Talk:Suburb/archives0

Great work on this, User:Daranz, User:Otherlleft and anyone else who I missed having a hand in it ... Morlock 06:25, 13 Sep 2005 (BST)

Hm, why doesn't the suburb list appear when you view this page via the Suburb link? --Spiro 13:29, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

My suspicion is that using the "Category:" extensions changes what the wiki uses to display the page. If this is the case, I'm honestly not sure how to fix it... -- Odd Starter 13:40, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

Redirects to categories are strange. If you click on the category tab at the top the list appears. --otherlleft 14:28, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yeah, there doesn't appear to be a way around that. I spent ages looking on the mediawiki help when I did the redirect in the first place. Morlock 15:08, 16 Sep 2005 (BST)

GIR's very nice map addition is a sweet way addition. As for the listings not appearing, why don't we ask for the Suburb page to be deleted? A search for "suburb" will show the category, so there won't be any confusion. Now that we know the problems redirecting to categories, it makes more sense. --otherlleft 14:49, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

I'm in favour of leaving it as a redirect 'cos it seems likely that at some point in the future someone will wikify the word "suburb", and if it turns up as a red link someone will end up creating a pointless page. But I'll add a bit to the text to tell people to click on the category tag. And yeah, nice work on the map, GIR Morlock 14:54, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Anybody working on the last twenty suburbs? It's nice that we have a template now, but if nobody's going to use it... --Monohymn 16:56, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

It seems to me there is a large difference between what is on the colour grid map and the text describing the suburbs--Chanb 17:25, 25 Nov 2005 (GMT)

This recent line in an update had me laughing for a few minutes, "any zombies making it inside being sent packing with a hole in the head and a kick up the ass." --Duce Nauks 17:16, 25 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Quantitative Definition of "Dangerous"

Stoy_Winters added numerical values for the colored outlines on January 6th, which is for the most part fine, except it seems that the numbers are just something he came up with arbitrarily, and I personally don't think those values are accurate desriptors. For example, I'm playing in Galbraith Hills, which is pretty much void of safehouses and getting very hard to stay in. However, the biggest mob has only ever reached about 40 zombies at its peak. According to Stoy_Winters's system, that qualifies Galbraith Hills for the "Potentially Dangerous" label, clearly not an accurate assessment of what life is like there.--Elmer Addison 05:06, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT) Perhaps it would be more accurate to base the riskiness of each suburb on the number of safehouses rather than the number of zombies?--Elmer Addison 20:43, 22 Jan 2006 (GMT)

How about, basing it off of how meny VS+ places ther are, compared to how meny zombies there are. It would also be a good idea to include how meny resource structures are still barricaded with no zombies inside. like police stations and such. As clearly, a suburb with no usable police stations are more dangourus the suburbs with 1 usable one --ramby 04:02, 23 Jan 2006 (GMT)

You're right. Zombie population is a very poor indicator of danger, since their organization and the opposing survivor population can be even more important factors in the "safeness" of the suburb for any individual survivor. I would suggest qualitative guidelines something like this: Red - almost all buildings of any kind overrun. Orange - most resource buildings overrun. Yellow - one or two resource buildings overrun. None - everything except the streets firmly in survivor hands. --Sindai 00:58, 1 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Suburbs of Note / Dangerous Suburbs

Given the proliferation of survivor groups on this wiki, isn't adding survivor group locations to the 'Suburbs of Note' rather unnoteworthy? As for the dangerous suburbs, could someone with a bit more time put them in alphabetic order? The list is quite long now, so it should be evident to editors to put their additions in appropriately, and will make reading easier.--18:31, 6 Nov 2005 (GMT)

• Has there ever been any discussion here of how this page uses the word "dangerous?" Right now, I think it shows a bias in favor of humans. A more neutral term, like "active," might serve better. --Dickie Fux 18:32, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

