are not hostile to zombies. The term doesnt fit. Other is far better. Pro survivor and Pro zombie are stupid designators. It just leads to shit where people can, like the dead recently, claim that they are working for the benefit of the other side, and much lulz shall result from the ensuing drama. As i said anyway, any way to make it accurate and usable, and yet managable invariably ends up fucked for various reasons. Ergo, in say it should be removed entirely and save everyone a lot of trouble. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:30, 13 July 2008 (BST)

It is accurate and informative as is. Zombies can be pro-survivor in the Urban Dead world, just as survivors can be pro-zombie as well -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:44 13 July 2008 (BST)

I agree with Grimch that pro-survivor and pro-zombie are stupid terms. They play right into the completely artificial "cold war mentality" of complete separation of, and metaphysical hostility between, two alleged player "camps". When what we really ought to be doing is promoting the more flexible playing style which the game mechanics actually intend -- or at least not reinforcing just one style of play, even if it is the dominant style (i.e. survivors mrh? immediately, and zombies suicide immediately). Calling them "Survivor Groups," "Zombie Groups" and "Other" is straightforward and unbiased. Yet it gets the point across that "Zombie Groups" are composed mostly of zombies and would probably follow a pro-zombie agenda, and the same the other way around for survivor groups. "Other" is a catch-all which includes anyone who doesn't fit, or want to fit, in the other two categories. If they want, perhaps "Other" groups can "self-identify" with a parenthetical "PKer group" or "Death cultist" or whatever... Or not "self-identify" at all if they choose... But "hostile groups" has to go, without a doubt. --WanYao 14:06, 13 July 2008 (BST)

So you don't like the way that the great majority of people play the game, so you want us to promote your more flexible style of play? Sure, I won't argue with Hostile being changed to Other. That would fit in all those who like to play duel natured and be less survivor biased. But still, pro-survivor/pro-zombie are the best way to categorise the great majority of groups... take off that "pro-" and we'll have the dickwaving The Dead/DHPD contests constantly. As long as groups are still in the suburb, letting them self-identify as the which side they want to be on is much more useful than classifying people who want to be survivors, and actively work towards survivor goals despite being zombified, as not being in the suburb at all (or worse still as zombie groups for that suburb) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:44 13 July 2008 (BST)

For frig sake, boxy, don't twist my words. What is it with you people, anyway??? **Wan Yao dcouses boxy's straw man in fuel and sets it ablaze** What I said was that current headers are biased towards a particular style of play, and not neutral, and thus ought to be made neutral. Simple! The fact that I ranted a bit about different styles has NOTHING to do with what I actually proposed: "not reinforcing just one style of play, even if it is the dominant style (i.e. survivors mrh? immediately, and zombies suicide immediately)" (note the italics, emphasising my primary point....) Now I'll restate my idea in full, okay? Groups would be labelled "Survivor", "Zombie" and "Other". These monikers are nice and neutral. However, they still pretty much mean the same thing as the current term terms: i.e., zombies groups are understand probably to be composed mostly of zombies and almost certainly to have a pro-zombie agenda, and the same for "Survivor Groups", from their perspective. But that doesn't really say anything about whether a group is alive or dead. A whole zombie group could get CRed and still be a zombie group; a whole survivor group could be killed and still be a survivor group. Meanwhile, "Other" is just that: everything else, and others who don't fit or who don't want to fit into the other two categories, e.g. a dedicated ZKer group would be in the "Other" category, as would PKers and Death Cultists who spend a lot of time alive. What's so hard or or problematic or difficult to understand about that??? Nothing... And, really, it's going to be no different re: dick-waving than the current system. Just less biased in its presentation. That's not so radical, now, is it? Nor is it me fascistically imposing my will and playing style on the wiki, is it? No, again. --WanYao 16:21, 13 July 2008 (BST)

What this looks like is that you're arguing that we should use Survivor and Zombie because they're commonly understood to mean Pro-Survivor and Pro-Zombie. Doesn't really make sense. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:22, 14 July 2008 (BST)

