Talk:Main Page

Message Archive Archive1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Remember to always sign your messages,
by adding four tildes (~~~~) in the end of your message.

Could I just be really unlucky?

For the past 3 days, I have not been able to hit with my attacks at all. Attacking at 40% with a fire axe, using around 45AP on attacks, I have not hit once. Am I just really unlucky? Or is it zerging counter-measures?

Note: I do have one alt, a Zombie in Mornington, my main is a survivor in West Grayside.

--Tasty Sub 03:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, I don't think its Zerging. You might want to post that in the Bug Reports section of the wiki.--Zaphord 04:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The same thing has been happening to me. I don't know about this, but I just got back from a UD hiatus for a while. When I took a shot at a zombie in a ruined building with closed doors I received the text: "You took a shot into the darkness, missing the zombie" or something similar. I did, though, land the first shot. I did notice that my pistol had less hit percentage as well...--RobertG

Hmm...

Standing Survivors : 9550 (44%) Standing Zombies : 11752 (56%)

When did that happen?? The cemetery RP next to buckley has 64 zeds...amusing. maybe we're finally gonna get some apocalyptic action!--xoxo 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's because of the new FAK search rate in malls. I know my success rate has been cut in at least half, even with a genny. And since hospital search rates weren't bumped, and sucked to begin with, that's a lot less hp for zombies to deal with.

Or maybe there's some new zombie tour/group trashing the burb and I'm just not aware of it. --Antipathy 07:20, 16 November 2008 (EST)

Hospital search rates didn't suck, they were the second best in game only beaten out by mall FAK rates. More likely it's just Borehamwood combined with the holiday season downing survivor numbers.--Karek^maps?! 04:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Kevan kept those values separate. I'm not positive though. And I think the ratio is so disproportionate because of the new update to the Mall FAK search rates, as Antipathy said above. -- Ωmega360 ^T 04:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see FAKs making a huge difference. I mean in a multiply by a billion sense it could, but if a zombie gets you chances are you'll die hp regardless.--xoxo 05:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's roughly 1 AP per FAK but you get a potential 5 more hp healed. That's like claiming scanning makes revives uber-expensive or ruins were debilitating to survivors before you took damage from them. It's not a big deal and has been around long enough that it's obviously not what is causing this recent swing.--Karek^maps?! 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The same thing happened with Monroeville, a downturn in survivor numbers. It will pick up. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Momentary loss of interest in Malton, probably. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yep. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

FAKS do make a big difference. When FAKS are very common, most survivor have 60 HPS - enough that a lone zombie generally can not kill them after spending AP moving around, tearing down light barricades, etc. If FAKS are rare and saved for serious injury / infection, zombies often find 40-59HP survivors to kill. That makes a difference even in the numbers MOB can kill during a strike, let alone their feral cloud. Plus, more frequent kills means survivors spend more AP on revives and healing. Basically its a small change that has a ripple effect.  Swiers 16:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That "momentary loss of interest" in the established map should tell us all a lot about what most players think about starting fresh. I know people who have come back to the game to play on the new maps but don't drift back into Malton afterwards. The fact that so many seem to switch allegiance for the duration of a new map strongly suggests that a lot of the none donating players don't care about the games history and just want to experience the short term and far more equal/exciting battle for a new city. Does anyone know if the overall number of players is up? I hope so because it would probably be a spur to create more new cities.--Honestmistake 13:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Judging from some of the behavior ive seen. (survivors sitting in the street, especially outside VSB buildings, and the killing and non dumping of bodies,) Theres a lot of newbs. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New players are a good thing though and given a bit of a chance they can and do learn. Of course not all of them stay long enough, especially on a temp map with perma death for survivors but still. As for the survivors sat outside... a lot of that is down to dummy accounts made simply to provide an easy source of XP. --Honestmistake 13:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I sure it is. When monroeville came out, I was almost sure kevan had spammed street alts for us zombies to feast on. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Standing Survivors : 8440 (39%) Standing Zombies : 12714 (61%)

Plus, 57% of Survivors are zombie hunters. Still think this is due to Monroeville? --Antipathy 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

no. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, I meant Borehamwood, not Monroeville. --Antipathy 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

That number isn't actually strange.--Karek^maps?! 05:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bugged?

okay, i'm in spicer hills and i'm in hopping road police station and the blocks all around me say "cOdE4HrPsout" is this a bug or is it just my computer?--Jerrel Yokotory 22:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Uninstall any UD addons you've got.--xoxo 02:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:InactiveGroup

Just made this so inactive groups that are not historical can still be noted as such. If we ever do another Suburb Group Massacre (talking about that, it's been roughly half a year since the last one. Who feels like doing some more group massacring,) this template could be used to indicate inactive groups (on their page, of course,) and older, inactive groups in general.

It's based off Template:HistoricalGroup, but is not intended as a replacement. For one, it is for historically insignificant groups that still existed.

Thoughts?

