UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive

This is an archive for the storage of old Good Article nominations.

Nominate one here!

Please place new entries on the top of the relevant list.

Past Nominations

Successful

In an attempt to revive the Featured Articles page, I nominate the following article for "Good Article" status. ~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Civilian

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. This is good but I have a query. In the Consumer section it says "This makes re-stocking much faster than in police departments or hospitals", but in the First Aid Kit section it says "it is proven that Hospitals are now the best place to search for FAK's. Even an unlit hospital has yielded FAK's with a greater rate than a lit mall"... so which of these is correct? Chief Seagull talk 12:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

   Considering the search rate for FAKs in Malls was nerfed a year or two ago, there's no doubt that Hospitals are the best place to find FAKs now. —Aichon— 16:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

9. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
10. --Qwints 20:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
11. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
12. yeh all of these are great.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 12 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Military

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
9. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
10. good good--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 10 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Scientist

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
8. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
9. ----Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
10. and again--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No

Passed with 10 in favor.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

NecroWatch

Main page for the NecroWatch project which is a good mix of fluff, encourages survivors to take risks and be proactive, and in its mission tries to get more people to contribute to the Wiki. Quote from extropymine during original discussion about Featured Articles. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. One day I will get the cake. I always like A.L.I.C.E. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)
3. *coughthecakeisaliecough* Excellently written, creative, well formatted, and useful to boot. Certainly seems like feature material to me. - X:/Lorddragonfang ^{[ Talk ]}  00:11, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. I love the Necrowatch stuff. I am not only saying this because A.L.I.C.E. will open to the doors to the NecroTech facility in which my character is sleeping if I don't. --Cpl Adrian Shephard 00:56, 30 April 2009 (BST)
5. Very useful service, and should be plugged at every change. Like now. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
6. The cake is very hard to get down...there's no milk! Other than that, I absolutely agree--Dr Mycroft Chris 14:22, 30 April 2009 (BST)
7. I heartily endorse this nomination. --  RoosterDragon  17:32, 30 April 2009 (BST)
8. Who the hell is ALICE?? ;) --WanYao 19:53, 30 April 2009 (BST)
9. For the cause! CITIZEN VI 23:14, 30 April 2009 (BST)
10. For great justice! --N00bert ^{foxhound DA NW} 01:38, 1 May 2009 (BST)
11. Good stuff. I gots to get backs to dat. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:55, 1 May 2009 (BST)
12. As above. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:34, 4 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Pretty much unanimous. =) -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Guide:Siege PKer Guide

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes - An excellent read. I always liked rule six for being particularly cunning. --  RoosterDragon  05:11, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - This is great. Cyberbob  Talk  05:18, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. Yes - Very well compiled.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:08, 29 August 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - The formatting could use some work, but otherwise a good guide. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
5. Yes - I can't think of a better example of a "good article." --Moctezuma 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. There is nothing that compels me to read this from start to finish, not even to halfway. It is long, the formatting is lacking in flair and there are no pretty images to zest up the amount of content on it. --ϑϑℜ 13:54, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   I will add however that I admit the content is brilliant. --ϑϑℜ 13:55, 5 August 2009 (BST)

2. Too. Many. Words. --xoxo 07:18, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Successful. --

 

 

 

 

12:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Survivor-Zombie Imbalance

This is intended to be a reasonably NPOV account of the survivor/zombie ratio since the game's inception. It was a reasonable article at the start of the year but hadn't been updated in a while and since then I've reworked most of it. I've filled in the history from what I've researched on the wiki. If nothing else the new graphs add substantially to the article. Scrutiny welcome. --  RoosterDragon  05:39, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes - I like it.--Nallan (Talk) 13:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. Yes - so historically relevant and so much effort went into this, I think it deserves to be held highly. --ϑϑℜ 13:36, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:52, 5 August 2009 (BST)

No

1. No. -change your vote on ALiM/Col and we'll talk.--xoxo 00:37, 6 August 2009 (BST)

Successful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Decay

It's pretty basic, but I think it deserves a run here to see what people think of it. I found it very helpful and informative.

For

1. - D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:38, 3 July 2009 (BST)
2. - Yep. Although its missing the top level of decay. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:10, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Against

1. Yeah i like it, but it looks like rubbish and if you are well versed in the game would be quite confusing. I think this'd lower teh standard of good articles.--xoxo 18:53, 3 July 2009 (BST)

Successful - god this is late. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:51, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Zombie

Out of all the character class pages I think this one is the best written one. It's in-depth, clear and very useful to new players. -- Cheese 21:56, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)
2. I'll vouch for that. Something that well written and designed deserves the recognition, in my opinion. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:57, 18 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. Any Donkey can see that this is an awesome page. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:20, 21 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful -D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (BST)

Battle of Blackmore

Normally I don't like POV stuff, but I really liked this. Pure class. It's already gotten through Category:Historical Events voting which already says something about its quality and significance.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Yes please. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:42, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. It's awesome. Utterly POV, but it's so far gone that it doesn't actually matter anymore. Once it's obvious, it's almost neutral; because the reader adjusts it in their mind. Plus the fact that it's hilarious.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 22:41, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. I echo the above sentiments. Its not NPOV, but then it doesn't even try to be. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:50, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. It's very funny. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:22, 9 May 2009 (BST)
5. Hilarious. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:47, 10 May 2009 (BST)
6. Strong yes. --Haliman - Talk 02:10, 11 May 2009 (BST)
7. Wow yes. The pictures alone are priceless. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:34, 13 May 2009 (BST)
8. Awesomeness. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - and proving the value in biased, comic history that was written by the losers. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

River Tactics

This nomination should speak for itself.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Well, yeah. --WanYao 15:34, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. I remember reading it when I was a little boy. Beautiful stuff. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:36, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. Quotes are awesome. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:15, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. Very well written. And a good tactic.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 22:44, 9 May 2009 (BST)
5. As DDS.--xoxo 04:55, 10 May 2009 (BST)
6. As J3D.--Thadeous Oakley 11:11, 11 May 2009 (BST)
7. As Thad. --Haliman - Talk 22:04, 14 May 2009 (BST)

   As Hal. Wow, I'm unoriginal. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:14, 14 May 2009 (BST) Double vote struck ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 14 May 2009 (BST)

8. As Hal. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:36, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Thanks to the congo-line of voters. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

Guides:First Day in Malton

Very well written guide and covers pretty much everything you need to know about the game. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)
2. Balanced. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 10 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. --Haliman - Talk 02:11, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

The Fall of Monroeville Mall

Because in all honesty its probably the best article about Monroeville that exists. Because the event in question (Easy zombie win) was part of the reasoning behind the permaheadshot rule change.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:56, 3 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. This is my vote. Touch it. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:56, 3 May 2009 (BST)
2. Scary. I was just about to nominate this. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:58, 3 May 2009 (BST)
3. If one Monroeville page deserves this status, it is this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:55, 9 May 2009 (BST)
4. As above. --Haliman - Talk 02:12, 11 May 2009 (BST)
5. Me likey. - Cheese 15:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Article is really well written and deserves to get Good Article status. -- Cheese 15:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