It's meant to be baised toward survivors. You can make that clearer if you want, but if we try to represent both sides of the coin here we'll only end up with a jumbled mess. --Raelin 21:53, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

i think the map should display the range of co-ordinates cus ive currently spent 3 days (and counting) looking for a revive point. facing headshots and whatnot along the way. but with th co-ordinate ranges i would be able to tell if i am heading to the closest revive point.--Gerald Terrant 14:22, 4 Dec 2005 (GMT)

The color usage should really include some sort of guideline. Currently it looks like someone went berserk with the VD coloring, and included such wisdom as "Several groups of 3 and a group of 6. I have only seen 1 human. This should be marked as a DANGER ZONE to all lone humans!!" Personally I wouldn't even call that potentially dangerous. --Velkrin 03:13, 27 Dec 2005 (EST)

I suggest a three-color system. "Red, Yellow and Green." Red = Dangerous, Yellow = Caution, Green = Safe.

Red would be mass organized hordes of 20 or more plus a lot o ferals. Yellow would be small-organized hordes or large amounts of ferals. And green would be low amounts of ferals and no medium sized organized hordes. - --Fullemtaled 08:31, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Wow, massive upsurge of Very dangerous surburbs. What qualifies as very dangerous, anyway?. -- Andrew McM 18:58, 27 Dec 2005 (GMT)

Well if you go by the map, and the suburb I was just in for two days, according to the person who changed it...about two zombies. I think Runner is just being a jerk judging by the history page. --Velkrin

Looks like Runner is being a goddamn nuisance again. I'd ask one of the mods to b7 him, but his actions don't constitute vandalism. - KingRaptor 12:50, 28 Dec 2005 (GMT)

---

How long should 'noteworthy' information last?

So, discussion time: how long should noteworthy information last. Right now, I'm thinking mainly of the last two items in the 'Suburbs of Note' area:

1. Pitneybank - home to the survivor group the PA Rebel Alliance, based out of Giddings Mall. In mid-September, the PA Rebel Alliance were responsible for zombie group the The Many's greatest defeat.
2. Shearbank - suburb once occupied by a group called DARIS, who made it a policy to eliminate all non-DARIS members within the suburb. It was eventually forced out by a variety of factors, including downright apathy and a possible zerging attack.

Now, Shearbank isn't even marked as notable on the map anymore, and although DARIS may be historically notable, I'd argue that it's questionable as to whether they have any current notability. (They haven't been active for close to 6 months, according to what I can gather.)

As for Pitneybank, The Many is no longer relevent to current gameplay (even their own page says they haven't been believed to be active since Sept.), and the PA Rebel Alliance shows up on the stats page as having only 18 active members. If we were to use that as a criteria for notability, then an argument could probably be made that nearly all of the suburbs are notable.

Anyways, opinions? — g026r 06:05, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

I think the easiest way to resolve things would be to keep the bolded "notable" suburbs for currently notable areas, and create a new section (with no corresponding marking on the grid) for "historic" suburbs. --Sindai 00:22, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Done. Feel free to make any changes to the new section that seem appropriate. — g026r 20:18, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Colours

Could we get a consensus on what these colours mean? Currently we have yellow, pink and orange - and of course blue, which looks like default. Being as Shearbank is pink, I'm presuming that it means danger. But I think the orange is intended as something similar. Someone elsewhere made the valid point that we don't want to go crazy with colours as then things look a big mess and are just confusing. I think we could handle four or five though. Especially if there was a guide as to what means what.--Perikles 21:04, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Second Perikles. Suggest blue for default, yellow for interesting activity or the like (whatever people feel like) and red for known danger (Shearbank at the moment, possibly others if they're held down). --Stankow 21:11, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yeah, I was hoping for some sort of discussion about the colours, I haven't been adding them in because there's no concensus/guide on them. I like your suggestion Stankow, but I'm not sure if colours are even a good idea. In the case of Shearbank DARIS appears to be a major threat that will be there for sometime, but some of the groups constituting yellow "activity" might disappear pretty quickly. Penny Heights is yellow-ed (probably due to the Penny Heights OGs) but I haven't seen anything from them in a while. In other words, the colours are extremely time sensitive. -- TSP 21:18, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

