UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates/Archive/Unsuccessful

This is an archive for unsuccessful Featured Article candidates. To return to the main archive page, please click here.

Civilian skills

All the skills articles are complete, clear and concise. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Civilian Skills)

Against We already have Civilian on the list, redundant. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:27, 23 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. —Aichon— 00:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:47, 30 August 2012)

---

Military skills

See Civilian skills. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Military skills)

Against We already have Military on the list, redundant. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:27, 23 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. —Aichon— 00:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:47, 30 August 2012)

---

Science skills

See Civilian skills. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Science skills)

Against We already have Scientist on the list, redundant. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:28, 23 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. —Aichon— 00:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:47, 30 August 2012)

---

Zombie skills

See Civilian skills. This one is especially complete, with a table indicating the attack-skill combo results. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Zombie skills)

Against We already have Zombie on the list, redundant. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:28, 23 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. —Aichon— 00:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:47, 30 August 2012)

---

Anne General Hospital (Dulston)

A location with a rich and well-documented history. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Anne General Hospital (Dulston))

MehNot really sure locations should really be on this list. Apart from maybe Danger Alley --Ross^WHO????ness 22:23, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Just not feeling it, to be honest. Not awesome enough. —Aichon— 00:34, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Nah. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:58, 24 August 2012 (BST)

The only thing I hate more than the location pages are the skill pages. And I really hate skill pages.-MHSstaff 03:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Nah. This place has been infested with zombies for like 4 years now. Does not really match up with its page description.--Alice Gravesend 20:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:48, 30 August 2012)

---

Downe Towers

Flavorful location article. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Downe Towers)

Totally Meh --Ross^WHO????ness 00:45, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Not as interesting as some of the others. Not feeling it. —Aichon— 01:12, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I really just odnt like the idea of locations in general, particularly when the most updated ones with flavour havent been touched in a year and contain a bunch of outdated data D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:05, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Downe towers?! Really? Uh, no.--Alice Gravesend 20:54, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:49, 30 August 2012)

---

Malton Rail

I'm including its four sub-articles in this nomination. Does that work? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Malton Rail)

Nope, its a nice framework, but underdeveloped. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:40, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. It'd need a lot more before it was ready. —Aichon— 16:45, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:51, 30 August 2012)

---

Now Playing

Complete & very flavorful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Now Playing)

Ok I guess. Nothing really special about a random listing of films.-MHSstaff 04:20, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As MHS --Ross^WHO????ness 10:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

This has a "what the hell is this?" factor to it that is undesirable in Featured Articles. The worth or value of an FA should be apparent. I see none here, though it is a different sort of novelty page than we usually see. —Aichon— 16:49, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:51, 30 August 2012)

---

Zamgrh

I am a big fan of this article. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Zamgrh)

against While this is a great page, the dictionary nominated elsewhere links here and is more useful. Seems redundant to have both. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

agree with schwan. --Ross^WHO????ness 00:47, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:53, 30 August 2012)

---

The Zeally Arms

This article must have been written with zeal! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (The Zeally Arms)

Nope. A poor man's burchell arms. --Ross^WHO????ness 00:48, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Do you mean the article is a poor man's version of that article, or the location of that location? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:11, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Err, the first one. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:46, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:53, 30 August 2012)

---

Santlerville Guide Book

Really makes me want to visit Santlerville. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Santlerville Guide Book)

Against Dull, not enough pictures. Less a guide, more a description. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:21, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:54, 30 August 2012)

---

Second Siege of Ackland Mall

Contains both event description and historical analysis. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Second Siege of Ackland Mall)

Shortest siege in recorded history? Really noteworthy? --Ross^WHO????ness 11:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. —Aichon— 16:56, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:55, 30 August 2012)

---

Types of Museums

Means I can always locate the nearest Pottery Museum to satisfy my love of first-millennium terracotta. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Types of Museums)

Against the kind of page that could really do with being sexed up. Also, I think it should include unique museum dedicated to duke garland. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:16, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Also against A dry page overall. A nice jazzed up page on building types that includes a link here might be worth a look if there is not already one in this category. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Agree with the others. It needs some descriptions from each, maybe a little flavor as well. And, really, exhaustive lists like these are not worth featuring unless they are of obvious importance or usefulness. —Aichon— 17:02, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:55, 30 August 2012)

---

Scout Safehouse Rant

Because frankly the WikiRantings category is pure gold. --Ross^WHO????ness 13:13, 25 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Scout Safehouse Rant)

The image under the 404 heading is far too bloody wide. You bastard. 13:19, 25 August 2012 (BST)

I agree with the opinions expressed but unsure if such a negative article should be featured on the main page. ~ _{16:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

Concur. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:22, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Too much raging against the machine.-MHSstaff 23:02, 25 August 2012 (BST)

Not for it. While I agree with everything it says, I would feel like an ass for putting something on the front page that more or less calls out something the game's creator made as being worthless. —Aichon— 00:20, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Fair enough. I'm a great fan of Category:WikiRantings. It's a great little set, of things. I'll think of another way of promoting it. In the meantime I've fixed up the page so mis and others can view it in low res, and will have a look at Vapors ideas on the level of inefficiency. Do we even have a scout safehouse page? --Ross^WHO????ness 17:40, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Yes. Safehouse. ~ _{18:05, 26 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Rosslessness at 21:57, 30 August 2012)

---

Groove theory

Contains explanation of what it is, as well as an important historical document. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Groove theory)

Against Needs formatting. Big Time.--Ross^WHO????ness 22:11, 23 August 2012 (BST)

It's a neat idea (and I was even the one who ended up reporting it and getting it fixed the most recent time it was "fixed"), but that page is poorly written and needs formatting. —Aichon— 00:30, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Its irrevelevant now. A nice companion to RNG for historical purpose. Maybe merge relevant info into RNG. ~ _{00:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Against, as Vapor. -- Johnny Twotoes 01:04, 31 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:08, 2 September 2012)

---

Malton Incident

No longer just a text wall, this critical article is now ready to be featured. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Malton Incident)

Against Prefer possible causes....--Ross^WHO????ness 22:11, 23 August 2012 (BST)

It really needs to be broken up into some subheadings still, and aligning some of those pics on the left would help break it up visually too. I may have more things later. —Aichon— 00:31, 24 August 2012 (BST)

No - horrible blocks of paragraphs, doesn't have nice links to other parts of the wiki D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:55, 24 August 2012 (BST)

tl:dr I skipped around some. If it was less painful to read (read: broken into sections), it would be better. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:33, 25 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:09, 2 September 2012)

---

Clothes

Complete & informative, with some helpful images. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Clothes)

Informative, yes. Also, very tedious. I'd love a more summarized version of that page. —Aichon— 00:38, 24 August 2012 (BST)

There must be a better way of doing this. Also Monroeville had a few specific items not mentioned, for Video Cameras. --Ross^WHO????ness 00:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I agree that this page has some faults and is not complete or easy to navigate. If the "Category:Items" page were not so ugly, I might suggest it here instead. It has a link to clothes and covers the other cities. It serves as a useful hub. Problem is I cannot abide blue on blue and centered. Other problem is that, while useful, it is not interesting.-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Add capitals to that list of colours. Other than that, not bad, wouldn't be against it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against Tedious and soul-crushing to read. A real bear to read through to the end. -MHSstaff 03:06, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against Needs one hell of a lot of work... This is just tedious and I could hardly bring myself to scrolling down :/ -- Johnny Twotoes 01:11, 31 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:15, 2 September 2012)