---

Rat Tactics

Developed independently of the similarly themed, if more well known, Hiding in Plain Sight page. Rat Tactics predates that -- just barely. These are the tactics that helped us survive, even sometimes almost thrive, during the March of the Dead. And anyone who says it was because of Kevan boosting syringe rates just wasn't there, surviving... rat style. --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. c.f. my nomination, above --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Yar. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. This is a great article. I remember reading about and using these tactics. Very helpful. A fun, interesting style of writing. Nuabreed knows his stuff. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 06:02, 8 May 2009 (BST)
4. Yes. -- --Athur birling 08:56, 8 May 2009 (BST)
5. Yes. --Le bourreau 11:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - The plebs have spoken. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

User:Grim s/Grims guide to staying alive

Controversial, influential and mostly dead on the money -- if a bit, uh, overly cynical and at times quite over the top. Kinda like good ole Grim himself.... --WanYao 20:08, 30 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. I nominated the gorram thing --WanYao 19:58, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. I was never a huge fan of Grim but this amused me. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. A great piece of work. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:38, 3 May 2009 (BST)
4. Influenced my later guide (which is in need of a rewrite,) and a good guide for newer players, if it is a bit aggressive. Very nice piece of work. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:42, 7 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - While Grim may be gone, his sense of humour will live on. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

First Siege of Caiger Mall

Pretty well written article, it's got plenty of information in it and it's pretty interesting to read. Particularly since Caiger has a lot of history and this was the first major siege that occurred in front of it. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Although can we not replace those pesky red links with simple bolded text? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 29 April 2009 (BST)
3. This is arguably the most important allusion to UD's past, and a very popular one. I agree with Rosslessness- if this does get chosen, we should simply bold the dead links. -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 00:04, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. Yes - but kill those red links with bolded text or undelete the pages. Also - as above. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
5. Yuh. Some history is dead, but we can still record it ;) --WanYao 19:53, 30 April 2009 (BST)
6. I like this page, I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)
7. As all above, but I'm going to remove the red links as Ross suggested. Really annoying. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

• Successful - Red links aside, this wins. =) -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

---

Unsuccessful

User:Drawde

Yes

1. Yes - A shining example of a userpage. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - What am I voting for again? --Suburban Ed 14:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - yesyesyes -- Adward  14:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes - Goodness, yes. This page is what God would have made as an example of a perfectly good page. Torec _{T-CC/CS/CS/CS} 14:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
5. What more can I say? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes - He's always raising his hand to lovin' when I join the chats... I adore him and his userpage. --THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes - I vote yes because despite that fact that I spend less than 5 minutes a month on the UD wiki, my opinion counts just as much as Thadeous' --Strata 19:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Yes - Only a Donkey Wouldn't. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Aye, why not 21:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
10. Yes - ily Drawde --Haliman - Talk 00:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes - A truly shining example of what can be accomplished in the limited space given to a user in a userpage. How shall I sing thy praises, Drawde? We should do the horizontal tango right now anyway, you sexy, sexy beast. Rawr. --Shank Case 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
12. HUZZAH - HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE! VAYAN AMIGOS! PARA LA LIBERTAD!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
13. Yes - I want to show off my new signature. Also, this is definitely an example of a user page. --Moctezuma ^{The Streltsy} 01:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
14. Yes - Drawde's userpage epitomises UD Wiki 2.0 (c.f. previous "No" vote") --WanYao 10:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
15. Yes - ZOMGMEATPUPPETRYABUZE! -- 
    •   Timmah!  
    •   Talk  
    03:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. No - Drawde's userpage? Lulzkarlothyouraresofunnahohwaitnoyousux. Hurr, no thanks. This GA is really turning into shit. This is just another humorous attempt to spam up this page. Besides, I have seen far better user-pages, not that this one is bad but certainly nothing special. Also, why are we still calling this Good Articles while half of the nominated pages don't even meet the definition of the word "article" anymore :/ --Thadeous Oakley 16:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   "Any main namespace article (also including user pages and journal pages if they are thought to fulfil the above criteria) can be nominated for good article status." - From the rules at the top.-- Adward  16:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think you need to look up what an "article" is, and so should the same person who wrote those rules. I can assure you that your page isn't. Your page consists of a collection of silly images and templates together with, here it comes, 3 whopping sentences you wrote. It's a pretty basic, nice-looking userpage but as an article? An absolute joke. There is no qualitative information on it whatsoever. But hey, don't let it stop you and your funny fhrendz. --Thadeous Oakley 17:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   What's in an article? That which we call an article/By any other name would smell as sweet. So Drawde would, were he not Drawde call'd/Retain that dear perfection which he owes/Without that title. --Shank Case 00:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   BURN OUT THE DAY! BURN OUT THE NIGHT! I CAN'T SEE A NO REASON TO PUT UP A FIGHT!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   and with the humming bird truly/stay no more/she has a clear, wind-sheltered loveliness/under the harvest moon/in an old chamber softly lit/and look is but a ray/god/and how could you dream of meeting --Shank Case 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   In conclusion, I need to go take a dump --Shank Case 00:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

   Mission Accomplished *salutes* --Shank Case 00:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2. My userpage is the most awesome thing on this wiki, and it's not a GA. Also, yes I believe this is invalid, unless we want a "user of the month" like some wikis do. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
3. No - For fuck's sake... --Papa Moloch 20:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
4. No. Sure, it's a nice little collection of userboxes, but it ain't a Good Article. Chief Seagull talk 20:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Meatpuppets are cheatpuppets - That and I hate templates.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Sigh. As Moloch. --
    
    
    
    
   22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

   It's mostly just a bunch of templates. Fuck no. --WanYao 04:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC) vote changed --WanYao

7. No. Collection of templates scattered around in a dully organized mish-mash. Not well written. Not awesome.--Acidifiers 05:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
8. No - User pages arn't really articles, and can change at any time to be shitty, with only one person having a say in it, the user. If we're going to have user pages in here, they should be archived in the user's namespace and protected is successful, so the user can continue to modify their userpage without needing to keep the standard up to what was voted in -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:49 20 February 2010 (BST)
9. No - I get accused of meatpuppetry but no one throws up the red flags when everyone and their fucking brother in Red Rum votes yes for this? Color me fucking shocked. This whole Good Article category needs to be nuked from orbit. And send the sysop team to hell with it. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
10. No As sonny. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
11. No - It's a Userpage. Just templates. Nothing special. μ_nholy®_eign 02:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
12. No/Spam - (Let me try this voting thing again). This is absurd. It's not an article and it's not even that great an example as far as userpages go.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 03:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
13. No - No offense to the user, but this does not qualify as a good article.--Zarneverfike 06:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
14. No - It's not an article. It's barely a paragraph.--Amber Waves of Pain 09:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

