User talk:Tumu
Feedback?
Open Discussion regarding ParserFunctions extension
Since you've shown interest in this subject in the past, I thought I'd let you know that I've started an Open Discussion regarding Arguments for-and-against the ParserFunctions extension. I'd appreciate any constructive comments you might be able to provide there. Thanks! --Morgan Blair 06:44, 17 May 2008 (BST)
Right
No, I have a problem with you removing useful information. Since there is no POV in the Mall entry, there is no reason to be messing with it.--User:Axe27/Sig 22:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Removing useful info and removing duplicated and out of place useful info are different beasts. This is about the latter. The Mall header was POVed with tactical info about zombie playing. The page is about buildings and survivors, not about what buildings zombies like to (or should) target or not. If there is need to go into preferences, seperate page (eg. tactical guide) work best. Alternative is to ditch even trying to NPOV and have any survivor+zombie+pk+trenchie+other preferences directly on the pages. Good luck editing that combination when people have bias. --Tumu 23:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC) (ed: the paragraph in question was most likely very old edit which no one had bothered to remove/rewrite, so making too much over it prolly isn't worth it.. better to concentrate on more current game events and situations.)
Buildings n' stuff
I didn't revert, I copied and pasted everything back. You never said I couldn't do that. :)
Anyway, I just think it was fine as is. There's nothing really non-NPOV about it. Zombies check inside, Survivors are generally inside. It all has to do with the game too. -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't kind of obvious that survivors would be inside? Why mention it seperately there? (It's tactical info of sorts, doesn't really belong in buildings page.) Should we include the same wording with every major (or non-major) building? Atleast it should be rewritten with more sensible language.. :| --Tumu 20:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- With all intents go ahead. --Tumu 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- I do think it would be easier to leave the "not found list" on there in some form. It's not always obvious whats missing from the list.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:22, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- With all intents go ahead. --Tumu 20:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Radio Pennville
Just seen your edit on our wiki page...don't know where you got your 26.20 'district frequency' from, but the RPM have broadcast on 27.80 for well over a year and have no plans to change it (seeing how it's on our home page and that of Grinter Cinema too).
Please can you reverse your edit (it may have been better etiquette to ask us first if it was ok to remove it rather than edit an active groups page, hey?) Thanks. MoyesT RPM 09:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
- Done. Tho your frequency has been removed from radio page for some time now (it was even under different group name iirc) and has been taken by another group. You might want to update the pages you mentioned and radio page to reflect the current status. Tumu 11:21, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
RE: Fort Perryn movement images
Right, I have no interest in an edit war so I'll just talk with you instead and see if you have a convincing argument. I don't see why we should not have the movement images, they give a very clear image of movement capabilities. Often Images are useful for explaining, the text on the fort page isn't exactly the most enlightening. What is more is it is specific for the page it is on. You have to remember that if no one removed them until you did then no one else had a problem with them. I personally found them useful. Do you really think some newb is then going to go and search out forts if he has most of the information already there? - Whitehouse 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Me neither, but the current presentation is not exactly the best. There's few issues with them, namely too large thus requiring own section without any other content, have titles included making rescaling to smaller size a problem plus the fact that we should not duplicate info on the forts page, even if it is presented in another way. Also the presentation on the images is too complex. The best way to go would be having a thought out, simple chart on the forts page and linking to it from the forts. This chart could even be done as template so that the forts can include it on their pages. If you insist on using the images, go ahead, I won't revert them again, but they really can't be the final solution to it. Something better has to be figured out. --Tumu 13:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
- Fair points, you convinced me. I just checked the size, and you are right, it goes out of the page on lower resolutions. I don't know about how it would be possible to lower the complexity, the system doesn't lend itself to easy interpretation. I am not good with templates, so it will have to wait, I might try some time, but that would have to be a future project. So yeah, not a final solution. I'll leave them off the page. - Whitehouse 19:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Make them smaller or make new versions of them, don't remove them as they've been there for quite a while and are very important information many people wouldn't realize otherwise, since they were removed we've already gotten suggestions to limit free running inside forts.--Karekmaps?! 00:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- Already gotten suggestions? Have they even been to the forts in game? If someone happens to miss the forts info, the game clearly tells what happens when doing "invalid" moves. The movement maps haven't been on Fort Creedy page for ages (no, I didn't remove them from there, someone else did), they've only been present on Perry. If anything, the movement maps should be on the forts page, not duplicated twice on Creedy and Perry. The duplication isn't a surprise as I've noticed that duplication is actually preferred (untold policy?) on the wiki and most attempts at cleanup or removal of content are not taken very well (unless policied or voted thru, and even then there's wikidrama). Meh. Anyways, have to figure out something better. Maybe a infobox of "This building has special movement rules" of sorts could do good. It might be useful with other buildings as well. --Tumu 10:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
- It's important information, the point of the pages is too provide as much important information as possible, the point of the Forts page is just to describe what that building is, the difference is few users actually ever see the Forts page but a much larger number of fort bound survivors will see the Fort Creedy and Fort Perryn pages. Sometimes things are duplicated on purpose because of who is expected to see what. Also, I noted on the Speedy deletion case who removed them.--Karekmaps?! 10:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