---

Guides:kiZombie-English Dictionary

Extensive, useful and flavorful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Guides:kiZombie-English Dictionary)

Yes For my money, one of the more useful pages on the wiki. Wish more people would use it.-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Guides:The Zombie Lexicon is already featured. Do we need both? The dictionary and Zamgrh are both linked at the top of the article. ~ _{02:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Links are prominent. Guides:The Zombie Lexicon is a lot less user friendly in my mind than either of the other two pages and might dissuade some from getting interested in death rattle, but it is already featured. I withdraw my yes-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

The dictionary is definitely a better reference and learning tool. Actually I think the Lexicon should be updated with more prominent links to the dictionary. Not long ago, the dictionary was updated pretty regularly. ~ _{02:25, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

rewrite the introduction and we've got a deal. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:35, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Not in favor. It's too exhaustive for its own good. It's only useful as a reference for looking up a word you heard, not for casual perusal, simply due to its length. —Aichon— 16:16, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:19, 2 September 2012)

---

Hiding In Plain Sight

Since we need more featured tactics. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Hiding In Plain Sight)

I stared atnthis one for a good while before it was brought here trying to find a way to improve it but nothing came to mind. Its just...clunky, I guess is how I'd describe it. Don't know if its salvagble. ~ _{02:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Pictures, formatting? I'm more than happy to tweak this. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:38, 24 August 2012 (BST)

It's too long and verbose, especially the introduction. I'd start with trimming it down.-MHSstaff 17:50, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As the others. It needs something to make it awesome. It can get there though. —Aichon— 16:31, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:21, 2 September 2012)

---

Miracle Mile Mall (Monroeville)

A Monroeville location article that's not a total stub. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Miracle Mile Mall (Monroeville))

There is a big gap between stubs and awesome articles that should be featured. This doesn't get there. There are better location / building ones than this as well.-MHSstaff 04:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'd say in fairness this is one of the best mall pages out there, but I don't feel it. Also is the computer system sentient like 2001, or does it have robot security guards in a Chopping Mall stylee? --Ross^WHO????ness 10:42, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:31, 2 September 2012)

---

Sacred Ground Policy

One of the most well-known Survivor "policies". Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Sacred Ground Policy)

It's probably the most significant survivor policy, but the page is mostly a list of names, and the rest merely declares cemeteries to be RPs. Not particularly interesting. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Meh. Didn't amazing come up with this? He can rewrite it. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:45, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm with AHLG. —Aichon— 16:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Indeed, I came up with it, so we need to figure out why it can't be featured. Seems we have a good start above. BAZOOM. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 03:36, 25 August 2012 (BST)

I can tell you why I am against it. Owing to the importance of the tactic, it is a good choice for featured status, but the page itself has only a couple sentences of value to a standard user. As Gnome suggests, the list is bulky and unnecessary. I would suggest moving it off page and linking to it. The rest of the text on the page needs an overhaul. It is clear that survivors are doing this so take it out of the hypothetical and just describe the tactic as it exists. What does it do, why does it work, what problems does it have, etc. Instead of language like "and ya know if a rotter is in there, you could shoot him" you explain that rotter zombies often strive to counter this tactic by standing in cemeteries. Keep it 3rd person non POV but still interesting. Oh and moar pictures: a zombie waiting in a cemetery, a survivor with a syringe lurking behind a gravestone, a bunch of zombies forming an orderly line, etc. If these things change, I would be all for this page being featured personally. -- Albert Schwan  _{Monday, 27 August 2012}

On the contrary, the page needs no overhaul. It is perfect in that it's a delivery system for a simple concept, and it delivers that clearly and briefly. The list may be considered bulky, but that's only because it's incredibly huge - which is a mark in FAVOR of featureing it, not against. Listing what problems it has? Really? "Here's a policy, please adhere to it, also here are the reasons not to." No way, sorry. Moar pictures, moar text, moar this, moar that... I don't see that working out. All it would do is muddy up the clear and direct message of the page. It's like changing "BUY COKE" to "You may wish to purchase coca-cola (image) because you might like its taste (image) but please note it is actually not healthy to drink it (image) so please drink in moderation. (image) Also our company has secretly murdered union supporters in the third world nations whose work force we exploit. (image)" No, no, no. -- ™ & © Amazing, INC. All rights reserved. Replying constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service. 02:15, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:33, 2 September 2012)

---

Burchell Arms Regulars

One of the best group pages I have come across.-MHSstaff 18:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Burchell Arms Regulars)

Rather the location page. --Ross^WHO????ness 18:29, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I don't know. I think the group page just has this great balance between content and aesthetics.-MHSstaff 18:33, 24 August 2012 (BST)

If the Burchell Arms gets featured, then I'd be against this as too close in topic (which seems to be an issue with the "Skills" articles above, e.g.), but if that one doesn't, then I have no objections. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:16, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Totally biased, but the group page is updated more often and more keeping in tone with what the Burch is really like. In some ways the group page is a better descriptor of the Burch than the location page is. Jesus Sante ^CFT 03:50, 25 August 2012 (BST)

As Bob on RRF, its an active group and probably should be featured on the main page. ~ _{16:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

I am guessing you probably mean "should not be featured." -MHSstaff 02:09, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Yes that's what I meant. If there is a BAR subpage worth featuring, we can look at that but featuring an active group's main page just feels too much like free advertisement. ~ _{02:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:40, 2 September 2012)

---

Ridleybank Resistance Front

One of the oldest, continually running groups in the game.-MHSstaff 18:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (RRF)

Hmm. Im struggling with this in itself, and indeed with all group pages. Plus we are all going to come into this biased. Hmm. Argh. --Ross^WHO????ness 18:32, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I can see where you are coming from, and I am not entirely sure of the answer myself. I think the page should be exemplary in some fashion.-MHSstaff 18:37, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yeah, neither can I. Immediately I think Monroeville Many, and then I think, but thats just ridiculous self promotion. I like sub pages, like the tracker, because its a good tool for all. Survivors can avoid the MOB, new zombies can follow it. I can't argue it's not a gorgeous page, but its also a massive advertisement. As a follow up, are there any of the historic groups we could put in this category? --Ross^WHO????ness 18:41, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Maybe we should focus on pages that are unique and special, and make an historic group overview one for all the HGs?-MHSstaff 18:46, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Nice. --Ross^WHO????ness 18:51, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I thought about tossing up BB3 here, but then I realized it really was probably just my bias at play, even if I do think it's well-designed, executed, and written. Even with the MOB Locator, I was one of its chief editors for about a year, so it's very hard for me to look at it objectively, though, strangely, all I see are flaws in it. >_< —Aichon— 18:57, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Honestly, I don't think it really matters who submits something; if there are problems or things that should be reconsidered, they should come out here so you might as well throw it up.-MHSstaff 19:18, 24 August 2012 (BST)

To put things another way, this category is new and the only way we are going to find out what the community wants in terms of group pages as FAs is by submitting a bunch of stuff. Otherwise, we'll wind up with a bunch of flavorless and dry category pages where you too can scroll through hundreds of random game items or shitty building types/locations.-MHSstaff 19:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

So first, I'm one of the few people anywhere never to have interacted with the RRF in-game, so my comment is not colored by that. That said, I'm kind of uncomfortable with featuring the main page of any group that's still active, since that seems like pretty close to free and unbalanced main-page advertising. I like the MOB Locator and Herald & Sun because they are subpages with their own content worth featuring. If a group were inactive I wouldn't have this issue. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:21, 24 August 2012 (BST)

That's a good point actually.-MHSstaff 23:50, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:42, 2 September 2012)

