Talk:The Many

	Historical Group Talk Page
	This talk page belongs to a historical group that is no longer active. However, its wiki page is preserved to reflect the group's significance in Urban Dead history. Please do not edit this page or the corresponding group page without good reason.

This article needs The Many's victories as well as defeats so as to fulfill NPOV. --Talain 00:17, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

"Neutral POV" and "The Many" doesn't go together very well. You're either on one side, or on the other, in the game. I do agree that the article should list the major events in the history of The Many, as they're a major part of the history of the entire game themselves --Daranz 00:21, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

If Wikipedia can do NPOV on the Nazis, I'm pretty sure we can do it on the Many. --Talain 00:25, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

People need to stop messing around with this article. This article is currently as objective as it can be. --Shaqfu

WWII didn't exactly happen yesterday, but yeah, we should have an objective article here. That means no bragging, and no accusing. And I think we got us a first edit war in history of this wiki.--Daranz 01:00, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

I agree that it should be a NPOV article. Though, it is fact that we (PA) only knew about the horde's assault through one of their nearby ones. We had been in the mall two weeks and had no idea the pretorians were in the mall with us until today. --Yarrio

Please move all POV discussion or controversial portions of the articles in question to Operation Windmill Scrotum controversy. This should help stop the editwarring to some degree, as well as letting both sides have an opinion here. --LibrarianBrent 01:15, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

You may be on one side or other in the game, but this is neither in the game or in character. As for the "edit war" - if the article about The Pr(a)etorians wasn't so egotistical about themselves (non-NPOV) and an attack on a small part of The Many which had been leaked via multiple communication channels, I wouldn't be bothered.

Stop posting unrelated crap on the page. --ShaqFu 06:21, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

The September 8th attack was not the many. Removed. --Talain 06:57, 9 Sep 2005 (BST)

Is it necessary to have Giddings under sucessful attacks? While the Many delivered many casualties in the attacks, the thing has its own section and they've yet to be entirely successful. Unless they manage to completely purge Giddings, I don't see much point in having it in sucessful attacks when it has its own section -- Yarrio

Understood. When I added it originally I had no other place to put it. Then, when I added the section the other day I meant to remove it but must have forgotten. --Sankis

Should the Siege information be listed under the Giddings Mall entry, instead? I was going to ad some updates about the rapid ping-ponging control in different areas around the mall, but running news about the siege seems strange to put here.--Jeff 16:11, 23 Sep 2005 (BST)

I don't want to sabotage the entry, so I'm not going to edit it. However, should Giddings be moved to defeats now? It's been a week of inactivity, lots of rumors going around about members getting bored with the game, and PA rebel alliance was never driven out of Giddings. --Yarrio

The Giddings Mall entry might be the best place for it at this point. Given the several-day gap between major attacks, and greater zombie activity in areas farther away from the mall, it might be fair to say that The Battle Of Giddings was a human success. Subsequent conflicts should be considered 'The Second Battle of Giddings' or what not. It's a bit difficult, because it's easy to simply say, 'We're regrouping' or 'It's a siege' indefinitely.--Jeff 21:17, 28 Sep 2005 (BST)

Fiddled with the part about the September 8th attack on Giddings a bit, pointing out The Many's continued denial they were responsible for the attack. Summarized the info on the Seige of Giddings a week or so later under Defeats. Will move more detailed info on the siege to a new, seperate page. -CWD 01:37, 25 Oct 2005 (BST)

Insomniac By Choice, that was an amazing little piece you did there. Nicely captured the feeling of that time(which I remember clearly). Congrats. -Eater.

Thank you. Also, while some may believe "Scourge bias and faggotry" was once present, those quoted words in sniperwulf's first edit were also mine, albeit from a forum. I personally believe the Many is incredibly overrated and probably got more credit than they were actually responsible for, but at the same time I'm a member of a zombie horde (the Scourge) and know my roots. The Many is the father of the modern horde and took us from small roaming squads to the overwhelming armies we see today. I don't like them, I don't particularly like Something Awful, but they added something to the game that might never have been present otherwise. Anyone can edit this, but I think future edits, regardless of what you think of them personally, should acknowledge this.--Insomniac By Choice 22:20, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)

*whistles, cheers*--'STER 23:04, 1 Nov 2005 (GMT)

The Many Have Returned

The group is back and now active. Over 130 members on the stats page. Yagoton and Shearbank are decimated and in ruins.

Can the page be unlocked to be edited and reflect this and future updates? -TheScarecrow (talk) 02:08, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

We would need someone from way back when this group was originally active to make that request, and they'd have to be in agreement with the rest of the group (or could speak for them). You are always free to make a second group page, e.g., The Many 2.0 (or whatever you'd want to call it), or an event page The Many (event), for example. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 14:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply.

How would it be verified that someone from the original group that is making this request is actually from back then? I don't know how I can prove that for sure.

But if we made a page like you suggested, can a disambiguation page be made for The Many that links to the new page? Like Council of Leaders (disambiguation), for example.

When someone goes to the link that is on the stats page, they are only directed to the historical group page, which implies that The Many is an inactive group, which isn't true. --TheScarecrow (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

It would be really difficult to verify someone from the original group. The Many is so old that I don't know anyone from them, and I don't know anyone else who would. The edit history was old enough to have been wiped previously, so I don't have that to look for either.

And yes, usually when two groups/events use the same name, a disambiguation is created, e.g., The Many would turn into a page with a link to The Many (2005 group) and The Many (2022 group) such that someone would find both versions from the stats page.

However, I think people would get into a big fuss if I turned the entire page into a disambiguation, but I could add a disambiguation line at the top directing players to the 2022 group/event.

You can come up with a name for the group/event if you want. I'll let this sit for a few days before adding a link, just in case someone comes out of the woodworks with a comment or two. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be a better way to do this, I hate that we currently make it so hard for historic groups to come back and unfreeze their page. I think we should be making it as easy as possible for groups that return for nostalgic purposes. But the situation with The Dead is an absolute mess and should not be repeated for any other page.

I'm willing to be pro-active for situations that are likely innocent with groups that don't have a charged meta (ie many groups other than The Dead). For example, what if we migrated The Many to The Many (Historical), let them refresh The Many page, as long as they had a soft disambig notice at the top with "for the 2005 historical group, visit The Many (historical)"?

It would preserve the historical group, codify the new one as a continuation but not the actual same group and would hopefully be neater than the mess we created with The Dead. Oh, and it would probably be easier to reverse in the case of malicious or unapproved group 'hijacking'.

Thoughts? I'd be happy throwing something on Policy Discussion to ensure it's approved by the community. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION 12:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)