How does it not make sense? Zombie Groups, Survivor Groups and Other are neutral. Pro-blah blah is not. That being said, the terms Zombie and Survivor Groups would functionally have a similar meaning to the current terms. Most of the time... but they wouldn't be as restrictive. Meanwhile, as an example of the current systems flaws, I'd like to ask where a dedicated Death Cult group currently fits? They are definately Pro-Zombie... but often spend a lot of time alive. Under the current system they'd be labelled "Hostile", which is not as accurate as Pro-Zombie. My system is the one that makes more sense. On all levels. --WanYao 07:40, 17 July 2008 (BST)

How on earth does it make sense? You want it to mean Pro-Survivor and -Zombie, but read Survivor and Zombie. Seriously. I mean, WTF? Why would you use one word (Survivor, Zombie) to mean something else, when there's a perfectly good and accurate word for it (Pro-Survivor, Pro-Zombie)? Not only that, but you're relying on everyone interpreting them the same way. Words whose actual meanings are considerably different to what you mean with them. Not to mention that there is no "Other" in addition to Zombies and Survivors. No Ninjas, Pirates, Robots, Catgirls or Monkeys. Just Zombies and Survivors (unless you count Corpses, who can't do anything). I can't see your system making sense on any level.

And, no, I do not think the current system is good, actually I think it sucks. Mostly because almost every group could place themselves in at least two categories, there's so much overlap and ambiguity. In my opinion the best solution would be Pro-Survivor (includes Life Cultists), Pro-Zombie (includes Death Cultists) and Other (mostly PKers). Why? Because that's the way the clear majority of groups are. It's the way groups work. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:58, 17 July 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry we don't agree. Have a nice day. --WanYao 23:19, 17 July 2008 (BST)

Nick got the different labels brought in awhile back and i remember thinking at the time it's gonna cause a whole lot of headache. While i think it's ridiculous to say no group with under 20 members is a force i agree that the proposed method of dealing with it (the whole template thing) is way to much work and really can't the whole section be scrapped? In my eyes its main purpose was for newbies looking to join a local group and to that end groups involved on their suburbs wiki page updating news and the like can clearly demonstrate they're active and newbies can discover who is important in the suburb that way. The lists are a joke, especially when mobile groups decided to tag themselves into every suburb they walk through....also i didn't read all the stuff written above me so yeah, if i said something that's already been brought up please ignore.--xoxo 09:56, 17 July 2008 (BST)

Actually, you missed the major stuff we've talking about, not so much repeated as shot right by, lol. However, I'd say that more than just newbies use the group listings. E.g., my survivor alts travel... I like who know who's in the 'hood I just came to. Same for my zombies, though for different reasons. The section needs to be there, just with an asshattery-resistant coating, if possible. --WanYao 23:19, 17 July 2008 (BST)

Non-denominational

Why categorize? Just make it "groups active in the suburb", perhaps with the "self-identification" system WanYao proposed above. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 15:03, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Because this is primarily a zombies vs. the living game, after all. Even though some people seem to forget that fact, it seems... And don't go whinging about THE THIRD FICTION (misspelling intentional, yup it was in insult, deal... ). But seriously, folks, it's a zombie apocalypse game and the primary "factions" are the zombies and the survivors. With a whack of other factions and interests thrown into the equation. But 99% of people are going to be looking for a zombie group or a survivor group... And if they're looking for something else, they'll see those too, in the other section -- where the groups can identify themselves as PKers, Death Cultists, ZKers, whatever they like. Another problem with your idea is that, given the sheer number of groups in some burbs, it's going to be totally unwieldly to expect people to hunt through them all looking for a zombie group ... Because, even though I resist its influence, fact is that people tend to pick sides for their alts... And ought to be able to find what they're looking for as easily as possible. --WanYao 16:33, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Because the information is that much harder to come by and being user friendly is something to strive for. That being said just change the terminology of the section to make it clear that Pro anything is irrelevant, just classify as Survivor and Zombie and make it clear that it's meant to represent active groups in the area, not interested ones but ones that are essentially institutionalized in the suburb and have a major effect on day to day play. --Karek^maps?! 01:41, 14 July 2008 (BST)