---

Misanthropy's Map Toolbox

Not sure if this qualifies as a user page, but either way it definitely deserves featuring. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:56, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Misanthropy's Map Toolbox)

Against. Its not a particularly good map, it failed to even get onto the guides page, and its not really that interesting. On another level, surely we should inform users when their user pages are nominated?--Ross^WHO????ness 21:13, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Good idea. I'll let Mis & AHLG know. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:16, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Its well written and easy to follow. Only downside is that its only one type of map. I'd like to see a similar map toolbox page with different map styles. ~ _{03:00, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Such as? (I got time) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Such as if I were to do a write up of my experimental map template? It was actually inspired by what you did with your page and your efforts to simplify things for people, but I tried to make things even simpler by hiding away as much code as possible. As you can see, particularly if you look at the code for the demo, it's fairly trivial to do rather complicated things with it with very little need to known CSS or more advanced stuff. One of these days I need to get around to seeing whether or not it's finished and then doing some basic documentation, but I have no plans to do something as nicely written and detailed as what you did. —Aichon— 06:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Aye, that would be a good inclusion. There are many different types of maps. A good guide on some of the more popular types like custom suburb maps would be good. From tiny maps like Aichon's to sprawling city maps or maps that use danger reports. People like to make maps. Let's provide a good guide. ~ _{06:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Quick note: my map actually isn't tiny. The demo of it just happens to be tiny since I was demoing a minimap. I tried to make The One Map To Rule Them All, so it can be resized, stylized, and changed around pretty much any way you would want with a minimal amount of wikicode knowledge, so long as you need a 10x10 map. As I said, I was trying to reduce complexity for the end user, so part of that meant eliminating the need to have different maps for different things.

Regarding sprawling city maps that user danger reports, Peralta is already working on that after I figured out how to make the code for it work, and that is not the sort of thing you need to bother explaining, since there is only about one way that it can even possibly work without breaking the page. Once someone finishes it, there won't be a need to ever do it again, since it can't be customized or changed at all. That's the sort of thing you show people and link, but don't bother explaining, since they will never have a need to do it themselves. —Aichon— 17:18, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Wasn't really referring to Jhonny's city map. I meant Suburb Danger Report maps like the ones linked at the bottom of Suburb. I'd just like a variety of maps or at least one more with a similar treatment that Mis gave to his map. Also, have to agree with Ross, MisMap is unfortunately not the greatest I've seen. ~ _{16:53, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 21:46, 2 September 2012)

---

Islands

Simple, clear article on an interesting topic. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Islands)

Add a picture, top right, giving an example. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:39, 24 August 2012 (BST)

To me, this comes across more as an observation, rather than an article. It would be nice if the larger islands were fleshed out more, perhaps with a map for each one showing where they are. I'd keep the larger Malton one but dump the DS levels and highlight the islands a little more. The map also has an offset problem. -MHSstaff 17:24, 24 August 2012 (BST)

On second look, I'm much less satisfied with this article than when I submitted it. Any objections if I declare this unsuccessful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:23, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Yeah, I gotta agree. This strikes me as the sort of page that could be featured, had it been done well. As it is, it's too try and not very helpful at all. —Aichon— 07:00, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 18:26, 3 September 2012)

---

Big Bash 3

Though I am ridiculously biased, I did think they were well executed pages with a consistent and unique voice, both in terms of how they were designed as well as how they were written. There's a nice humor throughout with the little blurbs at the top of each page, and behind the scenes there are a lot of really cool technical things going on that automated most of the heavy lifting for the horde tracking and the like. It's not historical, perhaps, but it may be an example of interesting design and writing. If nothing else, it'll help us figure out what is or isn't FA worthy. —Aichon— 19:40, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Big Bash 3)

It's a beautiful page, with a one-of-a-kind level of coding as far as that wiki goes. More importantly, it revolves around the major event of 2010. That being said, it failed to get recognized as a historical group (which IMHO it should have been recognized as). I'm on the fence about it and open to persuasion either way. -- Spiderzed█ 19:54, 24 August 2012 (BST)

That's my take. We now have some good test cases for this section: two very prominent group pages, a couple of interesting, technical and unique subpages, and a fiction/news media conglomerate, which should give us a lot if information on what people want. As far as BB3, I think it is an absolutely beautiful page, both from design as well as content. It should also be historical (IMO). The only thing that makes me hesitate slightly is I wonder if we should have a BB overview one that links to the other three ones?-MHSstaff 20:00, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I was actually thinking the same thing yesterday. Maybe a category page that's been gussied up to look all purty. If so, that would probably be a better page to feature. —Aichon— 20:06, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Gotten a very rough start on a design for a potential combined page. —Aichon— 00:18, 25 August 2012 (BST) 1 person likes this comment.

I like the design. Transclude the opening blurbs and you are probably there.-MHSstaff 02:11, 26 August 2012 (BST)

The page is excellently formatted and informative, but I don't think it's quite feature-worthy. I think something more historical (like the Big Bash unified page mentioned above) would get more support from me for featuring. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:14, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Glad that this was put forward. It was on my short list of groups to nominate. I like what Aichon is doing with the Big Bash overview. I'd say wait until that's through but I'd also be fine featuring Big Bash 3. Also, it was my main inspiration behind the design of October Bash and October Bash 2 as if that wasn't obvious. ~ _{16:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)}

Am I right in assessing that the consensus is no on this one, but encourage submission of a combined Big Bash article? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:39, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Yep, we can chalk it up as unsuccessful, since I think all of us agree that a combined page would be better to feature. I'll try to wrap it up over the coming weeks as I have time. If I don't manage it for some reason, well, we can approach the question of using BB3 more seriously, but for now I think we all agree that something else would be better, so let's pursue that path instead. —Aichon— 06:54, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 18:28, 3 September 2012)

---

Amusing Locations in Malton

Need I say more?--Nallan (Talk) 03:50, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Amusing Locations in Malton)

Do it. And those who pushed it out of being GA in the first place are idiots. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:55, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Color me humorless, but I'll say no. It's a thorough list (too thorough...), to be sure, but not the sort of thing we should be featuring. —Aichon— 05:40, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Hold still while I color you. Anyone who says they didn't chuckle while reading this is a filthy liar. Everyone likes fart and dick jokes. And ALiM is huge. It's almost as big as Mycock. Seriously, though it should be featured before "You know you're playing too much UD when..." or any other humorous page up for nomination. ~ _{05:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)}

I got over dick and fart jokes a long time ago. They're cheap jokes. I prefer something with more value. —Aichon— 06:26, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Liar. Filthy liar. ~ _{06:45, 5 September 2012 (UTC)}

Yes. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:33, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Although it's not all top-notch humour, it is THE humour page so if we feature any, we should probably feature this.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 09:53, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Almost yes, but no: Half of it are just buildings that remind us of something else (Ford Drive? Side Alley? Norris Bank?), and while I enjoy a good chuckle with Chitty Bank, Broke Bank or other funny stuff, half of the locations on there doesn't deserve it... Distill a nice, shorter and more deserving list and you have my vote. -- Johnny Twotoes 17:28, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I'm not so sure. Too many jokes are too obvious. It's chitty. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:13, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I'd prefer it if the Featured Lolcation were rotated once in a while. But that's probably beyond all of our effort level at this point. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:13, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I find the ALiM banner to be an unnecessary distraction from an otherwise carefully researched and persuasive academic discourse covering an important topic.-MHSstaff 20:38, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I don't see how this page has a leg to stand on in light of the other lists we've already rejected. Islands not only had better formatting of the actual content (significantly more practical content, I'll add), it also had more details for each entry while keeping to a shorter length so that it never grew burdensome to read. On the other end, Clothes and Guides:kiZombie-English_Dictionary were more exhaustive lists than ALiM, while also holding more details for each entry and maintaining better formatting of the content. By any measure they were better lists, yet all three of those were correctly rejected, so even if Vapor were to strike me about the head enough times to cause brain damage sufficient for me to love dick jokes, I'd still reject it on the basis that it's not even as good as the other lists that we rejected. It may be a fun list, but it's not a good one.