    Amber :( -- Adward  18:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

15. No - As Papa Moloch. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 10:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
16. No - Not an article, bad readability, and poor sense of style. --fe328 06:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
17. No - Is this supposed to be funny? --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
18. No - Why? --TripleU 21:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

The week has already passed. Is someone going to mark this as Failed? --Thadeous Oakley 22:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a vote, I don't think. I think it's like PM, but DDR is the person who cycles them, and he's away at the moment. Also, when the week ended, it was a tie, not a definitive one way. I'm certain it'll be cycled as not though.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's a definite "not" for the simple reason it doesn't meet criteria. It's not well-written, nor complete with only 3 sentences. But we'll wait for DDR then. --Thadeous Oakley 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This article has failed as per the criticism given by the above "no" voters. --

 

 

 

 

02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Renaissance

Yes

1. Yes --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes True, there are some sections not filled in, however there is a bulk of information here that is almost unparalleled. As it is, it stands as a good article, and it has the potential to grow and become more detailed over time, should users choose to improve it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes As above. --Grogh 01:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes Same --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 01:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Yes As above. --Jack Officer 01:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
6. Yes --Humphreybot 00:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Yes To spite Iscariot for being a whiny, bitchy, drama-obsessed tool. Also this is a pretty neat article, I guess. --Shank Case 21:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   PS- Definition of meatpuppeting: "its just a crybaby word for 'a group of mates thay decide to vote along the same lines but i dont agree with that so i'll whine like a bitch!' " --Shank Case 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

8. Yes --TripleU 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Yes - I havent talked to Sonny in ages, nor have I looked at the article in question.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
10. MeetParpat - thats what you get for waking up in vegas--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 23:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
11. Yes - The history isn't finished, therefore it can't be completed by definition. But far as I can tell, up to the point it at which it tails off, almost everything that needs to be there is there. --WanYao 02:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. No - The article is incomplete, particularly in spots like the civil war between MOB and the RRF. Fill in the missing info and then bring it back here. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 07:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Nope as Maverick, it's clearly still a work in progress. Chief Seagull talk 09:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
3. No - incomplete and tedious. --
    
    
    
    
   01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
4. No - Nothing but bullet points. Make it an article and not a checklist, and then yes. 13:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Boring and incomplete - User:Whitehouse 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

   Your mother's a whore. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

6. No - Incomplete articles don't qualify for good article status. When the entire article has been filled out then sure. Until then it's not a good article. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
7. No -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   And, TA-DAH!, has everyone just seen how right I was? I say this system is open to meatpuppetry as soon as it's seen to be easily abused and we get our first instance. This article is losing by six votes and we get four votes all of a sudden within 24 minutes, my, what a coincidence(!) I wonder if a certain group, let's say for the sake of argument, MOB, is spoken of highly in this article? I wonder if these four users have something in common, perhaps shared membership in the same hypothetical group? That seems likely, I wonder if there was a shout out on IRC.... Of course systems like suggestions and historical have things like similarity conditions and minimum participation requirements, this doesn't and MOB gives us our nice first concrete example and more importantly proves me right. Although I did expect more class from MOB. Still, I feel a chorus of the 'I Told You So' song coming on. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yet it was me you bitched at about meatpuppetry. Nice going. Hope you had money on it. 04:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I think you'll find I never addressed you directly, I just used your nomination as my example because we both know what would have happened if you hadn't removed it, wonderful meatpuppetry. Guess we'll never know since you decided to have it so bravely run away in the face of perfect prescience. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Hardly. I withdrew it because I'm tired of idiots like you assuming foul play when there is none. Now go find someone else to condescend to. 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Don't worry, I believe you. So does disciple number one. Nobody else does though, particularly with your Conndraka inspired removal post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   The one where I implicitly state that I withdrew it because I was tired of idiots like you assuming foul play when there is none? If I wanted to meatpuppet something for personal gain I'd have used a group page or something more personal, not a community effort I merely did grunt work for. Of course, that kind of reasoning is far too simple. There's got to be more to it, obviously. Fuck off, you arrogant shitepipe, and stop speaking for people who are perfectly able to speak for themselves. 05:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Again you fail basic reading comprehension, people did speak for themselves when they said "Like Iscariot". They didn't say "Some of his points" or "Only his first line", they said "Like Iscariot" because they agreed with what I wrote in its entirety. The people spoke, you just didn't like the answer. Please cry more. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Actually it's the fact that you called ulterior motives from the get-go, rather than actually asking why I chose the article I did. Of course I had to have put it up for selfish reasons. OBVIOUSLY. It's not like it seemed like a, I don't know, good fucking article to me. 05:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   My, how right you are. After all, my experience has taught me that asking people with ulterior motives means they just tell you their schemes, that's how it works! How could I have forgotten such a self-evident truth of reality that people never lie. I quote the Prophet Gregory "Everybody lies". For the sake of argument, how many times have you ever asked someone you felt wasn't being entirely truthful and open about it and they've just come clean about it? You can give me as many examples as you like, I'll direct you to the world of politics and win the argument with contemptuous ease.

   You thought the article was good? How quaint, how unselfish of you.... to nominate your own article.... truly you shall go to paradise when you pass on to sit with the Enlightened Sting and Saint Bono. What next? Will you nominate your next Youtube video for an Oscar? Couldn't wait for someone else to nominate it now could you? And behold, you've started posting responses to my votes in different nominations, turning this into the den of drama that I so accurately predicted, didn't take it with grace and a simple and honest note when withdrawing your own nomination. Nope, you started dragging your terribly hurt feelings across to a new arena. Please continue to prove me right, it gives me that warm, fuzzy feeling. You know, like when you've just eaten a kitten.

   For the record I have better articles sat in my userspace, do you see me dragging them here like a insecure blonde looking for approval? Nope. And why? Because I'm happy to let the articles themselves be the indicator of quality, not an artificial category that I'd meatpuppeted into.

