UDWiki talk:Location Style Guide

Template Discussion

Post suggestions for changes or additions to the current template. DO NOT edit the existing template as only Wiki moderators are allowed to promote such changes. Any approved changes to the template will be verified herein...

{{LocationblockIW}}

This is a minor update to the Locationblock template that puts a link the very bottom of the location block. The link leads to a page that shows all relvant Iwitness records for that location and neighboring locations that can see that location on the minimap and hence would know if it was powered, had zombies outside, and so on. I don't have a version yet for multi-block locations, but I think one could likely be done.
I'll leave it up to others to decide if this should be the new official location block template. _. ^. _{. swiers} 19:47, 28 July 2007 (BST)

Location Image Size

A recent "discussion" (...dispute) led to a startling revelation, apparently FireFox and IE handle images differently in terms of how a template border impacts them. For IE the image width that exceeds/overlaps the border of the map template is hidden behind the template, while for FireFox it shunts the entire image below the template (similar to the "Right" alignment property of wiki images). While this problem only exists for desktops using a resolution of 800x600, I feel it should be addressed.

Currently the images I create are 450x290, with a few 270x360 images specifically for "Towers", but I have been moving away from them to stay consistent. As there does not appear to currently be a standard size for images I would like to discuss the matter, since one of my current solution for the aforementioned problem would be to recreate the images possibly as 275x360 (tested maximum width for 800x600, height is somewhat arbitrary). The other option is to just shrink the images, but in that regards a lot of the details would be lost, especially those location which I have included the actual name of the location. --Mobius187 April 5 2007, 11:35 AM

As long as the width is small enough to avoid the problem I don't think that we need to worry about the height. Leave it up to individual aesthetics -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 17:02, 5 April 2007 (BST)

True, in the case of height my suggestion is entirely arbitrary and it was originally suggested based on the first "tall" location image I created a long while back. Even so, I think we might want to at least suggest an image height standard, if only to provide users with an idea of what other users might be using. "Other users" currently referring to me, but new users could in turn choose to follow this size standard with the eventual resolution being that all location images would share the same consistent scale (whatever that would be). Of course if someone wants to suggest something other than 360px for the height they are free to do so or simply choose whichever height they want as following these dimensions are completely voluntary. The only actual fact here is that should the image width exceed 275px then users using 800x600 resolutions will have formatting problems, especially on FireFox. For that matter I'm tempted to suggest 270x360, if only because that's the current width I used for about a dozen Tower location images in the NE Corner. --Mobius187 April 5 2007, 12:39 PM

"The" Buildings

If you include the article "The" in the title when you list the categories, you get almost a third of your location listings under the letter "T". Conndraka ^W!

• Not true. Index the categories with the name first , e.g. [[Category:Locations|Urban Dead wiki, the]], and the categories will list it under "U" instead of "T". --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 04:40, 9 March 2006 (GMT)
  • I don't believe it makes any sense to create links for buildings and such without the "The". As stated in this very style guide "Buildings beginning with "The" is to include the article as part of the name for the page." The logical result of a policy of creating pages without the "the"s is thousands of pointless redirects that add nothing to wiki. There are all kinds of rules to follow, and considering in-game names as canon should be a simple one. Another problem with "the"less redirects is that cut-and-pasters create incorrectly-named pages and then link to them. When someone creates an appropriately-named page, work is spent recreating the initial page and then the data must be merged. The simple solution is to not plant those seeds in the first place and just have everyone do everything right the first time. I think some of the other redirects should be reconsidered for the same reasons, but one thing at a time. At the very least, redirects that have been created but are not in use should be eliminated. --Tekka Maki 05:38, 17 August 2007 (BST)

The The-less redirects have other uses. The reason I like them is that they make the search box mildly useful because when people search for a building name with out the "the" it sends them to the right page without giving them the "this page does not exist do you wish to create it" message and hopeful prevents duplicate location pages from being made.- Vantar 06:52, 17 August 2007 (BST)

When you search for a "the"less building, the first item that pops up is the proper link, encouraging searchers to do the right thing from the start. If they can't figure out definite articles, they probably won't be editing the wiki. Additionally, since there's no effort to comprehensively make all these pointless links, the results will be hit-and-miss. I would argue that consistency is better than the occasional tip for the extremely unobservant and/or lazy. The "the"s are defaults for all suburb maps and templates, and encouraging people to create "the"less pages will result in "invisible" wiki entries. In any event, I believe that searching for a specific building is extremely rare behavior, and certainly is far outstripped by attempts to link to building pages via the maps. --Tekka Maki 08:51, 17 August 2007 (BST)

Firefox Plugin Compatibility Issue

Although I dont use it, there is a Firefox UD plugin that alows you to click on the map, which then directs you to the UD Wiki entry for that location. sub issue 1: If you include a period after the "St" (which is not included on the johnathan fletcher map) you get a failure. sub issue 2: Honestly I had like three other issues but its almost 4a.m. here and I have some more tests today. Conndraka ^W!

• That's why you create a page with "St" and redirect it to "St." --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 04:40, 9 March 2006 (GMT)

New Categories

Originally when I started adding location pages for Pescodside, and then Dulston, I started slowly and made corrections to bring the pages into synch with the standards presented on the Wiki. I support the idea of a solid base design for these pages. I personally suggest the following topics/headers (most of which are already mentioned) and the order they should be presented in should be:

• Image - Location image or group-affiliated image (i.e. MALTEL).
• Quote - The Urban Dead text-based description of the building. Interior if provided, exterior if not.
• Description - Begins with: (Building name) is a (building type link) located in the suburb of (suburb name). Historical information of the building follows.
• Barricade Policy - As stated, the standard barricade level and under what conditions it would be raised.
• Current Status - Date followed by the event, with the most current dated event located at the top. The timestamp would be like: March 10th, 2006 - (event text). An exact time is optional. If none is provided then all further events that take place on the same day should be indented below the original with *. Posted events do not require a user signature.

These items I think are essential, as historical descriptions, while possibly containing information like current group affiliations, would probably be better recorded in the Current Events to that players can see exactly when a group claimed a building and such. I also suggest a few extra sections that would dependant entirely upon the building type, namely:

• NecroNet Reports - List NecroNet scans, ala The Waish Building. I would also recommend that should this become popular that players replace older scans, for that day, with newer ones rather than creating a new image (the images are labeled: BuildingNameYYYYMMDD for this reason).
• Affiliates - List of nearby buildings that are actively working with the building in question. This would be more feasible if the building also happened to belong to a group.

