Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
i would like to create some collapsible tables, like this: http://anno1404.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Header
please copy and paste the text into this wikia:
only admins have access to the MediaWiki:Common.js page. Anno1404 16:33, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
Who is Rodriguez?
Who is Rodriguez? Anno1404 05:56, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I found my answer, http://zombie.wikia.com/wiki/The_Walking_Dead, "By an apparent proofreading error he is referred to as "Rodriguez" several times."
I think there is some confusion regarding the last name of Allen and Donna. In Issue 3, Shane refers to the twin boys Ben and Billy being hellions (as in rambunctious). This is not the family's last name. --Deftonesjunkie3 15:02, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
- thank you for alerting me to this, and fixing it, how embarrassing! It is rather annoying that we know so few characters last names...Anno1404 16:08, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, I wish there were more last names...especially when the same name gets used (like the two Chris's). Perhaps the TV Series might clear some of that up (looks like they gave Shane a last name). --Deftonesjunkie3 16:16, April 24, 2010 (UTC)
The missing character
- Yeah, we found (Tyreese) in the woods. He and (Michonne) attacked us. They killed Eric and Jim. We followed them into the woods...they got Daniel...but they couldn't hold us off for long. Thought you might like a chance to sit down and have a little chat with (Tyreese).
Daniel is not listed as character in this guide. Anno1404 04:10, May 6, 2010 (UTC)
- I'll look at it again. Maybe I can figure out who is who and get an image/article for them. They are more or less nameless Woodbury attackers, but if I can find good profile shots of them, I'll get them added. --Deftonesjunkie3 14:38, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to Joshness, we now have a more user friendly forum. The menu on the left now links to another forum page that is tied with Joshness' TWD podcast page. Let's hope this will increase traffic for both sites! --Deftonesjunkie3 14:26, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
http://www.imagecomics.com/schedule.php?d=20100602 - Volume 12 will be titled "Life Among Them" and continues the 6 issue tradition.
Is a twitter feed for twd-media.com really necessary?
I don't see the point of having twitter feeds as links on the main page. If we are going to link twitterfeeds then why not have the official AMC Walking Dead twitter feed? I personally feel a link to a fansite should suffice.
Deftone can you make a judgement on this?
--Joshness 19:35, June 29, 2010 (UTC)
standard monitor problems
As someone with a widescreen monitor, I did not notice this until today when I saw this page on a standard monitor:
|Monaco skin which will be replaced forcefully tomorrow (Nov. 3):||new wikia skin:|
Anno1404 21:16, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
- nevermind, looks like it will be okay with the new skin. Anno1404 21:31, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Man up Walking dead
This series needs to man up on some things. Like weapons, food, cars, etc.
I mean the show is ment to be in the USA and what are the Usa famous for?
Thats right.. Weapons, food, and cars.
Can it realy be so har to find some desent weapons in a country thats famous for an abundent amounts of guns?
They got more guns stores then gasstations. And way are they always out of food in a country famous for over fat people (no ofence).
Another thing is the crapy cars. Lets say the worild is like Walking dead, I sure as hell wont drive along in a crapy suv or a even vorse motormome that brakes down all the time. I drive that now. I wold pick the top of the top new car and motorhome so im safe from breakedowns.
Just some things like this that dosent add up in the show.Dont the carercters think like that if they wos real?
Dont get me wrong i realy like the show but some things like the above realy buggs me out.
- The idea, I believe, is that those things are both difficult to get to due to the mass amounts of zombie hoards, and a lot of them were already looted as the plague spread.
- Weapons were bought up and stolen as soon as the Military was overrun.
- Food was hoarded long before that, leaving grocery stores empty and picked over, unless they're in highly populated areas, which are too dangerous to risk getting to.
- Water is no longer pressurized in faucets due to the lack of power at city water plants. Only wells and natural sources of water would be available.
- Having worked at a dealership, I can tell you that locating the keys in any of those places for a specific vehicle is made difficult on purpose. Often they're in a locked box which needs two keys to open, and they're usually not labeled in a way that's easily identifiable to the public. Again, you're also having to travel to a dealership that isn't in a populated area, and risk your life going inside to explore.
- I wouldn't put it past the show to address these issues eventually, but I think there's an underlying time difference that isn't being accounted for. I think these characters are much further into the Zombie Apocalypse than we typically witness in most movies.
- — Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • contribs • email) 17:56, October 18, 2011 (UTC)
- Hi I just started watching the show...It is amazing. From what I can see I'm onna love this wiki too:)LepkiLuvsBuffy 01:42, October 21, 2011 (UTC)
I am brazilian, i love The Walking Dead, and i really want to help on this Wiki.
I Would to make a Portuguese/Brazil Version of Wiki, if the Admins agree with my idea, i know a Fansite Group of persons, they would help me on this job.
Thats a good idea, and on Brazil, The Walking Dead is growing alot.
Thanks and Waiting for an anwer.
Fernando Munhoz (Raw lobbs) 05:33, November 19, 2011 (UTC)
- you still here? obviously this wiki is rather understaffed. As no one responded. Wikiasmikia 16:16, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
is this morgan in the "nebraska"promo?
is this morgan in the "nebraska" promo?
there was a black guy with a handgun and (i think) morgans blue jacket aiming at glenn
- Added section title.
