UDWiki:Poll/Classifying Suburb Groups

This poll is now open

Polling is now open. Poll points will not be changed or removed from this point on. Discussion of the issues will continue on the discussion page. Please keep discussion on the poll to a minimum. You are encouraged to justify your reasons for answering the survey questions but it is not a requirement.

Polling will close on Wednesday, March 16th 2011.

Purpose of this Poll

Over the last five years, Urban Dead has matured as a game, and with that maturity, both the number and themes of Urban Dead groups has grown. Currently, all groups are listed in their suburb(s) of choice under one of three categories: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. The purpose of this poll is very simple:

• Given the diverse growth of group types over the last couple of years (PKer, GKer, Dual-Nature, Life-cultist, Death-cultist, the Penultimate Zombie-Killing God with a Suborbital Laser Cannon, etc), do we, as a community, feel that our current classifications:

1. accurately describe or classify the groups that do exist in a given suburb.
2. are actually useful as an information resource for players?
3. allow Group Leaders, especially new ones, to classify their group in a suburb both easily and quickly, with little confusion in classifier meaning?

• If we feel the current system falls short, what criteria are important to us as a community? What, exactly, do we want to see changed?
• If we feel the current system falls short, is there a better system?

Polling Guidelines

This poll will ask for your viewpoint on several issues related to classifying groups in suburbs. For each question:

• Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the response you agree most of this.
• For some questions, you can choose more than response. For those, please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the responses you agree with.
• Please limit discussion to the talk page.

Things to keep in mind

• The UD wiki is a gaming resource. Individual suburb pages should be as informative as possible, especially for new players who may not know the history of a suburb. Likewise, group classifications should also be as informative as possible. We should strive for a system such that a new player can goto a suburb page and at a glance, know:

1. How many groups are in / have been in that suburb.
2. What type of group are they.
3. What those type classifiers actually mean.

• Any classification system we choose should be able to classify a wide range of group types that currently exist in Urban Dead. Before you finish this poll, please go to the talk page, read the sample list of groups pulled from a variety of suburbs, and ask yourself the following:

"Can the current/proposed system I am looking at now classify this list of groups easily?"

• Any classification system we choose should be easy to understand, especially for new players. As you read the poll, pretend you are a new group leader who barely knows how make a group page, and ask yourself the following:

"Do I at a glance know what all these divisions mean in a given classification system, and is it easy for me to place my group into one of those divisions?"

• THIS IS NOT A VOTE. This is merely a tool for us, as a community, to (hopefully) come to some form of a consensus on how we feel about the current system, and whether or not there may be a better one. Please keep this in mind as you read the poll.

Polling is now open. The poll points are listed below. Answer as many or as few as you wish.

1. The current system lists groups as either: Survivor, Zombie, or Hostile. Do you wish to change this classification system?

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath one of the two answers below. You may select only one.

I do not wish to see the system changed. I am either satisfied with the current classification system, or I do not care what classifications are used.

1. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Less than ten cases of dispute in wiki history --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. I do not see the need to expand these classifications but I must say I have never liked the hostile category --C Whitty 12:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. -- Present system seems ok to me. --Louis Vernon 16:27 6 March 2011 (BST)
7. GOD FUCKING DAMN YOU GUYS WHY IS THIS STILL AN ISSUE. 19:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. As Misanthropy. Including the all-caps. --DT^PK 21:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. It's more or less fine the way it is, as used, but an other category isn't too bad either. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. now that i've put some thought into it. i agree with mis--
    
    bitch 22:29 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. I lead one of the "trickier groups", but I don't really see a need for change. Asheets 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
12. I see no legitimate reason to change it --Bjornkarl 23:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I do wish to see the system changed. I am not satisfied with the current classification system.