On another note large buildings like Malls need special considerations. For Treweeke Mall I added in a lot of tactical information I felt would benefit survivors during a zombie siege and also entry points. Not ever building requires entry points but large buildings often do. --Mobius187 11:28 AM, Mar 10 2006 (EST)

I added most of your suggestions to the Style Guide. (1) NecroNet Reports are only valid for NT buildings and as such doesn't really need to go into the style guide. I've merged it under Status. (2) With regards to the descriptions, I think it should be one of the few things left to the authors to decide as to how they would like to begin the description. Some variety might be interesting especially if there are 10,000 pages to be written. Obviously spelling and grammar should not be sacrificed. (3) The in-game description has been made optional as although it gives flavour to the wiki entry, I don't think many wiki users will refer to the location page for the in-game description. Also, if Kevan decides to change the in-game location description at any time (as he has done in the past), it would involve a lot of rework. (4) "Current" Status may not be factual anymore by the time the reader reads teh page. Hence I've reduced it to Status - see wiki Style Guide on how to write regarding Time Sensitivity. However I do agree that groups that claim a location as a safehouse should quote that in status rather than in the description. --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 17:27, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Grouping Locations

I've noticed a trend towards grouping similar locations... but do we really want to do this with every type of building? Recently someone took every individual fire station page I created for Pescodside and moved them all onto a single Pescodside Fire Stations page. While I admit it makes the information more easily comparable, the individual locations lose their importance. I had hoped that one day players could "move" through a suburb using the location map provided at each location page, similar to how players move throughout Urban Dead. By grouping locations it potentially throws off Wiki users. Obviously this is not a major issue if restricted to resource buildings, but still I like the individuality of certain locations... especially my current favorite The Waish Building in Pescodside. What is the official UD Wiki opinion on this... should locations be grouped, or should only resource locations be grouped... or is it all at the suburb's discretion? --Mobius187 11:43 AM, Mar 10 2006 (EST)

That is the ultimate goal. However at the moment, most of the pages are a bit "blank" and devoid of meaningful content. Odd Starter has requested that for the time being these pages be grouped together so as not to proliferate the wiki with too many pages with little or no content (100 suburbs, with 100 blocks per suburb - the wiki does not need a few thousand "stub" pages and it would be a joke if there were more stub pages than actual content pages). When the individual locations get more content (significance, history, groups operating out of the building, crate drops, sieges, etc.) they can be separated out into their individual pages. On a side note, the it can probably be justified to separate out Sadley Way Fire Station from the aforementioned Fire Station page. Note, if you want to "walk through" the wiki using the navigation blocks, just change the redirects to include the section (e.g. instead of #REDIRECT [[Pescodside Fire Department]], change it to #REDIRECT [[Pescodside Fire Department#Sadley Way Fire Station]] and that will open up the page at the Sadway Way Fire Station section). --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 16:57, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

While I generally agree to doing away with clearly empty pages, I do not accept this policy on grouping locations (at least for buildings, empty lots may be another story). I hardly think that the article for Club Meade fell under the vague definition of "little or no content." What are the requirements? Is there a word count? Is it a lack of history? In addition to facing disputes like this because of the current undefined policy, I feel that you are just complicating the inevitable. Eventually, most locations will grow in popularity and when new users attempt to edit these locations they run into these listings, which are arguably more imposing to wiki newbie than an individual location page. --Lint 19:35, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

Agreeing with Lint for the most part. Since Nov has decided most of my work wasn't worth the time I've slowed down on my efforts. The decision to forgo individual pages and the considerable REDIRECTS required by the current layout (seem to me, anyway) as a waste of time an/or effort. Instead of having locations done by the end of this month, I'll have the 600 locations of the DMZ done by the end of the year. I only have so many IP hits in game so I have to do what I planned over weeks instead of days. But when I am done, each and every building in six suburbs will have an individual page set up as Nov wants it, and the streets will likely have created points of significance just to fill out the pages. Conndraka ^W!

I agree with Lint for most part, but eventhough the guidelines were written by myself, the contents are mostly dictated/directed by Odd Starter who as senior administrator of the wiki, has the right to do so. I know I'm the one that's stepping on toes to enforce the policy, and I know the "significant content" issue is vague, but those were the terms that was dictated to me and those are the terms that I have written down into the guide. There are a few pages that do have significant content - the aforementioned Sadley Way Fire Station and Club Meade - but as I was merging pages, it was quicker for me to be unbiased and to merge them irrespective of content, figuring that if anyone else decides that the pages warrant to be split out again, they could do so and leave a remnent in the merged page pointing to the page that was split out.

Conndraka, your efforts are applauded, but as I understand it, it is Odd Starter's wishes that each page be created with as much information as possible, instead of they way you've been doing them with stubs and xxxx'es. It is preferable to refrain from posting them unless there is some content in them, otherwise those pages are fair game for Speedy Delete Criterion 1, which I have explained to you in your talk page. Why waste your time and effort putting up pages when in the end they will get deleted and trust me, without any content, they will get deleted. I have tried to preserve your work by merging them as per this style guide so that they seem to have more content then they actually do and saving the individual pages as redirects. It is taking a lot of work. If you don't appreciate what I've done, I might as well start adding the speedy delete request to all those pages instead of merging them. That at least would take less time than merging them and setting the redirects (and fixing the double redirects). --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 15:44, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

• Hmmm. In a way I can see what Conndraka wants to do and I can see what the problem is too. On the one hand Conndraka is creating Wiki pages that will act as a helpful template to assist anyone who wants to update that Location page. On the other hand until that happens its not really a worthwhile Wiki page. I prefer a middle-ground as I take this path in my efforts. In truth I visit very few of the buildings I've created Wiki pages for so I lack solid facts which are important to any Wiki page to make it worthwhile. Knowing that I add content based solely on backstory since at the very least it's an interesting read. The real purpose is to create a foothold by which users can find the Location and add their own thoughts to the page rather than finding nothing and being discouraged (thus posting nothing). To date my efforts have paid off on such Location pages as Sirl Plaza and St. Odile's Church. Of course it helps if I visit the building and tell people about the Wiki page.
  
