|
|
| (37 intermediate revisions by 20 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Navigation (header)}} | | {{Navigation (header)}} |
| | |
| | '''''Please note that the Good Article procedure is ''no longer in use''. Please see [[UDWiki:Featured Articles]].''''' |
| | |
| | |
| {|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%" | | {|style="background: #E6F2FF;border:solid 1px #A3B1BF;padding:10px;width:100%" |
| |- | | |- |
| Line 30: |
Line 34: |
| #'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | | #'''Yes''' - Much better than all the other candidates. --[[Example page|BetterMuch Ralph]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) |
| #'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) | | #'''Yes''' - I like this part [[Example page|here]]. --[[Example page|Specific Jen]] 20:29, 3 April 2009 (BST) |
| | ====No==== |
| | #'''No''' - I don't like it. --[[Example page|Unspecific Sam]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
| | #'''No''' - This issue [[Example page|here]] needs to be addressed. --[[Example page|Issue Lue]] 07:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Line 35: |
Line 42: |
|
| |
|
| ==New Nominations== | | ==New Nominations== |
| ===[[Blackmore 4(04)]]=== | | ===[[Amusing Locations in Malton]]=== |
| I'd like to think it's a good read, and a nice example of more recent in-game history.
| | Seriously. |
| | |
| ====Yes==== | | ====Yes==== |
| # {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 20:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| | *'''Yes''' - Cause in retrospect the images alone deserve showcasing. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
| # Conditional yes - I think the "Frontline" section may need to be either streamlined or made a subpage. If made a subpage, just condense down the section on the main page so it holds links to the relevant sections and acts as a contents section for it. I also dislike the IRC layout of it, but that's just me. All things considered, moar new stuff is good. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 20:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| | *'''Humourous Suggestion''' - This shouldn't be on the main space. Oh wait, this isn't the suggestions page. :P --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 12:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC) |
| # A great example of a well-written event page that should be showcased in the Good Article series. Still don't think it's historical though ;-p .-[[MHS|<span style="color: Black">'''MHS'''</span>]][[User_Talk:MHSstaff|<span style="color: DarkBlue">'''staff'''</span>]] 23:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| | *Seriously one of the best articles on the wiki. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)</sub> |
| # Yes - Very good, just as it is.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 23:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| | *'''Yes''' - Excellent article. --[[User:The Hierophant|Papa Moloch]] 05:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC) |
| #As much as I thought it was too short a siege to be historical, the article itself was a nice read. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 23:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| # Yes- Nice read! --[[User:Akbar|Akbar]] 03:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ====No==== | | ====No==== |
| | *clearly there are no standards for this anymore apparently. Nothing has changed since it failed it's last votwe and it's never been what could be considered a quality contribution to the wiki or an example of exemplary content. It's a bunch of snickering at unfortionate naming conventions for locations. Hell, a large part of why it exists is to explicitly violate three of the four criteria listed here. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev#Buildings_Update_Danger_Maps|maps 2.0?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC) |
| | *:Of course there are no standards for this anymore, no one is making any decent articles and we still need articles to cycle onto featured articles. I say we do our best to promote rewards for decent articles. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 10:56, 10 April 2012 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| ==Recent Nominations== | | ==Recent Nominations== |
| ''Older nominations can be found in the [[UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive|archive]].'' | | ''Older nominations can be found in the [[UDWiki:Featured Articles/Good Articles/Archive|archive]].'' |
|
| |
| ===[[Guides:The Zombie Lexicon]]===
| |
|
| |
| Yeah, I know it's a guide, but we've had those featured before so don't be holding that against it. It's got some seriously good in-depth work in there, and along with its [[KZED|sister project]] has pretty much helped to defined an entirely new creole language. The informative nature of the article, its fun little quirks, and some of the wonderfully useful tidbits in there all say to me that it deserves the status. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #See above. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| # '''Yes''' - Its received more effort than the vast majority of pages, and the result is that its among the best. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 06:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - as far as I'm concerned, it's one of the most useful pages on the UDwiki. {{User:Chief Seagull/Sig}} 10:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' Sure, why not? It's one of the most extensive articles we have. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 23:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
|
| |
| After nine days, cycled as '''successful''' with unanimous yes votes. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 19:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ===[[Guide:Dealing_with_People]]===
| |
| I just came across this article, I didnt write it, but think it is REALLY good.