Linkthewindow  Talk  05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Decembers never good. Too many users at work/college, off on holidays. we can run it again in january. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking January, but if I have internet access when I'm away, I might be able to get started in mid-December. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. I want to refine the system slightly, groups on the stats page are assumed to be active etc. shouldn't take as long as last time anyway. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a Great Radio Group Massacre as well, although someone was planning it at one point. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll help with a Radio Group Massacre, if one finally gets started. And another group massacre. Yay for cleaning up the wiki. (Err...and on the subject at hand, I think the template sounds like a very good idea, and has probably been needed ever since crit 12 was removed. It would make it very clear which groups are worth checking out as a new person, and which pages are just archives. Are there specific standards, though, for differentiating between a historical group and an inactive group?) --Jen 15:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, historical groups have to be voted on. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten a Great Radio Group Massacre started, by the way Jen. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This template needs new colors and image, otherwise it can be easily confused with the historical template. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It will have a different name and feature a date. something like Group massacre 2008 die harder. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

fucking reading words is haaaaaaard. link, where in australia are ya from? --xoxo 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

You can discuss more on. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:The_Great_Suburb_Group_Massacre#2008 --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

How come i suggesting new colors and image for the inactive group template turned out to be a discussion about another suburb group massacre ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 20:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Because that's what the template was intended for. Obviously, the colors should be changed, but I suck at coding. Any ideas? Linkthewindow  Talk  20:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. By the looks of it, The Great Radio Group Massacre is going to find hordes of inactive groups. Is anyone against me adding this template to groups that don't reply and are obviously inactive (no activity on the main page, not on the stats page?) Linkthewindow  Talk  08:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone got any disagreement? I'll assume silence implies consent, until someone talks ;). Linkthewindow  Talk  02:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've started throwing these on groups that are obviously inactive-that is, no stat-page action, no edits on their pages for a while, and no activity on their forums (if they have them.) Linkthewindow  Talk  10:51, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Rotters at revive points?

Sometimes I am reviving at a revive point and their is a rotter there. I kill a zombie but it doesn't kill the rotter at the front of the line it kills someone else. I think I read something about this early on but can't figure out where I read it. What I'm wondering is how do you clear a rotter out of a revive point? Can someone explain to me why this happens or link to somewhere that can? Thanks--Jamespoky 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

You can try adding the rotter to your contact list, then selecting the rotter to attack. You'll have to grab the rotter through a DNA extractor or by the rotter revealing himself through an attack or speech, of course.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a tactic, James. Organised zombies sleep in the revive queues in order to slow the turnover. --Papa Moloch 05:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It's usually better done by a survivor with a shotgun. It's a legitimate tactic, if a bit annoying (rotters that are "survivors" will usually sleep away from non-rotter RP's so rotters can get revived.) Linkthewindow  Talk  10:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply's, I know its a tactic and all but I don't understand why the zombie that has been standing there longest without logging in, which is in the front of the revive queue (I believe thats how the revive queue's work), In this case the rotter, isn't also the first one to be attacked and killed. Sorry I poorly worded my previous question. I don't understand what the game uses as factors to decide which zombie gets attacked first when their's multiple zombies at a location, is it like lowest hp or something? I just always thought that the zombie next in line to be revived would also be the next to get attacked. I'll have to try adding the rotter to my contact's. Thanks--Jamespoky 15:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

It determines it in the same way the survivors screen determined the order you see the characters on list. Just you can't target. So, basically, Activity. The confusing part here is that DNA Extractors use a different form of searching out the list, specifically it always goes to the First unscanned in the stack(list of names/users) instead of the first user. That functionality used to work in a manner so that Brain Rotting was stronger when syringes used less AP, because you couldn't see the profile and didn't have the Revivify This Specimen button you couldn't always know if a rotter was top stack until you scanned everyone or used a syringe, you still can't but you can now revive below top of the stack and get profiles to singularly kill below top of the stack. Basically now Brain Rot's main functionality is preventing scanning, not preventing revives. --Karek^maps?! 02:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, wow was I mixed up! Thanks for the excellent explanation.--Jamespoky 19:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

it's not letting me do any thing and signing out

i can sign in and clik on links, but thats it. every time i click on a building or action it just signs me off, can anyone help me with this problem please.

Bug Reports. I believe there are a few there that might cover this, if there aren't feel free to report it there and someone will let you know what's going on. --Karek^maps?! 03:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

ok it was there but there suggestions didn't help im still getting kick off when i do something. Thanks for the help though.....any more suggestion

Unlucky? Don't think so.

I play 3 zombie characters, always keep them separated. I attack with hands, usually graab someone within 2-3 attacks. After that, I try to bite and blow through 45 AP without a hit. This has happenned more than once- more like 10 times. The odds against it are staggering. Am I running afoul of the "no cooperation" AI? I love the idea of this game, but the implementation is driving me away. I like the "no cheaters" stuff, but seriously- make it realistic.

Do you have tangling grasp?? There is a massive tangling grasp bug that means for some people you just don't hit. It's addressed a lot of Bug Reports and Known Bugs. While i wish Kevan would fix it all i can do is offer you my tips for minimising the misses. Try using bite as much as possible, it works fine for me. And ifyou do have to use hands, attack once, then if it hits attack someone else striaght away. Don't utilise the grasp or the bug kicks in and you just keep missing, good luck.--xoxo 05:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah- wish I had come here before I tried again. I definitely agree about tangling grasp bug- I just attacked a survivor with hands, hit on the first try, then had 43 straight misses with bite. That's a 0.00002% chance- better chance hitting Powerball or getting whacked by a meteorite.