- Please seperate yourt sections by using == == otherwise your question will be ignored, as it was here. Wikiasmikia 16:16, December 27, 2011 (UTC)
The Walking Dead Wiki in Spanish
Hi! First of all sorry for using this space! I just wanted to let latino and spanish users know that I have created a wikia in spanish for the series! Everyone is invited to contribute if they want! It is not a copy of this wikia and actually is more about the television series than the comics, but need some help with some articles. Here is the link if anyone is interested http://es.thewalkingdead.wikia.com Thanks again for allowing me to use this space and apologize for the inconvenience!! ~RoR-El 15:38 27 jan 2012 (UTC)
- nice job! Since everything this wikia produces is under creative commons, you are welcome to use whatevr you like, with a attribution link in the edit summary or talk page.
- Thanks so much! I always use this wiki as a reference for the cómic section of the articles and even added the link of this wiki on the official description of the project. However, I also put the reference link for items that use a little of the material of this wiki! Thanks again! ~RoR-El 16:43 27 jan 2012 (UTC)
- Can we update the front page to Issue 93 Intayla 14:26, February 14, 2012 (UTC)
Hey guys I was just wondering why Merle is listed as alive? I know he will be back in Season 3 but technically shouldn't he be listed as unknown?
Axel TWD 01:12, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Well,if he's confirmed for next season, we know he's atleast living.
Dale&OtisRIP 9:32 p.m., March 26, 2012 (USA Eastern)
But we still don't know if he's alive not....he could be returning as a corpse :) Madison Lintz was credited even though she was a dead body in Nebraska! =D --Mistertrouble189 02:45, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Well i'm just saying. We know he'll return in Season 3 but as of now his character is technically unknown right?
Axel TWD 04:24, March 27, 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I don't know whether or not this is the right place to do this, but I don't see any other way. Each characters description is divided into "Pre-Apocalypse" and "Post-Apocalypse". However, the apocalypse is not a point in time, but a time span: Pre-Apocalypse -> Apocalypse -> Post-Apocalypse
So, something that happens Post-Apocalypse would happen after the last Walker on earth is killed.
188.8.131.52 09:26, May 31, 2012 (UTC)
Hi - My name is joletole, and I currently host the AMC wiki. I have just started this wiki, so it doesn't have many pages, but, it would be awesome if you could add the bottom template onto your wiki. Here is the link to the template: Template:AMCWikis. It would also be awesome if you came over and help create a page about your wiki. Best regards...
- Joletole (talk) 18:51, August 23, 2012 (UTC)
18 miles out
So im watching the episode 18 miles out and decided to look up some of the characters on this site and i noticed on Carl Grimes page it says "Carl did not appear in this episode." Which is funny since i just paused the video and I am looking right at him as i type this, not to mention other pages talk about him in this episode especially since he shows up quite often in this one showing his rebellion.
184.108.40.206 05:45, September 6, 2012 (UTC)
Canonicality of Game vs Comic/Novel
I think it should be made clear, to reduce as much confusion as possible, that the Telltale video game and the comic book/novel continuities are separate.
While SOME comic characters appear in the game, these seem to be nothing more than fan-nods to bring in, and appeal to, fans.
HOWEVER, the same could be said for the Comics vs the Novels. There are several times the word "zombie" is used in the text. Seeing as how George Romero's films were never made in TWD universe, the word "zombie" and their popularity might have never happened, which would make the word "zombie" or "zombi" exclusive to those aware of Haitian voodoo. Either this is a mistake on Mr. Bonansinga, or intentional.
Do you all remember Sophia from last Season? Unfortunately, she was turned into a walker (who else cried when she came out of that barn???).
Well, the actress lives on (LOL)! Her name is Madison Lintz, she is 13 years old, and she is still pursuing acting (you can see her as Ashley in the new film Parental Guidance). I also happen to be a 13 year old girl, and I happen to know Madi, and recently created a fan site for her.
So... yeah! Visit "Sophia's" fan page, if you will!
