UDWiki:Featured Articles/Candidates: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:08, 6 September 2012

Community Portal – General Discussion – Wiki Questions – Featured Articles – Did You Know

Featured Article Candidates
Evaluation for featured article (FA) status takes place here. Any page is eligible to be submitted for evaluation, including group pages and user pages. The only requisite is that the page follows the criteria; it doesn't need to be satisfied absolutely. Ultimately the page should be something the community wants to be placed on the main page, where it's highly visible and assumed to be exemplary; it should fulfill some notion of special.

In determining whether or not a page becomes featured, the candidate will be discussed and if there are no major concerns raised at the end of 7 days, the page will achieve featured status. During the 7 days any major concerns can be addressed, either by refuting them or improving the page to fix the problem. If discussion on the candidate goes further than 7 days, participants may continue discussing or altering the page without the submission being automatically closed.

Please note this is not a vote. When making a supporting or opposing claim, back up the claim with reasons or evidence. However, there should be at least three users commenting on a submission for the submission process to be considered valid. This is to avoid a page slipping through unnoticed.

Be aware that the criteria for different types of candidates—articles, groups, and user pages—changes to reflect different requirements; it does not make sense, for example, to have "neutrality" as a criteria for user pages. Remember these are guidelines only and candidates do not need to follow the criteria to the letter.

Articles that achieve featured article status should have the FA star () placed on the page.

If at sometime, after a page has achieved featured status, substantial changes are made that seem to degenerate the page past the level at which it was submitted, then the page can be resubmitted here and be re-evaluated. The same criteria and process follows; if a major concern is raised that cannot be addressed, then the page loses its featured status.

Format

Submit candidates under the appropriate header (Articles, Group pages, User Pages), beneath its respective Candidates header.
Make a level four header with the linked name of the page you are submitting.
Make a level five header labelled Comments and put in brackets the name of the page your submitting (so that someone can jump to individual comment sections which otherwise would be identical and dysfunctional). The comment section is a free-for-all discussion, so there's no need for supporting or opposing headers, numbering or bullet-pointing, nor bolding anything.

Example

Substitute the text in RED CAPITALS with the details of your submission.

==Articles==
===Article Criteria===
[...]
===Article Candidates===
====[[EXAMPLE ARTICLE FA CANDIDATE]]====
TEXT EXPLAINING WHY YOU THINK THE PAGE SHOULD BE FEATURED. ~~~~
=====Comments (EXAMPLE ARTICLE FA CANDIDATE)=====
COMMENTS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING SUBMISSIONS, WITH REASONS.
----

To see content examples and information on what's expected of candidates and discussion, go here.

Articles

These include glossary pages, event pages including historical events, locations, guides and tactics.

Article Criteria

NPOV - The article must be from a neutral point of view; articles should avoid taking sides (such as emphasizing zombies over humans, or a particular group or opinion). Exceptions may be made, depending on the article and community decision.
Complete - No major facts or details are neglected; it is finished as can be.
Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

Article Candidates

Submit candidates here.

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. —Aich on— 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. —Aich on— 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.--Short round }.{ 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. -- AHLG T G 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. —Aich on— 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)

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)

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)

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. —Aich on— 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. —Aich on— 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)? -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:11, 5 September 2012 (BST)

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. —Aich on— 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-- Al be rt Sc hw an _{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)

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. —Aich on— 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)}

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. —Aich on— 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. —Aich on— 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)

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)

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. —Aich on— 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. -- AHLG T G 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. —Aich on— 21:08, 5 September 2012 (BST)

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. -- Al be rt Sc hw an _{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. —Aich on— 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. -- Al be rt Sc hw an _{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. —Aich on— 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:

better intro that tells what is awesome about death-cultists
prettier look (images?)
broaden the aim or get more specific about ferals
remove mention of FU
less wordiness
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. —Aich on— 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)

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)

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. —Aich on— 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)

Harman for the Holidays

Quite the event from the look of it. Also super-flavorful. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending Discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:20, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Harman for the Holidays)

Incomplete. Who won? Is this an event or a song contest? Either way, that information is missing.-MHSstaff 03:48, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Will update with winner and link to Harman for the Holidays 2:Revenge of the Harman once I dig the winner out of my archives. In answer to your question, it was an event that was centered around a song contest.--

Al be rt Sc hw an _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

Done and done--

Al be rt Sc hw an _{Friday, 24 August 2012}

What happened with the decorations and caroling contests?-MHSstaff 17:39, 24 August 2012 (BST)

The caroling contest winner is flagged on the page next to the title of the winning song and on the discussion page. The decorations contest was dropped for lack of sufficient formal entries, opting instead for the lights map which shows that substantial anonymous decorating was done. --