So I guess getting tangling grasp has really screwed me- what I hoped would double my chances actually ends up driving them to zero. How does one go about reporting a bug? I understand it's been reported already, I just want to add my experience to the pile.

Thanks, ciggy.

Uploading troubles

I am trying to get [this] to change over to this image, but it does not seem to be working. I have tried using the “Upload a new version of this file” button to no noticiable affect. Any advice? John Ibans 18:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

You may need to refresh your thingy, browser. I'm pretty sure firefox is ctrl+R --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Making a similar game

I'm thinking of setting up a game with a similar set up as urbandead, are theyre any links you could recomend that would help me with this? Or any problems I may encounter?--Athur birling 16:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

If you have to ask then making a similar game to Urban Dead is probably abit beyond you at the moment. Urban Dead is essentially a big fat database with the information of the game in it, and then a web page that allows you to access the database and change the data it holds, by doing actions in game. If I were you I would start learning PHP and MySQL, they are both free to use and reasonably easy to learn. Check out: http://w3schools.com/php/default.asp .--Kooks 23:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you it's very helpfull --Athur birling 20:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New Page Design

Me and The Rooster have been working on a new page design, which you can see here. Some areas of the new Main Page aren't quite done yet such as the Community Portal and other possible tweaks. The Wiki News section and the Community Portal section will be templated if this is approved. Such changes can be implemented through discussion editing.

Give your approval or disproval through Yay or a Nay if you like/dislike the idea. Constructive criticism would be good. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - Always wants a more UD style page. --Haliman - Talk 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - <--Obviously. Anyway, Gnome should be credited with most of the work here, I just offered an opinion occasionally. The redesigned page is better at a lot of things, and is a worthwhile improvement in my view. --  RoosterDragon  00:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• May - It'd be rather awesome.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 00:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay Looks good to me--Honestmistake 00:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Shoop da woop! --Met Fan ^F 01:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay - The more I look at it, the more my eyes bleed. --Met Fan ^F 20:38, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yea --Cyberbob 01:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Nay --Cyberbob 09:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Lookin' sharp! I would rather like the original UD banner to remain on the main page, but that's my only complaint. --Claude Garrison 02:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Definite change in the positive direction. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - No. It looks a little more annoying to me due to the dark green and then bright pink. The UD website has the nice forest green background on all of the pages which makes it look nice, but we have white which doesn't look good at all and it wouldn't make sense to go from that page with all that color, to pages like this.. And I wouldn't want you to change the background of all the wiki to green because that would look fuck awful.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• No Way The wiki looks professional. If you change the colour of the main page to green, then wouldnt you need to do that with the rest of the wiki too? Leave as is. It is classic.--DiscoInferno 03:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - A change for the good.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 03:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looks good. I'd like to see the "First Time Playing?" box retained in some way, though. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 07:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Ewwwww- yuck yuck yuck, it's tacky! I like the classic look. It fits in with everything. --xoxo 07:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Trying to make a wikipage look good makes the code look horrible (all those <font color="#FF9999">s inside links, yuck). The page by itself looks pretty good but it doesn't fit with the rest of the wiki. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Yay - Mid and all the Nay voters make good points. But it still looks good :). Linkthewindow  Talk  08:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Like the third one the best. It's pretty, but doesn't go overboard. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Hugely anal Nay Can we have a box around the headline flavour text? Just to show where it ends, and can we make vandal reporting, deletions and the like more visible? its hard enough to for newbs to find these pages as it is. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• No!- It's so bland!! Add some better borders! Liberty 09:11, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looks good, I like it. --D.E.ATalk 10:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nat - Not that smart looking --Athur birling 11:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Nay - As SirAgro and Disco Inferno. Also, I think it'll be harder to use than the current page because of the inconsistency between that and the other pages on the wiki. It does look really good though. --dgw 11:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yeah - but make the introductory text and latest news sections be in the same row (with latest news floating right) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [mod]} 11:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• YAY! - It's AWESOME!--OrangeGaf 12:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay --Janus ^talk 13:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Strong No The green colors arent working at all for me. I really prefer the current design. It would also be out of line with the rest of the wiki.--Thadeous Oakley 13:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• NAY -- The proposed look is OK, but I prefer the classic wiki look. Asheets 16:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• NAY- While I will admit that the current page could use some changes, I don't like the idea of a main page that looks so different from the rest of the Wiki. With the entire page in a uniform color, it is difficult to find a particular link. The current page is much cleaner and neater, in appearance. (IMO)--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 16:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay. - While I can understand where you are coming from (and congrats on that page btw it looks nice) it just makes the front page too cluttered, it makes it too hard to get places as well as being hard for newbs to jump in and find important information, and it just doesn't look right from a visual design standpoint. Sorry.--S1leNt RIP 17:05, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• NAY -- The front page of the Wikia looks professional and clean, though I love Urban Dead Im not so adamant about having the Wikia mirror the same plain green shaded colors. --Michael Becket 18:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay, but as Hagnat --~~~~ [talk] 19:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• NAYAlthough The UD Game and the UD Wiki are inseperably linked, they are in fact two sepereate entities and should be maintained as such in my opinion. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - - If it comes with .30 cal carbines if not then nay! OPB1 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James Crazy Horse (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.
• Nay I like it, but I'm still partial to the old wiki page. Been there as long as I can remember. --Kouchpotato ^T 23:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Fugly. Go take some lessons from Mobius187 --ScouterTX 01:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• No - I don't like it and don't see any need for it. --Papa Moloch 11:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• HUGE ANAL YAY!-For one thing, the fukin game hasn't been updated in forever, and some new change would be nice, since half the fukin people in the game are quittin. and kevin should push for at least 2-3 updates per monthes.--Jerrel Yokotory 17:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
  • A correctly placed comma would do wonders to that bold section. -- Cheese 22:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - I really like #2 with the white background. It doesn't present a lot of the problems that the Nay's are bringing up with the first one, while still giving the Main Page a fresh look that I think displays information better than the current one. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• While I hate the first one as its painfull to my eyes I really like the second one, just a bit more fiddling to make it look tidy and it would be fine. --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 21:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - I really like the third one you guys are developing. It gives the page a better look, but doesn't go overboard with all the style. --ZsL 17:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - I like the first one, it looks much more appealing than the the origanle. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - #2 looks AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Imthatguy 06:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - I like the first one. --Turtleboy412 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - First one is best. Ash Cianatti 02:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