1. There are a few changes I'd like seen made. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. The current system doesn't cover the trickier groups. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. I could see the need to rename the awkwardly named Hostile category and to create a catch-all category to cover oddballs as O13, but think it works overall. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. as spidey--User:Sexualharrison 11:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Nothing major, unless we choose to dump the distinctions, but at least renaming Hostile would be nice. —Aichon— 14:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. --tyx94 00:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
8. --Dr Olivia 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
9. As per spiderzed, basically --WanYao 06:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

2. The template guidelines for adding groups to suburb pages should be updated.

The current guidelines for the Suburb Group template are as follows:

1. Each group category is its own list, and each list of groups should be sorted in alphabetical order.
2. Group names must be links to the wiki pages for those groups. They shouldn't link to other articles (e.g. buildings or other locations), nor should they just be plain text.
3. When "a", "an", or "the" are at the start of a group name, ignore them for purposes of alphabetization. E.g. "The Burchell Arms Regulars" would come before "Malton Police Department" since "B" comes before "M".
4. Always include a group icon. If the group currently does not have a group icon, use the [[Image:NoGroupIcon.jpg|25px]] icon instead. It looks like this:
5. The group icon should always be scaled to 25x25 or smaller. In the case that an image is larger include the |25px]] to scale it down to a reasonable size (its height must still be 25px or less).
6. If the group name is too long (i.e. wraps below the group icon) consider using an acronym (e.g. "Dunell Hills Police Department" = "DHPD")
7. Organizations of groups (e.g. DEM, South West Alliance, Dulston Alliance) should not be added to the listing.

Please indicate below if you feel these guidelines should be updated. If you feel they should be updated, add a numbered (#) timestamp under the I Agree heading. If you feel they are fine the way they are, add a numbered (#) timestamp under the I Disagree heading.

I agree.

1. Based on what the community decides on poll point 3, I feel the guidelines should be updated accordingly. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. you wanted more homework.. well here it is.. get cracking.--User:Sexualharrison 11:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. The page should have an example for fools. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Those guidelines were made to help people with formatting issues, not rules of enforcement (I would know, since I helped rewrite them a bit). They were never meant to handle cases like this, so updating them would definitely be in order. —Aichon— 14:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. -- Yes, I agree. --Louis Vernon 16:27 6 March 2011 (BST)
10. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. --Dr Olivia 01:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
12. Except for #7. I have no problem with an alliance being listed in the groups as a header, with sub-groups present in an indented list underneath it. In fact, I like this idea. --WanYao 06:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Yea, fine. Asheets 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
14. --Bjornkarl 23:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

3. Deciding on a group's classification

The current general consensus is that a group's playing style dictates how they are classified on the suburb listings. Should group classification be dictated only by groups? Please number (#) and timestamp your signature below the statement best describes your opinion on this subject.

A group's playing style should dictate how they are listed.

1. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The groups should decide how they are listed.

1. Give groups the final say. They are the only ones that can truly gauge their playing style. This should eliminate the need for arbitration, espcially if some minor tweaks are made to the classification system. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. That has always been the way it has been handled by precedent. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. if it ain't broke don't fix it.--User:Sexualharrison 11:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Only the group itself can analyze its own motivation, and since the same action can land groups into different categories based on their motivation, that means that only the group itself is qualified to place itself in a category. —Aichon— 14:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Probably the only important part of this poll IMO. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. -- should be up to the group to decide, but there should be some type of review system --Louis Vernon 16:29 6 March 2011 (BST)
10. As Aichon. Less troublesome. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. THIS. 19:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
12. I'm actually tempted to vote otherwise in order to see how many hilarious arbies cases are spawned out of the alternative. --DT^PK 21:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Serious disputes where a group is obviously classifying themselves incorrectly can be left to Arbys. But this is such a rare occurance anyway... --WanYao 06:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
14. As WanYao. Asheets 21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither option works very well. I'd rather go with something else.

1. Limiting the classifications to active and historical should remove most problems regarding where they belong. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Pretty much as above, except I'm open for completely dropping classifications and just going with listing groups by alphabetical order. - User:Whitehouse 18:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. (Newcomer perspective) No classifications. A list is enough, as suggested above. --Dr Olivia 01:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

4. Improved Classification vs Conflict Resolution

There are two main reasons for the desire to change the current classification system:

• To improve the scope, accuracy or ease-of-use for classifying suburb groups.
• To help decrease or stop conflicts caused by disagreements in how groups are listed.

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes your reasons for wanting change. You may select only one.

I feel the current system should be changed to decrease or eliminate conflicts over how groups are classified.