But if I'm going to get overruled on this, then at least clean the page up, since that alone should exclude it from consideration. The flagbox pointing to its discussion page is entirely unnecessary, the tinyurl link has no purpose, the navigation box should be scaled way down, and the page consists of a massive set of lists that could really use some sort of formatting (e.g. use sortable wikitables like Islands or Sysop Check). At least hold the page to the same standard applied elsewhere, rather than letting it in without tidying it up simply because it's a popular page. —Aichon— 22:01, 5 September 2012 (BST)

^Them words. 22:06, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I don't think the formatting is that bad. The key at the top explains that the lolcations either italicized, bolded or starred have descriptions written about them on the locations page so its uneccesary to describe each lolcation in the lists. And really, that's where ALiM is set apart from those other articles you mentioned. It was this big project and added a whole bunch of flavor all over the place by friendly 2Cool representatives. Islands and Clothes are dull articles dressed up to seem interesting. Guides:kiZombie-English Dictionary was rejected because the Zombie Lexicon is already featured. Basically, because of the extent of ALiM and the fact that so much work went into it it gets a lot of bonus points in the "Generally Awesome" category from me while those others were just meh.

As for your specific formatting suggestions, link to the discussion page at the top is there because new lolcations are voted there. I wouldn't say tinyurls are pointless on pages like these because tinyurls are used for grafitti purposes. I'll agree that it could use some table formatting and the banner could be scaled down but those are in no way deal killers for me. ~ _{00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)}

nay I agree with Peralta/Johnny. It'd be a nice article if you cut the fluff. It's almost like the goal was word count over quality, which could be overlooked if it wasn't a list. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 03:03, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Just for future reference, since everyone seems to be a bit confused: just call me Johnny :P -- Johnny Twotoes 03:22, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Scum, scum! All I hear is Scum! You're all poo heads D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:11, 6 September 2012 (BST)

If your wiki doesn't have ALiM, what does it have, exactly?--Nallan (Talk) 12:01, 7 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:06, 15 September 2012)

---

You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when

Substantial, hilarious, and now consistently formatted. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (You know you've been playing Urban Dead too much when)

Yep Might put an introduction paragraph on it. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:26, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Yes. —Aichon— 00:20, 24 August 2012 (BST)

YesI like the idea of having more humorous pages grace the frontpage. This is straightforward and accessible. Might add "Comments on Featured Articles/Candidates" to the list though-- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Add intro. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

yes D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Personally, I've never liked these type of articles because they strike me as somewhat "lazy," but this one is not too bad.-MHSstaff 04:25, 24 August 2012 (BST)

no Reading that was tedious... other than 130. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:09, 25 August 2012 (BST)

no A bit ugly and while some are worth reading, others are just stupid, making the read tedious (as if 160+ of those isn't enough to make it tedious...) -- Johnny Twotoes 01:03, 31 August 2012 (BST)

I added a brief intro; feel free to expand/edit. Does this reach approval or does the length objection stand? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:07, 2 September 2012 (BST)

I'm afraid it still stands :/ -- Johnny Twotoes 17:05, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:08, 15 September 2012)

---

The Borehamwood 100

Since we need some non-Malton featured articles other than these and two. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (The Borehamwood 100)

Yep Needs reformatting. --Ross^WHO????ness 22:24, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Not until the formatting is fixed to be something legible. —Aichon— 00:35, 24 August 2012 (BST)

yes anyway. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:00, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Also might be more interesting if the dead were arranged chronologically, or at least alphabetically.-MHSstaff 17:46, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Needs some work, mainly formatting and some clear structure -- Johnny Twotoes 01:08, 31 August 2012 (BST)

Is anyone going to work on this one, or should I close it as unsuccessful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:12, 2 September 2012 (BST)

No experience in the matter and no time to edit it. Maybe I'll look into it at a later date, but for now you can close it as far as I'm concerned. -- Johnny Twotoes 00:48, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Wait for Ross' comment on this one. He'd be the one to fix it, I would think. If he doesn't want to, then maybe close it as unsuccessful? Seems like consensus is kinda split. —Aichon— 05:35, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Remove it for now, I'll do it eventually. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 09:33, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:10, 15 September 2012)

---

Building Types

Quite complete & informative. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I'm extending the candidacy on this one while formatting goes on. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:13, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Building Types)

Yep But needs reformatting. --Ross^WHO????ness 22:21, 23 August 2012 (BST)

especially moving the contents list to the right. --Ross^WHO????ness 22:25, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Ugh, I tried moving it but the author used clear:both on the images. That needs to be fixed. Formatting seems rather patched together. I like it otherwise. ~ _{01:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

It's a bit ugly and the topic just seems dumb to me... Wouldn't be totally against I guess. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:01, 24 August 2012 (BST)

The tall buildings part is a bit awkwardly placed, the table of contents messes up the entire introduction and lay-out imo and the whole article would benefit from some further editing. -- Johnny Twotoes 00:51, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:11, 15 September 2012)

---

Great Fire of 1912

Probably the most important pre-2005 incident in Malton history. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

The banner is gone, so I'm extending the candidacy discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:17, 2 September 2012 (BST)

The banner is back. Discussion continues. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:13, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Great Fire of 1912)

Dump the ALiM banner up top and maybe we'll talk.-MHSstaff 04:55, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Great Fire Article, it's me. You said you would change. You said you would leave behind that slutty ALiM banner, and give yourself fully to me. I want you babe. I want things to be like they were before, when you said you would be the only article in my life, and we could finally experience true love. The kind of love that is only possible on a dying MMO browser game and wiki. Well fine. Go run back to your banner. Whore.-MHSstaff 21:03, 5 September 2012 (BST)

For Shit's so ALiM --Ross^WHO????ness 10:32, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Definitely for it, since it's one of the best known fictional events in the history of Malton. That said, I'm with MHSstaff: dump the ALiM banner. I might even suggest removing the 2 Cola link near the top, since I wouldn't want stuff like that being only a click or two away from the front page. —Aichon— 15:48, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Ha. Lord do I love boobs. --Ross^WHO????ness 15:55, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against its stupid. Is there something funny about it I'm missing? Standard Zombie 17:18, 26 August 2012 (BST)

Removed the ALiM banner. For it. ~ _{19:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

Yes and also please can we nominate ALIM itself haha D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:01, 4 September 2012 (BST)

If the template is necessary and whose existence is the only thing holding the page back from being featured, then at least stick it near the bottom; it's less intrusive. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:27, 5 September 2012 (BST)

I'm taking the discussion regarding the navigation bar to Nallan's talk page so that it doesn't clutter up this section. I'd encourage anyone with an opinion on the matter to head over there. —Aichon— 21:08, 5 September 2012 (BST)

The discussion essentially ended with Nallan making clear that he would prefer to retain the banner rather than having the article be featured if it were to come down to that decision. —Aichon— 15:32, 7 September 2012 (BST)

FOR ALiM made this wiki you newbie fools.--CyberRead240 09:28, 7 September 2012 (BST)