220.127.116.11 16:49, February 2, 2013 (UTC)Ellie
Order of characters
They should be in order from:
1.) Order of Initial Appearence
or 2.) Opening Credits order
The Walking dead #107
Today is the day we find out what happens to Carl! What has Negan done to him? Today we find out!~~WalkerKiller41~~
Disruptive user, disruptive admin
Have been engaged with an admin in an edit war; the admin (06abrahb) has been backing out a fact added to the preface of the article; I called him on WP:OWN grounds, and the fact was mysteriously moved to a new "trivia" section on the page. That's fine, irrelevant. The problem is the comment left by this admin on my talk page, after another user (Shellturtleguy, already on probation for disruptive behavior) noted (WP:AGF) that it had been in the "trivia" section. (Apparently the second user hadn't checked page history.) The question I have at this point is why is this 06abrahb an administrator when he's committed to vanity edits and retroactive covering of vandalism and doesn't understand that his tracks are all over the place? Dkendr (talk) 16:12, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
My messages to you were not disruptive or mean in any way. You're the one freaking out over something and harassing users. I'll let another admin sort this out. Shellturtleguy (talk) 21:13, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Also, read what I put again, because you apparently didn't read it correctly or are just deliberately putting words into my mouth. When BanishU or 06abrahb come back on, hopefully we can find a compromise or something, because neither 06abrahb or myself have broken any wiki rules. Shellturtleguy (talk) 21:21, May 2, 2013 (UTC)
Hello, admin lukesav1998 here. I have just looked into the situation and I would like to put my word in. The original claim by Dkendr that 06abrahb added his removed info into the trivia section after he called him on WP:OWN grounds is false. 06 originally removed the info from the introduction of the page into the trivia at 22:49, April 25. Dkendr then added the information back into the intro, along with numerous good edits, through . 06 then reverted all of his previous edits. Instead of doing this, he should have just removed the info from the intro as it was already stated, not removed all of his edits as they improved the article. Five days later, Dkendr undid his edit and called him out on WP:OWN grounds. During this, Shellturtleguy calmly told Dkendr that the info was already in the trivia section, and did not do it an aggressive way. When Dkendr was proved wrong, he called him a troll and harasser and said he did not want to play his "games". The proof that it was moved into the trivia before Dkendr called him out on WP:OWN grounds is stated above. I think it be best if Dkendr apologized to 06 for falsely accusing him of "mysteriously" moving the information into the trivia section after he called him out on it. I also think it would be best for him to apologize to Shellturtleguy, as he was never a troll, and the harassment issue was in the past and he has overcome it. Also, he was never playing his "games" with you. Finally, I believe 06 should apologize to Dkendr for removing all of his edits when the correct thing to do was just remove part of them. On Shell's comment above, that he and 06 broke no wiki rules, that is another problem. Our Wiki fails to have a proper rule system. I think it would be smart for the admins to get together, and make a set group of rules. -Lukesav1998 (talk) 01:30, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
We actually follow the broad wiki-rules, but I agree that some specifics could be established. I am already in the process of working on blog rules, so please leave that sector to me. I have talked to Liam about this on multiple occasions.
I know it isn't my place to really chime in on this, but it seems like something little got blown up into something it shouldn't be. A set of established rules would be nice, but it is just a shame that alot of hooblah is being made because a new user has a problem.... Magicandmadness (talk) 23:52, May 3, 2013 (UTC)
noinclude not working on template pages?
In what episode does Dale talk about his life before the zombie outbreak?
has Julie and Chris met Hershel Greene?
== Season 4 Airborne virus is survivable ==
At the beginning of season 3, i noticed Andrea had the exact same symptoms to the infection the survivors of season 4 are suffering from. Such as, extreme fever, persistent coughing, and chronic vomitting (which later results in death and reanimation from what we've seen from season 4). Andrea survived that, so it's a possibility that Sasha might as well. There still lies hope for those who contract it Minomik "The Cosmic" (talk) 11:35, October 25, 2013 (UTC)(:
It's not impossible for illnesses to have similar symptoms, because we have no idea what Andrea had or what Season 4's illness is, it's difficult to say they're the same.TPShadowDragon Born into flame! 11:48, October 25, 2013 (UTC)
There is no coincidence in this. The producers of The Walking Dead waited till season 4 to reveal the existence of "The New Threat" and how it found it's way into the prison, well it FOUND it's way to Andrea 1 season ahead of time at season 3's very beginning, she survived it. They just waited till now to mention it xD Minomik "The Cosmic" (talk) 16:18, October 26, 2013 (UTC)(:
That's a 20% possibility, and that's a character's perspective of what that infection is. They have no clue as to what it is, but i do know whatever it is, Andrea had it at the beginning of season 3 and i overlooked it because it seemed like something of little importance. Season 4 proved me wrong on that, as everything went to shit in the first 2 days after impact xD Minomik "The Cosmic" (talk) 21:41, October 26, 2013 (UTC)
It was the same disease and Herschel reinforced it when he said "It's not the disease that kills you, it's the SYMPTOMS of it". Andrea had ALL of those symptoms at season 3's beginning (Extreme fever, persistent coughing, and chronic vomiting), though she endured it and ultimately survived because she was able to get the medical attention she needed at Woodbury. And now Darryl, Bob, Michonne, and Tyrese are going to get the medical supplies the prison needs to survive.It's the same illness, though it just presented itself as a threat Minomik "The Cosmic" (talk) 21:44, October 28, 2013 (UTC) (:.
Lizzie killed Karen and David.
18.104.22.168 00:38, November 4, 2013 (UTC) jclary
- Nope, it's fine. --InsaneHippo (T|B|C)
I don't know how to update or edit anything, but I found this article regarding infants who played Judith. In case anyone wants to add the information.
22.214.171.124 03:50, November 28, 2013 (UTC)PrintDust
- Awesome!! Thanks for linking this! Will add to Judith's page. --Mistertrouble189 (talk) 04:34, November 28, 2013 (UTC)
do you think Judith is dead?
Front page video clip
Judith still lives.