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| # '''Yes''' - Like I said, I think it's really well written, a lot of effort has been put in...{{User:Dezonus/sig}} 12:20, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| #I really dislike its biased views on several playstyles and find that articles weighing this strongly to one side should never be featured. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:12, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Its brand new, and therefore may not even be finished, it won't even be allowed on guidesuntil it reviewed, and Is incomplete, as it fails to mention either ferals or Noise Abatement societies. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:18, 13 October 2010 (BST)--{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:18, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As Ross. His reason nailed it on the spot. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 16:45, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As Mis and Ross. It should first go through [[Guides/Review]] (and very, very preferentially also through [[Developing Guides]]) before it should be made a GA. And in that process, it should lose some false assumptions like that of death-cultists being griefers. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 18:23, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As Ross. He got it right in his comment.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 18:37, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Came out of nowhere and is real nice, but as Spiderzed, would prefer it to go through [[Guides/Review]] first -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 09:40, 18 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| '''Failed'''. I first waited for an op to cycle this, but I think the voting and the comments have been clear enough. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 23:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[Zombie anonymity]]===
| |
| NPOV and borderline eloquent. The topic itself may not be central to the game, but the article is probably the best it could be. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 00:16, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| # '''Yes''' - We need more featured articles, before we have to start looping them! --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 00:16, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # '''Yes''' - I'll give it a comb through in a tick to clean it up, but it's solid enough. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:27, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # '''Yes''' - Well written and explained...I'd say thats a good article for you {{User:Dezonus/sig}} 14:02, 17 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # '''Yes''' --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:41, 17 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # '''Yes''' --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 06:29, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
|
| |
| #guys stop going all alim on good articles and letting any old drivel in .{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 02:43, 18 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Have seen better articles going to the Failed section. --{{User:DiSm/sig}} 10:18, 19 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Jed couldn't have said it better, but I'll try anyway. This article is severely sub-par for a GA if you ask me. Bland, short(ish), has no flavour-adding images or text which I think should be standard for "good" glossary articles, and the worst bit is it's about a concept I've always thought is stupid and was overused in the suggestions system to insta-kill otherwise decent suggestions. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 11:54, 19 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As Jed and DDR. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 06:44, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As DDR.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 08:02, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Above. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 16:46, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| '''Failed''' Unfortunately. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:50, 13 October 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[Banana Tactics]]===
| |
|
| |
| Well-written, delivers information in a concise and easy-read manner, and does not arse around with NPOV or pointlessness. This article has shown itself to be beloved by the community and perhaps now is the time to give it the spotlight it deserves.
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Superb article. Bravo Karl. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:16, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Direct and to the point, no need for overdoing it with complex words or phrases.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 22:20, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Our job here is not ''just'' to inform newbs about UD, but to make the overall gaming experience more enjoyable. People need to be shown the well-developed sense of humor that this community can produce, and this article is a superb example of it. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 04:30, 8 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| #'''Die in a fire''' --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 15:39, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #As Thad. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:51, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Not worthy. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:28, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #It's really old by now. Leave the dead horse in its ditch. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:42, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #hahahaha no -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 01:02, 8 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #No. After reading it thoroughly, and close examination of the second paragraph (or lack there of) I dont think it should be. {{User:Dezonus/sig}} 06:56, 13 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #'''Speedy Deletion Crit 1/2'''.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 07:34, 13 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #:Viewing the archives... I take it this is [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/May-2010#Some_stubby_stuff|take]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/August-2010#Banana_Tactics|three]]? --[[User:Aeon17x|Aeon17x]] 09:19, 13 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :After a week, this has '''Failed''' with 3 yes votes and 8 "no"s. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:25, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[The Mycock Building|Mycock]]===
| |
