Gswiki:Village pump/Archive 002

The Creature Box Database Begins!

Well, a good while after I stated my intentions I've finally been building up enough box data to give some hopefully decent data on creatures regarding their box data. I'll share my most thorough example so far here.Behold!

Numbers at the bottom are all the lock sizes, up here are trap sizes and their corresponding locks.

Lesser Vruul (45)

• ACID TUMBLER (-134, -330)(-142, -395) (-193, -495)
• BOOMER (-96, -355)
• DARK CRYSTAL (-111, -390) (-139, -495)(-140, -515)
• FIRE-RED H/V (-80, -315)
• GLYPH (-68, -15)(-71, -290)(-78, -320)(-124, -460)(-141, -550)
• JAWS (-12, -15)(-65, -305)(-81, -395)
• NEEDLE (-87, -345)(-127, -425)
• RODS (-150, -395)(-196, -525)(-221, -545)
• SCALES (-189, -450)(-192, -420) (-218, -515)(-271, -550)
• SCARAB (-77,-30)(-107,-295)(-122,-340)(-123,-310(-138,-335)(-145,-390)(-161,-405)(-165,-395)(-168,-420)(-179, -420)(-183, -430)(-194, -480)(-205, -545)(-206, -480)(-211, -520)
• SMALL H/V (-77, -350)(-95, -385)(-194, -460)
• SPHERE (-127, -320)(-162, -470)(-182, -540)(-195, -550)
• SPORES (-140, -355)(-174, -455)(-190, -475)
• SULPHUR (-135, -345)(-137, -375)(-138, -320)(-147, -405)(-149,-385)(-202, -545)(-221, -510)

(-10)(-15)(-15)(-30)(-30)(-30)(-285)(-290)(-295)(-295)(-300)(-300)(-305)(-310)(-315)(-315)(-320)(-320)(-320)(-325)(-325) (-330)(-335)(-335)(-335)(-335)(-340)(-340)(-345)(-345)(-345)(-350)(-350)(-355)(-355)(-360)(-365)(-370)(-370)(-375)(-375) (-380)(-385)(-385)(-385)(-385)(-390)(-390)(-390)(-390)(-395)(-395)(-395)(-395)(-395)(-405)(-405)(-405)(-410)(-415)(-420) (-420)(-420)(-420)(-420)(-425)(-430)(-430)(-435)(-435)(-450)(-450)(-450)(-450)(-455)(-455)(-460)(-460)(-460)(-460)(-460) (-460)(-470)(-470)(-475)(-475)(-475)(-480)(-480)(-480)(-480)(-485)(-485)(-485)(-490)(-490)(-490)(-495)(-495)(-500)(-510) (-515)(-515)(-515)(-520)(-520)(-525)(-540)(-540)(-545)(-545)(-545)(-550)(-550)(-550)(-550)(-555)(-555)(-560)

Any suggestions for a topic name under the Creatures Category? I'm hoping to have a raw data page where people can add their boxes to the collection and find new averages, means, and ranges for particular creatures! Hoping that it might also help those looking for lock components if ever enough boxes are on here to make trap ratios anything close to what they really are for the creatures. Any and all suggestions welcome, going to be a slow but steady process getting this info onto individual creature pages, just wanted to share the very beginning. GOLDENRANGER 18:21, 20 March 2006 (PST)

Nice info! There is a section of each creature template where the box difficulty goes. As far as where the data collection takes place, I suggest using the corresponding talk page. For instance, the article Lesser Vruul would contain the template:creature where the actual value would be displayed. The talk:Lesser Vruul page could store all the data as its being collected. As for which value should be displayed there (range, mean, or average), its hard to say which is the most appropriate. *SammichKing*..who?..wha? 23:18, 20 March 2006 (PST)

I'll actually start adding some of the boxes and difficulties along with footnoted descriptions and relevent information about them from play.net for creatures I have a threshold of 30ish or more boxes on Tuesday after I've turned in a stubborn paper I'm writing. GOLDENRANGER 13:37, 23 March 2006 (PST)