OK, not a good idea. I'm just used to suburbs with less groups and didn't think of the mess :P. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:07, 14 July 2008 (BST)

Theres been a lot of talk about altering the system, and nearly none regarding my proposal to simply remove it. As i said before, its nothing but a drama magnet and its never anywhere near accurate, as is required for something on an informational page, so i say we bin it and let that be the end of this stupid mess. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 18:39, 14 July 2008 (BST)

I'm guessing that'd be because most people find it useful enough. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:21, 14 July 2008 (BST)

If accuracy is the problem get users to cycle it regularly, dropping the system because it causes hiccups of drama periodically seems counter productive for something that is meant to be a newbie tool, something to help casual wiki readers find groups near them, etc.--Karek^maps?! 20:43, 14 July 2008 (BST)

The group listing hasn't actually caused much drama at all, historically... and when it has, well some people can find drama anywhere -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:38 24 July 2008 (BST)

All the other crap aside, I'd probably favor Graims basic idea of just getting rid of that section. If a group is truly having an impact on the suburb (as opposed to just recruiting in that area, which is what the current system amounts to) their name will show up in news about the suburb, information about the suburbs revive points, etc.  Swiers 23:14, 14 July 2008 (BST)

Uhm, no. Removing the groups listing is just going to encourage people to post non-NPOV shit to the News. Because then that becomes the only out-of-game venue to advertise their existence. The groups listing is EXACTLY for group promotion/advertising as it for anything else. I have no problem with that, as long as the POV promotion stays where it belongs -- and off the News page.

Beyond that... I'd just like to propose something... To show how retarded the current system is, and why I am being so pedantic about my "reform". I'm going to go to the Yagoton page and place my little group in ALL the sections, pro-survivor, pro-zombie, hostile. Why? Well, we're a dual nature death cult. We PK and GK, which makes us hostile. But we clearly identify ourselves as not a PKer group, and we're not, because PeePeeKaying is not a priority activity. We also operate as zombies when in that form. And, finally, when alive we do not seek death, we try to stay alive. And we have living members who sometimes do stuff like heal ideological "pro-survivors"; we sometimes do revives; we might be even ZOMG kill on purpose regular PeePeeKayerz. Therefore we BELONG in all the three categories. And if you take us off any category, if you call is SPAM, it's OFF TO A/VB WITH YOU YOU DIRTY DOGG!!! However, under my system, we'd be "Other". Simple. The current system is dumb. --WanYao 17:12, 21 July 2008 (BST)

Yeah, good work, Wan... pity that no one has yet argued that "hostile" shouldn't be changed to "other". But do keep up the shadow boxing, it's all good entertainment -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:38 24 July 2008 (BST)

Wan, it is quite easy to write stuff about a group that is still NPOV. Say, for instance:

---

32nd of Smarch:

• The Malton DEA raided the Morrish Building today killing 13 people (Iwitness of event)
• Members of PARA cleared the entire Walrond Square revive point.
• Zombies of the RRF, Undying Scourge and Minions of the Apocalypse seized the southern Quadrants of Giddings Mall. (Iwitness)

(Only one of the above events has actually happened to my recollection: The last, DDlM)

---

All thats needed is for a style guide to be written up, and then ruthlessly enforced by a set of style monsters. I hereby dub thee Style Monster 1. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:07, 25 July 2008 (BST)

LOL, boxy... Midianian wrote: "Not to mention that there is no "Other" in addition to Zombies and Survivors. No Ninjas, Pirates, Robots, Catgirls or Monkeys. Just Zombies and Survivors (unless you count Corpses, who can't do anything). I can't see your system making sense on any level." Those shadows punch friggin HARD! Anyhoooo... Grimch, you're talking about something completely different here: the News. But, you know what? I actually find a lot of cases where a group sticks themselves in the News to be totally unjustified. An army of 2 comes in and declares they saved the burb, for instance. Shameless self-promotion... When a group is actually directly involved and major then it's NPOV Newsworthy, duh. Rather, this is about the classifications of groups. --WanYao 17:19, 25 July 2008 (BST)

