Geneforge wiki?

Pages

AuthorTopic: Geneforge wiki?
Shaper
Member # 3442
Profile Homepage #25
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

I guess I'm still thinking of a EE-type project--a unified information source for everything we know about Terrestia and Shaping--rather than any gameplay stuff. I would prefer an in-character style most of the time, but I'm not against an out-of-character perspective when necessary.

Dikiyoba.

Seconded. I'd seen it as more a place to go read about Sucia Island, for example, than a place to find out which kind of sword was best to beat Monarch, or whatever.

--------------------
Nikki's Nook - White, two sugars. :)
Posts: 2864 | Registered: Monday, September 8 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10488
Profile #26
Heh... it was my search for an article on Sucia Island to link to that made me suggest this in the first place. :) (I ended up linking to Wikipedia's Geneforge article instead.)
Posts: 334 | Registered: Friday, September 14 2007 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #27
What do you think about the following standard: using a "=== Gameplay Information ===" section for any out of character information we may want to include? This preserves the main article text in the EE tradition while allowing for inclusion of OOC info without contorsion.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #28
quote:
Diki:

I guess I'm still thinking of a EE-type project--a unified information source for everything we know about Terrestia and Shaping--rather than any gameplay stuff.
quote:
Nikki:

Seconded. I'd seen it as more a place to go read about Sucia Island, for example, than a place to find out which kind of sword was best to beat Monarch, or whatever.
quote:
Slarty:

I do think it would be nice to be able to say "The Guardian Claymore provides a +2 Strength bonus" rather than "The Guardian Claymore enhances the physical prowess of those who wield it."
Wait, wait. I'm beginning to see that what we have here isn't one idea, but two.

Would there be a point in creating both a Gameplay and a Story project? These could be very well integrated - for example, such that the IC and OOC pages of the same article - "Guardian Claymore" link to each other in the sidebar or as a tab. Or if that is not a good idea, the portals could be separate and only loosely related - being on geneforge.ermarian.net and terrestia.ermarian.net, respectively.

Any ideas? :)
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10488
Profile #29
If it's two ideas, I would favour having one wiki but with an extra namespace called, perhaps "Gameplay".
Posts: 334 | Registered: Friday, September 14 2007 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #30
No, it's definitely not two ideas. Besides what's quoted above, I also said that I think a FAQ type wiki is pointless. I was simply suggesting that, in the absence of a scenario creation program and a fanon community, I didn't think it was necessary to be as strict as EE in pretending we didn't know we were talking about a video game.

I particularly dislike the separate namespace idea. Even with sidebar or tab links, that becomes a hassle to organize and to navigate. It's extra work for us, it's extra clicks and time spent for site users, and I don't see what it adds. What exactly is the problem with having OOC information, if there is any we deem relevant, on the same page? In all likelihood there would be very little.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10488
Profile #31
I suppose it's fine in certain situations. Like, as someone said, saying an item gives +2 to strength rather than saying it enhances your strength.

Maybe have a marker (like the Wikipedia-style spoiler warnings) to label larger chunks of OOU info.

Speaking of spoiler warnings, they would probably be a good idea too.

Edit: Many book series have their own wikis, despite not having anything that could qualify as a "scenarios creation program". I don't think the lack of a scenario editor is a problem at all.

[ Tuesday, January 15, 2008 13:13: Message edited by: Celtic Minstrel ]
Posts: 334 | Registered: Friday, September 14 2007 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #32
My concern is that if the project is not separated clearly enough, its scope will eventually become biased toward one or the other of its goals. Should the OOC be mixed in with the IC? Below it? Above it? Hidden in a spoiler tag, even? Or vice versa?

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #33
Spoiler warnings seem kind of redundant. If you don't want spoilers you have no business reading an encyclopedia about the game world. Common sense really, and otherwise we'd have to slap them on everything.

The books and series that have their own wikis tend to be sprawling series with large fanonical communities, the other thing I mentioned besides the editor. Geneforge has no fanon, really.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #34
... yet.