  Back on the topic of grouping pages, I think the "group now and split later" might work... with my only concern being new users not realizing how to edit such pages or when/if they can be split off. As for Sadley Way Fire Station, I really liked that page... heh... that place was cursed. I once found zombies attacking it when there was no one even inside. As I recall I attacked the zombies, screamed "Sadley Way Fire Station will never be overrun! We'll never let you get inside!", and over-barricaded before leaving. I wonder if they ever appreciated my joke...? Ah well, it sure makes for a good story though. --Mobius187 11:31 AM, Mar 14 2006 (EST)

Thank you! exactly what I was trying to do... and Dunell Hills tries to keep the entire suburb, except the resource buildings max 'caded. Conndraka 17:55, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

Fire Stations

Currently, the Page Names section lists Firestation as one word, though the Category for the building type is listed as Fire Station. Additionally, the page groupings of this building type are listed as Fire Departments. For the sake of consistency, perhaps it should just be Fire Stations all around? --Lint 02:06, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

The location as such is named "Fire Station" in the game. I think that should be maintained. I have corrected the typo to list it as 2 words in the Page Names section. The grouped building types are listed as "Fire Department", not the plural form. This is because, the Malton Fire Department infomation for the suburb is actually (or should be) located on the (grouped) page and as such, it is not just about the fire stations alone, but the Fire Department for that suburb. I'll make a note of that as well. Don't ask me why the MFD was included and the MPD isn't - I think one of the reasons is that there are numerous PD groups out there with conflicting infomation which is why they were left off. The other reason, I guess, is that the MPD doesn't seem as active as the MFD. --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 02:30, 19 March 2006 (GMT)

Buildings with Same Name

There's a guideline for buildings with the same name in different suburbs, but what about ones in the same suburb? What comes to mind is Pridmore Way School in Old Arkham. There are two of them (seperated by two other buildings). At the moment, I'm doing Building Name XX, YY when I need to create links (so Pridmore Way School 10, 96), as if it was a building without a name. Any other suggestions for something, or should I keep it like this? — g026r 18:52, 10 March 2006 (GMT)

Does one have any more significance than the other? One could probably just list both Building Name (Suburb), and mention that there are two at separate locations, unless there's something that makes one much more significant than the other. The other issue is that if the Buildings aren't particularly significant, perhaps it's best if you just leave the information at the Suburb Building page. -- Odd Starter ^{talk | Mod | W!} 00:13, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

No significance that I know of. Then again, I don't think anyone's wikified any of Old Arkham yet, and I don't really spend any time there. (One of them borders on New Arkham, and therefore a link appeared in a 9-block template, hence the reason I was asking.) — g026r 00:27, 11 March 2006 (GMT)

I would agree with Odd Starter - just create one page for the both of them at this point in time. There are no other building in other suburbs with that name. When they get a lot more info as the game progresses, then the page can serve as a disambiguation page and the individual pages can then have the coordinates suffixed to the pagename, as per the guideline for generic locations (although that's stretching things a bit there). --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 06:03, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

Hospital Image

Just a note that the current style guideline has the Fire Department symbol listed. What is the current symbol to use for hospitals? Is it this one? Image:Maltonhospitals.PNG

Yes, sorry, thanks for pointing that out. I've edited the section to provide the correct logo. --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 05:58, 12 March 2006 (GMT)

I'm curious, should all hospitals use this symbol or can there be some variety in the image (not symbol) we post? I'm referring of course to the image I created/posted for St. Anacletus's Hospital. Although I do realize it's a bit wide for 800x600 screens. Also on this note, what about a standard image for Railroad Stations... like I did for Heddington Walk Railway Station? And yes, a bit wide for 800x600 (but I can reduce it). --Mobius187 11:41 AM, Mar 14 2006 (EST)

Please keep the symbols the same, but feel free to have a variety of images for each different location. In fact it would be preferable that no 2 locations share the same image, although practically speaking, I wonder if that is even possible. The image you created for those 2 locations are great. Note, to reduce the image size on the page, simply put a pipe followed by the size you require in pixels, e.g. [[Image:abc.jpg|300px]]. This will cause the page to display the image 300 pixels wide. --Nov ^{W!, Talk} 01:21, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

The railway station image took me a while to find. I wanted a night scene, an empty platform, no trains, and a view of the tracks. It was harder to find all those in one image than it sounds. In the end I felt a B&W image helped set the mood and used a similar technique for the hospital's image. I reduced the size of the images to 500px so they fit better. --Mobius187 8:15 AM, Mar 15 2006 (EST)

The Idea that each location have a different image is not only practical, but possible. (hmm odd sentance structure there) Most of the Pics I uploaded were from public domain pic sites, now admittedly I've only done about a suburb and a half so far, but I got most of my pics off of just one site, which was one of about 30 that my search engine pulled up. Conndraka 17:51, 15 March 2006 (GMT)

It's definately possible, but I don't know if it's all that practical. It'd be an awful lot of work, and for grouped pages, it'd make things a lot more irritating to lay out. It would be nice to have a different visual representation of every building, for imagination and RP purposes, but when you get right down to it, it's one hell of a task. I mean, the firefox plugins even reuse generic building images.

By the way, Nov.. Sorry I took so long to check this all out, but I kinda had my hands full with a full-scale war in Huntley recently. Everything looks great, and I'm slightly proud to see that some of my pages were used as examples. --Aiden H ^4H 11:54, 24 March 2006 (GMT)

Just wanted to resurect this thing. If you could add in something about our little template {{MHGN}} That would be great, Seeing as how Malton Hospitals Doesn't actulaly do anything.--Labine50 ^MHG 20:06, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Correct the terrible grammar, and coding faults with it, and "maybe". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:30, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Disambiguation Pages…

Why the {{disambiguation}}? It should be {{disambig}}. And why near the top? It's an ugly mess like that. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 21:28, 24 April 2006 (BST)

• Probably because... Well I don't know. Mistake or old information? Should be changed. About the location: I don't know if this is the reason, but for pages that have some larger templates, like suburb or map or similar, the top of the page is a horrible mess already. So adding a category tag there won't mess the rest of the page. In reality I have no idea :D Oh lets take that back, I have no idea what I was thinkink. Of course disambigs don't have any boxes or similar (except Dunell Hills Police Department, but that's one annoying special case, see Special:Disambiguations) --Brizth ^{W! M T} 21:43, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Why place locations stubs under Category:Stubs?

Please remove the Stub categorization requirement as it makes it nigh impossible to fish out non-location-related articles to work on. --Lint 19:34, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I second that motion. Besides – it's redundant! Why bother having {{locations-stub}} place location stubs under Category:Stubs/Locations if you're going to place them under Category:Stubs as well? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:04, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Minor modifications to guidelines

If no one can give any proper reasoning behind the plural/non-plural grouping of certain pages (see UDWiki:Location_Style_Guide#Page_Names), I'm going to change the guidelines a bit. Namely to get rid of some of the stupid non-plural forms. After modifications the section would read as:

• NecroTech suburbname
• suburbname Auto Repair Shops
• suburbname Fire Department
• suburbname Police Department
• suburbname Pubs (instead of suburbname Arms)
• suburbname School District
• Streets of suburbname