I was merely dismissing your claim that removing the group listing would make it more POV in the suburb news. There is another filter you can run the stuff in there through, and also make a note of it in the hypothetical style guide: Its called "Pruning useless information". It is worth knowing that a Pker group killed a bunch of people across the suburb or hit a building hard. It is worth knowing zombies smashed into several buildings and ate everyone. It is worth knowing that revive points have been cleared, or buildings have been repaired. It isnt worth knowing that two idiots think they are the suburbs saviours shot a zombie. Its pretty easy to weed out the stupid shit. The borderline, well, that can be done by concensus on the talk page, or in the case of the NPOV Crusade, removed by a wailing horde of lunatics with broadswords. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:26, 25 July 2008 (BST)

I never supported removing the groups listing. I am opposed to that. Odd... Everyone seems to be, like, having textual hallucinations in this discussion... --WanYao 17:35, 25 July 2008 (BST)

If thou readeth more closely and follow this, our conversation, from its start, you shall see what was intended and how so. However, for the hard of thinking, such as boxy, i shall explain it. Twas naught but my refuting a point you made, the only point mind you, about why removing them would be a bad thing. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:42, 25 July 2008 (BST)

The key to understanding my comment are the three words "in addition to". When looking at Survivor and Zombie, they cover all the possible choices in that category, making an "Other" choice impossible. However, there is an "Other" choice in addition to Pro-Survivor and Pro-Zombie, because these two do not cover all the possible choices in their category. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:51, 25 July 2008 (BST)

In other words, Wan, there can only "Zombies" and "Survivors" in your system, but there can be "pro-Zombie", "pro-Survivor" and "Others" in the current one (if you replace "Hostile" with "Others"). Midianian wasn't disputing the changing of hostile to other, he was disputing the removal of pro- -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:19 26 July 2008 (BST)

Actually, Human and Zombie doesnt cover dual nature or Zombie-Human alliances. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:59, 26 July 2008 (BST)

No, they don't cover them, but that's because Zombie and Survivor are completely separate concepts from dual nature and Zombie-Human alliances. Zombie and Survivor are states of existence, not playstyles, which is why I'm so much against using those words. "Human" is the worst choice because everyone in this game is human. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:13, 26 July 2008 (BST)

So what then? A category for every self-defined playing style? Uhm, no. Any categorisation is going to be problematic, but what is going to be the least problematic? In any event, "Hostile" has to go, because it's nothing but pro-survivor bias. --WanYao 14:59, 26 July 2008 (BST)

Yes, "Hostile" is bad. If nothing else comes out of this discussion, that has to be changed.

As for categorization, I've made my suggestion. Take the two widest and most common playstyles (Pro-Survivor and Pro-Zombie) and chuck everything else in Other. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:51, 27 July 2008 (BST)

Ridleybank Danger Level

Suggested change to Ridleybank color

This past week in particular, but generally speaking there seems to be alot of conflicting ideas of what color the suburb of Ridleybank should be. As a matter of zombie pride, most zombies like to see the Homeland stay Red. Directly related to human pride though, especially in conjuction to a "invasion" or a effort to "retake Blackmore", is a effort to lower the danger level to orange, and sometimes even green. In order to settle the issue once and for all, I suggest the Zombie Homeland of Ridleybank adopt a unique, permanent danger color of Pink. If this is the incorrect place to discuss this suggestion, please refer me to the appropriate place. Thanks --Gus Thomas 03:59, 1 May 2008 (BST)

You know, a year ago I woulda been for this. Now it just makes me laugh.--Karek^maps?! 05:07, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Pink for the win! :D --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 21:23, 9 May 2008 (BST)

How about the colours remains the same, but the name ridleybank is replaced with a picture of a zombie? Everyones happy, :-} --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:26, 9 May 2008 (BST)

