Difference between revisions of "Talk:Community portal"

From Holocron - Star Wars Combine
Jump to: navigation, search
(SWC Wiki vs Wookieepedia)
(Undo revision 107522 by Mishka Sorokin (talk))
(Tag: Undo)
 
(46 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Wiki Admins Needed / Policies and Standards Required ==
+
{{Talk:{{PAGENAME}}/Archive}}
 +
==Contacts==
 +
Since we restricted editing to those who are in the members group in order to combat spam, we've had a decline in contributions (or so it seems at least.) I think this probably relates to people not understanding that they need to be manually moved to the correct user group after registering. (There was a question about this in the SWC Questions Center recently.)
  
Can we make it a point '''not''' to just copy the entirety of the (largely shoddy) Compedia over to this? With a new wiki, we should take the opportunity to write good quality IC content, rather than just making a duplicate of the same crap that's available on an already existing website. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 06:43, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
Perhaps we should set up a page somewhere on the HoloCron, and visibly link to it from the Main Page and/or Community Portal (and possibly other places where it would be useful) with a list of users who are able to change the status of newly registered members to the proper setting. Each name could have a hyperlink that opens the SWC DM window with the recipient name already added, thereby letting the prospective editor shoot off a request for status change right off the bat. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 19:31, 30 August 2012 (GMT)
  
:This wiki was released before any ground rules were made, there are no admins to keep watch on things and users create their own templates and categories. If everyone does whatever they wish and copy paste from their wikies (I saw articles from the ImpWiki and Compedia) then pretty soon this place will be no better than the other failed wiki experiments. --[[User:Ryan Roche|Ryan Roche]] 06:47, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
:Agreed. I guess we would create a sub-section with the Contact List at the top of the [[Holocron:Guide]] page and then link to section from the [[Main Page]] in a prominent, can't-be-missed way. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] 20:26, 30 August 2012 (GMT)
  
::Copying and pasting of '''''good''''' content should be okay - there are some decent character pages on both wikis, there are some good templates around, etc, but wanton copying for the sake of 'filling out the wiki' should be avoided. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 07:15, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
== OOC Terminology in 'legal documents' or sources ==
  
:::But that's exactly what's happening though. Already a number of articles on here display a clear lack of objectivity and are riddled with bias. Most of them also drift between IC and OOC with references to game mechanics, RL dates, and so forth. I thought the point here was that the Holocron was to be strictly IC, and the Compedia was notorious for mixing IC and OOC. I really hope some specific guidelines and rules will be set in place and actually enforced, otherwise more time will be spent cleaning up copied-and-pasted crap from Compedia and biased sources, rather than contributing actual quality content that could potentially make this a wiki of high quality that can be considered reliable. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 14:01, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
A few days ago [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] replaced OOC terminology in [[Mindabaal League Charter]], which from what I gather is just a copy and paste of the constitution-like document of an alliance of factions. My question is should we replace OOC terminology in source material? Would we not thus 'falsify' such documents?
  
::::Merged the two discussions on wiki admins into one to keep things easier to read. Also just sent an email to Vey / Dreighton / Fish on getting some admins and policies sorted out. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 14:11, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
I think that a boilerplate message or a footnote indicating that this document may use different terminology and by a word "faction" may mean an "organization"... or something along those lines would be more appropriate.
  