I feel that getting rid of fire and police department pages might also be warranted, but maybe a simply redirect would work. Actually same for schools. --Brizth ^{M T} 11:49, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Yagoton Fire Department as compared to Yagoton Fire Departments? The plural simply does not sound right to me. Same with the other. Nor does wastelands, for that matter. Where is an English major when you need one? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:28, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Well, ok, for FD and PD it might sound a bit weird. But at least for the wasteland (singular) I get the impression of one, large, unified wasteland area. Same for Carpark. --Brizth ^{M T} 12:43, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I don't disagree about "Carpark", but wastelands? Meh. Feel free to change it. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 12:51, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Jeeze, can't we just go with the way it is, so we don't have to go back and change it all again? It wouldn't bother me either way... but so much is done now, I see little improvement in having to redo everything to add an "s" --  boxy  TtaMe  ^~~~~~ 13:20, 27 July 2006 (BST)

There's not that much to be moved. Namely Huntley_Heights_Carpark, Wykewood_Carpark, Mockridge_Heights_Carpark, Wyke_Hills_Carpark, East_Boundwood_Wasteland, Wyke_Hills_Wasteland and Mockridge_Heights_Wasteland. The resulting redirects will handle all the current links. --Brizth ^{M T} 15:49, 27 July 2006 (BST)

moved from M/SD

Uh, folks? I actually know the reason. If you have a singular link (e.g., Sandbox), then you can easily create derivative links like Sandboxes, produced by typing [[Sandbox]]es. However, if you have a plural link like Mockridge Heights Wastelands, there is no way to go backwards without doing something like [[Mockridge Heights Wastelands|Mockridge Heights Wasteland]]. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:22, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I knew that. But most of those grouped pages are with the plural, so why the arbitrary difference for carpark and wasteland? See UDWiki:Location_Style_Guide#Page_Names --Brizth ^{M T} 19:32, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Well, Police Department and Fire Department make sense to me. You don't normally hear of a city having more than one PD/FD — it's more along the lines of "Foobartown Fire Department," if you think about it. Same thing goes for School District. Why Wasteland and Carpark are singular, however, is a mystery to me. I still think it might be good to go with the singular form so that we can do the link style I mentioned above, however. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:59, 27 July 2006 (BST)

True, PDs, FDs and schools make sense. But I'm not that sure about singular for everything. Just exactly how many times someone is going to link to Wyke_Hills_Carpark (singular) when there's three carparks there? --Brizth ^{M T} 20:07, 27 July 2006 (BST)

That's a good point. What if we split the difference and used a common-sense approach? PD, FD, and School would remain singular; Auto, Carpark, Wasteland, and Streets would be plural if the suburb had more than one of each, singular otherwise; and what about bringing Streets and NT in line with the nomenclature? Something like "Ridleybank NecroTech" and "Ridleybank Streets"? –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 20:22, 27 July 2006 (BST)

Fine by me. And when something is moved the resulting redirect should be kept. They don't take that much space and it would ease the transition. --Brizth ^{M T} 20:37, 27 July 2006 (BST)

I disagree with keeping the redirects. There aren't going to be that many of them, and there are enough redirects already, as is. Besides, the "The resulting redirects will handle all the current links." line of reasoning is flawed — redirects don't go to anchors and that's what many of those links are. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 03:37, 28 July 2006 (BST)

Well, are we doing this or what? I'm not going to bother starting on any other pages until we decide one way or the other -- Boxy 06:35, 30 July 2006 (BST)

If the other two would comment, I would. Normally I'd just make an executive decision, but for once someone other than myself is interested in the LSG. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:19, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Let's do it. I'm a bit busy now, but I'll write the modifications in an hour. I think BobHammero's latest suggestion is the best. --Brizth ^{M T} 20:51, 30 July 2006 (BST)

When I created Wykewood Carpark I thought this seemed wacky. Would anyone consider suburbname Parking? Just something I never brought up. --Max Grivas ^JG,T,P! 21:02, 30 July 2006 (BST)

Hmm. I'm not really keen on using names that differ from the game. Even using "School District" makes me itchy. --Brizth ^{M T} 22:31, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I edited the guidelines, see UDWiki:Location_Style_Guide#Page_Names --Brizth ^{M T} 22:31, 30 July 2006 (BST)

I added streets to the list. We don't have to go with school district, either, if you're unsure of that. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:44, 30 July 2006 (BST)

If you're doing the schools too, then get too it, because any other changes from now on may well provoke a hissy fit ;) --  boxy  TtaMe  ^~~~~~ 08:28, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Done. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 11:00, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Category:Locations

In the Categories section of the guide it says to no longer use Category:Locations due to something about spam. Is this still true? If not then would it be all right to remove the notes. If it is still true than why is this being done? I couldn't not find the reasoning behind this decision and don't understand the end result. The Locations Category is a needed category for locations pages that have too much information to be call a stub. - Vantar 01:00, 3 July 2007 (BST)

Yeah, it's still true. There is no point having a category with every single location on the wiki in it... the way I understand it, that category was supposed to be for notable locations... hell, it may as well be scrapped if you ask me. What's being done? Nothing much, I take the tags off any pages I see it (unless it's a notable location)... that's about it -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 09:20, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Actual I can think of a few good reasons to have a category with every location in it but if we are talking about scraping the category why don't we just change its role a little. Since we have the Categories for streets, buildings and every other location type why not use this category to categorize the existing useful category locations? Our current category organization system is a wreak and this could be help bring it back together.- Vantar 09:46, 4 July 2007 (BST)

What reasons are they (I'm curious). There's already lists of locations, that's why adding every location page to it just seems like useless duplication. Those categories are already sub categories of the locations category (or did you just add them?) -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 15:37, 4 July 2007 (BST)

Well after thinking about my reasons a little longer I am more inclined to agree with but to satisfy your curiosity my reasons were.

1. Consistency with the way other categories are added, Category:Groups is suppose to be added to every group page even though doing so is rather redundant since the next category is suppose be eihter Category:Human Groups or Category:Zombie Groups (or Category:Zombie-Human Alliances.
2. Ive always thought the [Locations List]]s was meant to be a tool for location page creation and not navigation. Also Ive had problems with the locations list accuracy every suburb Ive worked on from the list as had some "the"s missing from building names or a trailing space included in the link.