Would the existence of such a thing be an undesirable result?
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #35
Simple fact: Geneforge is not going to have that kind of community. Without either (a) some kind of mass media publication of the sort that fantasy novels and TV shows enjoy, or (b) a scenario editor as accessible as BoE was.

Personally, I would really like to avoid total fabrication in ET. That way there's no need for an Apocrypha / Sourcing system like we use in EE now. Reasonable extrapolation is one thing, but genuine fanon is another.

Perhaps a good way to put it could be as follows:

1) "The primary purpose of ET is to organize and present information about the world of Geneforge, as presented in the games."

2) "Other information may be included provided it neither conflicts with nor muddies this primary purpose. Such information should be clearly labelled and separated from general content."

#2 suggests that anything besides story/world information can be included if there is a compelling reason, but it should be clearly separated and labelled. I really think page sections are the simplest way to do this; either "Fan fiction" or "Gameplay details" or whatever.

The only thing this interferes with is the stupid conceit that the encyclopedia is actually written IN the world of Geneforge. Which adds nothing. An encyclopedia project is not an RP. The general content can be written in the same realistic tone without fabricating a Defniel University. :P

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #36
If Aran made a Geneforge Wiki, I would happily do a ton of the entries myself. And I support the position of keeping everything canonical, unlike all that Ermarian (even the name is fanon) nonsense.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Guardian
Member # 6670
Profile Homepage #37
Y'know, I think very few game wikis have the same level of fanwank that the EE does. In any case, there's no need to make the tone of the entire wiki the same. Take the FreeSpace wiki. It's hardly monolithic - there's mission walkthroughs, modding instructions, in game descriptions of races, characters, etc., stats listings for all ships, and so on. The whole point of a wiki is the ability of average users to post what they want for the benefit of the whole. So long as a page isn't incorrectly categorized, I can't see why it would be a problem for the Geneforge wiki to be more than just a walkthrough, or just in-game descriptions, or whatever.

--------------------
Beernuts!
Posts: 1509 | Registered: Tuesday, January 10 2006 08:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #38
Nalyd thinks that we should have a clear and simple division. One page (or more likely section) for the IC, and one for the OOC. Perhaps even label them In Character and Out Of Character. Much easier that way.

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #39
quote:
Originally written by Slarty:

I do think it would be nice to be able to say "The Guardian Claymore provides a +2 Strength bonus" rather than "The Guardian Claymore enhances the physical prowess of those who wield it."
Oh, all my entries would most definitely be in character.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #40
Dintiradan put it well.

I'll suggest we adopt my two statements above (to start with; not in immovable ink, and certain open for debate or rewording). Since the primary reason we're making the wiki is the game-world information, let's have that be the default type of content for a section and not require a section header. Gameplay information can go under a "Gameplay information" section header. If later on we start putting too much in for one section, we can decide to split it up for certain types of entries (creations are all I can really think of where this might apply). Fanon should probably be avoided, but if any is relevant it should go under a "Fan fiction" header.

If we ever decide to put in information that is entirely FAQish, such as build advice, we can develop a separate structure for such entries and categorize them as something appropriate. Though I don't think that's likely to happen.

To summarize, an article would consist of the following:

- One or more sections detailing in-world information. Typical sections might include Biography, Location, Physical Appearance, etc., just like on EE.
- Optionally, one section titled "Gameplay information"
- Optionally, but very rarely, one section titled "Fan fiction"

I've also been working on a very long list of stuff that probably deserves an article, using batch find and all four game script sets, which I'll post up once the wiki is up and running.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10488
Profile #41
Huh... this was active for a couple of days or whatever, and now has been apparently forgotten...

I'm just wondering if you're all still interested. I know I am, even though I haven't bought them yet.

Unhasty's suggestion above is quite a good one, if this actually happens.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Friday, September 14 2007 07:00
Guardian
Member # 5360
Profile #42
Nalyd is in, though you'll have to tell him what you want.

