Lexicon talk:Survival

Signing up!

Put your names down here. Signature and timestamp required. It'd be great if you could put a hash symbol (#) before your name.

1. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}11:06, 10 October 2009 (BST)
2. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:08, 10 October 2009 (BST)
3. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:11, 10 October 2009 (BST)
4. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 19:13, 10 October 2009 (BST)
5. -- Adward  19:42, 10 October 2009 (BST)
6. --DT^PK 21:00, 10 October 2009 (BST)
7. --~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 02:47, 11 October 2009 (BST)
8. --Broggly 03:18, 11 October 2009 (BST)
9. --Matthewbluewars ^{/New City\} 16:13, 11 October 2009 (BST)
10. 18:27, 11 October 2009 (BST)
11. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 19:18, 11 October 2009 (BST)
12. Sophie ^{◆◆◆ CAPD} 06:08, 12 October 2009 (BST)

Users Confirmed

Reserve Users

Place your name here if you wish to be a reserve for the Lexicon, in case another user drops out.

1. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 00:19, 15 October 2009 (BST)
2. --Jpanzer 13:45, 17 October 2009 (BST)
3. Prof. Latirus 21:13, 17 October 2009 (BST)
4. Glenstone 23:00, 22 October 2009 (BST)
5. User:Armpit_Odor/sig - 21:01 29 October 2009 (BST)
6. Justin Scott --Justin 03:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
7. —Aichon— 17:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unwritten Article Backups

As three of round twos articles still haven't been written, I'm appealing to anyone, Lexicon members and non-members, to help us fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

I need nine eight users willing, as there can't be two articles in the same round by the same person. Six of these won't be able to write an article for round two, and two of these won't be able to write an article for round three.(Two of those who wrote articles for round two.)

Give me your names, please!

The numbers may change if any of the lexicon users write their designated articles.

--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}17:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Even if you've taken part in the previous rounds, it doesn't matter, these articles are a must. I don't want to see this lexicon die like the last. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do and by when?-- SA 19:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you could write The Department of Evangelical Morons (Remembering to use Template:Lexicon) at anytime, it'd be great. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Created a place holder, will finish it sooner or later. Probably tonight.-- SA 19:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wrote Forest Green. Ross also asked me to provide a citation for Breakout, which I did earlier. Hopefully I did everything correctly. If I did, let me know and I'll see what I can do about a GHI entry next. —Aichon— 21:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

So do we need to start dropping the inactives and rotating in new players? We're wild behind on this, and I was enjoying it. :( 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Where is this going? I'd rather not see it die, even though I'm currently not an active player, but it seems that few people are pushing to keep it alive at this point. —Aichon— 14:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to get a user to provide a citation for the last round 1 article. Once that is out the way, I'll look at a push on users for their round two articles. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think my article is going to get one, it should proberlly be ignored. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 18:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

We can definately sort it. No problems. With a bit of luck we can finish everything in rounds one and 2 quite easily. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And as I mentioned, if I did everything right for round 2, I'll be happy to contribute a round 3 article as well, to help fill the gaps. —Aichon— 18:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Please Do! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Graaagh! Let's go let's go let's go! I kind of completely forgot about UD wiki for the past coupla weeks. Oops. D: Thank you Aichon for your help! You're a star! If you could continue onto round three that would be excellent. SA, it's been quite a while, I think I needa poke you. Would it be too obtrusive to stalk Recent Changes and ask anyone to help? Possibly.

And, because we have so few users and the Lexicon's in a half life, anyone can write articles (and cite) for it, because I sure as hell don't want to see this die on me. I will certainly notify those that have gone way past their deadlines. If I don't remind me, because I will have gotten sidetracked whilst doing so, and will need a little reminder.--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}19:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent arrival after long absence here--I always loved this game, I'd love to help out, if this thing still has life in it. Shall I just jump in anywhere? -Skaramuche 03:42, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Activity Check

It appears that most of the people "contributing" to the lexicon are inactive. I believe that they should be notified on their talk pages about their inactivity, and asked to respong. If they have not responded within a week of this notification, they will be removed from the lexicon, and notified of the reason. If they wish to respond, they can do it on this talk page. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Damn it guys, you you heard the man, you all better get responging! 21:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even on the list of people that's going to get notified, and I've responged already by adding a new article. —Aichon— 21:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Quite a good respong, too. 21:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I try. :) —Aichon— 22:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

If this thing could come back to life, I'd jump in with both feet. I just didn't want to bother if nobody else was still involved. Or responging.-Skaramuche 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the lack of activity, is it safe to say that we lost momentum for this lexicon as it currently stands? If so, I see two options:

1. Abandon it.
2. Drop everyone, put out a call for new members, set a new start date, and resume where it left off. Eager new members can fill in the existing gaps.