Given the discussion on my talk page, I'd say that's an unsuccessful bid right thar. Shame...--Nallan (Talk) 09:54, 7 September 2012 (BST)

Not necessarily. In my opinion, it does, but others are welcome to disagree, you included, and I'd encourage you to do so, since you have a vested interest in seeing it succeed. :) —Aichon— 15:32, 7 September 2012 (BST)

Since the ALiM banner is sticking around, I am no longer in support. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 21:32, 7 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:12, 15 September 2012)

---

Possible Causes for the Situation

Explains the newspapers and other theories. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion in case someone wants to work on this one. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:32, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Possible Causes for the Situation)

Not big on the title but I like this one more than Malton Incident. ~ _{05:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

As vape. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:44, 24 August 2012 (BST)

It needs a lot of cleaning up and formatting before it'd be ready. Also, a proper introduction. —Aichon— 16:52, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I kind like this one, both from a fiction/backstory standpoint and the connection to an in-game item (newspapers).-MHSstaff 18:26, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:17, 15 September 2012)

---

Firearms

Includes images & informative table. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Firearms)

Not against it. It's exacrly what you expect and not ugly either. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:08, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against It's not good, it's just functional. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:31, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm for it. It's good, functional, laid out very well, and has all the information you could want. Yes, it's mostly just data, but I think this is one of the few examples of a data-heavy page being done well. —Aichon— 15:44, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I hate the page design, and it's functional as Ross says. It really should be merged with the other weapon articles and resubmitted.-MHSstaff 17:52, 24 August 2012 (BST)

No but sure if that horrid blue was gone. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 04:22, 9 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:25, 15 September 2012)

---

Melee Weapons

Counterpart to Firearms. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Melee Weapons)

Nope See my comments on firearms. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:40, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yep. See my comments on firearms. :P —Aichon— 16:47, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:25, 15 September 2012)

---

Useful Items

Can you tell I'm running out of descriptions for these nominations? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Useful Items)

Design is pretty ugly and is hard to read. Not very interesting.-MHSstaff 03:52, 24 August 2012 (BST)

See Firearms comment. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:46, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm for it. See comments for firearms above. —Aichon— 17:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

For, nice pagedesign and generally quite easy to understand. -- Johnny Twotoes 03:46, 9 September 2012 (BST)

Sorry, gonna say no. Ugly and just feels difficult to read. A ZOMBIE ANT 04:15, 9 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:25, 15 September 2012)

---

ZomboTracker

A hilarious and well-written counterpart to Weather. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:42, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (ZomboTracker)

Against its a fun page, but the super live trackers haven't been updated in two years. Would need to imply some bits are historic. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:15, 23 August 2012 (BST)

As Ross. We should update it; I actually like it more for its technical features, both with the wiki switching codes used for the tabs and the maps showing targets and number of times hit as well as horde paths. -MHSstaff 02:19, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm for it. Regardless of if it's been updated, it's a unique page that deserves to be featured. —Aichon— 17:06, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 23:26, 15 September 2012)

---

Weather

Was unanimously approved as a Good Article in January 2011, but never received Featured Article status. Also, is fantastic. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I'm officially extending the candidacy discussion. Please comment below. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:04, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Weather)

Meh I prefer Snow and Fog myself. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:24, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I like it, but I want more of it before I'd say yes for it as an FA. More or less, have it get fleshed out first. More flavor text, in particular. It feels lacking for an FA on that topic. —Aichon— 00:20, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Such as? I removed the flavor text because of POV. What sort of things would you like to see expanded?-MHSstaff 02:21, 24 August 2012 (BST)

To be honest, I'm not sure. Maybe some historical notes on weather patterns? Make some humorous references to the effects of global warming in Malton? I dunno. It feels like it could use another paragraph or two at the end, to me, and maybe making the stuff at the end be formatted a bit differently? As I said, I like it, but I just want more of it. —Aichon— 17:30, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Gameplay. Should be grandfathered in. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

As Vapor. -- Johnny Twotoes 17:30, 5 September 2012 (BST)

It looks a little wanting. I like it though. What more content could you add (or that was removed)? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:11, 5 September 2012 (BST)

Depends on which direction people are interested in going. Adding more flavor is easy; alternatively some of the in game stuff could be merged.-MHSstaff 05:13, 7 September 2012 (BST)

So what does it look like the verdict is on this one? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:07, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Dunno but I'm against it. It's purely RP, the statistical information is misleading in that it's about the town Malton, Ontario not actually about the game. A Hub article with content that summarizes Malton's weather, it's effect on the outbreak, and the implementation of actual in-game weather should actually be what's in this particular article space. Maybe lampshade or directly reference the RP RRF weather forcast but, as a game resource in regards to something actually in the game this article needs some work. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I agree with this, but the article has never really been a game resource; the first version was a manually updated RP forecast that stopped being updated after about two weeks. We can move it in a more game resource friendly direction, but beyond snow and frog, I am not sure what else would be included. -MHSstaff 23:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Weather has frequently been a mechanic used to justify updates actually. I'm sure there's quite a bit that can be mentioned as far as in game mechanics. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 01:56, 17 September 2012 (BST)

You could probably include the fake/RP weather and the glossary/ingame weather stuff all into the same page. So have pieces of Fog and Snow in Weather (leaving the bigger chunks of both to their respective pages)... and what Karek mentioned, and then the made-up weather. I don't see why information on game mechanics should exclude fiction automatically. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:28, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:15, 26 September 2012)

---

RNG

A clear explanation of the concept, as well as how it features in Urban Dead. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (RNG)

Against Just, plain, dull. --Ross^WHO????ness 21:26, 23 August 2012 (BST)

I'm for it. While it is dry, I think it's still well-written and is something that could use more public awareness. —Aichon— 00:22, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I prefer the Old Testimate version. ~ _{00:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

Yes it's great. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:54, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Against Merge with groove theory and we'll talk.-MHSstaff 02:58, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yes, I up to reading two and this one was by far more entertaining. It would be nice to throw a paragraph at the end about Groove Theory. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 02:13, 25 August 2012 (BST)

I'm going to work on this article soon. ~ _{19:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

While you work on it, would you rather we leave discussion open or close this as unsuccessful and resubmit later? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:09, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Leave it open. I'll make suggestion changes from the comments. ~ _{22:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

Still trying to find the nest way to merge groove theory info. Its mentioned at the bottoom of the article already. Just trying to figure oit if it needs its own section. There's some contention that some groove theory-like patterns still exist with current RNG coding. So far all I've done is link to the new disambig page I created. ~ _{18:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

So is the candidacy over or should I extend discussion? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:09, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I can't make that call. I don't think its complete I'm just struggling figuring out how to get it there. Everyone is free to disagree with me or make their own attempts at completing it. There's enough support I think to go ahead and leave it up. If you're just tired of seeing it here, we can bring it back when its more ready. ~ _{03:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)}

Groove Theory is part of RNG issues so it should probably be a separate header on the page but still on the page. We could always make a main header called "Common RNG Problems Evidenced in Urban Dead" or Historic RNG Problems with a subheader for Groove Theory and a note about how the balancing mechanisms actually throw the statistical average abilities and searches run off of the stated averages and how this has an effect on the stats vs the observed real stats. You can even throw common RNG misconceptions up on there and pull some stuff from wikipedia, etc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

No further work has been done, so I'm closing this one. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:16, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:17, 26 September 2012)

---

Guides:Feral Death-Cultist Guide

Solid Good Guide. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Guides:Feral Death-Cultist Guide)