   Finally, both yours and disciple number one's signatures are illegal. You have one week to make them legal. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   You really are a pathetic asshole. You still refuse to back down over the core issue. I thought it was a good article. What the fuck is this page called? UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles. So fucking what if I had a hand in writing it. I've contributed to other pages nominated here, too. And I'd have nominated it had all the work been done by Kelly, or Rev, or Gor, or anyone else who contributed. If we all sat and let good pages be justed by their own merit, there'd be no fucking point to this system at all, now, would there? You're forgetting that I put the page up for a vote. One which, despite your incorrect expectations, was left to be voted on naturally and without any meatpuppets. Not that you care. No, no. You just want to bitch, to fill whatever spare time you seem to have. A simple I don't think this article is good enough vote would have sufficed, but no. You had to start slinging personal accusations right out of nowhere. So fuck you. 06:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Refuse to back down? If by that do I think that I'm completely right and you're completely wrong, then yes. Slight correction though, you didn't leave the nomination "to be voted on naturally", you quickly removed it in the face of a dissenting opinion. You didn't argue your point that "it was good" you just withdrew it. Can't have been that good if you're not willing to endure some criticism over it. Notice I didn't have to meatpuppet support for my point of view, that's because I had a well constructed argument that I could (and still am) defending. Other users agreed with all or part of that argument, and not with yours. I tell you what, I'll start voting 'simply' on your articles when you have the basic fucking humility not to nominate them yourself or have a minion do it for you, sound fair? Of course that won't happen, there's a much coveted category to be won if you do manage to sneak one through, and that, like, wins you the entire internet!!1!!eleven! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   I have mentioned twice now explicitly why it was withdrawn, and once implicitly whilst withdrawing it. I don't care to have words put in my mouth and motives laid at my feet when neither are true. In the face of a wall of false accusations, I felt it better to withdraw the nomination than to have anyone else start chipping in with lies. Of course, if there was an honest bone in your body you'd admit you fucking knew that. 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Wait, you don't like having words put in your mouth and now you're telling me what I am supposed to have known? And I thought only Americans had an irony deficiency. Let's look at the things I am supposed to have accused you of (and anyone with any ability to read can see was directed at the system as it was being used and no names were ever mentioned), we'll just use the second sentence of my vote on your nomination: "This is now going to turn into the same den of drama that the historical system was". Didn't take your own advice about 'simple' responses to suffice did you? No, you dragged your issues over to this second nomination fulfilling the prophecy that certain nominations would turn this into a drama-fest. I called it, you proved it. "Wall of false accusations"? Basic evidence points to the fact that you've proven me right. No accusations needed, the evidence is plain to see. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

8. No - Incomplete.-- Adward  22:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
9. No - Not ready and not attractive enough, as well as countering Sonny's attempt at meatpupperty.--Thadeous Oakley 07:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

   What fucking meatpuppetry? I never told anyone about this nomination. I almost forgot about this until I went into my Contributions to talk to The Colonel about liquor. You're a paranoid tool. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

10. No - Go and look at criterion number 2. Now go finish it.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 03:53, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
11. No - Incomplete, once it is finished it looks pretty decent, but as it is missing information it cannot be considered good yet. -- 
    •   Timmah!  
    •   Talk  
    03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
12. No - Incomplete. --Papa Moloch 11:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
13. No - As above. Once it is finished (If ever) it would be a yes. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 00:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, let me start by saying that I don't see what the big fucking deal is about meatpuppetry, and Izzy's tantrum has embarrassed all wiki users as a whole. As you can see by the GA archives, GA's aren't specifically cycled quantitatively, but based on the input given by the community, that's how Cheese and I cycled them and in no way does it have to specifically stop. Izzy continued to fuel the fire of paranoia even when we'd told him this. Sigh. Anyways, having said that, this article has Failed. --

 

 

 

 

01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Caiger Mall

Yes

1. Yes - This location holds historic importance to the game, and has a well-written building history.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - To spite Iscariot for being a whiny little bitch. Also, what's a Caiger Mall? --Shank Case 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Are you insane? It's badly written, full of POV and plain wrong. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Needs Moar Housekeeping --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
3. I was bored....sorry --C Whitty 20:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Needs to get cleaned up a bit more and a little more NPOV. Why not some commentary on those early seiges from those who were playing as zombies? --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5. Hell no. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 01:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
6. For a location with so much actual in-game history, it's pathetic how bland the article is. There have been more interesting histories written about random and meaningless street blocks like Nickells Grove *cough*.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
7. It's just plain sloppy. --Moctezuma 19:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
8. Too much irrelevant stuff like outdated groups and the like. --
    
    
    
    
   10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
9. Historical importance of a location shouldn't be a reason to judge it a Good Article. It is 'biased' and POV.. With some editing it might become a good article.. --Vykos ^CMS-Meta 18:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
10. No - It's a terrible article. Fix it to make it up to date and not awful and then maybe I'd change my vote. But for now fuck no. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
11. No --TripleU 05:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
12. No - uninteresting article for such a storied mall -- which also happens to have so many amusingly named blocks around it. Almost makes me wish for ALiM's caressing touch. Almost. --WanYao 02:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
13. No - Bag o' shite. --Papa Moloch 19:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
14. No - Sloppy and boring. -- Papa Jadkor ^{(RRF) (MotA) (MT11)} 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Failed --

 

 

 

 

01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Malton

Yes

1. Yes - The game areas all have well written pages, and are good material for FA.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - --Thadeous Oakley 10:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Quality page --C Whitty 20:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Full of pointless facts about demographics, and links to groups make it look like they are officially sanctioned. I feel a page like this would be better--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. As Ross. 20:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
3. No Same as above... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 21:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Remove the Organizations section and add Ross's "Malton Motto" to the page; then I'll vote yes. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
5. No - As Maverick. Those group links have got to go. It's supposed to be our collective best effort at defining Malton, not an ad-banner for a few random groups.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
6. No I think the ads for the groups on the page should be replaced with just one ad for The Streltsy, which you can join here. --Moctezuma 19:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
7. No too POV. --
    
    
    
    
   01:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
8. No - And this would be why: "Warning, almost everything on this page is original content, little of it is canonical and some is even currently disputed. Please do not cite this as a factual resource in other articles." - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Failed --

 

 

 

 

01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Monroeville

Yes

1. Yes --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes A high quality page. Good stats, map cross-sections, etc. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - I'll always vote for a page with an FAQ! --Met Fan ^F 03:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Isn't actually my piece of cake, but bias aside I think it is a good demonstration of what makes a GA. --
    
    
    
    
   04:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. I helped build this page and don't think it's good. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Short when it otherwise should be long, also pretty poor quality. Yep. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Boring --WanYao 02:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm going to consider this Failed. --

 

 

 

 

01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Curton Mansion

Yes

1. Yes - Very well written history. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 10:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Out of date, overlong, POV, shite. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Too much "wall of text" and not enough "organized article". --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
3. No - Starts off with long walls of text about boring shit that no one cares about and then degenerates into quick paragraphs and then single sentences. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
4. No - These location "articles" are clogging up the voting section. I'm sick of hearing about them in the news.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
5. No - tl;dnr = not a "good article". --WanYao 02:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination discussion that have concluded in the past 7 days should be placed here. For older nominations, see the Archive.