--------------------
Fear us, mortals, but never envy, for though we burn with power, our fuel is our sorrows.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Wednesday, January 5 2005 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #43
Yes, let's do this.

Aran, let me know when the wiki is online -- at your convenience, of course -- and I'll get started working on the basic structures.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #44
What about the endless factional debates? You can't just leave them out, but there have already been plenty of debate threads on these boards, and we don't need a second place for individuals to fight it out over whether Takers or Shapers are better or more evil or whatever. The ideal would be to make an archive of concise best statements of the cases for the various sides, and leave it at that.

Despite the ideal of a Wiki, I think that open editing of argument summaries would immediately just turn the argument archive into a debate forum with even less moderating than we have here. So there would have to be some way of approving who writes what.

If Aran hosts the site, he should just decide despotically, after taking whatever advice he wishes. I think that among the people here who have shown interest in these debates there are probably enough level headed and capable writers to champion each side. For that matter, there are probably several people who could summarize all the arguments well and fairly, regardless of which they personally supported, if any.

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Infiltrator
Member # 65
Profile Homepage #45
This idea does sound really interesting and I like the idea of some sort of IC/OOC combination.

For the record after several boredom/curiosity induced internet searches I can say there is a Geneforge fandom of sorts out there.

--------------------
Milla-Displacer Beastie

This is also a good site
Posts: 650 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #46
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

For that matter, there are probably several people who could summarize all the arguments well and fairly, regardless of which they personally supported, if any.
Yes, I believe I already volunteered.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Shock Trooper
Member # 10488
Profile #47
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

What about the endless factional debates? You can't just leave them out, but there have already been plenty of debate threads on these boards, and we don't need a second place for individuals to fight it out over whether Takers or Shapers are better or more evil or whatever. The ideal would be to make an archive of concise best statements of the cases for the various sides, and leave it at that.

Despite the ideal of a Wiki, I think that open editing of argument summaries would immediately just turn the argument archive into a debate forum with even less moderating than we have here. So there would have to be some way of approving who writes what.

If Aran hosts the site, he should just decide despotically, after taking whatever advice he wishes. I think that among the people here who have shown interest in these debates there are probably enough level headed and capable writers to champion each side. For that matter, there are probably several people who could summarize all the arguments well and fairly, regardless of which they personally supported, if any.

I would say that if this is an unsettled debate, say so. Don't put one side of the debate, show both sides.
Posts: 334 | Registered: Friday, September 14 2007 07:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #48
I don't think the factional debates are really the issue. The philosophical ones are, and those are closely connected. "Regulation of shaping" certainly ought to present the views of different sects, as would "Creation freedom". But I think those debates have mostly been civil and calm here.

The ones that get out of hand are the ones about pointless moralistic judgments, i.e., are the drakons more or less morally reprehensible than the humans. Who cares? That's not an encyclopedia topic. Moralizing is not an encyclopedia function. "Loyalists" "Barzites" and "Rebels" (and so on) could certainly have small sections on "Criticism" or "Acclaim" (much as Wikipedia has for many public figures and institutions).

And really, these are fairly straightforward. Every faction will be criticized by others for its views on shaping regulation and creation rights. Every faction will be accused of being hypocritical. And each faction has one standard ad hominem argument: the Shapers are slow to adapt, the Awakened have their heads in the clouds, the Barzites are megalomanaical, and so on.

If any articles DO get out of hand, they can always be locked so that only designated users can edit them.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #49
Regarding in-game politics, see NPOV.

Regarding the setup: If you have a consensus, I'll put it up tonight. What was the choice of domain name? geneforge or terrestria?

To make sure that this works without my supervision, I'll draft Slarty and one other contributor for Sysop duties. Please don't volunteer unless you really have the time, and please note that without clear public opinion or Slarty's most strongly-worded advice (and Slarty has some strong words when he advises :P ), I'll pick.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00

Pages