There's really only one reason why this is so. When walkers eat people, they leave a big mess behind, like Blood, organs, ripped flesh, limbs etc, there was none of that surrounding the stroller nor in it (safe for a few bloodprints that could have been there for when they found the stroller). And walkers don't carry bodies to secluded locations then start chowing down (like those zombies from Day Of The Dead), the little boy who carried the stroller took Judith out of it and brought her aboard the bus seconds before it left the prison. Minomik "The Cosmic" (talk) 04:39, December 9, 2013 (UTC)
Poll on the front page
Shouldn't the poll on the front page be changed to "What was your opinion on the season Premiere of The Walking Dead: Season 2 by telltale games?"
Why do we have a Norman Reedus prank on the front page slider? What purpose does this serve the wiki? The is "The Walking Dead" wiki, not the Norman Reedus wiki. That prank slide has booted the game's slide off the front page...even though the game is currently releasing content that people want to read about. This slide is a waste of space and should not be on there. We are not here to show off pranks the actors do, we are here to provide good, updated content for "The Walking Dead." It is things like this that make me think this wiki is nothing but a marketing tool, rather than an awesome fan-site built by the fans. Sorry if I am coming across as harsh, but it is things like this that are annoying me lately. I request the slide be removed and replaced by a game slide showcasing the "A House Divided" episode.
- Why are the weapon pictures backwards?
The Glock 17, Beretta 92FS, Colt Python, and almost all guns pictures are backwards
LUKE AND MOLLY??????
Why is everyone saying Luke and Molly are dead??? We saw ONE BOOT! There are many other explanations for what could have happened to them. Why are we assuming it is them? I think thier status is UNKNOWN and MISSING.
I think their dead because there was flesh on the roads that Daryl and Beth came across possibly them?
Hi! I couldn't help but notice that the column tags on this page aren't done right, and it's glitching the page (especially so in Monobook skin).
It's a simple fix. Currently there are two
<mainpage-rightcolumn-start /> tags. If you delete the second such tag, the page will be fixed. Here's how I did it on my sandbox of a userpage. Can an admin take care of this? Thisismyrofl (talk) 13:49, March 19, 2014 (UTC)
Character main images
I was just wondering, is there a policy about character page main images being strictly episode caps and not promotional pictures? Because most seem to be from the episodes, but some pages here and there seem to have promotional pics instead.Sunshine4321 (talk) 05:21, March 24, 2014 (UTC)
I've made the Walking Dead Wiki Website
126.96.36.199 02:57, March 29, 2014 (UTC)Anon who's actually WalkingDead1998
Hey. Myself and a friend have started a zombie themed youtube channel called "Zombie Defence". Please support us by watching the videos, Likes, Subscribes or even sponsor us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Orcske-z4kw Random12 09:55, April 15, 2014 (UTC)
Community Vote #1 - Anon Editing
Hello all. This is our very first community vote. It will be on the subject of anon editing. Specifically the disabling of such anon editing across the entire wiki in all areas (editing pages, commenting, adding categories, etc.).
While there are some good anons out there and I respect their wants to not have to make an account, it is simply a sacrifice that has to be made to dispose of the majority of the wiki's trolls.
Please leave either a "support", "oppose" or "neutral" below stating your stance on the matter (example given as my stance below). Feel free to counter my argument above and give your own reasoning on the subject. Thanks!
Support Okay. So I think anon editing should be removed for the following reasons: First off, back in the day, yes, anons were helpful. They helped the community grow in the wiki's small days. Now, the community has grown so much, to an extent where there's enough registered users to afford to remove anons. Yes, there are helpful anons, no doubt. But they are such a minority it's worrying. Today, we keep undoing vandalizing or edits with no effort what so ever and removing and deleting rather unnessecary and offensive forum posts/comments.
As not all of the admins are online 24/7 it can take hours before an anon is banned, and sometimes that's even hard, with the amount of OTHER anons that needs to be taken care of in the first place. Any other site, (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, you name it) requires registration of an account to use the site's features. I believe this one should as well, as making an account is not at any costs hard to do. If you're gonna play the "I don't have time" card, there's not a time limit. Make it when you have time.
I also don't think anons will change. At this point, they will never learn nor listen. They will continue to use their anonymous identity as an advantage, to troll and pester. The fact that they use an IP can sometimes be hard to monitor as well, when several anons break the rules etc. This is why I want to disable anon editing. -- ~ Razor (Talk page) 14:42, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Frankly I'm not comfortable with the idea. There's a reason why staff dislike disabling anon edits, it takes away allot of the community aspects, from what is - at its base, a community site. Personally, I lurked on this site as an anon for over a year before making an account, and I edited quite a bit, I simply did not make an account. I don't see how it's fair to force users to make accounts to join the site, what exactly would it change? Maybe I'm wrong, but I think we can deal with a couple of idiots vandalizing every now and then for the sake of a massive part of the community. How long does it take to ban an anon, really now...