I think you guys are entirely missing the point of the Suburb Danger level. We unbiasedly and accurately report the suburbs danger level, (all suburbs) so that players have an accurate idea of how dangerous the suburb is. It shouldn't have anything to do with anyones pride. ~Sukina Shinji

I believe sir, you mispoke. Ideally yes, the danger map would be unbiased and accurately used to show the current situation on ground. With Ridleybank however, I notice that is not the case. Ridley's Danger level changed several times one day, from anything from red to green, when the situation there was the same throughout. So, as that is not the case, I propose the above change.--Gus Thomas 21:12, 14 May 2008 (BST)

I don't support the idea of changing it just for Ridleybank but I do not think for second it is accurate. It's called the Suburb Danger level yet we use it as the Zombie Count Level. Loads of zombies do not mean Very Dangerous, they could be looking for revives. And only a couple of zombies does not mean Moderate. I'd like the system to adopt a new way of judging suburb danger levels, one that reflects the danger it is for survivors to live (zombie and pker). Right now Gibsonton is a bloodbath of PKing but it's Green. Some n00b will walk in there and have his face rocked off by DORIS awesomeness. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 21:24, 14 May 2008 (BST)

I agree that the suburb danger levels need to be changed. The game has outgrown the rating system, and it no longer works accurately. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:37, 14 May 2008 (BST)

Why is {{DangerMap}} the main focus of a page called Suburb?

It seems that this page has outgrown its map status. Firstly, there aqre noqw multiple city maps, each arguably as valid as the {{DangerMap}}. Secondly, there is no alphabetic list of suburbs on that page (ideally with corresponding suburb numbers) meaning that players who want to figure out where there suburb is on the map need to scan visually, or resort to some sort of search; I faced this issue often before coding up a GPS script. Thirdly, there is no Category:Suburbs page, which is simply insane; all the suburb pages should be in a category!
I propose to remedy this by creating a Category:Suburbs page that will list all the suburbs etc, and also act as a maps portal. The current Suburb page would then be re-named and edited to reflect its primary focus (the {{DangerMap}} and related discussion). What do you think?  Swiers 20:06, 22 April 2008 (BST)

There is a Category:Suburbs, it lists all suburbs and then has sub-cats that, should, list all buildings in that given suburb. --Karek^maps?! 20:09, 22 April 2008 (BST)

I remember it did surprise me when I first saw the danger map here. I was probably expecting "Suburb" to be a short glossary item. --Toejam 20:35, 22 April 2008 (BST)

You want that stuff, go to the malton page.--Jakezing 00:18, 24 April 2008 (BST)

How hard is it to find your suburb on the map? Ctrl + F on your browser will highlight it for you. --Pdeq^Talk* 02:31, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Oh wow. I just discovered a new feature on my browser. Thanks for that! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:36, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Hey hey, no need to get all sarcastic. People were complaining and it is fairly easy to do...--xoxo 03:07, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Not sarcastic. :D --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:18, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Easy to do, but its a shit ass lazy bad design to force people to do that in a hypertext medium. Plus, a lot of newbies probably would not know that, or wouldn't know how to spell the word, and the Suburb page ought to be one of the most newbie friendly on the wiki, given its frequency of reference.  Swiers 03:24, 24 April 2008 (BST)

Apart from the gnome (who i refuse to believe is being serious) I'm pretty sure everyone knows how to cntrl-f. Maybe make a page List of Suburbs or something and have a link to it from the top of the suburb page but i like the suburb page the way it is. And i think the reason it has so many hits is that it has the dangermap on it, thats where i go to view the dangermap.--xoxo 03:31, 24 April 2008 (BST)

If anyone is more skilled at CSS than I am, perhaps a solution could be coded up where there'd be buttons at the top of the suburb page that changed the map type. All the map types use the dangermap coloring, I think, but overlaying NT status (from Salt the Land) or EMR reports (from External Military Report Map) could make this page much more useful to everyone. Iunnrais 17:32, 24 April 2008 (BST)

wow, that would be good. If your doing that couldnt you select burbs by first letter, click Ba nd all the B burbs are highlighted. Cos if you dont know the first letter of a suburb you aint never gonna find it.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:38, 24 April 2008 (BST)