I many have had more reason but those were the better ones but as I said before I no longer agree with them. As for Sub categories, I overlooked the first section and the suburbs names and names in alphabetical order. Dropping the locations articles from the category sounds fine to me but while we are doing it would it be possible to remove the suburbs from the category and just make Category:Suburbs a sub cat of locations as well.- Vantar 05:24, 6 July 2007 (BST)

Sounds fair enough to me -- boxy ^{T Nuts2U DA} 07:32, 6 July 2007 (BST)

Ok I finally finished dearticleing Category:Location, my plan now is to change Category:Suburbs into a "Subcat-only" category by replacing the articles on each suburb with the category for each suburb once I get it a;; worked out I can go back and write something up for UDWiki:Location Category Style Guide to full explain how it all works - Vantar 20:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Error disambiguation

The Whaits Hotel is a disambiguation page. However, there is no any whaits hotel in earltown or any other suburbs except eastonwood. i would fix it right away, but i wonder how could this error appear? --~~~~ [talk] 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Update

This style guide has not been followed that strictly and that is starting to create some problems so I think it is time to update the style guide so it better reflect the existing location pages and their preferred style. Some of the bigger questions are what do we want to do with merged location pages (such as Huntley Heights Museums) and what redirects should be created for each location. - Vantar 05:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Turn them into portals or get rid of them completely. The information being on those pages discourages adding information to them. The pages themselves shouldn't be redirects the names on the merged/portal page should link to those buildings.--Karek^maps?! 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as discouraging in any way. However, i also don't like when locations are merged for buildiings. IMHO, merging them for streets, parks, carparks and wastelands is good, for buildings - bad --~~~~ [talk] 19:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that's the consensus. Streets merging=good, buildings=bad. How about we see if we can make that a policy? I'm no good at writing them, but I think it would pass.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  21:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Things happen on streets too. And Duke, I personally have decided not to edit information onto those pages because of how they are set up, I'm sure I'm not the only one.--Karek^maps?! 01:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The merged pages are useful for some things so just getting rid of them would be less than ideal. What about keeping all the information on a seprate page for each location but then using template calls to create the merged page for the suburb (something like this)- Vantar 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

That's essentially a portal, this is the type of thing I meant when I said turn them into portals.--Karek^maps?! 02:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely hate it when locations are slapped into one page. It makes it too large, harder to add content, takes longer to load, is confusing, is incredibly annoying to fix blocks and just plain ugly. Instead of various stubs that are easily expandable and more customizable (a few locations have neat backgrounds, etc) we have one big fat stub. But a portal would be ok, I suppose.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why not try something new, we give every location it's own page then create a bunch of categories like Category:Shearbank Hotels that would basically serve as the portal. - Vantar 03:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

You and your categories... robot, perhaps? Sounds like a good idea. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The advantage of a portal-style page is that you get nice block views for the given buildings, as opposed to just a name. Categories aren't really useful that way, and most people would probably just search for the building articles the usual way. Not to say that categorizing stuff isn't important. --Daranz^{.t.mod janitor.W(M)^∞.} 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I liked Vantars idea of template calling the info onto the merged pages. The only problem I see, it it will make some of them huge. The simplest way is to just make them a list of links, at least for building pages, and leave the streets, parks, etc as merged pages, and only single out the locations that need to be separate (revive points) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 01:30 20 December 2007 (BST)

exactly what i'm talking about --~~~~ [talk] 06:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, loathe the idea of making differentiating in the style by the type of block, that and the block itself should always have it's own page. Standards matter, both in browsing the wiki and creating the pages and having differing standards would just serve to make things harder to find.--Karek^maps?! 06:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So, a portal in list form? Some pages, not just buildings have lengthy descriptions. Heck, I think there's a club that has a pink background, or something. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok so it is sounding like people want a page for each individual location with a category based portal system to organize it. The other big issue is what redirects should point to pages? Currently the redirects should be:

1. The coordinate of the block (e.g. 33,24 redirects to Evans Row Fire Station)
2. "St" locations (e.g. St Swithun's Church redirects to St. Swithun's Church)
3. "Police Dept" (e.g. Lentell Walk Police Dept redirects to Lentell Walk Police Department)
4. "the" buildings (e.g. Darnell Building redirects to The Darnell Building)

Too many? Too few? - Vantar 01:32, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Eh fine enough. I did notice that St. X Church or St. X General Hospital doesn't actually have a period ingame. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Should we base the pages that used to be merged locations pages on disambiguation pages? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:48 23 December 2007 (BST)

Voting

From what it sounds like people want each location page to have it's own page and then for a series of merged pages/portals that has all the location of a building type in each suburb. What is not clear is what system to uses so let have a vote. Here are the options if you have a question about a system ask it in the appropriate questions section. Voting will last until a week goes by with out more imput then the guidelines will be rewritten to reflect that system - Vantar 09:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Current System

The current system has two type of location page. The locationed blocked pages such as Evans Row Fire Station which contains all the in-depth information about 1 location in malton and the Merged Location pages such as Shearbank Hotels. The merged location pages contain multiple location block for each location of a certain building type in a Suburb.

Pros	Cons
Cuts down on the number of location stubs Users can see the status on many buildings from one page The Portal page displays each locations location block	Creates duplicate entries for the same location Pages can become to lengthy to be easily navigated

Questions/Comments

If you have a question or want some clarification about this system ask here

Eh, so we would still have a portal page, but have separate pages too? Frankly, I think we should bomb the hell out of the portal pages and stick with the single pages. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Templated Portal System

This system also has two location page types, the locationed blocked pages are the same as in the current system but here the merged Location pages are made out of template-called locations blocked pages as show here

Pros	Cons
Avoids the information duplication of the current system Users can see the status on many buildings from one page The Portal page displays each locations location block	Merged pages harder to edit Too many template call can cause technical problems

Questions/Comments

If you have a question or want some clarification about this system ask here

The Category System

Each location has it's own location blocked page. Then Categories such as Category:Shearbank Hotels are applied to make a list that serves as substitute to the merged pages that the current system uses

Pros	Cons
Avoids the information duplication of the current system	Requires the creation of 2000 categories (1 per location type per suburb) The category based portal will only have a list of locations

Questions/Comments

If you have a question or want some clarification about this system ask here

20,000 categories? Aren't there only 10,000 blocks in Malton? Sorry if I've missed something obvious, I've only skimmed this discussion. --Toejam 22:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You are right there was an extra zero in there, typo on my part I have fixed it now, 20 building types x 100 suburbs =2000 categories - Vantar 22:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The Delete Them All System

Every page has it own page with a location block, no merged pages.

Pros	Cons
Avoids the information duplication of the current system Avoids the need to pick a method of merged page organizations	No fancy navigation on streets merged pages

Questions/Comments

If you have a question or want some clarification about this system ask here

Voting

Place your vote in this format "system name - signature"

• neither... as i already told, there are location types that are better in one system and location types that are better in another sytem. --~~~~ [talk] 12:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

  The Category System. Pages like "streets in dentonside" drive me mad. THere so long, and its always one half way through im looking for. Im more than willing to help catergorise. Plus if a group wants to take over a building, splurge it with history and pictures is better as a single page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Delete all System Wasn't an option before. Want hospitals in a burb?, theyre all on the burb page. In a big box. Streets dont all need to be catergorised, unless they're watching.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   I would say my vote goes to the category system, for reasons listed above.