New Page Chatter

I really hope we don't go for a 50/50 vote here....I mean....it might look nice but it doesnt follow the format of the wiki.--DiscoInferno 13:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine a 51/49 vote would be sufficient for something like this. We're after community consensus, not a community split. --  RoosterDragon  14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Problem with the original design is that you can't really add anything to it, and the navigation is overkill and confusing to new peoples. It doesn't mesh well enough. You can't really incorporate the CP section anywhere on the current page. Anyways, we could change the top header to something more interesting, and add the "first time in Malton" guide somewhere obvious, maybe move the latest news if it can fit (it didn't look good when I tried it floating to the right). I could try to make the headline flavour text be in a box as well. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

We'd need at least 66% to change it i think.--xoxo 22:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the Design

Ok, obviously some people are all for a bit of change. Others are raising some good points regarding issues with the page. So if you've got a concern you'd like to expand upon further than in your vote, discuss it here. Also, if there's a change that you like then mention it too. If this initial vote fails, it may be possible to change the proposed design to keep the good bits and rework or remove the bad. I've made a few headers based on comments so far, add more as you see fit. --  RoosterDragon  14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The UD Style

Seems to be creating a bit of a divide. Do you think a UD style is a good idea? If so, do you think this page is doing a good job at it? Conversely, are you opposed to a UD style, or do you just think this page has made a bad job of it?

I, personally, don't like the UD style of the page. It doesn't match the rest of the Wiki and that look is not an improvement, IMO. I like the use of color on the current page as it makes it easier to find the different sections at a glance.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 16:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why not just have the basic info about UD and the latest game news in the UD style, but have the wiki stuff in the generic wiki style? That way the page acts as a stylistic "bridge" between the two? --– Nubis ^NWO 22:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Page Different from Wiki Generally

Arguably, even the 'classic' page isn't standard across the wiki. This redesign seems to conform even less with its green background. Just because this page is green doesn't mean the entire wiki is about to become green. Do you think we can have a different style main page without it being a problem, or do you think continuity is a must?

I don't see any great problem with having the main page look a bit different myself. Pages set their own standards, how mmany pages are there that actually resemble the current page? Any? --  RoosterDragon  14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit different, perhaps, but such a hub page should remain standard as far as possible, or we risk having a forum that looks like a hodge-podge of different styles. I especially dislike the grey/green one, the ones down the bottom of the page are getting there though -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:25 27 February 2009 (BST)

Layout

A few people have suggested some layout tweaks. Break out those rare level 5 headers and explain what changes you think are needed, and why.

Right

Right, Its all very green, to break it up, how about this. Retain the general layout, but change the background to the introduction, CP and news sections to white. Also would make updating those templates a bit easier? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ordering

Also listing links in terms of the popularity? Your list of Game Information starts with FAQ (accessed 122,000 times) and leaves the suburb map to last (Accessed 2.3 million times). Also why isn't recruitment listed, when group creation is? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:31, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Links are negotiable, we're just worrying about the idea (layout, design, colour etc). Little tweaks can happen after. :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:43, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Just Keep the 'Classic' Page

Do do you think the current page is as good as it gets? What good things about the current page need to show up in the redesign too? Either that are are you just against change in general?