I like that idea. And ross, i have absolutely no idea what choo talkin' 'bout :P--xoxo 00:36, 27 April 2008 (BST)

The answer to this question is rather simply: because people got used to it. The current map, with the dangemap system attached to it, was devised based on the previous version of existing map on the suburb page... you can read about the evolution of the dangemap here. So, since the map of Malton was devised we got used to attach the danger level of each burb to it. Changing it now would represent a major setback on the way people see that page. Several users already said that they use this map to look for action and/or to build a safe house. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:49, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Shouldn't this be merged with Survivor Danger Map?

I don't usually update the Danger Map, but I was in Brooke Hills (getting NecroNet scans for NecroWatch), listed on the map as being a Ghost Town, but since I counted 71 zeds in my scans, I figured I'd better update it. I couldn't remember what page it was on, so I did a search, and I pulled up both Survivor Danger Map AND Suburb, which are almost identical! So, er, before I go and request that they be merged, is there any reason for both of these pages to exist independently?

No they just do. Directly above where you wrote this it says that, survivor danger map should probably be a redirect but hey, the system works how it is...--xoxo 08:30, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Er, well, apparently the issue is moot, since the Survivor Danger Map now redirects to this page. Quick work, Hagnat! --Morgan Blair 18:53, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Personally I think it would make more sense if Suburb was simply an explanation of Game Information about suburbs (how Malton is laid out and certain technical information like suburb numbers) and then also acted as a portal page to various Player Information maps.  Swiers 19:15, 4 May 2008 (BST)

It can have both. Visual representation is a useful tool and in this case it actually kinda serves the whole purpose of defining the word as it is based on the visual lay out, they really are as simple as the map makes them.--Karek^maps?! 19:25, 4 May 2008 (BST)

True enough. I think the recent edit I made accomplishes the "maps portal" purpose nicely, and also makes it a bit clearer that the danger levels are based on player supplied viewpoints, and are not "Game Information", although the map layout obviously is.  Swiers 19:46, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Danger Level addition

Ok so bassicly right now we classify suburbs into, green, yellow, orange, red, and gray. But what that doesnt tell us is what is happening in those suburbs. I suggest we also have a number under the name of each suburb called DEFCON.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN WE WOULD GET RID OF COLOR CODED SUBURBS!!!

Bassicly it just tells how much activity is happening in the suburbs. A red zone could be all zombies, or it could be a battle and a siege of buildings. This isn't to report the danger, it's to report what kind of danger. It would work like this.

Defcon 5 = Little or no combat happening, either it's all humans, or all zombies.

Defcon 4 = A few break ins mostly ferals.

Defcon 3 = At least one group is making semi-organized attacks, or ferals are working overtime.

Defcon 2 = A battle is going on, many groups are fighting and the casualties are high.

Defcon 1 = The whole suburb is under seige, malls are attacked, NTs are making last ditch stands. it's a warzone.

--Super Nweb 01:10, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Discuss

Spell Check your suggestions. Also, it sounds very Trenchy, and seems to be handled all right by the coloring system. I'm not saying we don't need a new system, but this doesn't seem to do very much that our current system doesn't.-- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (BST)

What does Trenchy mean?--Super Nweb 01:04, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Short for Trenchcoater. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 01:11, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Belongs here, I think. But definitely not on this page. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 00:56, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Moved. --Pdeq^Talk* 01:29, 24 July 2008 (BST)

No. Trenchtastically bad. The suburb danger system is anti-zombie enough as is. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 00:58, 24 July 2008 (BST)

I didn't meen for it to be anti-zombie. I just want a better way to classify suburbs. A red suburb could be a zombie paradise, or a war. It's better if we know.--Super Nweb 01:37, 24 July 2008 (BST)

The only "war" that could happen is a siege, any other kind is simply humans being slaughtered and zombies standing back up. Also please remember to sign your posts with four tildes -- Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 01:26, 24 July 2008 (BST)