| Mycock is amazing! everyone loves mycock, why not put mycock on the main page? Then everyone can ogle at the glory of mycock.--{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 21:35, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| # '''Yes''' - Who doesn't love mycock? --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 21:35, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Mycock deserves to be featured. Mycock is that big a deal. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 21:37, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #We need featured locations. Mycock is one of the best locations in town to be. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 21:42, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #I hardly had to think. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 21:50, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Hmmm... What can be said about Mycock? Mycock is impressive. Mycock is the best by miles. Mycock is generally awesome, and Mycock isn't a stub. I think mycock should definitely be featured. I also want to see Ross writing about Mycock, and a picture of Mycock on the front page.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature2}} 21:58, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #:Innuendo...sexual innuendo!--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 22:04, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #The only official building to bring the radio filter into its knees. Or rather her knees? --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:06, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # I'm surprised no one recommended mycock before. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 22:59, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # fucking [[ALiM]] IN DA HOUZZZZ {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:10, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # After everything mycock has done for this wiki, I think this is the least we could do for it ;) --{{User:Nallan/sig}} 02:49, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| # At least until someone turns it from a factual piece into a hilarious play on words. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 14:54, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Boring, not worthy. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 15:08, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #not v lengthy or interesting. unlike mycock. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 15:18, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #No, it's ridiculous and has more or less been done over and over again. --[[User:Huntress|Huntress]] 15:24, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #:I agree with you on one thing. Mycock is used quite a lot. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 05:13, 15 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Just no. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:54, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| :<S>After a week, this has '''Passed''' with 10 yes votes and 5 "no"s. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:25, 16 September 2010 (BST)</S>
| |
| ::I'm taking control of the cycling of this for now and archiving it as '''Failed'''. GA's aren't cycled on quantitative grounds, check the early archives. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 00:33, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::On what grounds? Because democracy has failed you? There may be precedent (i didn't bother to check) but this is rediculous! It got 15 votes, and even if you take out the alim ppl (ie nick and myself) this would still havepassed with flying colours. Stop running this place like you're own personal fiefdom noob. {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:11, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::I think you'll find that the precedents of the system (which I didn't make BTW, simply upkept) is a strong pro-qualitative feedback method. Think of it as A/PM except any legitimate criticisms brought by anyone is enough to reject a potential GA. If you don't think the criticism here counts as legitimate, it's because it was obviously considered so ''not'' GA potential they didn't bother explaining. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 10:25, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::Yeah A/PM is a good analogy. Only instead of crat's choosing it's you. People critise all the suggestions that get any votes. And their opinions are valid. However they're the opinions of 33%. We all know i usually fail to see the bigger picture on the wiki but this screams vendetta. Arbs? {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:31, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::This has always been at the discretion of the people who can be fucked to monitor it. DDR is well within his rights to keep out a page which is quite clearly a joke.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 13:36, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::While I agree on that, if Jed is willing to push this through, arbs is the least harmful and most logical route so I'd prefer to do it on there before edit war or vandal accusations begin. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 13:41, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::I try not to start battles i can't wit. And an edit war with the most prolifically active user on the wiki is definately a battle i can't win!! I'll see if i can be fucked with this. Also i'd have no idea who to choose these days and would probably inadvertantly choose some cronie of yours. But yeah, i'll get back to you in the next few days, don't get comfortable ;) {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 15:40, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::As much as I hate this article, it ''did'' get the support of the community, I see no reason to deny it the position. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 15:47, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::Because the page is essentially a pun, and making this a community vote lends itself to meatpuppetry in a place where meatpuppetry is commonly found.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 15:53, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::::Can you see a vote without calling meatpuppetry? There's no evidence of it here at all, the thing genuinely got voted for. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 16:52, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::"The nomination will be discussed and if there are no major issues raised..." (top of page) - Discussion not a vote, unless those in favour can refute any "issues raised" i.e. that the page article is actually good, and your "votes" weren't just for the punny title, then you get your GA. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 17:05, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::The former clause was why it was refused, the latter was why we shouldn't do it in general. :P --{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 17:09, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::::::So without any actual codified "arbiter", anyone can throw out a GA if they feel they have "good reason" to? This may in fact be the most poorly thought out process on the wiki. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 17:13, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::::The idea being you can discuss a problem and fix it and then GA it without objection, as opposed to letting a bad page through from lack of voters/vote rigging/whatever. {{User:The_Rooster/Sig}} 17:23, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::::::::Why is there voting anyway? And that's a serious question. Why aren't we just discussing, coming to a consensus, editing it to fix minor issues issues, and then moving forward? On ones like this, where you'll definitely get folks split on the issue, I'd say it should default to ''not'' being GA, since there are clearly issues that cannot be overcome. Granted, it's a more involved process, but it'd actually make sense, as opposed to being a vote that has no place or meaning aside from expressing a summarization of that person's opinion on the subject. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 20:36, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::::::::Changing it would definitely make sense. Either in to a more PM format with vouches, or a DS format, where people just discuss qualms and such.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 21:56, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[TUMBLEWEED-aikido-river'n-stuff Tactics]]===
| |
| This shit be epic, faggots.
