Gswiki talk:Style guide/Storyline NPCs - Revision history

GS4-XERAPHINA: GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Help talk:Storyline NPCs to Gswiki talk:Style guide/Storyline NPCs: moving to subpage to Gswiki:Style guide

2023-10-09T20:24:19Z

GS4-XERAPHINA moved page Help talk:Storyline NPCs to Gswiki talk:Style guide/Storyline NPCs: moving to subpage to Gswiki:Style guide

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:24, 9 October 2023
(No difference)

VANKRASN39: response

2016-08-10T22:34:39Z

response

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 10 August 2016
Line 9:		Line 9:

	:::Dead is subjective, but still helpful IMO. It can always be changed later if their situation changes. My suggestion for categories would be status (alive/dead/unknown), known aliases/titles, race, gender, region, affiliations/associates, and relatives. That would serve the purpose of the box as being a "this NPC at a glance" sort of thing. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 00:15, 10 August 2016 (CDT)		:::Dead is subjective, but still helpful IMO. It can always be changed later if their situation changes. My suggestion for categories would be status (alive/dead/unknown), known aliases/titles, race, gender, region, affiliations/associates, and relatives. That would serve the purpose of the box as being a "this NPC at a glance" sort of thing. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 00:15, 10 August 2016 (CDT)

			::::I think I got everything, but didn't include region. Wouldn't ppl know region based on the storyline? It seemed a little redundant [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 17:34, 10 August 2016 (CDT)

THAYET at 05:15, 10 August 2016

2016-08-10T05:15:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:15, 10 August 2016
Line 7:		Line 7:

	::The clutter is what I was thinking about. I also considered a dead or alive field, but that is also subjective in GS. How about replacing Importance with Organization and then the Relationships can just be familial? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		::The clutter is what I was thinking about. I also considered a dead or alive field, but that is also subjective in GS. How about replacing Importance with Organization and then the Relationships can just be familial? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

			:::Dead is subjective, but still helpful IMO. It can always be changed later if their situation changes. My suggestion for categories would be status (alive/dead/unknown), known aliases/titles, race, gender, region, affiliations/associates, and relatives. That would serve the purpose of the box as being a "this NPC at a glance" sort of thing. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 00:15, 10 August 2016 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: response

2016-08-09T17:14:56Z

response

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 9 August 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
	:Importance feels like too subjective a statement for an infobox, personally. When I started putting them on pages I realized I really didn't know enough from the glut of information to make that call, so I left it blank. Relationship in general feels more important than family in this context but it does get weighed down very quickly as a field, so I'm not sure what to suggest there. Maybe a separate category for organizations or affiliations? Or leave it to familial relationships just to avoid clutter. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		:Importance feels like too subjective a statement for an infobox, personally. When I started putting them on pages I realized I really didn't know enough from the glut of information to make that call, so I left it blank. Relationship in general feels more important than family in this context but it does get weighed down very quickly as a field, so I'm not sure what to suggest there. Maybe a separate category for organizations or affiliations? Or leave it to familial relationships just to avoid clutter. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

			::The clutter is what I was thinking about. I also considered a dead or alive field, but that is also subjective in GS. How about replacing Importance with Organization and then the Relationships can just be familial? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

THAYET at 17:04, 9 August 2016

2016-08-09T17:04:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 9 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
	:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and help page and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and help page and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
			::Last night was the first chance I've had to sit down and do some wiki work, unfortunately. I appreciate the modifications. I'd like to work on getting this template as well as some general copyediting done on all the Landing's storyline NPCs over the next week. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

	Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
			:Importance feels like too subjective a statement for an infobox, personally. When I started putting them on pages I realized I really didn't know enough from the glut of information to make that call, so I left it blank. Relationship in general feels more important than family in this context but it does get weighed down very quickly as a field, so I'm not sure what to suggest there. Maybe a separate category for organizations or affiliations? Or leave it to familial relationships just to avoid clutter. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: Qs

2016-08-09T15:54:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:54, 9 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
	:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and help page and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and help page and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

			Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

VANKRASN39 at 15:28, 9 August 2016

2016-08-09T15:28:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:28, 9 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
	:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and ~~[[Help:Storyline NPCs\|~~help page]] and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and help page and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

VANKRASN39: response

2016-08-09T15:27:52Z

response

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:27, 9 August 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
	There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
			:The template wasn't built for more than 1 storyline. I made the template and asked for input on the template and [[Help:Storyline NPCs\|help page]] and this is the first response, so thank you. I'll work on adding more storyline fields. [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:27, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

THAYET: Created page with "There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see Drangell's page for what it's doing). Is there a workaro..."

2016-08-09T10:42:48Z

Created page with "There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see Drangell's page for what it's doing). Is there a workaro..."

New page

There presently seems to be an issue with the template being used to tag NPCs involved in multiple storylines (see [[Drangell]]'s page for what it's doing). Is there a workaround for this or is it something in the template itself that must be tweaked? [[User:THAYET|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET|talk]]) 05:42, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 9 August 2016
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		Should relationships only be familial relationships? Do people want the "Importance" field? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 10:54, 9 August 2016 (CDT)
	:Importance feels like too subjective a statement for an infobox, personally. When I started putting them on pages I realized I really didn't know enough from the glut of information to make that call, so I left it blank. Relationship in general feels more important than family in this context but it does get weighed down very quickly as a field, so I'm not sure what to suggest there. Maybe a separate category for organizations or affiliations? Or leave it to familial relationships just to avoid clutter. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)		:Importance feels like too subjective a statement for an infobox, personally. When I started putting them on pages I realized I really didn't know enough from the glut of information to make that call, so I left it blank. Relationship in general feels more important than family in this context but it does get weighed down very quickly as a field, so I'm not sure what to suggest there. Maybe a separate category for organizations or affiliations? Or leave it to familial relationships just to avoid clutter. [[User:THAYET\|THAYET]] ([[User talk:THAYET\|talk]]) 12:04, 9 August 2016 (CDT)

			::The clutter is what I was thinking about. I also considered a dead or alive field, but that is also subjective in GS. How about replacing Importance with Organization and then the Relationships can just be familial? [[User:VANKRASN39\|VANKRASN39]] ([[User talk:VANKRASN39\|talk]]) 12:14, 9 August 2016 (CDT)