Talk:Zamgrh Institute

Location Revisions

Would you be up to having some sort of community discussion on the location revisions? I get the goal, but it seems too much. That said, I may be alone in my opinion, but if not, possibly something could be decided that makes everyone happy. Whether it is reducing the amount of information or just ordering it better, I'd like to see something less unwieldy. For anyone not familiar with the change: Crespin_Grove_Railway_Station. --_K 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Exactly the kind of feedback I was looking for! For starters, I'll say that whenever there is some change in the style of the revisions, Crespin Grove Railway Station is the testbed. So it will vary in size and ordering from time to time. That said, the length of that page has been tugging on the back of my mind since its completion, and now that someone has voiced the same concerns I have some possible editing solutions that I'd like to go through with you. Firstly, the barricade policy map can be reduced to the small version, if it is kept at all. Secondly, the revivification point table can be removed. Having too many of those tables would mean that they would never get updated without a very complex linking system. Sticking with suburb revivification point tables is the way to go until such time as debates are held about the pros/cons of said linking system. Personally, I find that prospect daunting and would rather not have to try to put that together. Thirdly, the 'current events' news section can be axed. Once again, too much to keep updated without a linking system. Fourthly, I shall endeavor to find a way to compress the nearby buildings information... it is a good resource, but it stretches the page an awful lot. Fifthly, the local groups/radio station information can be moved to either a dedicated page for that suburb (since it includes groups and stations in the suburbs immediately bordering) or be on the main page for the suburb in which the building is located. Sixthly, since NecroNet reports aren't updated often, those can be axed. As for community discussion, what would be discussed about the program? I'm not trying to come across as being against the idea, but the game plan is on the main page and can be viewed and commented on by anybody who takes interest. I'm certainly open to it, but I don't know what would be discussed. That, and not very many people know of this enterprise yet. When you have the time, I would appreciate it if you weighed in on the points above, and I am eager to hear of other possibilities for compressing and ordering the revised pages. --James Castillo 17:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to hit as much of that as possible.

1. I think removing the barricade policy map, but leaving the link early in the page is the way to go (as is currently done).
2. You might try stealing the building resource template used for suburbs and replacing the absolute coordinates (such as 82,34) with location based (such as 3 North, 2 West). As for the status of the RP, skip it. There are some status templates somewhere, but like most building statuses, they are out of date.
3. I think current status is existing, so that may take some public approval. That is based on my super quick skim of the location style guide.
4. See #2, although it would be awesome if you included nearby TRPs outside of the suburb (a flaw in the current system).
5. I like the secondary page, as it's detailed but also tucked away if you don't want that much information. And it isn't limited to an arbitrary border.
6. Agreed, I don't think necronet reports ever received wide-spread use.

You may try the talk page for the location style guide: UDWiki:Location_Style_Guide, to get some other input. --_K 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)