:One of the original purposes of this wiki was to give a new home to content of the (mostly abandoned) Compedia, so there is nothing wrong with bringing in content from there (or other sources, as far as there are no copyright concerns).
+
Another question is whether or not such source material has a place on Holocron. IMHO yes, but it should be marked as such via a different namespace or other indicators. --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 11:49, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:I am keeping an eye on the wiki atm and so far I am quite happy about what I see. Also I can not see at this point what anyone would need admin status for that he can not do just as well as a user. This wiki alerady has a team and a whole host of admins: Its users. I do take Wikipedia as a role model and I admit that it is not clear as of yet, if the SWC community will be able to live up to this model. But I also see no indication that it will not be able to do so and I don't want to destroy any chance for it from the start. Despite edit wars, cries over admin bias and emotional debates in the community, Wikipedia and its standards grew out of the basic principles that everyone has the equal opportunity to add, edit, move and delete. In short: It grew out of freedom and equal opportunities, combined with a software tool that makes it easy to revert true vandalism. If someone does not agree with the POV or quality of some articles, they can contribute material fromm other sources, rephrase the text or use the discussion page of the article to start a discussion on the matter in question. Wikipedia didn't get where they are by censoring content. Many articles on Wikipedia started out as horribly one-sided stubs. Still they were rarely deleted, and even more rarely by an admin. They were maintained and improved. By other users. You think an article is less than it could be? Improve it!
+
:I agree that the source materials should be left intact and at best (imho) be moved to a seperate namespace making them easily distinguishable from the main articles. As discussed [[:Talk:Community portal#Rewriting_History|here]] already as well. I do think that (as discussed there) a category would be easier to handle, I'd still prefer a namespace though as to make people see that OOC language is ONLY okay there as to not drag it over to any article pages again. [[User:Qatar Shendo|--Qatar Shendo]] 15:40, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:I also feel like the standards and policies I laid out on the community portal so far are good enough, in any case at this point. What more should there be then 1/ keep it IC 2/ use a NPOV? And if you find the standards lackingyou can just what we are doing now: Start a discussion.
+
:This was my point-of-view on the question: Overall, I am worried this will set a dangerous precedent. According to Dreighton's instructions regarding the Fizzban article and later community discussions among Holocron editors, OOC articles are only permitted if they are of "exceptional importance" (such as the Combine Commander article). Unless the Charter article warrants exceptional importance on par with the Combine Commander article, I believe the content should be changed or the article should be removed from the Holocron. More importantly, if the Charter article is not deemed "exceptional importance" yet is allowed to include OOC information, this would set an alarming precedent that would allow many articles to likewise contain OOC content. If this occurs, the Holocron would be no more different than Compedia. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] 19:20, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:We could possibly need more pages and more tools to help us with community functions, most notably some templates, as Wikipedia uses them, for marking articles that are too short or of low quality. But this should not be the job of any admin in a wiki, not even a team. It's the job of every singe user.
+
::I tend to agree with Rupert here because I feel that if we do not set a certain standard now, we open for more issues of this kind down the road that would require arbitrary consideration of all new articles with this problem. The term "faction" is OOC in some manners, but I don't see it being excluded entirely from proper IC articles. For example, an article describing a civil war of some sort might very well refer to factions, but you guys know all that. In terms of the article in question, I can't really say for sure what is most appropriate. On one hand, editing the document from its original form means it is not really an accurate representation of how it was originally written and that spoils it. On the other hand, I am not sure that a document that was written in an OOC manner should be allowed on here, regardless of its overall IC significance. Then again, is the usage of the term faction in the article really so inappropriate? I see a few options. 1 - Add a header to the article stating the content has been revised from the source material for the sake of IC purposes; 2 - Contact the owners of the document and ask if they'd consider changing it so it might warrant inclusion on the Holocron. 3 - Make some sort of distinction - such as brackets - in the text to reflect what has been edited from the source content. An example of this would be [[Black_Sun_Crisis#Propaganda_War_.26_Diplomacy|the quote on the right in this article]] where the source content was somewhat poorly written and necessitated some small edits to make it clearer. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 19:55, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
::: In my opinion the document owner(s) should be contacted first(before anyone changes ANYTHING in the article). They should be notified that the article contains OOC terms. An appropriate header should be placed above the article and they should be given an opportunity to change the article so it meets the standard.Then perhaps, after a designated waiting period(maybe two weeks), we can add "footnotes" for clarification. {{unsigned|Drak`ora Sabosen}}
  