Failed --

 

 

 

 

01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Malton Murder Awards 2009

Yes

1. Yes - Entertaining, fun, and aesthetically pleasing. Slightly biased for obvious reasons, shouldn't interfere with the NPOV criteria. 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - It looks good, is fun, and anyone that wants a list of nominations need only click the talk page. - Goribus 04:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes - Well made and informative.... --Technerd ^{CFT U!} 06:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No

1. Mostly a list of awards and names, and while the award descriptions are somewhat fun the page in general seems a little boring to me. :| - User:Whitehouse 17:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
2. Too masturbatory and without decent purpose to a majority of the community. --
    
    
    
    
   08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
3. Right here is why this entire process needs removing from the wiki. This is now going to turn into the same den of drama that the historical system was and has caused people to want to get rid of that. What is 'good' about this article? What? No spelling mistakes? Looking pretty? Fuck me, let's make all my character pages into good articles then, they're prettier than this. Without a minimum limit as per historical this system is going to be the new dumping ground when people want a pointless tag for their page to try and be elitist over their piece of shit event/group/tactic/guide/whatever. Expect meatpuppetry galore when this system's seen for what it is, an easy way to lord a limited tag over people and claim it means something. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   When Cheese and I maintained this GA voting had a very utopian ideal where proper criticism would more or less leave the article moot as a GA. Now RHO and others have started cycling them, it's just become a vote. --

    

    

    

    

   12:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   You fucking promoted him. There is no attempt to maintain or improve articles in his tenure, it's just a case of throwing a load at voting and seeing what sticks. I would bring this up with him, but he'd ignore the community as he did on his promotion bid, and everything else since he's been promoted.

   This is just going to become Historical Lite, same refreshing drama and meatpuppetry, half the actual people needed to force through the result you want. Historical has a minimum of 15 votes required to be a valid nomination with an approval rating of 66%, this system has no minimum participation limit and is now based around a simple majority. I looked through the archives, do you know how many of these nominations got 15 votes? One. A single one, and that was a user page. This system is unsalvageable, can we get rid of it now? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   I promoted him! Oh man, I forgot only sysops can cycle these! Better put him up for misconduct seeing as it's a sysop-only action! --

    

    

    

    

   20:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

   You know I remember a time when he used to at least ask shit on talk pages and actually listen and respond to the input given there. I wonder what event happened that showed him that ignoring what the community said was a perfectly acceptable action...?

   Regardless, I see you made a concise, point by point response to everything I raised. Oh, wait.... So given we've seen all these problems, potential drama, lack of use of the system, misuse by those supposedly maintaining it added to the fact that this system is not policy backed and thus only needs common sense users to say "Enough!", can we please get rid of this failed experiment already? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   So basically whenever Izzy doesn't get his way he throws a massive shitfit, points fingers, bitches, and makes massive tl;dr posts. And then when other people do it, it's "Shut the fuck up. Izzy's here. Listen to me. I'm more important then you are." Izzy, you're not even a fucking Sysop and you throw your weight around more then any of the actual Sysops. - Goribus 04:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   First, is the Gobots fan upset that I derailed his favouritist page EVAR getting a template? Secondly, massive shitfit? You're kidding me right? If you notice, I simply recorded my vote (like you did) and my reasons for it (like you did), are people not allowed to do this in your world if you disagree with them? Point the Third, you think sysops have the right to throw their weight around? My, you're going to be upset when your pet sysop tries that and gets shot down. Go read the Sysops Are Not Moderators policy and the sysops are no different to normal users section of the admin guidelines and enlighten yourself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Find me one instance of me 'throwing my weight around' and I'll give you a medal. For reals. Quit fucking accusing me of shit I'm not guilty of. 05:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Or what? You'll ban me? You'll cry more? You'll turn into a truck and make a movie with overt racism? If you actual read what I wrote you'd notice the qualifier "when", meaning 'yet to' and implying 'if and when he does'. Please try and read what I wrote instead of just imagining what fits your feelings of indignation and going off that. Thanks. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Yeah, you did say 'when' - and not 'if'. It's an accusation. Suck it up and admit it, you snide little bastard. 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Now you're changing your objection, first it was "Show me where in the past I've thrown my weight around", now it's "You're saying you think I'm going to throw my weight around at some point in the future". And you'd be right about the second, but that's not what you said originally, so I was right in responding the way I did. "Suck it up" buttercup, or learn to read in the English language. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Your conviction is obviously based on some percieved tendency, since I see no reason to suspect future transgressions without evidence of past ones. So, fine, I'll amend my challenge. Find me either an instance of me 'throwing my weight around', or the point at which it seemed I was about to begin to. 06:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   This isn't a challenge, there are no cages, swords or pistols. This is you misreading, now I must assume intentionally since I've already pointed out your comprehension failure, in order to try and remove the essential qualifier to my original statement. The qualifier (in case you forgot) was "when". Feel free to prove me wrong by never doing it, but something tells me it'll happen at some point in this meta community. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Fine, challenge accepted, I'll prove you wrong by continuing down the path I was already on. The second I'm no longer a sysop, for whatever reason it'll be, I'll expect an apology for you being wrong. 06:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Are you naturally illiterate? Or did you just skip the very first sentence of my last post that discussed the nature of this supposed challenge? Also in challenges, it's very poor form to start adding conditions after you've accepted, particularly when it requires nothing of yourself and something of the other party. Such is the behaviour of cowardly ninjas and _ing _un-ists. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   He's not the dumbfuck who thinks (or even likes to pretend) cycling GA's is a sysop-only action. --

    

    

    

    

   10:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Wow, failure to read must be catching in the admin team. Weren't you retiring? Or was that just another "Look at me!" gimmick like that bet you wouldn't take? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   If failure to read is a trend in the admin team you'd make a perfect addition. No, you see I have a term to fulfil as crat, and whilst sticking with a job (all your aborted "policy discussions"? the GSM? your A/M case promises on all of us?) might not be your cup of tea, it's always been my intention to wait until the term ends before I retire, and I've always maintained that, even to you. Not my fault if hearsay tells your it'll be sooner. --

    

    

    

    

   12:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   We both know that certain people would block my promotion even though I could get more than the four vouches that Red Hawk One managed. My userspace projects are ongoing, and are of no concern to the wider community until they are put in the correct namespace and become actual policy proposals. The GSM was interrupted by three weeks of connection problems, not getting on the intertubes kinda messes with your ability to do shit. Your misconduct case is waiting on a response I get from the UK Information Commissioner's department of helpful monkeys. Anyway, you don't stick at things, especially when there are guarantees that you have to follow through with what you say you'll do, I remind you of the bet that you wouldn't get a ruling on to stop you welching on. And all of the above fails to take account that I was right about this page and this lost cause of a system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

   Whoa, didn't ask for your life story honey, the facts in my eyes outweigh your activity claims and other excuses. So your 'ongoing' works still get a great big meh rating. --

    

    

    

    