It is difficult to maintain them, since you'd have to make four to nine changes every time you altered a color. Is that enough reason not to bother? I'm ambivalent. --Stankow 21:24, 21 Sep 2005 (BST)

Just want to say, I really like the new colour coding and the chart above the suburbs map. Very nice work by whoever did this.--Perikles 13:43, 21 Oct 2005 (BST)

I notice the colour scheme is mostly drawn with survivors in mind. Could we have colours to indicate the known strength of human presence? --Brainwrong 12:30, 7 Nov 2005 (GMT)

You're absolutely right; it is only geared toward survivors. The main reason for this is, for zombies, there really aren't any "Dangerous" suburbs out there (if they die, they just stand up and headshotters are in every suburb), just good places to eat. Thus, any zombie can basically assume that the opposite of this map is true. If a suburb is dangerous for survivors, it's a good place to be as a zombie. --Raelin 21:45, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Policy on Suburb activity

If we're going to start putting time-sensitive activities on the individual suburb pages, perhaps we should try and convince people to sign them - It'll look quite messy, but at least we'll have an idea of who made the claim, and when it was made (thus, updates can be measured for voracity by their date, at least. -- Odd Starter 03:51, 22 Sep 2005 (BST)

Yea, I know at least one person is still steering clear of Shearbank even though last I checked it wasn't occupied by DARIS, because of the information on this page. --Radoteur 07:15, 2 Oct 2005 (BST)

Have 'em sign with ~~~~~, like so: 19:13, 4 Oct 2005 (BST)
— ceejayoz ^{★ .com} 19:13, 4 Oct 2005 (BST)

Sorting by Date

Maybe we should sort the entries under "Dangerous Surburbs" by date, with most recent entires at the top. This would make it easier to get the latest up-to-date info.

I wanted to do it earlier today, but I got tired. Heh. -- KingRaptor 14:30, 15 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I agree, it's much better in chronological order. Makes it easier to get up-to-date information and easier to remove that which is out dated. I have, in fact, sorted it as such many times before but people seem unable to maintain the order for some reason. They also fail to read other entries before making their own, and at least this way they may catch that they're duplicating entries when they have to put it alphabetically. I'll probably re-sort it chronologically soon, though, but I'd like to see what others' opinions are first. --Raelin 02:17, 16 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think we should remove anything older then 14 days old unless the condition has the ability to be certified again. I also think we should ask at least for a # infront of the suburb incress so we know how meny reports there are at one time. --ramby T--W! - SGP 14:03, 30 March 2006 (BST)

Old Entries

Just to be clear here, anything older than 2 weeks shouldn't be showing up here anymore. Events change quickly in this game, and information that old is, no doubt, sorely outdated. If you spot anything older than two weeks when editing, remove it and lower the respective suburb color. -- Raelin 10:18, 22 Nov 2005 (GMT)

Is it sure? If it is then there should be a lot of old scout reports to be deleted. --HamChoi 12:31, 5 April 2006 (BST)

I delete the old entries semi-regularly, although I usually let them sit a bit more than two weeks. I've added a line ahead of the map saying that if there is no report on a suburb, then the map color is probably outdated because nobody has reported on it for the past two weeks. I suppose that ideally we would have an "outdated/unknown" border color for such suburbs, but that would be a lot of work to maintain. --Sindai 16:50, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Zombie Spread Pattern

This well-updated page, when taken in hand with the Zombie Tracker, is a very well-done map showing the majority of the zombie infection. A few months ago it was mostly well contained higher group consentration in the centeral areas around Ridleybank, but is now moving forward in a red-and-yellow pattern. Anyone else besides me find this interesting to track? --MorthBabid 23:28, 13 Jan 2006 (GMT)