Remove mention of Feral Undead and feral zombies at top and work on more comprehensive intro to the concept. Tactics in this article are not specific to the FU or to feral zombies in general and the concept of Death Culting is not self explanatory. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

I really like the parachuting box idea. But as Schwan. --Ross^WHO????ness 10:33, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I wouldn't remove the feral bits, since it is focussed on feral zombies who operate either completely on their own, or in such a losely-knit "group" like FU. While a lot of it can also be applied to coordinated groups, they have very different means. The FU references aren't that crucial, though, and could go if necessary.
As for death-culting in general, what else needs to explained? "fun things to do as a die-hard zombie when you get revived and want to use the assets of the breathers against them" is IMHO summing up everything neatly in a single sentence, but I might be biased. -- Spiderzed█ 16:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

It needs a better introduction, prettying up, and a touch of refinement before it'll be ready, I think. —Aichon— 15:49, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm the original creator, and I'm downright amazed to see that popping up more than 2 years after the fact. If there are any suggestions, I'm listening. -- Spiderzed█ 16:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Besides getting revives, what other key differences do you see between a feral DC and a group DC? Touching on / emphasizing that a little more would help distinguish this as a feral guide. Otherwise, as Aichon. It's not quite there yet but easily could be.-MHSstaff 17:34, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Internal revives is one thing. The other is the scope of actions accomplished. A coordinated group of DCs can easily hope to squash a tightly packed TRP like an NT or a hospital and get away with pinataing it. A single feral DC will need to be more picky to get the most bang for the buck, or to live with the consequences of not going the full mile. Some other tactics, like groaning from a barricaded building, are also more worthwhile for ferals than they are for parts of coordinated zombie groups. - But what mostly keeps me back is that I have little experience within coordinated death-cults. I'm most experienced with rhe feral death-cultist, so that is what I'm most comfortable writing about. Telling the Gore Corps how to go about Gore Corps'ing feels silly to me given the angle I take in actual play. -- Spiderzed█ 21:15, 24 August 2012 (BST)

On second look, I retract what I said about removing ferals entirely. The first section has some things about revives specifically for them. Somewhere in an intro it might help to make the difference that is hinted at in this section more explicit. I still argue that the FU reference is out of place other than maybe as context in a reworked introduction. Personally, I would remove it as the FU and their policy on feral members is beside the point and not addressed as I see it in the guide proper. As for the intro, I think my problem with it boils down to the fact that it is written in a "this is a cat. It is going to do cat things" sort of style. In an intro, I would think that one should introduce the cat and hint at why the cat is worth talking about. In this case, the cat is the guide rather than the death-cultist. Forgive the opaque metaphor but that is the best way I can describe it. -- Albert Schwan  _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Leave the Feral Undead alone. They wrote this guide and removing them from it erases a piece of UD history. --WanYao

Against: Could benefit from some adjustments. Biassed left and right (the DEM doesn't maintain the RG and the mentioning of the Feral Undead in the intro, for example) and could use some general editing when it comes to lay-out and article length. -- Johnny Twotoes 00:59, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Where does it say DEM maintains the RG? The only mention of DEM I saw was that they invented it, which is an accurate statement, since they did. I agree with removing the FU reference, however, since that statement seems to be saying that FU has an exclusive claim on all non-independent feral zombies, which isn't necessarily true (e.g. Big Bashes are largely feral, and I think all of the hordes acknowledge their feral members, such as MOB with its Zealots). FU is definitely the purest of the feral groups, and they're certainly the most well known for catering specifically to ferals, so I wouldn't object to a mention regarding that elsewhere in the article, but we shouldn't be featuring an article with a sweeping generalization that's not entirely accurate right at the top. —Aichon— 07:21, 3 September 2012 (BST)

As Aichon said, DEM were the inventors and long-time hosters of the RG. As for bias, there is no need for NPOV in guides. FA has NPOV as a criteria, but as a quite malleable one. -- Spiderzed█ 18:46, 3 September 2012 (BST)

To summarize:

1. better intro that tells what is awesome about death-cultists
2. prettier look (images?)
3. broaden the aim or get more specific about ferals
4. remove mention of FU
5. less wordiness
6. turn the bias down

1-4 look like things I could do. I'd just need time for that.
For 5, as Mark Twain has put it, "I am sorry to write such a long letter. I didn't have time to write a short one." I am not a native speaker, and my original proof-reader has gone idle since. I might tackle that, but not over night.
6 is not gonna happen. In a guide written by a death-cultist aimed at death-cultists, I reserve the right to mock the loopholes of the RG, typical trenchie shortcomings and as a side-dish the DEM as much as I like (which is a lot). -- Spiderzed█ 18:46, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Quick note; DEM didn't invent the RG. The inventors may have been a part of DEM but they acted on their own. It was never in the DEM toolbox. I beleive the kept their own PKer list. ~ _{19:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)}

You probably should correct every single mention of the RG on the wiki then, since they almost all repeat the line saying that the DEM invented the RG and supplied its initial moderators before withdrawing from it. —Aichon— 20:19, 3 September 2012 (BST)

If you reserve the right to mock the DEM in the article, then this article simply isn't FA-worthy thanks to bias. I understand some of the controversy surrounding the DEM (and I agree on the point surrounding DEMON, which I refuse to use), but any bias makes it invalid for FA in my opinion, be it DEM-related or otherwise. -- Johnny Twotoes 02:11, 4 September 2012 (BST)

Am I correct in judging this as unsuccessful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:18, 26 September 2012)

---

Salt The Land Policy

And a major policy on the Zombie side. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion - please comment further on this one. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:34, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Salt The Land Policy)

Yep --Ross^WHO????ness 21:20, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Abstain - The policy itself is relevant, but the taint of Extinction's grubby zergling fingers is hard to wash off. -- Spiderzed█ 16:50, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I really feel we're beyond that now. Extinction are, and for some of us, always have been joke. Many more serious groups play this way. Just delete any mention of the zerging fuckers. --Ross^WHO????ness 16:53, 24 August 2012 (BST)

The idea behind this policy has always been Zerg to achieve it Ross. The two go hand in hand. It's also why it's never really caught on beyond SA and Extinction, it was actually originally a policy from shacklinks but it never saw real attempts at use before Extinction started using alts to enforce it against the NAFZ in their conflict. There are certainly more communally reflective articles we can find on the subject of zombie strategy, particularly in regards to revive management or mall sieges, that would be both better quality and more well received than this article. Particularly because the information in this article is almost all wrong and the strategy is un-achievable for reasons I used to bring up in 404 in discussions I think you were a part of. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:31, 16 September 2012 (BST)

If we don't get any more comments, I'm gonna archive this as unsuccessful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:18, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Nien it stinks of cheating.--User:Sexualharrison19:37, 16 September 2012

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:22, 26 September 2012)

---

Zombie Skills/Feeding Groan

It's brief, but it's to-the-point, lists things that are a) comprehensive, b) useful and c) interesting; and it's all wonderfully illustrated by the singularly most obscure joke I could make on the subject. Bonus points to anyone who can explain it. I have a few of these so this one is really just testing the waters on the subject; as usual feel free to insult it, me and my mother when you're offering opinions. 21:47, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Since this is still being worked on, I'm extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:06, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Zombie Skills/Feeding Groan)

Seems complete and well-written. I'd be in favor. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:22, 4 September 2012 (BST)

A bit too ugly in my opinion. The content is a bit limited, but ok. -- Johnny Twotoes 02:13, 4 September 2012 (BST)