1. The classifications are decent now, aside from Hostile. That said, these disputes are annoying and shouldn't have reason to exist. —Aichon— 14:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. As Aichon.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Both improved classification and reduced conflicts are equally important to me

1. I think both issues should be addressed.~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. Obviously. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Conflict-resolution is more important, but I don't see how both couldn't be adressed at once. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. i am spidey's meat-puppet.--User:Sexualharrison 11:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Sure. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Sense should prevail... oh wait... nevermind my momentary laspe of sanity --WanYao 06:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Neither improved classification nor reduced conflicts are important to me at all

1. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --Louis Vernon 16:30 6 March 2011 (BST)
5. 19:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Increased relevant information is important to me. --DT^PK 21:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. The simpler, the better is what is important to me. --Dr Olivia 01:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Asheets 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

5. Types of changes

There are three general types of changes proposed:

• Expanded classification
• Reduced classification
• Changes in the classification language.

Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes the changes you would like to see if a new classification system is made.

There should be more group types added to the list of classifications

1. There should be exactly one more group classification. "Other" should be added. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. Get a less awkward name for Hostile, and add an Other category. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. god damnit spidey stop being so right all the time.--User:Sexualharrison 11:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Simply other or something. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Agree with comments above about 'other' class --Louis Vernon 16:32 6 March 2011 (BST)
7. As spiderzed. But I am against the current "Hostile" class being lumped in with "Other" --WanYao 06:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
8. --Bjornkarl 23:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be fewer group types on the list of classifications

1. Groups should be classified according to activity. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Should be groups that operate as survivors and those that operate as zombies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Alphabetical order will do. - User:Whitehouse 19:00, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Simple listing is enough, as suggested above --Dr Olivia 01:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Only the language of the classification system should be changed

1. (Second choice) I'd also be in favor of changing the "Hostile" classification to "Other".~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. Either reduce the number of group types, or else rename Hostile to something like Other. There is no reason to add more listing categories for all of these niche classifications. —Aichon— 14:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. As Vapor Asheets 21:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

6. What Information Should Group Categories provide?

Group classification systems can provide a variety of information, from how many groups are in a given suburb to some basic descriptor about that group. The current system tells us:

• How many groups are in the suburb.
• What their names are .
• What type (Zombie, Survivor, and Hostile) that group belongs to.

What information do you want the suburb page to provide to you?

I think it is more important to know how many groups are in a suburb and their names.

1. I don't rely a lot as it is on the classification system as it is and usually will just click the link to the group's page if i want more info. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. As Vapor. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. As Vapor. —Aichon— 14:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. The only important part. If you wish to know more, click the links. - User:Whitehouse 18:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. 19:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. links are all I need --Dr Olivia 01:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Both are equally as important to me.

1. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --User:Sexualharrison 11:45, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. --Louis Vernon 16:32 6 March 2011 (BST)
8. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. --DT^PK 21:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. --Penguinpyro 23:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. --WanYao 06:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

7. Type of Classifier

There are three general types of proposed classifiers:

• Classifiers that group based on player-classes. In this system, survivor groups are composed of Military, Civilian, and Scientist classes. Zombie groups are composed of the "Corpse" class.A third grouping would be composed of both.
• Classifiers that group based on play-style. In this system, groups are played on how they play the game. For example, in one system, "Survivor" groups might be ones that actively protect a suburb or survivor-classes. "Zombie" groups might be ones that are actively trying to kill survivor-classes. "Hostile" groups might be ones that are actively trying to impede both "Survivor" and "Zombie" groups, or just one.
• Classifers that group based on group-status. In this system, groups are either "Active," or "Not Active / Historical."

What type of classifier is important to you? You may select more than one.

Classifying groups based on player-class is more important to me

1. Only because classifying them as alive or dead is the best way to reduce the amount of little bitchy conflicts -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Classifying groups based on play-style is more important to me.

1. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --User:Sexualharrison 11:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. This method is acceptable, but so is the one below, hence my multiple votes. —Aichon— 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Because it's more accurate, informative, and relevant. --DT^PK 21:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. The wiki common pages are an information resource, not a propaganda site --WanYao 06:44, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Classifying groups based on their current active/not active status is more important to me.