Guilds, Guild Skills, and Categorization

I changed/moved some stuff around for consistancy. Please disagree/discuss at will. *SammichKing*..who?..wha? 04:38, 25 February 2006 (PST)

More on Dates

So, I have made an article out of a date, some time ago. Wikipedia does it, I figured we could do it for Gemstone's history. However, looking through the Special:All pages list, I realized that, well, a date that shares a spell name might have some issues. (Additionally, the page 928 needs to be deleted.) I'm not sure if the bot will change an existing page to a redirect if it's changed in preference of the date or not, or if I should give up on the idea of making articles on dates. In all honesty, not making articles based on dates wouldn't harm me too much. Lastly, if there were a special page that listed all the templates, that'd be quite handy. I'm trying to figure out if there's a disambiguation template made already. Anyway, I made one, just in case. -Belathus 20:00, 22 February 2006 (PST)

I'm not sure how useful date pages would be for most years. I mean, there's not often going to be more than one thing that happened in a particular year, other than perhaps the years 5000+. So it seems reasonable to only create pages for years where a whole lot happened.

Don't worry about the bot, it only checks if the page exists and creates it if it doesn't, it won't touch pages that already exist.

As far as the special page, you should be able to go to Special:All pages and there's a dropdown at the top called "Namespace". If you switch that to "template" it will show you all the templates. - Ildran 20:15, 22 February 2006 (PST)

Number articles should point to appropriate spell articles before anything else, as it's more like that someone searching for 1615 is looking for the paladin spell rather than the year. Could name the articles something like 145 (BME) and 145 (ME) refering to the Modern Era and before the Modern Era. Personally, I don't even really like this modern era stuff. The change overpoint seems entirely arbitrary, with nothing of any particular import having happend at year 0, but it's better than nothing? Maybe we should adopt our own standard for KP. BKP and AKP, muahahaha! - Oliver (User | Talk) 07:32, 23 February 2006 (PST)

Patriarchs

Alright, I was just adding in important relatives and predecessors and replacements for all the Patriarch's individual pages, and the way I am looking at it, its kind of ugly. I need a way to pretty it up, anyone have any suggestions? I do think it is important to keep the relatives, and then Patriarch line sections separate from the main body, but thats just my take on it.IRVINETOMOE 10:21, 13 February 2006 (PST)

Check out Korthyr Faendryl, newly outfitted with the template:succession box I borrowed from Wookieepedia (yay open source!). The bloodline entires are still a bit bland IMO, but I decided against utilitzing WP's family tree. GS history just ins't dense enough to warrant a full-blown tree. Does anyone else feel that these articles all belong in category:Faendryl Patriarchs, which would be a subcategory of category:Historical Figures? *SammichKing*..who?..wha? 14:32, 13 February 2006 (PST)

I think that might be a bit excessive with categories. You could include the article in both categories, but excessive sub-categorization just makes articles harder to find, IMO. Thoughts? - Oliver (User | Talk) 22:07, 13 February 2006 (PST)

Character Categories

Irvine pointed out to me that there was no existing category to put the Unsenis Ignaas article in. Thus category:Historical Figures was born. How do folks feel about the naming of this category? Should it be added directly to category:World, or should a sub-category entitled category:People be created, and category:Adventurers (PCs), category:Characters of Import (NPCs/GMPCs), and category:Historical Figures (characters which only exist in documentation) exist within? Ulthripe 12:55, 10 February 2006 (PST)

Dates

I moved my previous comment to this section. I am going to start working on Months, Days, Holdiays and Years. I've always been fascinated with history in general and this seems like a good way to begin. I have started by posting a very small article on Lormesta. I'm taking a little free time during work to do this so I won't get very far at first. My next step is to move on to the next months and get them set up.