I always liked where you and Trips were going with the zombie skill pages. Hope to see you continue with these. As for the obscure joke, I originally thought you were referring to The Zombeatles, who are a musical group that dress as zombies and cover Beatles songs. However, I see that the image you use is that of Blue Heart, fictional radio jock and narrarator in the film Zombi 3. I assume the obscure connection is that Blue Heart broadcasts music to the zombie population in the film and groaning zombies broadcast survivor locations in Urban Dead. Am I close? Oh and I'm for this as featured. ~ _{03:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)}

Basically, the playlist on his desk is simply a note with "Play Beatles Song" in bright red. As for continuing I'm working on Bellow at the minute but I'm really going to need some fierce-ass research for it. If this one goes through I'll probably put the effort into the full Memories of Life tree; I think I have a solid start on most if not all of them. 03:25, 4 September 2012 (BST)

Another very well written and informative article. My personal favorite is the in-joke that the picture represents. Not everyone will get it, but that's the point of an in-joke. If someone googles it or has seen the film, they'll get how it ties into feeding groan and the article itself. -- Goribus 04:19, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Mis still needs to sort out the format. Once they are done, we can vote again, can still be improved. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:14, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Sort out the format? What sorting out are you aiming for? 08:16, 15 September 2012 (BST)

A certain uniformity across the pages, some less ugly Icons next to the skill tree, stuff like that. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 08:49, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Uniformity is a matter for future pages; the standard set by this nom as the first among them is what they others should aspire to, surely. As for the icons, blame Kevan, I used the same ones present on the in-game skill trees. 14:28, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Kevans, I hate those guys. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 14:30, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Obviously it's a minor change but I felt mirroring the game was both NPOV and added a sense of this actually belonging to the game. Suggestions for what could replace them would range from any Unicode symbol through to small icon images (something zombie-ish though cause they're zombie skills). 14:33, 15 September 2012 (BST)

I'll have a look. That or maybe, make it look exactly like the skill tree page. maybe. --I'm not the Ross UDWiki needs, I'm the Ross it deserves. 14:35, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Could do it all in {{Udspan}} I guess. Not keen on that though. Alternate suggestion is big-wiki-style navbox at the bottom in in-game colours. 14:38, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Like this. Could go top or bottom. 14:59, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Have a look at it now. For what it's worth all the Memories skills have been similarly updated. 16:42, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Nav might look better at top? Looks out of place down there for some reason. ~ _{17:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

You think? I'm used to seeing them at the bottom but I'm open to moving it. 17:17, 15 September 2012 (BST)

Could just be me used to seeing group page navs at the top. Its a good addition and its position isn't all that important to feature status. Move it or leave it as you see fit. ~ _{18:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)}

Uniformity on skills pages in the past has meant bonded to a div so with a soft offset color in the background so that the green doesn't look so horrific and the icon's don't look so ugly. It is certainly possible through creative style manipulation to have this take over the whole article section, like Zombie Skills with a negative margin on all sides and then padded so that the article content doesn't move much from it's current position. That may be the best option, something that is effectively a template for "Zombie Skills" and "Class x Skills" that can generically be styled onto the appropriate pages. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:19, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I genuinely don't know what you mean. If you're referring to keeping the skill trees uniform across all the skill pages, they've since been replaced with a cleaner nav template instead. 20:54, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I'm talking about something like Items or Zombie Skills where the article is encased in a div that applies style and look for the whole thing. Particularly in making each class have a specific color and design and applying that uniformly and balancing the colors so they make the UDStyle template look less horrible and out of place. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:12, 16 September 2012 (BST)

In that case I'm not keen. It's a lot of extra code and effort for little net gain (I can be bothered to do it; just not on something as basic as this). I don't think it's a bad idea to let important aspects like skill pages just be displayed in a pretty standard wiki format rather than jazzed up; aside from showing new editors that they don't need to be daunted by everything here it also helps the punchier pages actually stand out when they make use of such elements. 22:16, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Is work still being done, or should I cycle this, and if so, how? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:14, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Work has been done, I had thought. Apart from Karek's suggestion to give the page a coloured background, which I've argued against, I don't see what work still needs to be done. 16:29, 26 September 2012 (BST)

I like it but there is a sidepanel link to all the skills available in the game, so I wonder if we need to feature any of the skill pages. -MHSstaff 16:44, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Last chance for comment or I'm closing this as unsuccessful. (Hasn't received real backing from the community.) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:17, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:59, 12 October 2012 (BST))

---

Guides:Kill Probability

Extremely useful and well-done tables. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Consensus seems to be positive, but I'd like to hear a couple more voices. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:18, 2 September 2012 (BST)

I'm re-extending discussion on this one. Would like more Wikizens to comment. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:19, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Guides:Kill Probability)

Meh. Sure I've seen this somewhere else, done in a better way. Perhaps one of the guides? --Ross^WHO????ness 10:34, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Perhaps you mean Guides:Damage Per Action? I find G:DPA more comprehensive and grokkable, while the advantage of G:KP is rather detail and exhaustiveness. Not sure if either is FA material. -- Spiderzed█ 16:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Easily my favorite data-heavy presentation anywhere on the wiki. Beautifully presented in a clear manner. Definitely deserving of FA status. It needs to be seen by more people. —Aichon— 16:14, 24 August 2012 (BST)

As Aichon. The charts alone rock.-MHSstaff 17:28, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Clear, comprehensible and it looks good :) I'm all for! -- Johnny Twotoes 01:01, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Last chance for objections or I'm closing this as successful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:13, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I will because there's no article content. It's mostly numbers with no guide on how to interpret or understand them. G:DPA is better at this but also needs improvement. Information for information's sake isn't informative, it needs context and purpose. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:10, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Strongly disagree. The article is about "kill probability." The opening sentence tells the reader everything they need to know about what follows in the article, and how to interpret the charts: "The following charts show the probability that a target will be killed after a certain number of attacks." The article tells the reader everything they need to know about "kill probability," in a format that is easy to understand and digest. -MHSstaff 23:14, 16 September 2012 (BST)

I am a very numerically inclined wikizen and my mind goes to goop when I try to read that. Literally, "I need a break from numbers" goop. The page needs pacing like the Search Odds pages. What do the color's represent? It's not listed anywhere. What's a reasonably safe amount of AP to not be tracked by Scent Trail? Again, not listed anywhere. A good article is a resource that doesn't assume prior knowledge and helps guide a user in what they need to know to understand the article at hand while providing direction(links) to deeper parallel and references content. Guides:Damage_Per_Action attempts to do that, Siddhant's ancient guide attempts to do that, Median Battle Rating is another good example of at least the attempt to do that. For data sets to be usable to the average person it needs to be made accessible particularly if it's meant to instruct. This article's data has a good visual presentation but no contextual one. It's like a pie chart without words. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:00, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I don't know man. I see the article as simple and to the point with regards to providing me a kill probability for a given weapon class. It provides exactly what I would expect it to provide. I get where you are coming from; it seems you see more potential here with the article in that it could provide more contextual information on how kill probability influences other parts of the game / tactics / decision-making with corresponding cross-linking. Like, why one should care about looking up a given kill probability. I dig that, but to me that is a different article. -MHSstaff 00:06, 19 September 2012 (BST)

Again, last chance to comment or I'm closing it as unsuccessful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:19, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:59, 12 October 2012 (BST))

---

Tactical Resource Point

Explains an important Urban Dead concept well. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Tactical Resource Point)

I think this could be fleshed out more. -MHSstaff 03:55, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Cross link with Spawning, flesh it out a bit, explain how it works ingame. --Ross^WHO????ness 11:22, 24 August 2012 (BST)