2. I like delete all system better--01:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)--Corndoghero^T-S-Z 20:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   The Category system will make Categories even less manageable than they are now and it will be out of the way in the Category namespace and thus useless. The current system is horrible and unstandardized. As such the only system that makes sense is the #Templated System Which can have a few minor modifications in the future but will always be relatively user friendly, have easy maintenance(as it's simply a few template calls), and the amount of information isn't set, nor is it harder to find.--Karek^maps?! 21:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   There's also a Locationblock vs LocationblockMerged problem in Templated system. First is good for single pages, but if N of them get template-called into one portal - there would be the huge clog of these Info-parts, as seen on Vantar's example. Even more, a templated system loses the main reason the all-on-one page is so useful for "streets" - navigation that doesn't need page reload. --~~~~ [talk] 21:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   That problem is semi-easily solved, by messing around with includeonly tags you can omit the info part. See the last location in my example to see what I mean- Vantar 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   Or simple new templates can be made sans that information. There are plenty of ways to deal with such a problem.--Karek^maps?! 22:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   Vantar, navigation problem isn't soved in your example. although i agree that it is solvable with messing includeonly and noinclude into the template. will have a look later --~~~~ [talk] 22:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

   There is only one problem with templated navigation, that would be file size, which would take some managing, but is very doable. And since most locations pages never get big enough for it to be a problem it will probably only come up for malls and forts. That can be made not a problem with archiving/maintenance and some slight ingenuity/work.--Karek^maps?! 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

3. Category system. Reasons outlined above.--Nick 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
4. Neither - I don't like any of these systems, even the current one. Leave portals to the mages, kthx.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Delete them all system. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Above. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 13:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   Spell it out? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:00 1 February 2008 (BST)

7. The Delete Them All System At one time they had a use, that time has past. - Vantar 19:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
8. The delete them all option wasnt avaliable when i voted. Spam edited during voting. Remind me agin how i strike my vote? It involves the letter "s" i remember.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   you strike things like this --~~~~ [talk] 20:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   Um this isn't the suggestions page the don't alter rule doesn't apply here. The voting is a lot less rigid since we all have to use the style guide when it is done so there is nothing to be gain from hampering more options. If you have a suggest fill free to dd it to the options. Also <s> and </s> strike out thing too- Vantar 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

   I wondered why a conversation happened half way through the voting then, thanks for the input.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

9. Delete Them All System Though it has some problems, a page for every location is the easiest to maintain with many different editors. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 05:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
10. The Delete Them All System - Thats the way I thought the system was set-up, every location should have its own page.--Memoman 03:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Delete Them All System - The best way to do it. We already have the groundwork there, except where people have messed them up by merging. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Kirr it in File--Karek^maps?! 04:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
13. ah, the nades. i'm giving up my favorite pretty navigation then. Burn them All System --~~~~ [talk] 07:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Delete Them All --Bullgod 09:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Hybrid whereby building locations have their own, individual location pages and streets are merged into a single page. Individual pages for every street seems a bit pointless. I guess the Delete them all option comes closest to this if "Hybrid" isn't valid.--Sunil 11:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

    Ya, I agree streets dont necessarily need their own page and should be the last locations implemented if at all in the new system.--Memoman 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

16. Delete them all - but only once all links to them have been fixed, until then, they should be left as a list of links (each link under a header of the location's name) to the actual location pages -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:58 1 February 2008 (BST)
17. Delete them all - exactly as boxy. --Funt Solo ^QT 12:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Voting closed on 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Results

Ok Delete them all has won by a landslide. So it will be the system used. The style guide shall now be rewrite to reflect that A draft copy of the rewritten guide should be available here later on today for community input. - Vantar 20:46, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for a note, a good example of what is written in boxy's vote and what should be left of "merged" pages --~~~~ [talk] 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? All Boxy said was about things getting the links fixed before deleting them, not leaving things off of the list of things to delete.--Karek^maps?! 07:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that's an example of what should be left on merged pages until all the links are fixed (and it gets deleted) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:26 13 February 2008 (BST)

New Style Guide

The draft copy is up. If you want to compare the old one to the new one you can do so here If there is something you don't like about it here is the place to speak up so that it can be resolved. If there is minor spelling/grammar things feel free to fix them.- Vantar

Danger Reports

this is totally wrong. i don't recall we decided that anywhere --~~~~ [talk] 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't and is a significant departure from what has always been done. Please remove it.--Karek^maps?! 07:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Always been done? Danger report templates are a relatively new addition to the wiki. Building status has always been in the body of the page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:28 13 February 2008 (BST)

All during the update people have been saying that all location pages should have a similar look, avoid repetitive information and not involve the editing of more then one page. Since not every page should have one the danger report templates go against all three of those points. - Vantar 16:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(re:boxy) Danger report plugs for buildings other than bic, bbic and nic appeared soon after the system got spread, starting (i believe) from my zic. That's April 2007. Is 10 month not long enough? (re:Vantar) The question wether all pages need danger level plug or not is indeed very delicate, NTs that are all-arround important buildings often don't get regular enough updates. And when much more "un"-important buildings like non-necrotech buildings and fire stations got themself danger level plugs (wg-bic, May 2007) i was against it and occasinaly raised that on A/D as not-updated. The decision, a precedent we might say, was to let them have it. Thus, returning to this case, we cannot say that suddenly some locations "desserve" danger level plug on their page and some not because of similar look. --~~~~ [talk] 20:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We can, but only for non-building locations. I'm in complete agreement with Duke on this.--Karek^maps?! 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The usefulness of the danger reports is that the status of multiple locations can be viewed quickly in an easy to process manor. Necrotechs and Malls are the only two building types that is really needed for. This is not just a simple issues of looks, in most cases page functionality is not improved by the danger report template so it should not be included- Vantar 05:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't clutter up the page any more than all that junk that was thrown on there by the people spreading the Locations Guides in the first place, and I'd definitely say they're more useful than the Barricade Plan header shoved on all of those pages as they actually give somewhat real time information, or, at the very least show information about the groups in the area, even when they aren't updated, or rather especially then.--Karek^maps?! 06:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

What junk are you referring to? The barricade header is for information about the about the barricade plan which is rather useful information to have. I do not follow your comment about one providing real time information and one not. The content of the current status header and the content of the danger report holds the same information. Both require users to update them and the accuracy and usefulness of both systems is dependent when they were last updated. - Vantar 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