Its already pretty easy to tell whether a suburb has a single focussed clump of zombies sieging a building, has a bunch of zombies at a revive point, or just has zombies scattered all over. Bot the EMRPs and the SIM tell you this. [1] even lets you highlight location types, see only open ground or building squares, and will tell you exactly which square is what. That beats the shit out of having a single number. There's also the Omnimap, which gives you Direct info about whats happening via the danger level, SIM view, and MIC reports.
My point is, with those quality maps, what is a number going to add, except argument over what that number should be, and labor in updating it? You can already easily obtain the info that would go into determining this number, so why settle for a second hand source?  Swiers 04:28, 24 July 2008 (BST)

It would be good idea, but you would have to rethin your meanins for eache level. Example: what would you rate a suburb that is right next to a suburb invaded by the MOB, and was getting pasted, but had no organised zombie presence??? --Angusburger 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Bold Issues

Some people are starting to fail to recognize the difference between template SpecialSafe and MapSafe. Look at the amount of unwarranted 'special' suburbs. Where is Miltown again? Perhaps we should start monitoring this a bit more efficiently. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:55, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Abolish noteworthy suburbs

I know we've been through this before, but they really are stupid. Anyone who plays the game for a few months knows where the major suburbs are and every other suburb has it's own half baked claims to noteworthyhood. Just scrap the idea, it's just a ground for drama. If newbs care about the history they maybe it should be easier to find, this is just an easy way for a few areas to wave their dicks on one of the most viewed page of the wiki. And yes, i am aware my group loves dick waving on high view pages, so stfu. --xoxo 11:12, 14 October 2008 (BST)

What are you talking about? :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| :| FLY MY PRETTIES!!!--Nallan (Talk) 12:11, 14 October 2008 (BST)

I agree,delete this crap.We don't need any more drama.--Gamestriker4 16:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You got my vote, for what its worth.--Brian Eetar ^{Day To Day|CFT|GMG} 20:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. There's the "historical events" and "historical groups" labels that can give recognition to stuff that was "noteworthy" in the past. And who the heck CARES about Chuddleytown and Darvell Hills anymore? They've not been "noteworthy" for a very long time. Get rid of this silly categorization, and good riddance. --Jen 16:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Simply said, no. The only suburb currently tagged that i dont remember being of note is wittenside, all the others had very important events occuring on it -- events that gathered the attention of the entire community for long periods of time. While they serve little for the newbie now, they still help to focus on the important suburbs without having to read the name of all the others (i, for example, just skim through the middle burbs looking for the bold ones to find Greater Ridleyburb, and then search for any surrouding burb from there) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:39, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it's useful. Not to mention that it helps focus the map into sections of population and activity.--Karek^maps?! 06:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it focuses into sections of historical population and activity. I think the bolding should only reflect present population and activity, and suburbs of historical interest be kept in here. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [509,27]} 09:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right, none of those places are at all significant these days. Well, except for maybe Chudleyton and Darvell Heights which still see the most conflict in that whole section of the map. Oh, and Yagoton, which is still constantly fought over by survivors and Extinction/EF. There's also Eastonwood, I mean we can't ignore the suburb that never gets repaired can we? I guess in that vain Ridleybank has to count too, it even has that yearly event, what is it again? Also Barrville and Stanbury Village, I mean they are basically always active because of Ackland and Nichols. And of course there's Pitneybank, Giddings Mall determines the fate of that whole corner. Hmm, I seem to be missing one, oh yeah, it snuck in, although there certainly has been a fair bit of activity there since the Forts update. I suppose that means that you're not right, funny that. . . --Karek^maps?! 23:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You can claim any suburb is important if you're like that. Dakers is mostly ruined and when its not extinction fight tooth and nail to get it back. dullston is a boring hellhole, santlerville is full of mall rats and has seiges. Blah blah blah. Loads of suburbs are active, unless you're saying they're bold because they're historically relevant AND active today? --xoxo 03:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, certainly Earletown, Reganbank, and Mornington will be the next sights of the big thing because everyone does everything there. I was pointing out that his claim had no real merit.--Karek^maps?! 11:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You're just not paying attention. Yeah, some (perhaps even most) of the suburbs of historical note are also active and important today, but the suburbs are still selected based on historical merit. It shouldn't be a requirement that the noteworthy events happened two years ago before the suburb gets added. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [513,29]} 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh but it should. Or rather, it should be a requirement that the suburb is noteworthy for multiple instances in time, my general rule is at least three major events and longevity of state, that's why I refused Santlerville when it was proposed, it didn't have longevity of state. Ignoring that just makes it as purposeless of a thing as you seem to think it already is.--Karek^maps?! 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