   22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

4. No, as Judas up there. --Thadeous Oakley 12:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
5. No - This is getting stupid. The awards are fine and I took an interest in them as they were happening but I'm 100% with Judas on this one. Stop putting up any goddamn part of the wiki for good article status. From now on I'm going to compulsively vote "no" on anything that comes through this system which doesn't fall into the classic category of a zombie or survivor guide.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 14:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
6. No - As above. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 16:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
7. Nooooooooooo! Skywalker style baby. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I'd like to thank Whitehouse for actually being constructive and aiding the process of improving articles. 17:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ridleybank

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. -- Adward  15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
3. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 20:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
4. It has nice templates/tables and images, along with being informative and entertaining. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
5. Amazing, other than this typo. -- Rahrah wants you all to know that MOM is open now. 16:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. While there is some great flavour on the page, I do not think of any of the suburb pages as articles. They are more a collection of various information put in a small space with links where appropriate. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2. No! Suburb pages are a mass of information and sections and none of them should be classed as Good Articles. They have the potential to change daily in quality and content and while I commend the RRF for moderating the amount of noob crap that is thrown on Ridleybank's news section, it still shouldn't fly as a good article. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3. The East Becktown article is more clearly organized and the Eastonwood article contains a more coherent version of the suburb's history. I do no believe Ridleybank's suburb article to be any better than these two. It ought to be, but it is not. --Highlandcow 17:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
4. I didn't want to against this on my own, but I don't think Suburb's should get Good, because of the overall churning and changing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
5. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Very good read, but shouldn't be categorized as a "Good Article". So, as most everyone else. --Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
7. Seriously? Since when is a suburb a good article?--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed with 5 in favor and 7 opposed.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Building Information Center

Yes

1. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 08:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. It's too much like a directory and not really an actual article. Useful though. 15:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I don't really think that the sections are ordered very well, and most of the content is short links to other pages. --ZsL 16:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
3. As Misanthropy. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 03:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
4. A useful page, but just a well organised information directory, not much more. --
    
    
    
    
   06:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
5. I agree with Misnathropy; the Building Information Center is more like a directory or portal to the content. As a portal, it isn't well organized. --Highlandcow 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
6. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 17:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
7. --As most everyone. Too many links. --Met Fan ^F 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
8. bandwagon vote--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Failed with 1 in favor and 8 opposed.--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 09:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rosslessness/Hmm

I like this page.... I think it's a good article... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well next time you find one, make sure you follow the rules above and add the template on the article. --

 

 

 

 

06:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I decline please?

• Many of the links are now dead, as Cheveyo has deleted the groups forum. I could upload the saved screenshots I have, but in the current format its broke.
• I'm probably going to remove several sections anyway. I don't want the page being used as "How to avoid zerging accusations playbook."
• Its part of my namespace, and as such might want to change the page name before even considering it's good articleness.
• Its full of spelling mistakes.
• It is NPOV. I am merely reporting the result of my investigation into the belief of zerging. I even ask people to come to their own conclusions about what the information suggests.

Thanks --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any user may effectively decline any nomination of a page they own (group or user page) due to the Specific Case Editing guidelines meaning they can choose not to include the good article category on that page. You can leave this here or just cycle the nomination on grounds that you won't allow the changes to be made to your page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

1. Yes -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. Yes - If only to counteract Red Hawk's idiotic misreading of the NPOV criteria, which states "NPOV - The article must be from a neutral point of view and not show significant bias. Possible exceptions may be made, depending on the article and community opinion. If community opinion is ever going to override this criteria it will be for something as heinous to all fair players as blatant cheating through zerging. Ross' article is well researched and the model for drawing attention to such lying scumbags. That being said, I expect Ross to decline the nomination and render this vote moot. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. Yes - Same as above. --Moctezuma 12:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Yes --Chaostraveler 23:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No

1. No - Breaks the NPOV criteria; while well researched, I really do not feel zerging allegations are appropriate for GA (and by extension potential FA). --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 05:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I'd be lying if I told everyone I thought Poodle was serious about making this a GA. --
    
    
    
    
   06:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
3. No - No matter how good formulated and proven, drama-pages like these shouldn't be included in the FA/GA sections.--Thadeous Oakley 12:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
4. Cycle this DDR. But just in case you don't, it's a great bit of damning info, but not so much a good article.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ross has declined the idea of having his page a GA candidate so I'm cycling this early. Basically, as Iscariot. --

 

 

 

 

13:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, being an involved party voting no, anyone who thinks that the cycling is unfounded can obviously undo, although I don't expect much of a problem. --

 

 

 

 

13:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest with you,... I meant for it to be humorous, if nothing else. I do, however, think that it was a well researched article. Perhaps we could have a humorously suggest FA? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 13:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh thank god. I knew you couldn't be serious. --

 

 

 

 

13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't... could we do a humorous suggested FA section,.... kind of like the humorous suggestion page? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pressed for time atm but the short answer is no. --

 

 

 

 

00:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Guide: Zoe Gorefest's Guide for The Career PKer

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - A good guide, but it lacks something with makes it GA. --  RoosterDragon  05:12, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. No - Could do with some nicer formatting. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Guides:Beyond average damage

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - Love the guide, but I think for it to pass for GA it needs an update.--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
2. No - As above, it need some freshening up, though it's sound stuff. --  RoosterDragon  05:13, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. No - As Nick. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
4. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Amusing Locations in Malton/Urban Dead Colloquialisms

As above. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

Yes

1. Yes--Nallan (Talk) 09:00, 21 July 2009 (BST)
2. Giganta-yes--CyberRead240 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)
3. ALiM crowd. --xoxo 00:34, 6 August 2009 (BST)

No

1. No - Get rid of that damn ALiM template and we'll talk. Cyberbob  Talk  05:17, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. No - Much as I am surprised to find an ALiM page not entirely filled with poor cock jokes, and indeed even a reasonable fit to the definition of "useful", I don't think it's GA. I think the current content is good but it needs to be more comprehensive. Chuck in some more common terms and that'll satisfy me. In essence: GA standard, but lacking length. --  RoosterDragon  05:19, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   It's a bit rich of you to be accusing something of "lacking length" Rooster ;)--CyberRead240 06:15, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   Heh, I'm surprised you didn't go for a cock joke LOL. Works on so many levels...--Nallan (Talk) 06:28, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   No points until you work a dragon reference into it. The best one I've ever gotten was "flaming cock", on XBL. --  RoosterDragon  17:54, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   Feel free to quote me out of context on that. That possibilities are endless, I'm sure. --  RoosterDragon  17:55, 5 August 2009 (BST)

3. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't interesting to read and are too goddamn monotonous unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

   So roosters saying its too short and you're saying its too monotonous? Crazyassniggers.--xoxo 07:15, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