• After reading that it didnot make much sense(I need to stop editing while i am sleepy I really do.) What I ment was, that it looks like your classic infectius diagram of how an epidemic would occer. It starts in isolated places, then when it starts to spread it spreads quickly, btu as the tragets start to disapper, its growth starts to stagnate then starts to shrink. With a system like this though, it will start to stagnate then it will start to regrow aagin, much like freezing water, letting it melt and then once it melted, reforming it into a cube and re-freezing it. - --ramby 00:00, 21 Jan 2006 (GMT)

Danger Level and Notability are Separate

Suburbs have a danger level that ranges from Very Dangerous to Relatively Safe (Relatively Safe was originally called "Zombies? What Zombies?") colored from Red to Green. Unreported Suburbs are left with uncolored borders.

Somewhere along the way it was decided to turn the Reported-But-Relatively-Safe classification into a Suburb-Of-Note class with Blue border, so that Suburbs are Very Dangerous to Dangerous to Potentially Dangerous to Suburb-Of-Note (with unreported Suburbs left unmarked).

This doesn't make any sense to me. A suburb can be "Of Note" but extremely dangerous (and indeed there are many such suburbs). A suburb can be completely safe but not notable (there are also several of these suburbs). Notability should not be part of the Red-to-Green safety spectrum, it should be separately indicated by using a Boldface suburb title. Color should be used to indicate safety.

Danger levels (and the verbiage used inside them) are highly subjective. But since most of the info is rapidly out-of-date anyway, I don't think the accuracy issue is relevant -- any good faith effort to assess danger level is useful enough. I still think the map is one of the most useful pages on the entire wiki. One of the things that I did was to reword each of the safety categories to attempt to include the general consensus of the Talk page discussion up above. In particular, wording reflects the concept that the number of broken-into and zombie-occupied resource buildings reflects danger-level without regard to horde size. Anyone is welcome to reword this further in the ongoing pursuit of excellence. --Tycho44 21:52, 14 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Excellent work. I've been thinking more or less the same thing for ages, but was too lazy to do the renovation myself. One other thing I considered changing was removing the "historical" suburbs of note. Several of them - like Shearbank, Penny Heights, etc - are no longer actually "notable," since the groups that made them so are long gone. Suburbs of Note seems more like it should apply to areas where important events are currently ongoing, such as Barrville (the RRF annexation) or all 4 suburbs around Caigar, in addition to suburbs that are ongoing centers of uniquely high zombie or survivor activity (Ridleybank and Yagoton).--Sindai 01:50, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Re Historical Suburbs -- I agree that outdated Suburb of Note entries should be deleted. Current events get their two weeks and one sentence of fame here. Huge but historical incidents can be retained in the briefest possible form. I also appreciate the "Home of the XYZ" sentence for the groups of 100+ who are guaranteed to impact my experience in that suburb for months. Wikians who care enough to report regularly can keep us apprised. --Tycho44 18:13, 15 Feb 2006 (GMT)

Suburb Status Template

SStatusMap finally works the way I want. I think that it will be much easier to use this template format (where the suburbs can be listed alphabetically) compared to the current table format. I'll leave it up for discussion for a week before attempting to port it over. --Lint 03:07, 13 April 2006 (BST)

I really like it. Preserves all the information we have now while making it much easier to maintain. --Sindai 16:50, 13 April 2006 (BST)