If you'll look really, really closely, you might be able to notice that I didn't say that all of the suburbs currently in bold should be de-bolded. Yeah, Ridleybank definitely deserves a mention in the historically noteworthy suburbs, but as far as I know, it's currently just ruins with nothing going on in there. Also, Eastonwood's been pretty "noteworthless" since EF disbanded, there's not much going on in there either (at least when I was last there). I'm saying that the bolding should be something that can be changed along with the regular danger-map updating according to what is actually happening as of right now, as opposed to what happened two years ago, or has been the current state of affairs for the past two years. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [510,29]} 10:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy status is meant to be a long long term indicator of importance to the game, and all of these places, except maybe Whittenside, have been constantly important to the game going on 3 years now and a slow month or two does not mean that has changed.--Karek^maps?! 11:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just crazy when I want current information in the DangerMap. The long term info doesn't really serve a purpose there and would be better confined to the section below it which actually explains why they're noteworthy. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [513,29]} 13:53, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It serves a purpose you're just ignoring it, these places are central to each side. You have your current information, you also have more long term information that shows more significant trends, if Darvall Heights/Chudleyton is Red it means the whole North West is also dangerous, if Giddings goes so goes the South East. These places ended up being noteworthy because of their design and placement, that's why the big events always go there, that's why the groups that cause those events choose to reside there. --Karek^maps?! 23:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Moved from Reporting Guidelines header

The Reporting Guidelines and Changing the Suburb Colour headers were cluttered with entries that didn't belong there. I've moved them here. --Silisquish 00:07, 24 October 2008 (BST)

Locettside

• Locettside

insert your report here --Z0mb1eSlay3r

Many lone zombies in the area,break in are more usual,most buildings are ESB,I suggest getting the skill Free Run,zombies seem less active,every zombie ive shot didnt do anything to me,if you need EXP come here,advancing danger level by 1

Highway Plan

ok im sorry if i posted this in the wrong place but i think this is the best idea i ever had. at least for Urban Dead. I'm suggesting sort of a survivor highway plan. What if we set a pattern of VS barracaded building next to each other, so people have an expressway that they can stop at when they ran out of action points. if they are traveling to the other side of the city for example. Rhodenbank had the same idea but only in 1 suburb is pointless. this will take a lot of planning so who is with me?--Pyro1499

what if zeds take some of the building's --William2 16:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

same deal if theres an accident on a real highway... you go around--CJ 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Do it! Publish it! With the lack of capable survivor groups to have fun with lately, zombies need a goal besides just smashing random suburbs. Ruining the entire route would be a fun diversion. Then again, the PKers will have a grand old time overcading the entire thing. </sarcasm>
Seriously, no, it will never work, for the two reasons I just gave. -- Grogh 02:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

they can always try, if they succeed we allow it for a week or two before setting up a wall of ruins one suburb wide, trapping any low AP "commuter" in the open. call it Operation Dead End? i like this idea. fukkin do it so we can break it.--Bullgod 01:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They'd just sleep in one of the several ruined dark buildings in the suburb, also this idea is pretty pointless...and if you guys are so bored can't you try to take and hold suburbs until we have like 50% of suburbs as pure ruin??--xoxo 01:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

same deal fellas pkers cant over barricade all of them, and zombies cant ruin them all.. and if they want to try let em it would be fun!--CJ 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)