Gswiki:Village pump/Archive 009

Welcome to the village pump, where anyone can say anything about whatever, and people can respond! Yeehaw! Remember to sign your comments by putting 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end.

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)

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)

Recent changes RSS feed

The RSS feed for the recent changes list doesn't work on KP because it's generated with a blank line at the start, so I've set up an alternate version at http://www.flooey.org/kprecentchanges.cgi. It's the exact same thing, it just strips the blank line. Ildran 12:34, 16 January 2006 (CST)

FYI - It looks like the RSS feed is working as it should be. KP's software was updated to the latest development version with the server switch, so I'm guessing it was fixed then. - Oliver 21:31, 27 January 2006 (PST)

Question about Capitalization

I'm just merely curious if all the culture categories, or other such categories, should be capitolized. There are, currently, inconsistancies, which, sadly, is a pet peeve of mine. Being not a proper title, the word "cultures" should not be capitolized, I believe, and neither should the race name. IE, the category, Half-Krolvin Cultures, should be Half-krolvin cultures. Also, the individual race should be Half-krolvin, not Half-Krolvin. Dark elf got moved, but I admit for messing up on the category for Elven Cultures (which should be Elven cultures). However! Skill titles became proper nouns, so I've no idea what the admin thoughts are on this. -Belathus 09:39, 17 January 2006 (CST)

With categories, it doesn't matter much, since they're basically never linked in articles, they're just listed at the bottom of the page. They probably would look better as all being in title case. Articles definitely need to be lowercase unless they're proper nouns (which I think we decided that skill names were, for whatever reason), though, so the article names should be "Half-krolvin" and "Dark elf" even if the categories are "Half-Krolvin Cultures" and "Dark Elven Cultures". Ildran 16:40, 17 January 2006 (CST)

You decided that skill names are proper nouns in the style guide.  ;) Also, they're in title case everywhere I've ever seen, including in-game. I think whatever exists in-game is (or should be) the decision point. Anshou 20:59, 17 January 2006 (CST)

I created all of those categories using title-case as that is what seemed proper to me. As for the articles, I wasn't entirely sure how to handle them because I didn't see anything on that, so I decided on title case again as the name of an entire race seemed substantial to me. Anyway, how does one go about re-naming articles? Brassaldennar 17:39, 17 January 2006 (CST)

I don't remember if it's set up so that anyone can move articles on this Wiki or not. If you can move articles, there's a little tab at the top of the page (next to article, discussion, etc) that says "move". In case you can't, I'll go ahead and move them. The key thing is if you could think of a case where an article name could be used in a sentence without being capitalized, then the article name shouldn't be (except the first letter, since that's forced). Ildran 17:44, 17 January 2006 (CST)

It's really been bugging me, but cities have capitols, letters have capitals. - Oliver 07:29, 26 January 2006 (PST)

And yet you didn't fix it! ;) WELCHA 09:44, 5 February 2006 (PST)

Creatures & More

I was wondering if it would be a good thing to add creatures, with their combat statistics, location, hunting strategies, etc... What do you all think? Brassaldennar 18:29, 17 January 2006 (CST)

I don't see that as being a bad idea, myself. One could list a lot of information about greatures, including immunity to certain CMs or guild skills. It'd be helpful to a lot of people, so I'm all for it. -Belathus 20:04, 17 January 2006 (CST)

Sounds like a hell of an idea to me. Ildran 00:14, 18 January 2006 (CST)

What sort of naming style should be used for the articles? E.G. "Spectral Miner" or "Miner, Spectral"? Any ideas? Brassaldennar 07:37, 18 January 2006 (CST)

I don't think we should name them in the "Troll, Cave" fashion, even for heavily used types, and linking terms in that fashion in articles isn't really natural, which it half the point. Even for sake of clearer listings in categories, I don't think it's worth it. Better to just make a "Trolls" category and make it a sub of the "Critters" category. I think "Critter" is the most commonly accepted term for creatures or monsters in GemStone, so we should stick with that as the main category. I'll look into making a critter template too, to group common information such as level, type of critter, etc. It'll work similarly to the spell template. I'll also look into adding an article at Help:Style (critters). Oliver 08:06, 18 January 2006 (CST)