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #-- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 13:57, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #The most used tactic in all of UD. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 22:07, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| # '''No''' - But there really should be more nominations. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 19:21, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| # '''No''' - The main problem with this article is that it is hard to tell if it is a guide/strategy or a subtle parody of a guide / strategy. If it was purely a guide with better formatting and information, it would be pure awesomeness. If it was entirely a parody, it would be liquid sex. Unfortunately, it tries to be both and fails at becoming either. - [[User:MHSstaff|MHSstaff]] 20:17, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #'''No''' - We don't want to give newbies the wrong impression. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 15:52, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #:Yes, the article's message is that not metaing and just fucking about by yourself and not working in a team is bad. Yeah, let's not give newbies that impression. I read you. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 01:04, 8 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #::Oh, oops. I was working off of my (bad) memory of the article. Still, "no", since it just isn't that great anyway, however. It's kinda funny and kinda useful, but there are much better ones than it. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 03:12, 8 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #:::Damnit!! ;) -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 04:40, 8 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Not helpful. - [[User:Whitehouse]] 16:31, 7 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| :After a week, this has '''Failed''' with 2 yes votes and 4 "no"s. {{:User:Red Hawk One/sig}} 05:25, 16 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| ::Actually DDR has taken control of this. And it has now <s>'''passed'''</s>. These votes aren't supposed to be quantative and WTF man, he created this page he should be allowed to choose what gets and and ignore the majority of users. He'll be by shortly to overturn your opinions and place the good article template rightfully on the page.{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 10:15, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
| :::I didn't create this page. I've struck your "passed" since you are trying to create drama, confusion, and didn't even add <nowiki>{{GA}}</nowiki> to the page, so please only cycle these if you are serious about doing the job please. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 10:30, 20 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[Malton Incident]]===
| |
| It may be fanmade, but it provides some good backstory to how the zombie incident in Malton started. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 02:12, 24 July 2010 (BST)
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #'''Yes''' - I'm offended that you think being fanmade is a bad thing. This thing is a vital piece of our history. Without it, we'd have no way of knowing how this all started. --{{User:TripleU/Sig}} 02:54, 24 July 2010 (BST)
| |
| ====No====
| |
| #This is a no with a but - it's a good page, but it just look amateurish. I might give it an overhaul soon to have things like paragraphs, headers, more interwiki links, etc, though I don't know how that would affect this vote. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 02:56, 24 July 2010 (BST)
| |
| #Very similar to [[Possible Causes for the Situation]], they are the two pages on the wiki that ''should'' be considered the best in the entire place, but just fall a bit short. Both of these pages added to my fascination with the rich history of Malton when I started many years ago but they need some basic formatting before being accepted IMO. It's not cause I don't think they shouldn't be GA's at this point, it's that with a simple 20 minutes of work, they won't only qualify but will also be miles ahead of what they are now. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 03:07, 24 July 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| '''Failed''' -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/l}} 13:57, 6 September 2010 (BST)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[Spawning]]===
| |
| Just finished writing it. Feedback please, want to make sure its correct. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #'''Yes''' - I think it's a well made article.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 21:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:So do I,... I'll change my vote to yes sometime before his seven days are up. Just curious to have an answer to the questions presented. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - I think every article is a good one. --{{User:Moctezuma/sig}} 22:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Very thorough. --[[User:TripleU|TripleU]] 23:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Weak Yes''' - It really meets all criteria and pretty interesting. But the accuracy of the article is under the question. it'd be cool to gather statistics on a distance somehow, but it's kind of abuse to the system. --[[User:Fe328|fe328]] 23:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Maybe not an article that I will read often, but then again that has no bearing on its quality. --{{User:Maverick Farrant/sig}} 09:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' A well written article. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 13:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''yep''' liked it.. easy to follow.----[[User:Sexualharrison|sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] ¯\([[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]])/¯ 16:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #Rubber stamp it.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 23:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Very easy to follow. And I can't think of anything that is missing. {{User:UnholyReign/Sig}} 09:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - well rounded, good stuff. -[[User:Jack Kolt|Jack Kolt]] 14:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - A surprisingly good article indeed. --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - A lot of effort was put into this as well as many charecter names.--{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| <s>'''Against'''</s> I think that the article needs to address the issue of 'what happens if the building requirments aren't met?' For example: under the [[Spawning#NecroTech Lab Assistant|Lab Assistant]] section,... what happens if there are no NT buildings that fit the crieria? Granted, this may never be the case,... in fact, I doubt that this would ever be the case,... but what if? Is there a really good answer for this? BTW, my vote can easily be swayed to a yes vote,... it's just that this is something I notice, and was hoping it could be addressed in some way... -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 20:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Hmm. Probably something I can't do with spadework, unless I spend a day creating Necrotech assistant Alts and then throwing barricades at the relevant NT's. Probably a question for Kevan. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 20:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::Maybe not now anymore, but that could have been the case during the March of the Dead. No Necrotechs meeting requirements I mean.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::I see, so this issue would have to be addressed through a case study,... Perhaps such a thing should be noted in the article somewhere? Personally, I've got a similar, also interesting take on this subject. Considering the priority of NT buildings within the game, and the community as a whole, and inversly, being the big target they are for zombie groups,... how often do you think conditions like this exist? And is it VSB or lower? At that, when it comes to spawning, is this really a luck of the draw sort of thing, or is it something thats vastly affected by the actions of the people playing the game? I think that that's worth noting in the article to, simply because that last point I made is the whole allure of the game to a great many people... everything is situational, and all outcomes are affected solely by the individuals playing... and thus, so are the spawning locations in a way. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 21:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::[[User:Kevan|Our Lord and Saviour has answered on his talk page]]. I'll add to the page, today. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Vote struck, and changed to yes. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| <s>Questionable accuracy and the minor need to test what happens if there are no valid spawnpoints.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 03:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)</s>
| |
| :No valid spawnpoints query answered. Now explain how I can improve on the so called ''questionable'' accuracy? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::I was just rather dubious that there would be a complex method of spawning when you could have someone just spawn anywhere but...well...eh. Kevan replied and didn't try to knock you down so I'll change my vote.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 23:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #Poodle and SS's reasons are so utterly stupid; if they think the reason for a glossary/player-resource article like this is to just prove what would happen in extreme hypothetical situations, then they are wrong. Having said that, this article is useful to show interested users the nature of spawning; and that is all. GA's in general should have the ability to interest any user into reading at leased a bit of it, but I don't think this has it. Narrow/special interest works don't generally fit my idea of a GA. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 05:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:I just felt the article needed to be 'complete'. It's 'complete', so that's why the Keep. I don't see a GA needing to personally interest anyone, as long as it's a Good Article (NPOV, Compelte, Well Written, "Awesome"), it suffices.--[[User:ShadowScope|ShadowScope]]<sup>[[User:Kevan|'the true enemy']]</sup> 23:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #::By personally interest people, I mean it needs something in it that does inherently make it "awesome". This is boring. It covers a concept that is experienced within the first two clicks of making an UD account for ''everyone'', I think this sort of coverage isn't ''unnecessary'', but not groundbreaking enough to be a GA at all. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:::I think its range is more than that. It adds another reason for cading TRP's to only VSB and shows another benefit of emitting a [[feeding groan]] (which needs a major rewrite). I also think that its important to note that some suburbs underpopulation might be due to their lack of Firestations and Necrotechs. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #::::Also why there might be a lower zed presence within the same suburbs,.... -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 13:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| This be '''Successful'''. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ===[[Guides:A Beginners Guide to Urban Dead|A Beginners Guide to Urban Dead]]===