Yes there are a few bad eggs in there, but severing anons completely over it is just silly. And it's all very well saying that other sites require registration, but alas; we are not other sites. We are a wiki, and wiki's allow anon editing. This option was created as a short term shield against constant vandalism on small wikis just starting up. Not so the admins on a large wiki like this don't have to waste their time dirtying their hands. (T|B|C) 14:55, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose The home page says that "anyone can edit", why make anons create an account just to edit. I personally edit as an anon when I first came here, and also edit as an anon now when I cannot sign in or cannot be bothered to sign in. Anons really should not be treated differently then us. --Kovarro (talk) 15:19, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral There are a lot of good anons out there but a majority of them are nothing but trolls. All they do is insult users, start edit wars, troll, etc. I would do support but for right now I'm neutral on this as I really don't want to kick the good anons off the wikia. Pigpen077 (talk) 15:22, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I do not believe that anons should be forced to make an account if they just simply want to edit an article. Although many anons make rather dumb edit, there are still some really great anons that are not just trolls and actually make excellent edits. As someone who got here as an anon, I only believe it is fair for them to not enforce this rule. --Devinthe66 (talk) 15:28, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Some anons are good, some are bad. I think the main problem with them is that our ability to block trolling anonymous users can be a little slow. Just a thought, but perhaps if there were an ability for registered users to collectively vote (with a mandatory reason why) towards blocking an anonymous user, and when that vote reaches 5, that anonymous user would be blocked, and an admin can later review if that block was justified. That would help with the issue of anonymous users consistently posting spam when an admin is unavailable. It would also be a one-way system, so anonymous users could not vote to block registered users - it would only be available for registered users. Just a small speculative thought on an alternative solution. InspectorJ (talk) 15:34, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Some anons are funny, rational, and good. I believe in free speech, so let's not ruin it for the anons cause of a few bad apples. Besides they might just make accounts and vandel us Naruto Uzumaki (talk) 17:21, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose This wiki is for any fan of the walking dead who isn't a vandal and I think it should stay that way. also some of you may have noticed I made a poll on the video game, it got at least 100 votes, but if you drove the anons off I think I'd be lucky to get a third of that. I know that wouldn't bother most of you but that's my problem with it.--Gboy4 (talk) 18:08, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support I agree with Razor, when I first joined the wiki, there was an anon vandal every now and then but now it's just gotten out of hand and it's really annoying to deal with them. Most of the time admins aren't even on when an anon vandalizes or start edit wars, insult users, etc. Sure there are a couple of good, really good anons out there, I will not just let that slide, but there are more bad apples than good ones and those bad apples have spoiled it for the good ones. It's not like it's even that hard to make an account, all you need to do is have an e-mail address and be thirteen and older. All in all, I vote Anons shouldn't be allowed to edit anymore. Chief Beef (talk) 18:33, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Comment Referring to Grave's forword: "Please leave either a "support", "oppose" or "neutral" below stating your stance on the matter" So, do you mind? ~ Razor (Talk page) 19:25, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral Well i am neutral on this one and i have been on this wiki for a while now and i can say some Anons are down right rude,mean and hostile for no reason whats so ever but i know some anons do edit well but most are trolls.vandals or just completely annoying. --Bailey16 (talk) 19:04, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support Almost every single anon I see nowadays is either someone who vandalizes articles, trolls, or is just plain rude in blogs or forums. Yes, there are a few good anons here and there, but it's scarce. In the past, it was the reverse; most anons made great edits, with a few of them breaking rules. That has very clearly changed. The number one source of vandalism comes from anons. Disabling them would lower the amount of trolls, vandals, and hostile users that need to be banned, and it would make the wiki a much better place. It would be a huge benefit to the wiki, and I am willing to sacrifice a few good anons to get rid of the biggest problem that the wiki has. --
Support Not too much to say on the matter. I agree with Razor and Hippo, a large majority of anons are vandals or rude people on blogs and forums. A lot of wiki's have anon editing disabled and I think it would help here in the long run. - GhostWolf716 (talk) 19:59, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support Most of the anons vandalizes, trolls, adds nonsense to pages, etc. I believe they should lose all right towards everything, even making and/or commenting on talk pages, blogs, and threads. I support this decision. It might make the good anons get mad, but if they want to edit, they should create a profile. This decision will make this wiki more cleaner, and less confusion with the anons. TWDFan630 (talk) 20:02, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support - I've always been in favor of disabling anon edits. For as long as I can remember on wikis I've been apart of, anon editing was always disabled, and it worked just fine. You only get a handful of good anons, while the rest are just trolls that vandalize constantly, not to mention a lot of them can be extremely hostile and disrespectful, which is against our rules. It's not very hard to create an account anyway, it would be best for them to create them in fact, so we may give them more of a to stand out and chat directly with people on chat.
~ SilentGlaive Knowledge is power 20:40, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support Some users are making point about Wikia being a community, and that is my main point when I say this. Anonymous users aren't part of the community. We can't recognise them unless we click on their link and memorise their IP. In order to function as a community, we should know each other and be held accountable for anything we say. Equally, we should also receive credit for what good we do. That should extend to all users, but it's practically impossible with the current system. It takes less than five minutes to make an account. I'd argue that anyone who isn't willing to do that doesn't yet want to be a part of our community. Monsieur Thenardier (talk) 21:04, August 31, 2014 (UTC)
Support Im in favor of not letting admins edit articles. Honestly, the only edits ive seen anons make on articles are just vandalizations and small gramatical errors, and well yes, those edits are helpfull, but the ratio of bad edits to good edits is just too much to keep this going. I agree with some of the opinions that people have on why anons should edit, but im sure me and other users have had enough with cleaning up these unproductive edits. If they want to edit, all they have to do is make a profile. Its not like it cost money or anything, it literally takes maybe 5 minutes at most to make one. Therefore, I support on the case of not letting anons edit pages. -DominicT22
Support Wow I started a blog almost a year ago regarding this and it went nowhere... now everybody is talking about removing anon's editing rights. *sigh* anyway, it's a yes from me. If you want reasons just see the blog itself.