Personally, I think the current page has a lot of issues; coding, layout and content wise. I'm interested to know what others think are the awesome bits. --  RoosterDragon  14:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to annoy Roos, but can you list some of your issues with the front page? Specifically the coding and content issues? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The most annoying bit was you calling me 'Roos'. Anyway, Gnome already listed a few things below. I'm going to go on a rant here, consider yourself warned. Firstly there's a lot of code for rounded borders. It's repeated three times to ensure it works which is just waste considering it only works for FF anyway. You're excluding IE which still holds a larger majority anyway and also a lot of other browsers with together make up a decent chunk too. Next is the use of 95% width. Unneeded as the wiki already provides an internal margin. There are a couple of minor coding narks that I won't bore anybody with. The major problem is the use of space. It was designed around a typical small resolution and originally used fixed widths, that was changed when somebody pointed out that it just leaves whitespace around the edges for people with bigger screens. So now it scales but it wasn't really adjusted properly, and the whitespace now just pops up all over the page. The little first day in Malton box looks really weirdly placed due to the way it is centred in the left hand column, and then the navigation links are centred overall. There's a massive header which is largely redundant and takes up a lot of room for little gain. This forces content down a lot and you have to scroll just to see the whole intro of smaller res. Who heard of scrolling just to see the introduction? Even on bigger resolutions, because of the large header and typical height of the news, the navigation is forced entirely into the scroll region. There's a handy bit of whitespace wasted under the intro due to the height. And when you do scroll down, you're greeted by a massive wall of links. (With gratuitous amounts of whitespace either side on higher res, about half of my screen is just blank if I scroll to the bottom). Far more links than anybody could ever really need. Game Information isn't too bad in this respect but is poorly organized. Player Information contains links to some of the most useless and generally outdated pages we have (Suggestions & Recruitment aside). External links can easily be pruned to the more useful ones, retaining the link for people to see the full list. Wiki Information contains links to a lot of pages that are generally outdated or rarely visited. The Admin list is also awful, the most minor things are listed there. You can access all of it just by going the the main admin page. The page was an improvement at the time, but it needs an update. People have bigger screens, a lot of the links are no longer looked after, it's a bit haphazard. --  RoosterDragon  16:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, 'ster. I'll wander over to your page later, with a hugely pruned set of links in the separate sections for you. The first day in malton box is indeed bizarre and well, bizarre.

Unless..... I had an idea ages ago about making it all a bit "Starship troopers"y Lose all the navigation links at the bottom and have a link to each area? "Would you like to know more? (about administration?) click here.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, it fits with the rest of the wiki. I think yours is just far too....garish? I like the simplicity of the current one and the simple color pallet. I don't see why the layout of the page itself seems so bad to you guys, what specifically do you two think is wrong?--SirArgo ^Talk 19:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's bland, it's uneven, it has too much white space, it has too many links in the Navigation section, which is also in smaller font and overwhelming to newbies, you can't adjust anything significant due the layout of the page, which means we can't get a decent looking community portal. We could do so much better. Anyways, I'll do another less-Urban Deady version. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain the uneveness to me? And which navigation do you mean? The ones on the mediawiki sidebar, or the 4 sections below?--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The Navigation (those colored boxes) don't line up nicely, they're just kinda "there". First time playing also gives the impression of the nav being off centered. The whole thing just doesn't mesh good enough.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

So why don't just design a new nav section? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Because we want to have a good CP section. I've taken some of the suggestions and started a new design. It'll be like the old one in layout, except there could be easy to find important links where those redundant Frequently Asked Questions are, and the rest would be at the bottom.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is still the colour of the links (and the coding hassles that brings). The wiki news is updated by regular users. They should only have to deal with regular wiki markup, not stuff like [[Link Target|<font color="#FF9999">linking text goes here</font>]]. Those kind of links also have other problems; visited links are indistinguishable from unvisited, and they still have the blue underlining when hovering. Lastly, I don't think you should be mixing light text on a dark background with dark text on a light background. Doesn't look good. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been thinking about that font problem with the wiki news for a while. How about a lighter green, black text? I don't think visited links aren't really that important, nor is the blue underline. It keeps the look the same.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, if anyone wants to show me some sort of main page design from another wiki that they'd like, now is the time to pipe up. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet another header

You'll excuse me for not wading through all of that and adding my points here and there.

From the link provided at the top, there are currently three designs. Of those the first (even though I've no doubt is an accurate match to the main UD page) seems drab and depressing compared to the rest of the wiki. The second just looks wrong. The third is definitely my favourite. My major disagreement with this change is the reduction in function the main page will have, I currently use it as a portal to various maps and status trackers, this function is lost by the proposed update. It is these functions that should be on the main page for the unaffiliated player to immediately access, these are the best resource we provide for non-meta players and we should not be forcing these people to go through portal after portal to access them. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Iscariot's point-although the old page is looking a bit old, we should strive to lose as few links as possible with a change.

On another note, anyone feel like getting rid of the ugly "Main Page" title? It's done over at Wikipeida by a CSS hack (I have no idea what I just said...) Anyone know of a simpler way? Linkthewindow  Talk  07:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The CSS hack looks pretty simple. It appears only the following needs to be added to our Mediawiki:Common.css:

body.page-Main_Page #siteSub,
body.page-Main_Page #contentSub,
body.page-Main_Page h1.firstHeading {
    display: none !important;
}

This is from the wiki linkthewindow linked to, not wikipedia. I have no idea how the wikipedia one works. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 11:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

If I may chime in, here. I prefer the 3rd variation, as well! It seems to contain all the links from the original page in categories that are easy to understand and it is much more attractive in appearance than variation 1 or 2.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 15:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

We're just discussing the idea, Iscariot. Tweaks such as links can happen after, since I don't want to spend that much time on it if the design isn't a go. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Design wise the third is the one to go for. The first is overbearing, the second weak and token. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New New Page Design

Alright, taken from user comments, we've spliced up another main page here. This is a discussion for the layout. Tweaks such as links, colour adjustments can happen after.