1. See my reasons above. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. This method is acceptable, but so is the one above, hence my multiple votes. —Aichon— 14:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Louis Vernon 16:33 6 March 2011 (BST)
4. This ties in with my opinion that only names of the groups are important. - User:Whitehouse 18:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. If there has to be a classification, this sounds the simplest, and thus the best. --Dr Olivia 02:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

8. Groups that are not easily classified

How should groups that do not fall neatly into a category be handled?

Groups should just pick the category that they think works best for them.

1. 19:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Seriously? Is this really a question? --DT^PK 21:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Groups should create a new category on a suburb-by-suburb basis that describes their group more accurately.

1. Within reason. And with some Malton-wide standardisation where possible. --WanYao 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

There should be an "Other" category for groups to use. If they want a more detailed description, they should create a one or two-word descriptor by their name.

1. This. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --User:Sexualharrison 11:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Other works for me, but no one or two-word descriptors. Just let people check their wiki pages, which they are already required to link based on the guidelines. —Aichon— 14:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. -- am ok with other --Louis Vernon 16:35 6 March 2011 (BST)
9. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. --Penguinpyro 23:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. As Aichon Asheets 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

9. Dual Nature and Combined Zombie/Survivor Groups

Dual Nature is an in-game philosophy where players play the game based on their current in-game state (dead or alive). Some groups have members who are both zombies and survivors. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the statement that best describes how you would feel Dual Nature groups or groups composed of both zombies and survivors should be classified (if at all). You may select only one.

I like the idea of having a category for either Dual Nature or Combined Zombie/Survivor groups, but there needs to be a better name.

1. "Other" is not good enough to describe groups who are playing in the style the game was intended to be played in (i.e., Dual Nature) --WanYao 06:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is necessary to create a new category for these groups.

1. See poll point above. ~ 08:58, 6 March 2011
2. Is rare enough to be covered by Other. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. yeA MOAR Time wasting and bickering. other works just fine.--User:Sexualharrison 11:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. --  ▧  ^{: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :} 11:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. You can list under both, The Randoms did it for years.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:22, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Meh. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. Agreeing with the others. Just use an Other category in place of Hostile. —Aichon— 14:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. --Louis Vernon 16:36 6 March 2011 (BST)
9. "Other" --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. 19:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
11. Just list under both zombie and survivor. --DT^PK 21:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
12. "Other" is good enough.--Penguinpyro 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
13. Asheets 21:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

10. Alternative Group Suburb Classifications

Below is a randomly ordered list of proposed classification systems. Please number (#) and time-stamp your signature underneath the ones that you agree with. You may select more than one.

Survivor / Zombie / Independent

1. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --User:Sexualharrison 11:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. WAGON JUMP! - I mean - On second thought, this isn't too bad. -- †  talk ? f.u. 13:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. Independent isn't bad, but Other makes more sense, I think. —Aichon— 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. As Aichon. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. --Penguinpyro 23:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
10. Asheets 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep the same system but add a "At War With..." to list specific groups in conflict on suburb pages

1. Sort of. Keep this off of the suburb pages, but let groups mutually declare hostility towards each other on their own pages if they so choose. If they don't, then there's no need to, because fuck all of this red tape nonsense. 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. Because this will let people avoid edit wars when they are fighting in-game wars. --DT^PK 21:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Groups

1. This is all that is really needed. There is a reason the names are links, so you can find out more if you are truly interested. Might also encourage people to learn a bit about their potential enemies and allies. - User:Whitehouse 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. As stated above... Trying to classify all the groups is unnecessary. As long as the groups keep their pages updated and clear, people can learn all they need easily enough there.--Dr Olivia 02:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
3. Missed this choice. I actually like it better than Active/Historical, since it gets rid of the Historical nonsense from suburb pages. —Aichon— 07:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Active Groups / Historic Groups

1. It's my suggestion. And my resoning behind still stands. -- †  talk ? f.u. 09:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. -- Spiderzed▋ 11:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
3. --User:Sexualharrison 11:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
4. Smyg 12:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
5. Up for this, though we will need to tackle who gets to be listed in the Historical section at some point, since it's still the wild west. —Aichon— 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
6. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
7. As Aichon. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
8. Not a fan of the Historic section, but I could live with it. - User:Whitehouse 18:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
9. Sorted. -- Cheese 18:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Living / Dead / Other

1. --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
2. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the Above

1. I don't like any of these changes. See my voting above. --WanYao 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)