--The Grumpy Cat (talk) 02:50, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Comment Pops, I think the anons behavior has gotten significantly worse since when you posted your blog, ergo why nothing really happened. Another reason is, this is an official community vote. You just posted a blog with a poll on it (which anons also could vote on, may I include). So this is something that Wikia craves in order for us to make that change. -- ~ Razor (Talk page) 03:25, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose I have to oppose with regards to this idea. What is the point of "ostracizing" a huge number of our community (anons) for trolling and vandalizing when there are also contributors like that among our ranks. Like many others here such as Cam, I've also been an anon before and putting myself in that position again and after reading this just literally breaks me. We can't force anons to make an account and join our ranks just to be "in". This isn't about being a community anymore this is about being a "unified fandom". I am not gonna put dirt on both of my hands just to take away the privelege to comment nor kill their willingness and enthusiasm to edit insightful and accurate information. If users, staff, and admins are tired dealing with some of the anons' trolling and vandalizing ways.....Well, I'm not because as staff/user dealing with bad anons is my responsibility too. Without them just lessens it. --WalkerMaimer (talk) 03:28, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Support I was initially wanting to oppose on this, pretty much for all the reasons others have given...but then I started researching and saw some forums like this and decided to rethink myself. The comments coming from this specific forum are vile and are taking up space on recent activity - and they are all from anons. I know that we would be taking away the community vibe and will no longer be making this a wiki that you can just jump on and edit with no sweats being broken, but some people have unfortunately ruined it for others. With that being said, I would like to see what could come out of anonymous editing being disabled. --GRANDMASTA (talk) 13:42, September 1, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral tbh, i dont want this rule to be applied at all, but in the contrast with this rule being applied might gonna do good for the articles, as evident of how annoying anons acting up recently, notably after No Going Back got released to the public. but, the thing i am concerned of is this wikia being no fun at all again, like Cam said, this is a "community" where everyone is able to express their thoughts and contribute to add some information to their favortie pages, and frankly, if anons arent acting up again, Janitors wont have things t do anymore, though there are some users contribute bad edits, but, it wouldnt be the same. I know most of you wont take my reason seriously, because of how ridicolously the things i said above, but, come on guys. dont make the walking dead wikia, like left 4 dead wikia where almost everything in it boring, and so strict with no contributions from the fans, except for the staffs there (no offense intended)Bernadusandrew (talk) 10:40, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
- Supportoriginally neutral, but after ive seen some quite shits that anons contributed to this wikia, i am fed up with it. tbh, i am in favor too if anons arent given the option to make forums too, because, take a look at all the forum they made, unnecessary, and only triggers some unneeded dramas here in this wikia, such as the recent Luke kiling off bla bla bla forum in the video games section. if you want to contribute to this wikia, make an account, its free, and only takes some minutes, maybe seconds. - Bernadusandrew (talk) 02:33, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Support Initially I was going to go with a neutral, (typical Riley) but after some observations I personally feel that I need to support it, I understand there are SOME anons with good intentions about editing but they're so overshadowed by the vandals, trolls and the edit war types, there's also the odd case of a banned user hiding behind an I.P address to avoid their ban. I do understand some anonymous users wishing to remain anonymous for several reasons which frankly I can't be bothered to bring up.
Frankly I am partially neutral on the idea of it but with how I'm wording this it'd be taken as a support anyway. There are some good anons and some of us were anonymous users yes, but as mentioned above they're completely overshadowed by the ones who just cause nuisance. TPShadowDragon Born into flame! 18:19, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Well I might as well put my thoughts in, and I think anons should stay. There are of course detrimental anons, and sadly they tend to outnumber the good anons, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of anon editing all together. Quite a few users of this wiki I know lurked this wiki as an anon before joining. Including myself. Editing as an anon can get you used to the wiki more, and if an anon catches a spelling mistake or something like that, and anon editing is disabled, they probably won't bother making an account just to edit one or two pages so they'll be turned away and the mistake will stay. Not only that, but seeing as a lot of users edited as an anon before joining, we could be turning away quite a few potential users. Also, I don't think the number of detrimental edits will decrease too much. If it's supposedly little to no effort to make an account, then that wouldn't stop the "bad anons" from making accounts too, would it? Yes, some trolls probably wouldn't be arsed to make an account, but there are a fair few who really do have nothing else to do with their time. RelicRaider (talk) 19:22, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
Community Vote #2 - Demotion of 06abrahb
Hello there, fellow wikians! It is about that time to have to bring up a matter that has been concerning us for a long time, and I'm afraid that there is nothing we could have done to prevent this, but we will have to decide whether or not to demote 06abrahb from admin and bureaucrat, due to inactivity. It is clear that 06 has done an incredible job on this wiki, and his service to the wiki will not be forgotten, but we can't have an admin that hasn't edited in over three months. This is a matter that the admins usually like to discuss on their own terms, but since this involves a bureaucrat, we must ask all of you if this should happen, so we may send this off to Wikia Staff to demote 06 from bureaucrat. Be sure to think carefully before you decide to support or oppose, and listen to what the others have to say as well. Thank you.