Give your approval or disproval through Yay or a Nay if you like/dislike the idea. Constructive criticism would be good. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• KUDOS, look fab, imo! Keep up the great work you guys! ;D :-*--Aphaythea 03:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yay -- Better. --Michael Becket 21:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - I like this third one. It looks rather tidy and snazzy. =) -- Cheese 22:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Unless you can find a way to fix the slight mismatch around the corners of the Latest News template (if you look closely the edges of the border don't mesh with the rest of the dark green area). It's a minor quibble but this is essentially our most public face. --Cyberbob 22:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  That same problem is with the current main page. Me and Rooster tried using images for the corners, but it didn't work out. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  ROFL, I didn't notice that. facepalm.jpg --Cyberbob 03:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  • Yea --Cyberbob 03:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• When did snazzy become acceptable again? Getting there, lose the pink links at the top right, return the urban dead image to its original size, and you've probably got me. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  And what happened to the first day in Malton guide? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  It'll find its place, somewhere. I'm not a fan for the look of those top right links, but they could be really useful. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Its the pinkness I dont like, can we do another rounded box with them in? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  Maybe. I'll do it later, really bored of looking at that page. :( --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:31, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

  If you lose 10px of all the nav boxes it fits nice as well. look. User:Rosslessness/Random Rambling/Sandbox32 --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - The layout is good. The green at the top looks... faded, and I think the boxes at the bottom could use a light green background colour (the same colour as the alternate rows in the wiki news?). Otherwise I think it's fine. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 23:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - I like it, but I think the bottom boxes are a little too wide for non-wide screen monitors. It causes a scrollbar.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 23:14, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Leave the Main page alone >.< --Thadeous Oakley 23:19, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay Maintains enough distinction for me to say....mkay. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - May as well leave it as is with this!--SirArgo ^Talk 01:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Liked the other one better. --Haliman - Talk 01:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• No - It isn't broken, so don't 'fix' it. --Papa Moloch 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looking better; more organized. I'm a little iffy on some of the color still.. The green seems like it should be darker. And where's the "First Time Playing?" box? Claude Garrison 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - current page looks good as is, works fine, and is easy for new users to navigate. stop tweakin shit. --Bullgod 04:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - A nice mix between flash and substance. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - The green borders look patchy - they either need to border the entire box or none of it, the community portal in particular looks like it hasn't loaded properly. The layout is fine, though.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 10:41, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looks good, but like Claude, I'm a bit iffy on the colors too. Other than that, its fine. --D.E.ATalk 13:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay! - Excellent! I like the way the links are organized. Very nice.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 14:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - Looks unbalanced to me, I still like the second one the best! --mo ヽ(´ー｀)ﾉ ^{MCM MOB DB} 19:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - I'm forced to vote nay on this issue due to it being approached backwards, much like the guide page 'review', it is the content that should be under vote, not the design in the first instance. Giving assent to this at this stage will allow those with petty agendas to forward their desires over the good and consensus of the wiki as happened with the Recruitment pages. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:02, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

  I neither want or have the time to waste trying to make perfect content and look, put it to vote and only to have it shot down because "I don't like that one link". At the moment I'm just making a quick gauge of peoples thoughts. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - I likes the clean look of the page as it is. --Giles Sednik ^CAPDSWA 21:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• No - The layout is pretty good, but the greens look like they need to be darker. The white edges on the latest update are quite visible and an eyesore, but the darker green could fix it somehow. There's something else about the page that bothers me, but I just can't figure it out right now. --ZsL 00:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay It is much better than the last one I voted on, but I just can't bring myself to say Yay. I just like the original. Asheets 00:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - It looks great, but for my part, why fix what isn't broken? --Private Mark 05:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - 1. Looks like the other one 2. What's with the pink? 3. See user comment above me (excluding "It looks great" of course). --ScouterTX 05:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looks good to me. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
• Nay - I liked the Urban Dead styled version but the others seem like change for the sake of it--Honestmistake 09:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  Did you even look at it? There are loads of changes, the main one being the addition of a community portal section. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

  content is better but I do not like the look of it even close to as much as the original UD flavoured version. Changing the page content seems to be a very different idea to changing its appearance and I just don't like how any of the versions that follow your 1st example look. Its nothing personal, I just don't see the point of confusing existing users for what seems stylistically no better than what we have! --Honestmistake 10:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - Why change the one we have? If it aint broken don't fix it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Athur birling (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 February 2009.
• Yay - To the second design. Fits well. Michaelbogardus 15:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - To either. I like them both.-- Adward  22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for some of the constructive input so far. Even if you're not a fan, or prefer the original or whatever, that's your opinion and I have no beef with that. Gnome's already addressed some of the issues raised, just below. What I want to pry out of a few commenters is some reasoning. Firstly, on the basis that 'The Main Page needs to be left alone'. Why the hell should it? It's a wiki page just like the rest. If there's something about this suggested change that is the problem, just explain why. Second. The rather tired phrase "Ain't broke, don't fix it." a few people have trotted out. There are a few possible meanings, and I'll touch on each.