:I have to add that I am absolutely delighted about what I see so far. No one abused his options to edit and post so far, in one situation where someone posted some insincere joke in an article, it was quickly removed by another user. And someone corrected my typo on the starting page. :)
+
::And yet that charter (and similar documents) unlike Combine Commander is an IC document, and reflects only to well that the majority of the combine does not differentiate all that well between factions and organizations, as evidenced by plenty of GNS articles, and many public IC documents (e.g. see article 1 section 1 of [http://swc-empire.com//Public/Reference/Docs/The%20Treaty%20of%20Coruscant.pdf Treaty of Coruscant]).
 +
::My point is that I do not think an editor should change terminology of an IC legal document without any indication for such change! Options 1 and 3, that Alex mentioned above should certainly be carefully considered on one hand, while on the other a policy or a guideline for posting source material on Holocron should be agreed upon and implemented ASAP. --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 20:37, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:So far it looks like people are using the wiki in a responsible and cooperative way. Different wikis are ... different. But they are best and strongest, if the users take charge of improving it. But this can not really happen, if we put a team in charge. We may need more moderators and admins at some point, but right now, the wiki needs freedom to grow more than anything else. I already have several offers for help and some of the people that posted in this discussion are clearly high on my list of people I may approach, should I see the need for more administration and moderation.
+
:If it hasn't been done yet, I think we need a temporary stub or category to mark articles that are about 'legal documents' and sources. It would help us figure out how many of these articles there are and how much OOC terminology there are in these documents. With data in hand, we can figure out a policy or guideline that covers most scenarios. The options that Alex mentioned are all viable and as long as the original document is linked externally, we should be fine. As for a special namespace, if I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the need to edit the server file in order to add a new namespace. --[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 03:09, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
::Yes LocalSettings.php will need to be edited. Instructions can be found here - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Using_custom_namespaces. --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 13:03, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:I said I'll keep an eye on the wiki, but I have only two eyes and only that much time. You and all other users have to help me.
+
:The Holocron has always been an IC based source of information. All OOC terminology should be altered (if possible into an IC sense) to keep it all IC. As Alex has said, factions can exist in certain cases, but if it's obvious that it should be company/organisation then the change should be made. If its an OOC then at bare minimum should be stubbed or rewritten to be IC related. [[User:Ignatius Paak|Ignatius Paak]] 6 September, 2012
  