Support - I don't have too much to add here. I agree with all that Glaive has stated as the reasoning for 06's demotion and believe that having an bureaucrat who hasn't edited in three months looks bad for the wiki. 06's demotion also opens up room for another user who has worked tirelessly on the wiki to get promoted to admin as a reward for their hard work. I am sure 06 has good reason for becoming inactive, however, there is just too many positives that come out of such demotion. So it is a support from me. -- Gravelord (talk) 18:55, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Now kids, I get it some of you think he's a good admin, but what good admin disappears for ages on a wiki and then shows up complaining about the changes someone else has made? Constantly reverts edits to how THEY want it even if it's been discussed among the community, lack of communication yes, but it'd be nice if it was discussed instead of a shitty edit war and THEN a discussion.
What do I know though? I'm just an ass who makes gifs on threads. I may be an ass, and I may make gifs on threads, but I'm also someone who's been on Wikia for around six years so I'm gonna have to say something as I've been involved in things like these before.
In terms of 06, I'll admit he is a fairly competant admin, but the issues I've noticed with him are something what I personally believe to merit a demotion.
His activity and claims that he observes the wiki every day he stresses. Now, I'm fine with checking a wiki every few days and making the odd edit or two, but he claims to have been on the observation for vandals, yes. Then why has he not banned vandals or anons who had been causing issues when no other admin was online? If he checked everday then surely he'd do something about it right? I've been involved in some of these and we'd asked some admins who (understandably were offline or just too busy to do anything) didn't answer our concerns. Now I'm not entirely using this as a fault for his demotion but it's something to consider, claiming to be on the lookout for vandals and just observing the wiki "EVERY DAY" he stresses doesn't really seem to work if there's been cases where no evidence has been supported with this claim.
His attitude is another thing, as shown here a lot of his tone was rather hostile with Glaive and he claimed to be "stressed" from how the wiki works, two options; be more active and contribute to the discsussion of changes or allow yourself to be demoted and go, if you're going to complain about something then at least do something instead of blaiming the same things. This is something to consider as well, he admits he's not up to date with TWD media, but how does that stop you from contributing edits to grammar edits, picture changes and so on, so fourth. He states that he's refusing to back down as an admin and 'crat because he doesn't want the place to be left to two "new" admins and a senior one who's on every now and then. If you're so concerned about not being demoted then why didn't you live up to your "trying" to be more active, from all I've seen the times you have been appearing are often complaining about changes or just edit warring shit to how you want it.
Wow @ long text, but this sums up my feelings around 06, yes he's a good admin, but a good admin shouldn't be allowed to stay an admin for so long after prolonged inactivity, hostility and almost no willing to reason to changes and only reverting ones he doesn't like, alongside rather shit claims.
All in all, he needs to go. If you've read all of this, I give you a non-existant fuck, if you didn't I understand.
Support - I for one agree with the points given by the users above me. We need Active Admins. The reasons brought by 06 got me worried and suspicious at the same time, either way you need to leave this post. We appreciate the contributions that you've done for the community. I hope you understand. Thanks! --WalkerMaimer (talk) 19:21, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Oppose - I disagree with being inactive calling for a demotion. Sure, if said person makes no attempt to speak for a long period of time, then a demotion is possibly in order. However, he stated he is going to be inactive. Also, I don't see this as a bad image for a community. I view Administrator not as a title you deserve and earn, but a status and job that is selected for those most qualified. I'd suggest we make contact before making any calls, and if is fine with it, demote him.
3 months isn't a very long period of time either. 6 or 7 months is a long period of time. Plenty of Wikians can be busy with College to do anything for a while. "having an bureaucrat who hasn't edited in three months looks bad for the wiki" is another statement I disagree with, because it heavily implies the idea of Quantity over Quality. If an Admin / Bureaucrat is a contributive member in blogs, chat, or just behind the scenes work, I see them as deserving of the position. Not that 06 is active in any of those, but the argument could be worded better.
I don't see anything wrong with being inactive, either. I doubt his account is at risk or any other complications. So other than rep of the wiki, his demotion isn't needed in my eyes. I already stated my opinion on reputation, so I have to oppose.
When he did come on chat to speak with me I let him know he was being considered for demotion on the basis of inactivity and other reasons Riley kindly pointed out in his comment here. I never got a reply from him as he left chat and never got back to me. Trust me, we have contacted him about this and it is not out fault if he does not know. -- Gravelord (talk) 19:42, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Support Virtually everyone has made their points above. 06 has been a great long serving admin and bureaucrat, but I'm sorry to say that he is now too inactive to retain the positions. Not being active all the time is understandable, but now he is not always online whenever a user contacts him. 06 and his contributing to the community will always be appreciated.