• "It works fine now, why change?" - To improve it, just like humans have done with everything ever. This really isn't a sound standpoint logically.
• "It's isn't broken." - Well, I respectfully disagree. It's flawed, albeit not significantly, with some layout issues and some content issues I have mentioned before. This change aims to rectify that.
• "This proposal doesn't actually change anything, so why bother?" - Well, it aims to make a few minor fixes as I just mentioned, it also adds in a Community Portal section with the aim of giving more exposure to community projects. It also attempts to refresh the style. So yeah, those are changes.

Just after the reasons behind some people's thinking, is all. --  RoosterDragon  21:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If its the layout and the content, then why change the style (colors and such)? I would focus on the function then. Secondly, the argument of "it aint broken, don't fix" is actually quite viable. You see, the thing is that the main page is already very good as it is. As far as I know, there were never any real problems with it.

What you are trying to do is improving something that is already a great thing. Therefore, minor changes won't cut it. Many people will auto vote no for the sake of familiarty. Improving a great thing will need something totally different that is great aswell. If you want this to pass, then you will probably need to make a major redesign of the main page, something as great as the current one but complelety different. And that is hard.--Thadeous Oakley 00:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, just no. This is a wiki. This wiki's first purpose is to be an information source that is changed and improved through editing and discussion. When I tried a radical change above, people pointed out that they'd like the basic layout of the main page, like the Urban Dead header. It's completely irrelevant if it's 'minor' or 'major' as long as it's improvement. Also, voting has no bearing on this page. I'm sorry if it looked that way, but it was only a quick method of grabbing the widest range of opinions as possible and to see if I was heading in the right direction. Voting is not a substitute for discussion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

So your going to change the design either way even when the majority is against? Then you shouldn't have asked for opinions in the first place, because people expect their opinions being heard, not ignored. Or are you going to keep trying until getting more "yay's" then "nay's"?--Thadeous Oakley 10:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It was my impression it was just a way of gathering opinions and discussion, I don't think it actually says 'vote' anywhere (I hope not, anyway). Nobody's changing anything unless the community seems to be in favour. You can easily tell we're not ignoring people, a lot of the problems people had with design #1 have been changed in the latter versions. And damn right we're going to make a few attempts at getting yays. That's the whole point of the discussion, change the proposal until people generally like it. If it becomes obvious that it can't be done, fair enough. You make a good point about people preferring familiarity, which became obvious with design #1 and so design #3 tries to maintain familiarity while still improving bits. The thing about the function of the page being "Not broken and not needing fixing" is still flawed as per my first point about that phrase. Sure, the function is pretty solid, no reason to to try and make it better though. --  RoosterDragon  17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Changes

See here. A few things have been addressed: the navigation width has been lessened (tell me if it needs to be smaller), the colour has been darkend and the dead image has been made larger. The quick links have been removed since they looked funny when I tried different looks. I couldn't get borders to look right on the CP section, but I'll try my best to make it work. I also tried a darker background on the Nav section as Midianian asked but tell me if it needs to be a different colour or better off white. For those who liked the other designs better, they could be incorporated in the Community Portal in some form or another. The main point of this main page change is indeed to get a sizeable section for the Community Portal.

Perhaps the First time playing ? could go inside the Community Portal section, or under the intro text. Should it be in some sort of box, or just text?

I'm also happy to say that I seemed to have fixed that ugly curved splotch on the title header.

Thoughts? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I like this version, as well. The color scheme is fine. *shrugs* It isn't as important as the content to me. The main issue I have is that I don't want us to lose "First Time Playing" section. I'm not sure it would really fit in the community portal area. What about at the bottom of the page with the other sets of links in it's own little "box" under the player information link box? I think it would work under the intro text, as well, but it would need a box or something to make it stand out.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 19:33, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I am pleased with this version. First time box would be nice. Maybe a line of text at the top of the page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooo! Excellent notion! That way it is out of the way, but visible.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I added a centered First time playing ? Read the First Day in Malton guide. under the intro text. I thought a box looked too out of place. Better, or someplace else? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, wrong place I feel. Top of the page, under game news? Or could we include it in one of the templates? Even the news one, As an additional link below ALL NEWS? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:00, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

There? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

maybe move it right, so the text lines up with the text in the wiki news section? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks better in the center, but moved right. I also switch the colours in the nav section (you can see the non-white version up above). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Looks really randomly placed if you have it there. The current box has always looked a bit random, and this thing does too. I think just adding back into the intro might be better, maybe left aligned instead on center? I dunno. At the least, could it not be on a new line in the header? Shift it up one and cut down on the wasted space. --  RoosterDragon  19:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Centered in the intro section. I don't think aligned left is noticeable enough, center is better. :P--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Next

What would we like in the Navigation boxes? Are they fine, if not, what should be adjusted? What should go in the Community Portal section? So far there's a section for current projects, but I think it could do with a 'featured article' or 'articles needing work' or 'article spotlight'. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to link Iwitness again in external links, I agree its probably the most useful one out there. Surely Articles needing work could be a permament link somewhere, and people could add stuff to a page? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I was planning on bringing this up after general overhaul of the CP. But heck, we're here now. Yeah I suggested that the CP bit on the main page could have some of the current wiki projects, maybe a good article (of the week), and an article needing help. Stuff the community can just jump onto. The actual portal itself could house the lists of wiki-projects (as now) and also a list of articles needing work, as you mentioned. Having a section on the main page would help a lot in getting people people involved. I'm happy to leave the CP bit as-is with the handful of project links until some proper system is sorted out. I'm sure I'm not the first to suggest such stuff, but ideas are always good. --  RoosterDragon  19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Community Portal isn't too important at the moment, but I think it could do with some sort of article spotlight at first. Anyways, I think the External Links section in the Nav could do with a few more than one link. Unofficial UD Forums and Iwitness are good I think. Mmm? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep. It would also even up the nav boxes on either side of the page. Ah symmetry. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Mkay. Anything else? Anyone? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Templated... anything else? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Final Thoughts