I'm particularly curious what your thoughts are on templates for the Month, Day, Holiday and Year articles. ::Lavastene 12:19, 10 February 2006 (PST)::

What are your thoughts on formatting for years? I've been trying to find something that I would feel comfortable editing and I have decided that years wouldn't be a bad thing. I'm looking at the format on wikipedia that they use for their years. An example I pulled was 1979. I was going to start on 3961 but of course there isn't a template for yearboxes right now. ::Lavastene 11:24, 10 February 2006 (PST)::

I think days, months, and holidays could probably just be laid out as regular articles. There's not a lot special going on there, and once they're all there, there aren't likely to be any major changes pretty much ever.

Years seem like they might benefit from a thought out style, though. Feel free to mock something up that you like the look of. I don't think there's much need for an infobox for years, though, since I can't think of anything that one would really want to put in there. - Ildran 12:32, 10 February 2006 (PST)

Argh! Post new things here at the TOP of the page. Makes it easier to clean out later. I'm moving this section up. - Oliver (User | Talk) 13:11, 10 February 2006 (PST)

Main Page

What do you all think of the changes to the Main Page? Comments? Suggestions? - Oliver (User | Talk) 07:02, 9 February 2006 (PST)

I like the new section on the main page, but it looks like there is a part blank, at least when I view it. I see two columns, the first with "The GS Universe" and "Featured Article," but on the second column the top frame is just a blank grey box, and below it I have a blue box with the "Growing Pains" section. I'm using Firefox if that matters, but I checked in IE and it does the same. Kyre 17:11, 9 February 2006 (PST)

Haven't thought of anything to include there yet.  :) - Oliver (User | Talk) 17:18, 9 February 2006 (PST)

That would explain it then! Don't you love that period of time when you first get involved in something and you just go blundering along questioning even the most obvious things? What I think would go great there would be some type of graphic, maybe a map? But I'm not sure how this wiki stuff handles images. Kyre 17:31, 9 February 2006 (PST)

Category Questions

A couple questions about categories. Is it possible to link to a category page? For instance, if I want to link to the "Spells" category page, is there a way to do that? Second, is it possible to have an article also be a category? For instance, the Elven cultures category would seem to fit better under the Elf section of the Race category rather than it's own top level category, but I'm not sure if that's possible. Just as a personal note, this is my first time being involved with anything like this, so please let me know if you see anything wrong with any of my edits, or have any suggestions. Thanks! - Kyre 19:46, 8 February 2006 (PST)

First off, your edits are looking very nice so far. Keep up the good work!

As far as the categories thing, yes, you can link to a category by doing [[:Category:Spells]] (note the colon in front), which will show up as Category:Spells. For the second question, no, you can't do that, but you could make Elven cultures a subcategory of the Races category, which would make sense. You would do that by putting the category description article for Elven cultures in the Races category in the same way as putting a normal article into a category. - Ildran 20:05, 8 February 2006 (PST)

I'm not sure its entirely appropriate to link to an article's own category (ie CAST (verb)) within the body of the article. Its quite superflous since the category link appears at the bottom of the page anyways. In that particular case, I believe verb should link to a definition of what a verb is. Furthermore, it may also be overkill to link to Category:Spells, and should probably link to a casual definition of what a spell is. At very least, a blurb about what a spell is should appear at the top of category pages, if we are to link in that manner. Ulthripe 17:52, 9 February 2006 (PST)

Cleaning

Will this page ever be cleaned out? Some of the information here doesn't really need to remain. It could be just kept in the history. Just a thought! Belathus 12:59, 7 February 2006 (PST)

We'll probably archive it every so often when the page become unweildly to navigate. - Oliver (User | Talk) 18:53, 7 February 2006 (PST)

I cleaned up a bit. From now on, if you haven't already, when adding new sections to this page, do so starting at the TOP of the page, just below the little intro blurb. It'll make cleaning the page out easier in the future.- Oliver (User | Talk) 07:02, 9 February 2006 (PST)