Al be rt Sc hw an _{Saturday, 25 August 2012}

I'm in favor. —Aich on— 16:26, 24 August 2012 (BST)

For Despite his utter-insanity (read: life-culting support), Schwan makes a hell of a wiki page. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:04, 6 September 2012 (BST)

Invasion of Gibsonton

A historical event with a well-written article. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

We need more comments on this one. Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:22, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Invasion of Gibsonton)

Need to fix those red links. --Ross^WHO????ness 11:14, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I just fixed the only red links I saw. Any comments? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:51, 31 August 2012 (BST)

Aye. One of the few PK events to follow standard battle format on UDWiki. Would mind if this were a historical event. ~ _{19:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)}

I'm for it. —Aich on— 07:23, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Malton

Now that there's a mini-timeline, let's see if this gets featured. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Comments (Malton)

Yes. Maybe change the last paragraph so that its not so present tense. ~ _{02:20, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}

As Vapor. Also, it's missing BB3 in 2010, which, together with RRF and MOB, helped to swing the game's ratio much more towards the zombie side than it had been in quite awhile. —Aich on— 16:43, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Changes made. Further comments? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:27, 2 September 2012 (BST)

I was for it already. I just thought it would be better with those changes (which it is, now that they've been made :P). More opinions would be welcome though, since otherwise it's just us having commented on it. —Aich on— 06:59, 3 September 2012 (BST)

yup a nice balance of text, formatting, images. A fairly slick, well-done page. -- _{Org XIII} ^Alts 23:08, 6 September 2012 (BST)

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. —Aich on— 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)

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)

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. —Aich on— 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. —Aich on— 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)

Tidal Tactics

A major tactic article. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 20:53, 23 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 22:36, 2 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (Tidal Tactics)

Probably yes. --Ross^WHO????ness 11:23, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Wall of text. It needs some more stuff to help break it up a bit. —Aich on— 17:01, 24 August 2012 (BST)

+Image.

00:55, 25 August 2012 (BST)

Mis did some additional work, and we ended up talking about it a bit on my talk page. I guess I'm at a marginal "yes". I still think reading it is a bit onerous. More opinions would be useful. —Aich on— 06:58, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Fiddled with some of the low-level headers again, centring them to produce a little more white space. Unsure of it though as the long image throws one of them slightly off-centre. Also added another image, and made sure all images now have screenreader-friendly alt text. If you're still not sold I could probably split the paragraphs up, retaining the wording but introducing more bite-sized nuggets of text to make it seem a bit more digestible; this would probably also alleviate that off-centre thing too.

16:02, 3 September 2012 (BST)

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. —Aich on— 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)

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 —Aich on— 16:47, 24 August 2012 (BST)

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. —Aich on— 17:03, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Group Pages

Any group page or group subpage, whether active, inactive, or historical, can be submitted.

Group Page Criteria

NPOV - There should be an NPOV lead or introduction, which explains who the group is (e.g. group type, structure, size, creation). Since it's expected that the article is created from the group's perspective, the rest of the page need not be neutral. The NPOV lead only applies to the main group page.
Presentation - An interesting and original page design, brought about by the code and any images, is a possible way to satisfy this criterion. Writing style and content can also satisfy the criteria.
Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

Group Page Candidates

Militant Order of Barhah/Locator

I like maps and timelines, and this is one of the more detailed ones for a group.-MHSstaff 18:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Extending discussion. Please comment. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 19:29, 3 September 2012 (BST)

Comments (MOB Locator)

Yep, good meta information. --Ross^WHO????ness 18:30, 24 August 2012 (BST)

Yes. Thanks for submitting these group pages, MHSstaff! Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:17, 24 August 2012 (BST)

I'm in favor, but I'm extremely biased, so I'd love to hear other's opinions. —Aich on— 20:47, 3 September 2012 (BST)

What's stopping me liking this one is how the map of the current suburb isn't keyed, and it's generally hard to read where the MOB-based changes to it have been added. I know it'd be a pain in the hoop to do but a stripped down version just with names (linked) and the explicitly-given statuses (lit, ruined, etc) coloured would be a whole lot easier to grok. 21:10, 3 September 2012 (BST)

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. —Aich on— 17:06, 24 August 2012 (BST)

User Pages

Any user page or content can be submitted. For example, journals, works of fiction or stories related to zombies or Urban Dead. Note that user pages being submitted should have their own, dedicated page (a subpage).

User Page Criteria

Presentation - An interesting and original page design, brought about by the code and any images, is a possible way to satisfy this criterion. Writing style and content can also satisfy the criteria. User pages that have content consistent with guides or wiki rantings still need to be accurate and complete, similar to the Article Criteria.
Well Written - The writing is grammatically correct and clear; it communicates what it's trying to say.
Generally Awesome - This is a joke criteria, hence it is very serious.

User Page Candidates