First off no, it's not useful at all, it may be useful on a suburb level but, unless it's an entry point it's useless on the building level. Second It's obviously biased information that can only ever serve survivors and has no purpose other than cementing Barricade Plans(which are blatant pov anyway) into the NPOV category. Third, out of the two Danger Report is actually more useful because of all the things it does provide, but, most importantly the easy to see visual stimuli. The usefulness of the news is dependent on being updated constantly but, the usefulness of the Danger Report is dependent on what it's last update was, very different things when you consider that the Danger Report almost always provides more information. I'd say that they are no more useless than they are at malls which is where they lose most of their usefulness.--Karek^maps?! 22:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Barricades plans are not survivor biased. They say what level of barricade is recommended by the suburb, from there a human player can look and find a well defended point or a zombie play can find a weaker point (and possible many humans without free running). Barricade plans are listed or linked to one nearly every suburb. If you are going to have a page filled with information about a certain location why leave out things about that location. The type of information that is added to a danger report page is the same type of information that should be in the current status section so one can not better then the other in terms of content. If we are talking about POV though the current status section wins because Danger reports ratings like "safe" are very survivor biased while current status reports along the lines of "5 zombies outside" are more neural. - Vantar 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Barricade plans are very survivor biased and that you can't see that amuses me to no end. If you want to see more on this debate take a jaunt over to the NPOV talk page where it has been done ad nauseum. As for danger reports, this should reflect the communities standards of editing, not yours, it's obvious from the way that the Danger Reports have been done in the past that there is a significant difference between the two. Yes, the danger reports could have some name changes but, since it's pretty obviously a survivor oriented wiki I doubt anyone really cares, hell, most zombie players on this wiki that I know of actually like the danger report template simply because it's an easy way to see status without dealing with all the crappy survivor POV junk that's on pretty much every location or suburb page on this wiki.--Karek^maps?! 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Having read through the entire NPOV talk page I can say I see no POV conflict in having a Barricades header that listed off the recommended barricade level of a location as stated by the relevant barricade plans for the area. Some like "The Miltown Barricade Plan recommends that this building be very strongly barricaded at all times". If you disagree, just make up a new section under this so we make up a workable agreement. Back to the main issue of danger reports. The point of the changes to the current events section is to avoid having it fill up with "crappy survivor POV junk". My issue with it is an over complicated system with little benefit. Why is template needed when the same functionality can be achieved on one page? - Vantar 00:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's needed because the same functionality can not be achieved. It serves as a very quick summary method to get the important information on the building, the functionality is unequaled anywhere else in the wiki except Suburb. --Karek^maps?! 03:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That functionality is only needed for important buildings though (usually TRPs), and Vantar doesn't dispute that they should have the templated danger reports -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:55 15 February 2008 (BST)

That's assuming people only go to TRPs, it's limiting usefulness to important survivor buildings simply for the sake of cleanliness. It's what I'd call Playing Project Welcome with the LSG.--Karek^maps?! 04:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not the cleanliness that is the issue, it is that templates make status reports more difficult to update (you have to go to a separate page to edit instead of just editing a single section on the page itself) for no benefit unless the template is used in other locations (such as the BIC). The great majority of buildings in Malton have no need of a templated danger report because they are only of interest to residents of those building. Keep it simple (4 teh newbies), unless there is a real need for a more complex method -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:28 15 February 2008 (BST)

The different page thing is easier than the News thing, and more straight forward, it's like the Suburb Danger Reports after the How to update links were added whereas there's no informative guide, or information at all for that matter, on how to do the News section. I would, however, say that BIC is an example of a completely useless page, same with NIC, they're too useless and too crowded, unlike the MIC which actually does provide some information in a useful manner because of the rarity and importance of malls.--Karek^maps?! 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this could be fixed to all of our satisfaction by making a universal building-status template to put on any non-significant building. It would look the same as all the User:DangerReport templates, but be editable simply by editing the location page itself. That way all the buildings can have their status at the top of the page, but only significant buildings would need to have a User:DangerReport template made especially for them -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:47 15 February 2008 (BST)

like "subst:"-ed danger report template? hm... well, yes, anytime it'll need to be transformed into a "real" template - that would be possible and relatevely easy. i like it. --~~~~ [talk] 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Subst:ing it would be a bad idea, mostly because it adds to the already sloppy code on the page. It's simpler just having the update link as it is now, it's never caused a problem in the past, not that I've seen. It's pretty straight forward and simple the way it is and the Danger Report, on pages that they are used, frequently get more edits than the location pages News section, probably for that reason. All Subst:ing it will do is complicate usability.--Karek^maps?! 09:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean substing the template, I meant making a template to go on the page that looks just like the danger report ones. It would have a couple of fields for the report and danger level that could be edited simply by editing the page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:45 15 February 2008 (BST)

Hell, we can just put {{BuildingStatus}} on the page directly! -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:49 15 February 2008 (BST)

(101,101) (bic) (statuses) (update) The Silly Building It's very dark inside, can somebody bring a genny? -Nobody 09:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, not quite. But a template just like it, with the "edit" link changed so that it just edits the page (or removed altogether) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:51 15 February 2008 (BST)

Think of trying to find that amidst all the other sloppy code on the pages, there's quite a bit thanks to those TRP tables and the summary on the right. It's more difficult if you include {{BuildingStatus}} on the page and actually discourages updating it, if that was how it was done then they shouldn't be on the page at all because you'll have effectively made them more hassle than they are worth. As of current they're no hassle at all to update(beyond the |user= thing which people delete often and is really just a minor issue).--Karek^maps?! 10:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was at the top of the page, or in a section of it's own, it would be easy to find -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:53 15 February 2008 (BST)

Boxy, I have the order the templates are added in memorized and I even often get confused about which template I'm in and what I'm looking for on those pages.--Karek^maps?! 16:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You what? What I'm suggesting is that stub or little used location pages get the buildingstatus template. If anyone finds it hard to keep track of what template they're in on such a page, well... they're not going to find editing any page easy. Any page where there are enough templates to cause confusion are probably high priority buildings that deserve their own UserDangerReport template -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:15 21 February 2008 (BST)

Ok here are what the proposed systems would look like.

• The building status as a template without other pages to edit displayed is here
• The building status as a entry under the current status header is here
• A combination previous two of the system is here

The current options are the current system, one of the above plans, or something else. In all cases the question of what locations should have a danger report and what ones should not. - Vantar 22:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not broken, stop trying to fix it. All of those systems are much worse than the current one both for usability, and the fact that they make the template less useful as it's less visible.--Karek^maps?! 04:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok then what locations get building status templates and what ones don't? You are complaining about what the guide currently says so if you think the system is not broken,what is your complaint? Not everyone likes the current system so this is a good time to work out any changes. - Vantar 05:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, it's something you added to the guide because you disagree with the current system. The current system has always been every page that has a building gets the template, now they usually aren't added until someone starts using the page but, the status quo is a danger report for every building.--Karek^maps?! 05:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is something I added because people said they wanted location pages contained on one page, simple to edit, and to be of uniform style .Most of the time there is no reason for the building status templates to require the editing of more then one page and I don't understand what part of having the template on one page you are saying would be more difficult to edit. Can you elaborate on what part of updating a templated building status such as this one is so difficult?- Vantar 07:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding right? If you can't see why it being on it's own page makes it easier to update I can't help you see it, that's your own failing. Look at the code, think if you didn't know anything about tables/templates, then think which would be easier, editing a page with one table or a page with 10 that are all mushed together, then think how much more useful it would be if the link to update also gave you easy to read information that tells you exactly how to update it. You're assuming everyone is at your level of editing.--Karek^maps?! 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And your link provided has nothing to do with your point here unless you've suddenly started talking about the horrible merged pages system that led to that discussion. No where in that discussion was anything that I see that supports the addition and one thing that specifically says something like that is a bad idea, amusingly written by myself.

karek said:

I, for one, loathe the idea of making differentiating in the style by the type of block, that and the block itself should always have it's own page. Standards matter, both in browsing the wiki and creating the pages and having differing standards would just serve to make things harder to find.