Guides:Zombie

I'm in the process of nominating guides that passed with large majorities on Guides/Review here. Linkthewindow  Talk  07:59, 20 July 2009 (BST)

No

1. I consider this good content but it is marred by outdated references. There is plenty here to aid new players but it needs some housekeeping. References to old-style xp-loss headshot, among other things, are too archaic to forgive. --  RoosterDragon  05:33, 5 August 2009 (BST)
2. I don't think any of the featured guides should be GA's at the moment, because most FG aren't nicely written an are two goddamn monotonous to read unless you are a noob. For me, entertainment value is big when rating GA's. --ϑϑℜ 13:47, 5 August 2009 (BST)

Unsuccessful. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:19, 20 August 2009 (BST)

The Ridleybank Resistance Front

Descriptive, humourous and generally awesome, I think the RRF's is one of the few group pages that really does deserve to be featured. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)
2. I am in agreement, and think we should have at least an example of a group page. Maybe not user pages, but since these are collaborative works and the RRF is long-standing, I don't think we have much to worry about in terms of their quality over time. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 07:20, 16 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above; also, it's not a bad idea to direct newcomers to "come one, come all" groups to get started. --Blackboard 07:40, 19 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. xoxo says no to groups. -06:26, 16 May 2009 (BST)
2. fuck off with this group shit --Cyberbob 07:46, 16 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Jed and Bob. No groups. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:06, 16 May 2009 (BST)
4. I agree with the above, I'll only consider them if the group is inactive (and therefore won't have their page changed afterwards). D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:19, 16 May 2009 (BST)
5. No. --WanYao 00:10, 17 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Precedence for group pages has now been further cemented. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:42, 21 May 2009 (BST)

Dunell Hills Police Department

One of the BIG groups, I would Suggest RRF but... eh.

Yes

1. Nice layout, informative, and overall a well designed group page. Also has this:

which is awesome...For the general subject, I think group pages should be nominated here, some of them are real good, but demanding NPOV from a group page obviously doesn't work. --Thadeous Oakley 11:20, 11 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. NPOV, please. --Haliman - Talk 02:07, 11 May 2009 (BST)
2. GOOONG!! --WanYao 03:38, 11 May 2009 (BST)
3. This isn't a featured groups section, it's about articles. Sure, DHPD may be an awesome group, but the page isn't all that notable. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:15, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   That said, I'm not against groups being featured, although that does open up problems with meatpuppets. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:20, 11 May 2009 (BST)

4. No. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:54, 11 May 2009 (BST)
5. Naw. --Pestolence^(talk) 12:26, 11 May 2009 (BST)
6. Nope. For the same reason I wouldn't want a user page featured. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 15:30, 13 May 2009 (BST)
7. No, as it's subject to change like user pages. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)
8. ahahahahahaha. --Cyberbob 17:52, 15 May 2009 (BST)
9. No. -- Cheese 19:07, 15 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per lack of support above. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:00, 18 May 2009 (BST)

Amusing Locations in Malton

It's fucking awesome.

Yes

1. Perhaps the best page on this fair wiki of ours.--xoxo 04:52, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. After a lot of deliberation, I have to say yes.--Nallan (Talk) 04:54, 10 May 2009 (BST)
3. Best page EVARRRR. --Blackboard 01:55, 11 May 2009 (BST)
4. Extremely weak yes. Get real humour. --Haliman - Talk 02:09, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   Actually, I loled at the Ha Monument. --Haliman - Talk 02:39, 11 May 2009 (BST)

5. Why not? I mean, seriously if it isn't your cup of tea then fine, but the fact is, a lot of work has obviously gone into it and it is well set out and a bit of a laugh for those who do think that way. Judging by the page views and contributors it obviously generates a bit of interest. It is a "good" article, because most of the articles here are waaaaay worse anyway.--DiscoInferno 08:23, 14 May 2009 (BST)
6. Brilliant, funny, and well-designed. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 21:56, 14 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. Too much potty talk, not enough real humour. --WanYao 10:30, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. Some of it's funny, but as Wan "lol cawks!!!" isn't really humor. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:08, 10 May 2009 (BST)

   What does that even mean? And what's that got to do with ALiM?--xoxo 09:27, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   What do cocks have to do with ALiM? Who would know... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:59, 11 May 2009 (BST)

   Ohhhh right. Lol i didn't realise cawks = cocks. And me and Nick even had a phone call about it. The closest i could get was that he meant lolcakes, which still didn't make a lot of sense...--xoxo 05:38, 12 May 2009 (BST)

   Wow. And you thought Nick was lame for calling you up about the coup last year. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:16, 12 May 2009 (BST)

   O.o Linkthewindow  Talk  22:10, 13 May 2009 (BST)

   Well i'm sorry i'm so sophisticated i don't find 'umour in misspelling...*upturns nose slightly* --xoxo 07:57, 14 May 2009 (BST)

   Fixed my indenting ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  08:11, 14 May 2009 (BST)

3. As Link. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (BST)
4. Was never funny. Also Haliman's quip "get real humour" is real humour in of itself. --penis lol i said penis am i funny???????????????? 17:53, 15 May 2009 (BST)

   Your bitterness is real humour, i have missed her.--xoxo 06:24, 16 May 2009 (BST)

   p sure you don't know what bitterness is - its either that or you suck at reading people --Cyberbob 07:47, 16 May 2009 (BST)

5. Like I attempted to do once upon a time (and I think I shall do again) ALiM needs a clear-out of all the rubbish cock jokes and replaced with genuinely funny articles. Funny block names shouldn't always automatically be made a location, some work should be put into the page to make it more than a stub. -- Cheese 14:42, 17 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Page needs some work before it can be considered a good article. -- Cheese 14:42, 17 May 2009 (BST)

  Ahem, i assumed this required a straight forward majority. What's the criteria for selection? Since this is an admin page (starts with UDWiki) you can't give one person the ultimate say. Point me towards the part where it says how much suppot you need or whatever...--xoxo 07:24, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  It's not technically a vote, it's similar in nature to a promotion bid (but with an article). If several people have raised points against it becoming a good article then those points should be addressed beforehand, hence allowing for improvement of it. If it was a straight majority then we'd have quite a bit of meat-puppeting going on. =p -- Cheese 08:20, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  Understandable, however with a promotion bid it is clear who you need to woo in order to be sucessful. Who chooses here? Is it you? Or just whoever gets to the article first?--xoxo 08:25, 18 May 2009 (BST)

  At the moment it's mostly me who's been doing it, with DDR getting a few earlier in the week. -- Cheese 08:31, 18 May 2009 (BST)

TUMBLEWEED-aikido-river'n-stuff Tactics

This nomination would speak for itself if only it weren't so busy scrambling around like a chicken with its head cut off.