On this one... A quick summary if you haven't followed the Changes above, the white rounded edges have been removed, the colour darkened and the addition of the First time playing bit. The Community Portal section is a bit empty at the moment, but this will be changed once the Community Portal gets revamped (to be discussed later).

It's also be templated, but of course my userpage will be exchanged for the appropriate template name.

Give a Yay or Nay, yadaya as usual. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - --Michael Becket ^CDF 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay Radio-ratio 01:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - Yeah, barely anything is different from the current page (at least not enough to matter) and I don't like the light green colors.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - I'm still not horribly keen on the pink, but as long as that doesn't carry over to other pages I don't mind. It's much more tidy than the Main Page is right now, that's for sure. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  A couple of peoples have said that. What colour would you suggest? The pink should be about the same as in Urban Dead, I think. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever - stop spamming the damned wikinews with this! Also give up on the whole 'community portal will work'. It's been tried. It doesn't.--xoxo 07:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  You didn't try hard enough. :P --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay. Sure, why not. It's pretty. --Blackboard 10:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - The front page is fine as it is. Stop spamming this fucking discussion page. --Papa Moloch 10:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay--Zaruthustra^{Still a Mod in His Mind} 10:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay It's fine.--Lois ^{talk 10MFH} 11:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay --Athur birling 13:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - Light green hurts my eyes :( --Janus ^talk 13:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Meh - I could go either way at this point. Asheets 16:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• yaY - Its good now.--Thadeous Oakley 17:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - It hurts mah eyes. --dgw 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - I like it.-- Adward  20:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay -I like the scheme but the font size in the Game information-admin boxes needs to be increased for those two colors to be compatible. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Adjusted. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - It looks like its escaped from some 70's scifi show... I hate the round edges and either my monitor is on the blink or you have filtered it through an equally dated porno soft focus lens?--Honestmistake 23:32, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  Suggestions? It's not going any darker, if that's what you're asking. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC).

  Did someone change the link cos I swear thats not the same page i was looking at last night??? Anyway this version is too much like the current page to bother changing and Yes; I do prefer the originaly suggested 'Dark' version, it actually fits in with the game and looked good. --Honestmistake 09:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay! -- Orange Talk

• Yay -- D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - Best attempt I've seen, but still painful color scheme. -- T^HEL^ORDG^UNS^LINGER 02:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - I don't mind it at all, and it's better than what we've got now. --_Vic D'Amato__Dead vs Blue_ 02:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay - Your eyes must be extremely weak.--Ryvyoli ^{Y R} 04:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - I like the current setup at the bottom with the light color variations. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yay - Looks good to me, but I still think the "First time playing?" doesn't catch the eye as much as it should to actually be the first thing a new player will click. ~ extropymine ^{Talk | NW | 4Corners} 09:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yay it has been to long since somethien has been done with urban dead so we should do somethine even if it is just the main page.--Chairman Fanglord, 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Witness my Yay --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - I actually dig the new design but I like the current one a little more. Maybe I'm just clinging to the known. Also, what the fuck did Fanglord just say? --Paddy Dignam 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Nay - The Colors, IT BUUUURNS!--ScouterTX 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I seriously have to wonder about what you are talking about... I see a dark green, a light gray/green, pinkish links (like we have on UD), white and the UD logo which looks exactly like the one on the UD game itself. What color/colors are you talking about?!?--Lois ^{talk 10MFH}

Ah man, just some LSD flashback. The page still looks like shit though.--ScouterTX 21:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yarr - I think it looks pretty good. --ZsL 18:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

6 players on 44th level

Who are they? What is 44th ability? (this information is in Stats) --TheQ 16:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

From here: The stats page has a section outlining the amount of levels obtained by different classes. However, these figures are a bit misleading because (at least historically) two non-skill factors can also increase the level a character is counted as in these statistics. The "flags" for having an infection and for being a corpse that is undergoing revivification both count as "skills" for this purpose. That is why you, at any given time, you will see a dozen or so level 44 characters. However, you never see any level 44 zombies, so it seems infections do not increase their level. --Janus ^talk 22:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tasteful history

Can anyone add history to 'blank history building'. Such as a sentence or short paragraph? If so what would the 'rules' be about this, includeing keeping Urban Dead history. (By histroy I mean pre- zombie history)--Athur birling 20:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a go at a page history, tell us which page, we'll look and tell you if its ok. (Which it probably will be). --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Warehouse 24,80 here we go, I ment more on the lines of the description of New Arkham. Not to change it, but to put descriptions like that in some non detailed buildings. I just like the description of the beer building. --Athur birling 20:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

you'd probably like ALiM.--xoxo 08:03, 26 February 2009 (UTC)