Dakerstown	Jensentown	Quarlesbank	West Boundwood	East Boundwood	Lamport Hills	Chancelwood	Earletown	Rhodenbank	Dulston
Roywood	Judgewood	Gatcombeton	Shuttlebank	Yagoton	Millen Hills	Raines Hills	Pashenton	Rolt Heights	Pescodside
Peddlesden Village	Chudleyton	Darvall Heights	Eastonwood	Brooke Hills	Shearbank	Huntley Heights	Santlerville	Gibsonton	Dunningwood
Dunell Hills	West Becktown	East Becktown	Richmond Hills	Ketchelbank	Roachtown	Randallbank	Heytown	Spracklingbank	Paynterton
Owsleybank	Molebank	Lukinswood	Havercroft	Barrville	Ridleybank	Pimbank	Peppardville	Pitneybank	Starlingtown
Grigg Heights	Reganbank	Lerwill Heights	Shore Hills	Galbraith Hills	Stanbury Village	Roftwood	Edgecombe	Pegton	Dentonside
Crooketon	Mornington	North Blythville	Brooksville	Mockridge Heights	Shackleville	Tollyton	Crowbank	Vinetown	Houldenbank
Nixbank	Wykewood	South Blythville	Greentown	Tapton	Kempsterbank	Wray Heights	Gulsonside	Osmondville	Penny Heights
Foulkes Village	Ruddlebank	Lockettside	Dartside	Kinch Heights	West Grayside	East Grayside	Scarletwood	Pennville	Fryerbank
New Arkham	Old Arkham	Spicer Hills	Williamsville	Buttonville	Wyke Hills	Hollomstown	Danversbank	Whittenside	Miltown

There. Work complete. A really cool suburb template working with colors and stuff. And you can add easily add timestamps to each suburb. --hagnat ^{t • w} 06:44, 16 April 2006 (BST)

But...why did you do to the trouble of making a new one when Lint already has one? I like yours better because the filled squares make it easier to read, but it needs an easy way to bold/unbold "Notable Suburbs" unless you can come up with a different way of tagging them independently of danger level. Although I guess that applies to Lint's too. He's got them bolded but it appears you need to edit the template itself to do that. (I might be wrong, I have no idea how templates work.) --Sindai 17:54, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Hagnat's template is a bit more flexible because you can pass the entire style attribute and make different combinations, whereas mine requires a fixed set of inputs (mild, moderate, severe, extreme). So, to be a bit different, I've added a report space to mine, it might ensure that only one report per suburb is made, but it does lose the ability to quickly determine the most recent developments. Yes, both templates currently requires bolding manually. We could pass in "suburb name" parameters which would allow easy bolding and unbolding, but that also gives more opportunities for the template to break from bad input. From my experience with the Category:Suburbs page, the suburbs aren't bolded on a frequent basis so it shouldn't be a problem. --Lint 19:00, 16 April 2006 (BST)

I didnt went on with Lint template because... it was his template! I started thinking about this template aeons ago, when i made a new map for the revivification points page (that people seems to be uninteressed). This template is really easy to handle, since all you need to do is create a template with the style settings you wish to use on him (MapSafe, MapModerate, MapDanger and MapVeryDanger are all templates, as you can see here).If you dont want a suburb to have any special colors or font attributes, just dont call its variable. As you can see in the talk page of the map template, you dont have to call all burb variables to colour the ones you want.

You could easily create another template for suburbs of note, like template:SafeNote, with a bold call for the title on it. Only remember to switch the fontsize to something like 90% pecause xx-small doesnt have bold or italic fonts. --hagnat ^{t • w} 21:08, 16 April 2006 (BST)

And... there! done! Special suburbs now use the Special{Status} template, instead of the Map{Status} template, and have bold faces :D --hagnat ^{t • w} 21:25, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Well I think it's perfect now. I don't see any reason not to switch. --Sindai 22:40, 16 April 2006 (BST)

I will work on a new Suburb page now, after i finish it i will open a voting process so people can vote if they want or not to switch. --hagnat ^{t • w} 23:39, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Zombie Map vs Category:Suburbs

Perhaps the Category:Suburbs map should be a strictly NPOV - listing only known facts - and Zombie Map becomes the report page? --Lint 19:00, 16 April 2006 (BST)

I think it's fine the way it is way. --Sindai 22:42, 16 April 2006 (BST)

What the hell?

I think Lovemachine's edits should be tossed. He's extremely vauge, and his edits make no sense whatsover. --flareblade77 06:59, 13 April 2006 (EST)