:Please do whatever it is that you want to do to improve the wiki. If someone puts OOC stuff in an article - (re)move it. If you know of an important opposing opinion - add it. If you think there is a mistake - fix it. All of you can change pages, suggest templates, add categories, make suggestions and convince people - please do so.  
+
So implementing [[Talk:Community_portal/Archive_2011#Rewriting_History|Orphaea's suggestion]] (thanks for reminder Qatar) would something like this work? --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 13:03, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
{{User:Xesh_Randell/boilerplates/modifiedsource}}
 +
: That definitely is a workable solution. I like it -- [[User:Drak`ora Sabosen|Drak`ora Sabosen]] 13:13, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
:I do like this solution, although to me personally the issue still stands as of if source materials/gns posts really warrant to be copied to the Holocron 1:1 as "real" articles, as they obviously don't meet an encyclopedic standard and are a primary source that shouldn't even be referred to at all times. As suggested in the old discussion something like wikisource would be needed to make clear that that's not how an article is supposed to look (lack of Intro sentence, no explanations etc.) and as already stated in the old discussion this is not a good idea considering it would split up our limited editing power even more, henceforth the suggestion of a seperate namespace to make it clear they are not "real" articles. I can live with the boilerplate being added instead, but I'd still vote for a namespace if possible. [[User:Qatar Shendo|--Qatar Shendo]] 19:25, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
:I agree with Raith, in the sense that, I support the boilerplate solution so long as the original document is linked externally. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] 22:30, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
::I agree that 1:1 copies of source materials are out of place in a '''normal''' encyclopedia. On the other hand normal encyclopedias also do not have articles on topics that do not have sufficient and readily available sources, which can be verified by whomever wants to do so. And that availability or absence thereof for [m]any sources pertaining to history of SWC factions and peoples, is in my opinion exactly the reason why we need to have unmodified source documents on Holocron, because whatever was "external" ten or even five years ago is likely to be only accessible via web archive and then only if you're very, very lucky.
 +
::Wikisource is just another wiki, and would be a 3rd one for SWC should we(?) decide to go that route... I'm not quite sure there was a need for two separate wikis in the first place, as everything can easily be accomplished on one via different namespaces, portals, and something similar to era icons you see on [http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Eraicon wookieepedia]. --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 09:31, 7 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
:Xesh, you've brought up a valid point. Most of our activities are centered around the internet so if the faction implodes and no one (not even the web archive) kept a copy of the original documents, we would essentially lose the originals. A different namespace would work for keeping the originals somewhere without sacrificing the IC intent of the Holocron. For the original documents, we have the question of whether to introduce policy/guideline on what could be stored under the namespace. --[[User:Raith Starlight|Raith Starlight]] 00:52, 8 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
::I am 100% with Xesh on this. I have seen tons of material disappear from faction servers, even from the SWC server itself. So using this wiki as a repository is a good idea in itself. The boiler plate would be a great way to keep main articles IC, yet make it easy for people to find the original material in a separate namespace. As I am a historian IRL you can possibly guess that it almost physically pains we to change as much as a typo in any source, yet all texts - including Holocron articles - have a specific audience and intention, and this rather requires a moderate and careful rewrite. I am glad that so many people are concerned about this, aware of the problem and willing to work on a soluton that tries to be true to the source and the intention of the Holocron. I have to say that I am also a lot more relaxed about the whole matter now than I was a year ago. I take a look at many, many edits in this wiki. I see how people change names of ships, NPCs etc in articles, for example because they decided it would be more fun to have their IC mother named "Lara" than "Sandi" (or vice verse). So replacing "faction" with something more IC in a source document - when done carefully - is by now way down on my list of concerns when it coems to historical consistency of our universe as depicted in the Holocron. We will never be able to police all those edits, even if we wanted to. We can ask people to be reasonable. But we have to keep in mind that our main focus is story telling and giving orientation, not factual information as a "normal" encyclopedia. Yes, we also try to record and sometimes write the history of the universe we play in and this calls for some good practice, just as for a real life historian, but we will not be able to train those standards into all our users and editors and it will sometimes be at odds with the purpose of story telling. As this is not only a problem of documents, but also other OOC material that is included because of its exceptional importance, I decided to set up a namespace "OOC" and "OOC_Talk" for the respective talk pages.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 16:21, 12 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
:::So what kind of articles should go to OOC namespace? Would the original [[Mindabaal League Charter]] go there and the holocron-ified version stay in (main) namespace? Would [[Combine Commander]] and similar articles be moved into OOC namespace? --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 21:13, 12 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
::::That is the idea. Let's try it and see, if it works.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 21:23, 12 September 2012 (GMT)
  
:Orphaea, I was writing a reply to you, I think I no longer have to send it, I think this is the far more adequate way to discuss this.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 16:55, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
== new infobox race variant ==
  
::Your comparison to Wikipedia isn't very good. For one, they do have processes where pages are deleted left right and center. They also do have bureaucrats that take care of reversions, moderate certain processes, handle templates, etc. They also have a hell of a lot more potential editors who might be inspired to rewrite an article.
+
I've made a conditional variant of infobox race. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think. <br />
 +
The template can be found at [[Template:Infobox_Race/v2]], and I've switched infobox on [[Hapan]] page to showcase it. Basically what it does now is omit any field without information. <br />
 +
I'm not really happy with how the known members work, but for now left it mostly intact. <br />
 +
Now that the template is conditional other fields could be added for various species, see http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Species for an example... --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 14:25, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
 +
:That looks great. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] 22:30, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
  