Standards of Titles

So, I'm making a list of Rogue Guild skills for the linked topic, and, I know that topics exist for each skill, albeit, all of them are stubby except the one or two. Then, I realize, the titles don't match at all. Some are capitolized, some are plural, some are singular, etc. Now, when I made the page for stun maneuvers, I believed that it would not be a proper noun. After our discussion about skills such as Polearm Weapons, I realize that this should, indeed, be a proper noun. So, I suppose that now we're going to have to go through and turn all the combat maneuvers into proper nouns. Fun! Given this, I assume that Stun Maneuvers should also be plural. It's irritating that I have to go back and fix my work, but such is the lesson learned. Now, I suppose the question remains that, when dealing with proper nouns, which pages should be redirected, and which should be deleted? I'll leave the answer to that to our beloved admins, since I can't go through and delete pages. Belathus 12:59, 7 February 2006 (PST)

Same-Page Anchoring

So, I'm wondering if we can (or even should) link to a particular heading within a page. On the 725 page, I'd like to elaborate on the specifics of each ability, but thought that making a page for each ability was a bit overboard (GUARD (minor summoning), EAT (minor summoning), etc.). So, I'm thinking I could just go into detail about each ability on the main spell page, and have the ability's name in the table link to that header. Any advice is welcome. Ulthripe 18:11, 6 February 2006 (PST)

You can use subsections for this. Check out the table of contents at the top of this page and see how it auto-generates. You should be able to manually link in the same manner, like this: Krakiipedia:Village pump#Same-Page Anchoring. - Oliver (User | Talk) 07:52, 7 February 2006 (PST)

Thanks! Everyone feel free to take a peek at the new & improved 725 page. Ulthripe 17:10, 9 February 2006 (PST)

In-Universe versus Real-World Writing

I was recently browsing through the Wookiepedia (which is all about Star Wars, if you didn't get it) and they have a distinction between in-universe articles and real-world articles. Specifically, they divide the writing styles of the articles based on their subject matters. People, places and events are written from an in-universe perspective, essentially as if written from the perspective of someone who exists in that universe. Other articles, such as articles specifically about the two movie trilogies, the various novels and comic books, games, etc., are written with a real-world perspective. All the things that only exist in the real-world. It makes sense.

So, the meat of it. Do you think we should institute this sort of writing standard for Krakiipedia? I could see it benefit heavily in some areas from strictly in-universe writing.

Oliver 07:33, 3 February 2006 (PST)

That link ruined my life! I havent eaten, slept, or left my computer for 3 days! Ok more like 12 hours but still. Whats my favorite page you ask? The World Devastator of course! Nothing quite like the power to suck up a planet and spit out an army. Even though its just a ripoff Star Forge. One could argue that the Sun Crusher is a far more powerful weapon... Ulthripe drones on in a geeky voice Ulthripe 01:59, 6 February 2006 (PST)

Yeah, I spent an inordinate amount of time reading through that Wiki too. I would just pick an article and keep opening new tabs from interlinked articles that looked interesting as I read. I know way more than I need to about hyperspace drives now. - Oliver (User | Talk) 06:04, 6 February 2006 (PST)

I think that'd be pretty cool. The stories being added already do that to some extent, and I think there'd be plenty of people willing to write IC about events they'd taken part in. People, places and events make the most sense, too, since those aren't likely to have a mechanical, numbers-esque component. Of course, I guess monsters wouldn't be considered "people" per se, so maybe a distinction between GM controlled/ story-unique people versus the NPC-monster variety. Doom Duck 00:37, 5 February 2006 (PST)

Basically any article that isn't about a system would likely be a candidate for being written from an in-universe perspective. Basically, it'd just be considered on an article-to-article basis. There wouldn't really be any hard rules about what should or shouldn't be written in universe. - Oliver (User | Talk) 06:04, 6 February 2006 (PST)

I've started writing some articles using In-Universe perspective. Check out Illistim and Elf and Ashrim for very brief examples. I kind of like it, personally, but we'll see how it goes. I figure if we start doing this, then we'll just branch off information that is not in-universe or just list it below a certain point in the article under a subsection named something like "Under the surface" or something. - Oliver (User | Talk) 07:02, 9 February 2006 (PST)