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Hell, yeah. --WanYao 15:36, 9 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. Nahhhh.--xoxo 04:54, 10 May 2009 (BST)
2. Nope. --Haliman - Talk 02:38, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Not enough support to be considered a good article. -- Cheese 21:58, 16 May 2009 (BST)

---

The Pluto Press

It speaks for itself. To bad sonny stopped updating it.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:12, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. Lawl--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:12, 6 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. Because Pluto isn't a planet. (actually, I'm not a big fan of the format.) --Pestolence^(talk) 03:22, 6 May 2009 (BST)
2. Because Pluto is a dog. --WanYao 15:28, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. Because Pluto sucks. --Haliman - Talk 02:35, 11 May 2009 (BST)
4. Because Sonny stopped updating it.--xoxo 05:03, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per lack of support for the article. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

Ridleybank/History

Created by the RRF, this is an awesome page, with great original content and informative as well. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. My nomination, my vote. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:42, 4 May 2009 (BST)
2. Yarp. I like it. -- Cheese 16:27, 8 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. I like the content and it is well written but it's just a bit to bland in my opinion. If some links were thrown in where suburbs and locations were mentioned, it would definitely help its readability. Plus a picture, if one were so inclined. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:06, 9 May 2009 (BST)
2. It's dry and uninspiring. --WanYao 15:29, 9 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Wan. Needs moar pics. --Haliman - Talk 03:45, 11 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - As per above comments. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:27, 15 May 2009 (BST)

---

User:A Helpful Little Gnome

It's plain awesomeness and the fact that he's got very damn close to an exact replica of a UD screen. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per above. -- Cheese 14:48, 2 May 2009 (BST)
2. As Cheese. Linkthewindow  Talk  14:56, 2 May 2009 (BST)
3. As above. --Haliman - Talk 16:26, 2 May 2009 (BST)
4. That is awesome. As per above. --Cpl Adrian Shephard 17:55, 2 May 2009 (BST)
5. That was REALLY awesome. -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 21:24, 2 May 2009 (BST)
6. As per Haliman. —Speels ^{♪ Hard Knock Life} 04:16, 3 May 2009 (BST)
7. As per above. --D.E.ATalk 13:11, 3 May 2009 (BST)
8. Its a brilliant piece of work. Cwissball ^{PKer / Dual Nature} 23:13, 3 May 2009 (BST)
9. If it weren't so awesome, I would never vote for a page like this. But incredible. Truly incredible.--The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:40, 4 May 2009 (BST)
10. Apparently we are looking for awesome, that page is awesome, thus it is what we are looking for. Or something like that anyway. - User:Whitehouse 00:10, 9 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. It's a great page, but I don't think user pages should be featured articles. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:14, 2 May 2009 (BST)
2. Given that user pages can be changed to be totally different on the whim of the owner, I don't think it's wise to allow them in. If it was a user sub page dedicated to his game, I'd vote yeah, for sure -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:13 4 May 2009 (BST)
3. I'm with Pestolence. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:13, 4 May 2009 (BST)
4. I <333 this page. But, I have to agree with Boxy. --WanYao 01:43, 10 May 2009 (BST)
5. As the other naysayers.--xoxo 04:53, 10 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - While the page is unanimously agreed to be awesome, the fact that it is Gnome main user page and liable to change is an issue that should be corrected first. -- Cheese 15:24, 11 May 2009 (BST)

---

New user template

This page provides helpful information for new users that can allow them to easily customize their own user page. All of the info they need it right in front of them, in a copy-pastable format. All they need to do is decide where to put it and fill in the gaps. --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:47, 1 May 2009 (BST)

Yes

I support the page because I believe it could really help all of the new users that come in all day every day. With customized pages, they can feel free to then get active within the wiki without worrying about their page all the time. Besides, I don't really see, to no one's offense, any pages that actually try to help people on the nominee list right now anyways. --The Shoemaker ^{Talk Red Faction} 01:50, 1 May 2009 (BST)

No

1. I don't support teaching newbies with HTML. This is a wiki. It also has no formatting, hence why it is difficult to read. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:20, 1 May 2009 (BST)
2. -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:03 1 May 2009 (BST)

   Reason please, Boxy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by The shoemaker (talk • contribs) 00:35, 3 May 2009.

   It's title isn't descriptive, and the content is confusing and badly formatted. It's mostly a duplicate of content already in the help section, and what isn't could be covered with a few lines being added to the basic formatting page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:08 4 May 2009 (BST)

3. The page needs a lot of work to be considered even passable. -Karek^maps?! 10:09, 7 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Page is deemed unsuitable in its present form and needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. -- Cheese 16:33, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

RNG

Pretty interesting and gives background on something that is at the core of our Urban Dead experience. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Although I preferred my old testament RNG. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:51, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)
4. This is a great article. Very thorough and useful. The info applies to everyone.--Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 20:43, 4 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. I'm not a fan of this article, and I wrote most of it's current content. Apart from that fact it could very well be wrong in some parts due to my limited knowledge of such functions, the main thing is that I think it reads a bit poorly in some places. Doesn't flow right. A second set of eyes could probably improve it a lot just with some restructure and reordering. --  RoosterDragon  17:39, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Meh --WanYao 19:51, 30 April 2009 (BST) To elaborate, it just doesn't excite me. <_< --WanYao 20:00, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. As Wan. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:08, 2 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Several negative points raised and needs some fixing. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---

Trenchcoater

Need I say more? This page is very funny to read and is overall awesome. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Yes

Place votes of support here with reasons

1. As per reasoning above. -- Cheese 19:53, 29 April 2009 (BST)
2. Does anyone need to say more? -- Lorddragonfang  ^Talk 00:09, 30 April 2009 (BST)
3. GLORY TO THE TRENCHCOAT! --Orange Talk 00:30, 30 April 2009 (BST)
4. I'll need guns. Lots of guns. --WanYao 19:55, 30 April 2009 (BST)

   Weak Yes - It's a hilarious page as it is, but it definitely could be improved, as Link said in the No section. It deserves to be featured, but maybe cleaned up a little first. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:21, 30 April 2009 (BST) _{Changing my vote. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (BST)}

5. I like this page, I suggested this on UDWiki_talk:Featured_Articles. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (BST)

No

Place votes against here with reasons

1. But reluctantly. It's funny, but it's little more then a piss-take at trenchcoaters, without examining common trenchie mistakes, etc. The current page (which is mostly quotes) should be moved off to a subpage and a new page built in it's ashes. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:17, 30 April 2009 (BST)
2. Not in it's current place. It's not a good example of a glossary page. Move it to somewhere like Trenchcoater Folklore, and place an actual glossary article (including a link to this page) at Trenchcoater, and then I'd change my vote -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:02 1 May 2009 (BST)
3. As Boxy. --Pestolence^(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2009 (BST)

• Unsuccessful - Needs re-writing to correct the points raised in discussion. -- Cheese 10:53, 8 May 2009 (BST)

---