::The problem with bringing stuff from the other wikis is that a lot of it is trash (Compedia), or heavily biased biased (the Galactic Archives, for example, is unashamedly pro-Imperial in parts; Compedia varies depending on who wrote a page). Many of the pages are little more than copy-and-pasted versions of faction websites, which are now the articles that are being moved over here. For instance, look at pretty much everything [[Vip Fortuna]] has posted - it's either copy and pasted from Compedia, or it reads like a faction advertisement (at least one page even generously mentions pricing arrangements), or both. Yes, I could edit them, but I won't - one because I'm unqualified to write material on those factions, and two because rather than getting a bunch of terrible articles and then having to go through and edit or mark all of them for future editing, we should encourage original quality material in the first place. It's admins, or a wiki team, that could do that kind of moderation. If I tried telling people now, as a random person, what they should be looking to contribute I'd get mercilessly flamed regardless of how much what I say actually follows the few rules we have down.
+
== multiple ship infobox templates in use / modifications to one of them ==
 +
This was already discussed earlier this year on [[Talk:Holocron:ToDo#Different_Ship_Templates]], but I guess not everyone has seen it. We currently have '''FIVE''' templates for ships: {{tl|Infobox ship}}, {{tl|Infobox Ship}}, {{tl|Starfighter-Current}}, {{tl|Freighter-Current}}, and {{tl|Special-Ship}}! First FOUR are (almost) identical!<br />
 +
It was agreed that we should use one. [[User:Rupert Havok]] created the latest ({{tl|Infobox Ship}}) and attempted to unify everything in one template. I have further modified the template adding a few fields and making it conditional, i.e. if fields are left empty they will not show on the page that uses template. Please review my modifications - {{tl|Infobox Ship/v2}}, before they are implemented in the main template. Example Infobox can be seen in [[Pulsar Battle Cruiser]] article.<br />
 +
Further modification I've considered, but did not implement at this time - displaying amount of escape pods, medical room and various other characteristics like hangar/docking bay, repulsor etc. <br />
 +
Once changes are reviewed and further modifications are implemented and tested, I would like to ask Rupert, who may or may not use special bot script to replace other templates in all ship pages. Or we can divide ship classes and do it manually... --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 04:25, 9 October 2012 (GMT)
 +
:I've added a few more fields and moved some fields around.
 +
:Still unsure about the field/variable "affiliation" - IMHO a ship class can be associated with multiple factions... What the SWC rules page means is "owner of the datacard" - does anyone have suggestions as to how to phrase that sort of entry in an IC encyclopedia? Manufacturer doesn't quite cut it... Designer? Blueprint owner?
 +
:Anyways I would like some feedback before replacing all of the ship templates with this one.
 +
:Also any thoughts on whether or not we want to include fields from {{tl|Special-Ship}} and thus remove all but one templates? --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 19:13, 29 October 2012 (GMT)
  
::Simply put: just because we're only starting out doesn't mean we need to encourage crap just for the sake of getting our article count up fast. Maintenance on random contributions will be more difficult than simply establishing some kind of framework in the first place. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 17:09, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
== article deletion discussion ==
  
:::I agree with Alex, Orphaea and Ryan and have seen pretty much the same thing happen to Compedia 2.0 before it died out.
+
Do "we" want to setup a special page for discussing article and file deletion suggestions?<br />
:::Some sort of administration team is required, as long as it does not kill the free development of the wiki.
+
At the moment many deletion suggestions do not provide any reason at all, and getting involved in discussion of deletion is somewhat complicated with admin and whoever wants to get involved needing to discuss it on the talk page of each article/file. Maybe having a centralized location would allow for better visibility and participation.<br />
:::I think it may also be a good idea to create subforum for the wiki and discuss various policies, standards and templates there.
+
Also as some of you may have noticed I've modified {{tl|delete}} to include a reason for deletion right in the header. The usage is simple: <nowiki>{{delete|This file is unused.}}</nowiki> --[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 19:21, 29 October 2012 (GMT)
  
:::--[[User:Xanyarr Chyakk|Xanyarr Chyakk]] 17:26, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
== recruitment links ==
  