You just want Spawning linked. :P But yes, it does need a lot more fleshing out. Perhaps some discussion regarding their importance in different situations. —Aichon— 17:00, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Also something about good trp clusters may be a good addition. The classic NT,Factory,Hospital set up is always a winner. --Ross^WHO????ness 17:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Exactly. That'd be a great addition. —Aichon— 17:35, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I might work on making these changes, so I'm leaving this one in discussion for a little bit. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:36, 2 September 2012 (BST)

The map needs a bit of work and fleshing out but that can be done in a busy weekend. I've already done some work on it as far as ease of use. More will probably be on the way if I have the time. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 05:14, 16 September 2012 (BST)

The map is simply impossible to read, text is very limited and I'm not a big fan of some of the lay-out (a list element in the introduction, above the TOC?). TRP-related tactics, some more fleshing out of the present content etc. would be nice as well. PB&J 06:03, 16 September 2012 (BST)

The map is still in need of follow up work but now the page has seen a massive stylistic and content overhaul. Hopefully it's closer to the Featured Articles standard of goodness and YAY. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:08, 16 September 2012 (BST)

Fix the map and you maybe have my vote. Fix the lay-out and minor errors (there's something odd going on around Fire Departments and Junkyards, not sure what the lay-out idea there is?) and you probably have my vote. Fix it all and you definitely have my vote ;) PB&J 16:07, 17 September 2012 (BST)

It's tabular there. Also, as a 10,000 block map there's only so much prettying up it can take and still be reasonably informative. There's Suburbizing it, there can be tweaks to the coloring but, I'm at a loss for what else could reasonably be done beyond those two and without a specific list of issues that can be an issue. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 15:48, 18 September 2012 (BST)

Is there a numerical list of coordinates for given TRP categories (like all the police stations)?-MHSstaff 00:08, 19 September 2012 (BST)

Not that I am aware of but all of the links provide them. They can be added but it'll be a massive pain as they'd have to be done by hand without a bot set up for this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 00:27, 19 September 2012 (BST)

Will there be more work done or am I closing this as unsuccessful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:23, 26 September 2012 (BST)

I would like to play with the map a little. -MHSstaff 05:41, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Knock yourself out. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 00:10, 27 September 2012 (BST)

So my thought was to have one of those fancy Rooster style tab switch things (see his home page) and have a map that switches between showing all resources, weapons-based ones, FAKs, fuel and gennies, malls, and syringes. On the map, the streets will be black, the free running network grayish, and the resource buildings color-coded. Here is a mockup for two suburbs showing syringe resources. So before I start autogenerating these, thoughts and requested changes/tweaks? -MHSstaff 20:20, 30 September 2012 (BST)

Unless someone wants to respond to MHS or keep working on this, I'm going to close it as unsuccessful and ask for a resubmit later. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:21, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 04:59, 12 October 2012 (BST))

---

Cobra (group)/Guide

Now here's both a group and a guide page I have always been proud of. While the main design of the Cobra pages has received more praise (and is better liked by myself), this one is a more legible design, as necessary for such a long text. As for the content, it is most likely the most thorough PKer guide on the wiki. -- Spiderzed█ 19:29, 17 September 2012 (BST)

Okay, we really need more commenters than just me. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:24, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Per request of commenters, extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:48, 12 October 2012 (BST)

Comments (Cobra (group)/Guide)

Excellently written, comprehensive, and as a (relatively) unbiased guide, I'm in favor despite the group being active. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 15:11, 18 September 2012 (BST)

I am not the biggest fan of the color scheme, but the guide is absolutely rock-solid and a good example of a group page that should be featured. -MHSstaff 16:40, 26 September 2012 (BST)

Oh, and it might be worth renaming it to Cobra PK Guide or something more descriptive. -MHSstaff 16:51, 26 September 2012 (BST)

It was originally Cobra/Guide, but that way lies A/A... As for the colour scheme, the monotype green-on-black of the main page design was hard too hard on the eye for long texts, so I looked around for something easier to read using blue and red (the standard Cobra colours). Red on blue and blue on red look ugly, as does black on light red. So black on light blue (with red page borders) it became. Mind you, if you have concrete suggestions for different fitting colors, I am all ears. -- Spiderzed█ 18:07, 26 September 2012 (BST)

I think you just have too many colors going at once. IMHO. -MHSstaff 21:26, 12 October 2012 (BST)

Its a nice group page and good PK guide. I don't agree with everything in it but almost every PKer has their own opinion on these things. There are a bit too many Cobra specific things in this guide, like using "Hail Cobra!" as a backup taunt, for me to refer newbie pkers to use it. It also breaks some specific rules my group does not condone like abusing the RG. So overall while I like the guide and wouldn't ask for it to be changed, its hard for me to support it as a featured article. ~ _{00:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}

Since it's expected that the article is created from the group's perspective, the rest of the page need not be neutral. There's reason that it is in group space. -- Spiderzed█ 06:45, 27 September 2012 (BST)

Oh, I know it meets NPOV criteria. I guess you could say my only complaint is the content. Since I don't reccomend newbie PKers to use this guide, I'd prefer not see it it featured on the main page. If it were just a matter of "Hey, check out this sweet group page" it'd be different but this page has the unique position of being both a guide and a group page. ~ _{15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)}

I don't know; I kinda saw it more as a sweet group page than as the ultimate PK guide. -MHSstaff 17:43, 27 September 2012 (BST)

The page is the result of me wanting all at the same time a.) finally a good PKer guide on the wiki in general, b.) a good PKer guide for our newbie killers in particular and c.) having yet another venue to attract recruits. Obviously, it can't be everything to everyone, especially in such a diversified niche as PKing. While the general gameplay is the same, Philosophe Knights, Playing God, Profile Police, Big Coffin Hunters and Flowers of Decay follow very different policies and ground rules (just to pick a few wildly different examples). In the end, I settled for a group page, as that gave me the power to be POV and group-specific. Hence also why this is submitted to FA as a group page, rather than as a general article. -- Spiderzed█ 19:31, 27 September 2012 (BST)

And it does those things fantastically. Doesn't mean I think it belongs on the main page. Whether its nominated as a group page, an article or as a user page, the end result is always the same. At some point this would be on the front page. And I disagree with just enough of it that I'm not throwing in my support. ~ _{01:25, 28 September 2012 (UTC)}

Oh so long ago, I suggested this idea based on the lack of good PKer guides. I don't agree with everything in it, but it's a well-written "article" and already a featured guide. For -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:40, 27 September 2012 (BST)

For, but then again I'm biased :P ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 10:35, 28 September 2012 (BST)

My god is that page ugly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:07, 8 October 2012 (BST)

Am I correct in judging this as successful? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:23, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I'd say so, but I am hugely biased. -- Spiderzed█ 22:49, 8 October 2012 (BST)

I'll probably try to counter-meatpuppet it. Go ahead and leave it open for another week. ~ _{00:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)}

Meatpuppet number one coming right up, Vapor. No, but seriously, page is ugly, MOB deserves the attention way more, and while the guide is good, it's definitely not Featured Page material. Also, Sally will not bang me, and the guide doesn't help fix that, which means this whole page is shite. Against. --RadicalWhig 02:40, 9 October 2012 (BST)

Extension had no effect. Do I close this and how? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 04:55, 26 October 2012 (BST)

When there is no clear consensus within 5 weeks, then it is very likely that the page wasn't meant to be featured. -- Spiderzed█ 06:19, 26 October 2012 (BST)

Verdict: Unsuccessful (Archived by User:Bob Moncrief at 14:17, 26 October 2012 (BST))

---