The second option gives us a chance to rebuild some momentum, which is the only way this is going to get back on track. Even if we did fill in the missing gaps that we have right now, we'd never be able to get the current players to all be active, so it's better to just start over with the players but use the work they've already finished. Treat it like a project that was dropped but later picked up by another group. —Aichon— 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we all have to drop, or just the ones who haven't done their stuff yet? 11:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be the same either way since I didn't intend for the call for new members to exclude existing members who are still interested in participating. It's just a chance to get some fresh blood in to replace the folks that really aren't participating or interested any longer. —Aichon— 12:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, reboot this fucker like's a Batman movie. 19:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that sentence made any sense at all. BUT IT SHALL BE DONE! --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Like it's. Silly typo. :( 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

So...I take it we're not getting anywhere? —Aichon— 13:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's kosher, I'll write all the missing stuff from the earlier rounds, think of some interesting phantoms for later rounds, and then you can kick everyone into activity for those. 18:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Be a hero Misanthropy! -MHSstaff 22:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

How would a Donkey go about joining this?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Post in rejoin below. -MHSstaff 21:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The deed is done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Still playing the donkey game, Yo? Cause if so, I'm claiming that one. 21:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Poke. Pokepoke. 03:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

*wink* *wink* *nudge* —Aichon— 05:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what I mean? 05:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Not a clue. But my response seemed appropriate at the time. —Aichon— 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oi! 06:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I feel suitably enlightened now. Much appreciated. *wink wink nudge nudge* —Aichon— 06:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This lexicon needs to live! Someone hunt down the thing we need which means we can't proceed.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Right, I call free-for-all right now. Just do as many articles as you can/want to to fill up the first five rounds, and make some interesting citations too. Then there's a starting ground for recruiting new players to finish those citations alongside us continuing. 17:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Might as well. The best way to encourage activity is to have activity, after all. And if we only have nine to work with, or even just six, we can still advance the game with less articles per round, I should think. It's not like we NEED 12 for this to work. —Aichon— 19:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need 12 people, just some people would have to double up and writing articles might get a bit confusing for them. But then, it'd be something more to do. -- Rahrah doesn't remember the age of blinking text. 19:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I wrote one in the GHI section and added a few citations. I second Misanthropy's free-for-all until Round 5 to get us caught up again, and then go from there with maybe two per round or so depending on how many players we have. Also, does someone want to do the Dept. Evan. Moron article? It seems to be the redheaded stepchild of Round 2 that no one wants or loves. -- MHSstaff 16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I really hate to see this go down, but it's been a month since anything's been added. Should we try flogging it one more time? It'd be nice to get it finished, like. I could try recruiting for it on some of the forums, if anyone else would be interested in having another go at it too. If not, then it's sad-face time. 01:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My solemn opinion is that it should die, but the Lexicon is all about people driving it and if anyone thinks it's worth the effort of keeping it alive, the decision to keep the Lexi open is theirs alone, I guess. --

 

 

 

 

12:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it's probably dead at this point. "Until next time," as the saying goes. —Aichon— 14:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-join!

Because if you truly cared, you'd rejoin the lexicon. And I want to, so i'm first. :P

1. --Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}21:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2. 21:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
3. —Aichon— 23:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
4. i forgot about this SPAM MY TALK PAGE --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 01:22, 14 December 2009 (BST)
5. Unless it's a problem --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
6. Yes please.-MHSstaff 21:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
7. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
8. --Skaramuche 20:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
9. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
10. --^A_O^R_D^M_O^P_R^I _! ^T 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Give me a "D", an "E", an "A", another "D"!

Yeah, I think the Lexicon:Survival is dead. FOREVER. It doesn't help me, the one who championed it, went inactive for a while just after the re-join you can see above. Unless someone else wants to try and get this out of it's death, this lexicon is out of business. -- Rahrah wants you all to speak to him. 19:52, 30 March 2010 (BST)

Yep, it's dead. We can try again with a new lexicon at some point though. The rules might need rethinking in order to keep things moving along. Maybe we could make them a bit more flexible somehow? Dunno. —Aichon— 00:32, 31 March 2010 (BST)

Shorter intervals would mean less time for people to grow disinterested. 14:06, 31 March 2010 (BST)

They also mean that it's easier to get behind if you're busy for just a day or two. Not saying it's a bad idea, just something that needs to be considered carefully. —Aichon— 18:54, 31 March 2010 (BST)

Cut it down to five days, that way over five weeks you get seven entries and not five. Not a huge change but it adds up. 18:57, 31 March 2010 (BST)

I was actually wondering if there'd be some way to allow flexibility, that way a person could do just one if they only have time for it, or could bust out three when they're in the groove and feeling gung-ho about it. The problem would be in making it all happen in parallel in a sensible way; I doubt it would be a simple system to design, and it'd be even harder to explain to Lexicon newbies... —Aichon— 02:11, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Have a sign up sheet at the start for each week. Like, if someone wanted to do every week, they'd sign up for all of them from the start. If someone thought they were only good for one or two, they'd only sign up for one or two. 02:12, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Interesting idea, and it might provide more flexibility since new blood means less restrictions on which articles they can choose to work with. I.e. normally person A doesn't do their own citation or write the article for that citation, but if person B comes in to replace A after the first week, B could probably write that article. We'd have issues with getting people to contribute when they're supposed to though, especially if someone signs up for the second half of the game or some such. —Aichon— 02:23, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Then let the active members double up. 02:25, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Works for me. Anything late can be written by anyone. Keeps things moving. —Aichon— 02:43, 1 April 2010 (BST)

It's what I tried to do with this one. :( 02:54, 1 April 2010 (BST)