What that means is that the pages should all be the same, in both build and things on them, that includes the Danger Report templates being on every building page. That's a standard, and something that has been done and should have been done as, as soon as the page loads, you get the information you came, most of the time, for in five seconds in an easy to view, visible, easy to interpet Danger Report that provides the information(the image) and, usually, a quick summary of the situation(the user written text on the right). --Karek^maps?! 13:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Danger reports for all pages? thousands of pages under "User:DangerReport/" most of which won't ever get updated? --~~~~ [talk] 16:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying go and make them, I'm saying don't say not to make them.--Karek^maps?! 17:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I see your point about the template complexity but there is a simple solution to it. The Location Block Style Guide completely explains everything about how to use locations blocks. Why not make the update link go to some type of building status guide that can walk a new user through updating the building status page. As for you saying "Don't not make it", in this case it is like saying "make it". The location style guide describes what the locations should ideally be so it needs to be as black and white as possible so spelling out what locations get location blocks is a must here. The status of any given mall, necrotech or hospital is likely to be the type of information a player needs to have readily available. I am not conficed that buildstatus are a good for most all locations since, the same is not true about junkyards, factories, cinemas and at least 11 other building types. They aren't updated regularly and their safety is harder to gauge, the average safehouse with a handful of survivors will fall to 5 to 10 zombies, yet a building is safe until there 16 zeds out side. The building status system is not designed to be appiled across all of Malton so rather then create a second ranking system for non critical locations why not just use the current status header?- Vantar 02:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the average safe house will not fall to 5-10 zombies unless there's less than a 1:1 ratio of zombies:survivors and no 1-2 survivors have syringes to revive. It's numerically impossible unless they all run and no one revives/empties/barricades. Also I'd say Factories are important buildings considering how certain important resources have higher than mall find rates there. And no, the LSG is meant to be a Guide not a Do and Do Not list, all it needs to have are the absolute essentials and maybe a mention or two about good editing practice, it's not something that is meant to define what is and isn't allowable editing as that would mean it ceases to be a guide and starts to be a policy, one that we can't enforce and having serves no purpose but to justify undoing possibly useful additions to pages.--Karek^maps?! 05:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what safehouse you have been in but the avearge non-resourse building has 2-3 people in it on any given night, so yes that does mean the zombies:survivors ratio is less then 1:1. Also you are right the location style guide is not a policy, it is a framework designed in a away a to serve as a resourse to someone wanting to work on a location page. It descripes the prescidents that have been established for location pages, it describes the minimum of what locations pages should have, the only things it says not to do are things that the community have already said they they don't want, such as merged location pages. This doesn't prevent anyone from making formating changes or other imporvements, it stops the removal of useful imformation from a page, but the removal of useful imformation is not an improvement so I don't see the issue there.- Vantar 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is you are making the article actively oppose the current precedent for how this has been done.--Karek^maps?! 13:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree in this with Karek. if article should say something about danger reports (yes, it should) it better be something like "If there is a danger report for this location - plug it in the beginning. Danger reports are not obligatory" --~~~~ [talk] 14:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

St. vs St

Currently we are advised to change places with "St" in them to "St.". As Gnome pointed out a couple of months ago, the in game formatting is "St" with no period. Place names in the Wiki should match places in game. These lines in the style guide need to be reversed: under Page Names Any pages beginning with "St" (eg. St Luke's Cathedral) should be named as "St." (e.g. St. Luke's Cathedral) and under Redirects "St" locations (e.g. St Swithun's Church redirects to St. Swithun's Church). Example. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 19:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

That change is very doable, but before I make the change it there any reason why we currently have it the other why around or was this just like this because it always has been? - Vantar 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

St. is grammatically correct though, and seeing as all the St pages are already created as St., we are making heaps of work for nothing. Just make sure all the redirects are there, and it won't make a bit of difference -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:52 15 February 2008 (BST)

St that redirects to St. is absolutely right and functional, i don't see a problem. on a side note, there should also be Dept redirect to Department for PDs... --~~~~ [talk] 09:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have massive amounts of free time, but I wouldn't mind working on switching it myself. Besides, if I don't get to all of it, then someone else will eventually, that's the nice thing about a wiki. :) My point in changing is that we should keep as true to the game as possible in the wiki, even when there's only a period in question. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 04:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Frozen Flame, do not move all those pages to St instead of St. unless you can demonstrate a clear consensus in doing it. Having the redirect is enough, the exact in-game description links directly to the page that the person is looking for. There is no need to change this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:32 16 February 2008 (BST)

When did I say I was going to do it now? My comment was merely in response to the time issue. I know perfectly well that anything related to locations shouldn't be changed until we are finished here. Your reprimand is both unnecessary and unwarranted. There is no need to introduce drama into such a simple change. --_└^Frozen_┘^┌_Flame^┐ 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I am about to have a block of spare time that I can squander with the page moves so if time is the only issue I can take care of that. The Dept to Department redirect is already called for for here some one just has to make them. - Vantar 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Active?

I'm doing research for Project CP, and it'd be lovely if you could tell me wether you are still active or not. :)

--Rahrah^{Come join the #party!}10:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Individual vs. Merged pages?

Just so I'm clear, as there seems to be...well, a vast array of conflicting information. Was it decided on that every block in Malton should have its own location page? Are merged pages no longer to be used? If such is the case, is Template:Locationblockmerge only left standing for the sake of not breaking existing pages? The LSG itself wasn't entirely clear (I just added a tiny comment to it stating that locations should not be merged, something I am now unsure of) and I see a lot of conflicting pages. --aClashInRedSnow^|talk 21:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I was conflicted too. And I agree the LSG is not very clear.--Lithedarkangel 21:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all location blocks on individual pages, and the locationblockmerge template should only be used on already grouped pages, until they're degrouped (looking at it's whatlinkshere link will be a good way of finding how many are left, btw) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:46 22 December 2008 (BST)

Thanks much Boxy, I'll get working on un-merging things then. --aClashInRedSnow^|talk 01:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)