| |
| This article has been accessed over 80,000 times,.... has been cited by many other users as still being an important peice of information (as can be seen [[Heytown/News Archive#June 20th|here]], [[Guides:First Day in Malton#For more information|here]], [[User:Darculianar#UsefullPages|here]], and [[Malton_College_of_Medicine/library#Textbooks|here]]), as well as having been cited for information (like [[Suggestion talk:20070928 More Knives|here]] for example). That said, many users, and pages not listed above, link to it, having thought it was important to keep. Also, when it was reveiwed [[Guides/Review/Archive#Guides:A Beginners Guide to Urban Dead|here]], it seemed to have some support as long as it was updated. These are the reasons why I think the article should be a Featured Article. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====Yes====
| |
| #'''Yes''' As Above. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 04:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Nice article - easy to read, good information. --[[User:Fe328|fe328]] 11:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' It provides an excellent and highly detailed guide; I wish I knew half this stuff when I was starting out! --[[User:Oldharry101|Oldharry101]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 18:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' A little lacking regarding zombies, and understates the importance of malls, but has all the info a fresh slab of meat would need. --[[User:TripleU|TripleU]] 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' OOOhhh.. Ids ddis de beoqqqwww. BEOWWW!!! Get Fit mutha fucka get fit!!! Heeaaywhooo. HOOOO! ShiaaAAAA. i'M About to take a shia lebouf on ya HOOOO!!! HOOO!!!!!!--{{User:Giles Sednik/sig}} 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:I don't know what you just said other than yes.... -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 04:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - although it could do with being split up into subpages. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' Its not really a guide, just a lot of important glossary pages all stuck together in one place. Still an excellent resource mind. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''Yes''' - Helped some of my friends get into the game, wored for them will work for anybody. --{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| ====No====
| |
| #POV much? Lacking basic information and vague when it comes to its own declarations. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:Vague in it's declarations, and non neutral POV.... hmmm....? -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #'''No''' - I don't really like the layout of it. Perhaps some tables for some of the information, or just links to separate pages with the information (for example Building types). I'm not really a big fan of a huge amount of information on the one page. Don't see why the information on building types needs to be repeated on this page as well, especially ''useless'' information like interior and exterior descriptions. It just builds up the page more. {{User:UnholyReign/Sig}} 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:Really,.... you'd rather have it look like '''[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Guides:A_Beginners_Guide_to_Urban_Dead&oldid=1215404 this?]''' -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 13:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #::No I wouldn't like it like that. '''You know what I meant''' Don't be a smart-arse. '''But''' just in case I didn't make it clear the first time... '''The beginners guide should give relevant information that beginners need. Just the basics, some details where needed. But NOT a complete guide on the entire game.''' The details are included on other pages, and people can access them by searching if need be. Rather then clotting up a beginners guide with ''useless'' information. On top of that, some basic information that beginners '''would''' need isn't included as well. Thats why I don't like it. {{User:UnholyReign/Sig}} 11:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| #:::I do know what you mean,... however,.... I know being new to a game, I like to waltz in with everything on the table, and a good working knowledge of what I should be doing, or what the working aspects of a game are. Not just having my character spawn someplace... and not know what I should be looking at, or how to get into a building.... or why I should even give a rats ass about libraries,... which you seem to think are absolutly frivolous, amongst other things I've included. Obviously this isn't the case, both from an RP perspective, as well as a strategic perspective, both of which are touched on within the article. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 22:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
| I'm gonna cycle this as '''Successful''' too. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 04:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| [[Category:Good Article Nominees]] | | [[Category:Good Article Nominees]] |
01:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)