I agree, that sounds like the best way to handle it to me. BTW, how do you create templates? Brassaldennar 09:01, 18 January 2006 (CST)

They're basically just normal articles that exist in the Template namespace. Oliver 10:04, 18 January 2006 (CST)

I actually think "Creature" is probably the best term to use. I think "Critter" is more an affectation that people who have played the game for a long time pick up, it's not used in any of the official documentation anywhere. Ildran 13:16, 18 January 2006 (PST)

I'd like to vote for "creature" as opposed to "critter" as well. Fully aware we prefer to keep the template's contents to a minimum, there is a lot more I would like to see on every creature's page. Name, level, locations, BCS status, spells, abilities, skin, treasure, immunities, succeptibilities, AS/DS/boltDS/CS/TD(vs. each circle), to name a few. Sure it can always go in the body of the article, but including it in the template assures it gets there, and makes it that much easier to find. Ulthripe 18:23, 19 January 2006 (PST)

I personally dislike the use of 'critter,' if that counts for anything. Mestys 20:32, 19 January 2006 (PST)

Hey, what do I know, I just work here.  :) I'll go move some stuff around. Oliver 21:49, 19 January 2006 (PST)

(From the other thread, I too prefer "creature" to "critter".) But my question is, is it possible to have a column-headed list that you can click-to-sort (think Windows Exploder, where you can click-to-<sort | reverse sort> by filename, file type, date, size, et cetera) in a Wiki article? I know that you can do tables, and I'm cool with that, but I'm looking for something a bit more interactive. Krakii 13:55, 27 January 2006 (PST)

There are some MediaWiki people working on an expansion to the table system that would allow that sort of thing, but no, you can't do it currently. - Ildran 14:26, 27 January 2006 (PST)

Is it worth putting these tables up as-is (perhaps multiple copies, sorted multiple ways?) for the time being? I grabbed the information that somebody-or-other posted on the GS Boards, stuffed it into a database, and mangled it for my own use from there. Krakii 14:50, 27 January 2006 (PST)

In particular, one piece that I would very much like to see added to creature details is whether or not it is on the BCS (Base Creature Script), if that is something either that players can figure out from behaviour (many experienced players can) or that the GameMasters involved here feel comfortable getting into. Krakii 14:50, 27 January 2006 (PST)

<ahem> In other words... yeah, I agree with what Ulthripe already said, eight days ago. Krakii 14:50, 27 January 2006 (PST)

Since I have recently been making great use of Unravel/1013 with my Bard, I would suggest that the creature listing include approximate "mana available" numbers (from player-character experience, obviously) for both that Song and Mana Leech/516. I believe that these are different, since certain creatures "run dry" for my Bard while my Mage will still be Leeching mana from them. (The spell description for Unravel used to contain an explicit statement that half (1/2) of the mana Unravelled would be used to power the Song's renewal, but this has been removed from the current description. It may still be part of the spell's effect... just no longer in the description.) Krakii 14:50, 27 January 2006 (PST)

Great additions, I think "mana available" would be a great thing to track. Also, I think all the creature pages should just be big templates. Maybe with a text box for strategy/random comments at the bottom. For thoroughness and skimming ease. What do folks think? And for Finnigan's sake please sign your comments! Ulthripe 22:27, 27 January 2006 (PST)

D'oh! My bad; all of those were written at approximately the same time, and while I remembered to sign one, I left off the rest. Krakii 10:00, 28 January 2006 (PST)

Gah, I hope this turns out right, first time posting on wiki. I was hoping for an ambitious project before I knew of Krakiipedia, but now that I do I was hoping to post it here, and wonderfully this discussion was here. I'm hoping to attempt and compile a list of box lock ranges, the type of traps that those creatures spawn with, the frequency of plated boxes in general and per creature type etc. Before doing this I wanted to ask if there were any objections to the thought for whatever reason. GOLDENRANGER 20:59, 2 February 2006 (PST)

Personally, I feel that if you've taken the time to collect the data, and someone might be interested in it, and I'm sure someone is, then it should find it's way to here. Belathus 06:00, 3 February 2006 (PST)

Sounds like good information to include in the creature template. I'll go and addify it.  :) - Oliver 06:48, 3 February 2006 (PST)