- ™ (talk • contribs) 21:26, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Support 06 was a good contributor in his time, but the fact is he's extremely in-active the last time he made an edit was in August. He's just not admin material anymore. I am full support of his demotion. - GhostWolf716 (talk) 22:10, October 8, 2014 (UTC)
Support I know what it's like to be an admin on here but busy with a whole load of stuff in your every day life...yet I still come on here to edit, block, and help out users. Even though I appreciate everything you've done for this wiki 06, and how you gave me many staff positions, I think it's time to let you go. --GRANDMASTA (talk) 00:07, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Support Although I don't contribute here anymore, I still come on about every day just to check up on the wiki and read any new info, and I have not seen 06 in the recent activity in quite some time. He has been a great admin, but if he is not replying to your messages and has been active then I think demotion makes sense. I'm sure there are many other contributors that could take his place if needed. -Lukesav1998 (talk) 00:32, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Neutral I dont feel comfortable for just throw him out of the window after everything he has done for this wikia, and all the the times he spared for making this wikia into what it is right now-ish. but at the same time, i am kinda in favor for supporting him to be demoted, because i never, i mean like literally NEVER in my entire existence in this wikia, and it's been a year now, seen him on this wikia. so, neutral from me. - Bernadus Andrew 08:34, 09 October, 2014 (UTC)
Support As stated above, 06 has been inactive for a long time and he has made no effort to return any of our attempts to contact him. He was a great admin back in the day, but his position would be best suited to a more active and well known user. Sorry dude, but it really is for the best. (T|B|C) 11:52, October 9, 2014 (UTC)
Support It's an admin's job to maintain the page. As much as he's given to the wikia at one time, he's not engaging the community anymore for some reason or another. The current admins are working really hard to keep the site up to date. He's not around anymore, there are plenty of other people who could fill the role, so it's only fair to them as well. TheCaulkingDead (talk) 21:58, October 10, 2014 (UTC)
Horses on TWD
I'd like to confirm the names of the horses and the episodes that they played in.
Blade made his appearance in S1 as The Siggard's Family Horse. (he's owned by Tommie Turvey)
Levi and Pants made their appearance in S2 as The Green's Family Horses. Levi played Nelly while Pants played the un named family horse. Then the 2 returned in the first episode of season 4 and stayed till the fall of the prison. Pants played Flame while Levi played the other horse that Rick and Carl were standing next too and Rick told Carl to brush the horse down before giving it a kiss and pat. (Levi and Pants are owned by Greg and Carol Tresan)
Greg Tresan appeared in 2 episodes of The Walking Dead. 1st appearance was in S3 and is attacked by 2 Walkers in Woodbury, his 2nd appearance was in S4 as the Walker laying in the road that Rick passes after sending Carol away.
Unlock to Update Current, Last and Next Episodes
Can someone either to update the Current, Last and Next Episodes on the main page or unlock the page please?
Community Vote #3 - B-crat Demotion of AxelTWD
Hello, hello. So, it was decided upon the other admins months ago that we were to demote Axel TWD from admin and bureaucrat. Once we reached a consensus, we stripped him of his admin rights, however, he still retains his bureaucrat rights. Since he was officially demoted, he has no further use for these powers, and I have constructed this vote to make it official whether or not he should be demoted from bureaucrat.
I formally resign as bureaucrat, so no need to proceed with the voting, unless you wish to. My apologies, I should have clarified this sooner. Thanks!
- Alright, then. Thank you for being reasonable about it.
~ SilentGlaive Knowledge is power 19:37, February 20, 2015 (UTC)
Can we remove this feature from all articles/pages, the main case in point is that they include spoilers/future spoilers leaked that users may not want and unintentionally see. Though I am aware that users must be careful to avoid pages which contain spoilers to avoid being spoiled themselves. e.g. A user who watches the TV show sees a spoiler in a top discission about a major comic event/death, since the comic is heavily tied in with the TV, that user might be spoiled for the show, even if they are careful to avoid comic series pages.
The same goes with leaked speculation/spoilers, that although might be talked about in discussion pages which users might avoid, and would normally not be spoilery for the user since they wouldn't be added to the pages e.g. a discussion talking about a future leaked death such as if Rick Grimes was confirmed dead by leaked information in say S07E03 people, this would not be in the article until the airing of that episode.
Or in another example, a user is partially completed one medium, avoids those pages, but discussion talks about future events.
The examples above applies to all medium (TV Series, Webisodes, Video Games, Comics, Novels, FTWD etc.)
Thanks, --FlashEmperor 21:49, April 3, 2016 (UTC)
Character Info Box/Episode Info Box
Could the character information/episode information boxes be reversed back to their original settings, the headings and the pictures are too big whilst the text is too small and it just looks less quality overall. --FlashEmperor 11:15, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
Hey there, can anyone tell me if fear the walking dead is in time with fear the waling dead, as in if the are in the same date
So I am a bit confused as to why Sasha, Tara, and Rosita were removed from the front page in place of Father Gabriel, Aaron, and Dwight when they are actually starring this season and the three guys are not? They have seniority and are actually in the opening credits, the latter for the first time in 4 years. I think it's just wrong and am wondering why it is. Thanks --Sam450 17:27, November 10, 2016 (UTC)
Monobook Main Page problem
The Main Page breaks the sidebar in the Monobook theme. It doesn't break the Oasis theme for whatever reason. The culprit is a second "<mainpage-rightcolumn-start />" following the block starting
<mainpage-rightcolumn-start /> <table width=100%><tr><td style="font-size:18px;">...