:::I have been on Wikipedia since 2004. I was even present when the German Wikimedia foundation was created. I was never deeply involved, but I think I have seen quite a bit of Wikipedia history from close up (German Wikipedia, of course). I know enough, that we are about to replicate some of the debates that shaped Wikipedia in the last few years, e.g the conflict between inclusionists and exclusionists. It may be easier to get straight form the start that I am a very dedicated Inclusionist. :)
+
I was contacted by an SWC member and asked about organisation recruitment links in the personal pages. <br />
:::Yes, rewriting is a real effort. But trying to replace this painful process with a traditional editing process is taking the true stength out of a wiki system. Of course you can also, technically, use a wiki system for group colaboration in a traditional editing process. If you say former wiki projects like Compedia failed it is, as I see it, more because they followed a closed rather than an open approach. And they were BY FAR more successful than any attempt we ever made in the Combine with more traditional editing processes (e.g. the newsletter). Compedia etc are far from flawless, but other, admin and team centered projects never realy made it off the ground.
+
It seems Infinite Empire is doing stub profiles of their people and adding recruitment links to them. Here are some of the examples:<br />
:::Xanyarr, do we really need as separate forum? I would prefer to keep all of this in one place.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 17:33, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
* [[Amdaren Hakaari]]
:::: re: separate forum - I don't think we NEED a separate forum, I do believe however more people can potentially become aware of such discussions if they are to take place on forums, plus some people might feel more comfortable with forum style discussions... ;)
+
* [[Adin Cole]]
:::: --[[User:Xanyarr Chyakk|Xanyarr Chyakk]] 19:06, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
* [[Alana Barrr]]
::::There's a difference between having admins ensure certain standards are enforced and having admins crack down on anything except the most perfect of writing. But I'll concede the point for now, and go on with mercilessly tagging pages with OOC and NPOV notices. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 13:49, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
+
* [[Jaren Maximus]]
:::::Thank you for this discussion in here. At first I was very attracted by the idea to have a common wiki about IC events/stories/etc. I was aware that since all that participate in this wiki write about their ''own'' things, most articles will be either biased and thus criticized/edited by their IC-enemies. I now can get very cheap and say that Orphaea used me as a negative example (in his eyes) for contributions to the wiki since we are on opposing sides in game. --[[User:Vip Fortuna|Vip Fortuna]] 21:01, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
+
* [[Ra Kursadati]] and so on...
::::::I don't think that is what motivated him, Vip. The issue is really that Compedia was a free for all where individuals and groups were free to write whatever they wanted, often heavily influenced by their IC perspective and bias. I believe that the Holocron should strive to be something greater than what Compedia was. Not just a collected archive of self-glorifying biographies and propaganda, but rather an objective source of information where the content is authored in such a manner that it can be seen as objective. That means having to step outside ones character and consider the material as a player, not a character. I am fully in agreement with Orph that the initial article regarding the TAR was filled with quite apparent bias as well as IC/OOC crossover. Since then, I see you've taken steps to modify some of the content and that's great. When it comes to the ORE article, I figure it was tagged because the "Descriptions" section, for example, is largely that faction's view of itself. It is not really an objective perspective in some ways, as the description reads more like faction propaganda than a wiki article. I figure if the descriptions section is to be included, it could be in the form of a quote with the clear marking that it was authored by the company to promote itself. In any case, I would advocate that we all strive to leave our characters at the door when working on the Holocron and maintain a level of professionalism and respect each other enough to maintain a mature level of discussion.--[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 21:40, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
+
What do you think about it? Do or don't? <br />
:::::::Thank you, Alex. Your comment is really appreciated. And I do know the articles need additional info. At the weekend I will add the history of what happened 15 months ago. --[[User:Vip Fortuna|Vip Fortuna]] 22:31, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
+
Personally I don't think it's (1) neutral and (2) something you would find in an encyclopedia.<br />
::::::::You're welcome. I'll help flesh out the TAR article's earlier history. As someone who knew and worked with Choibacco, I got info regarding the circumstances of his break with Hapes. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 22:36, 24 February 2011 (GMT)
+
--[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 13:55, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
 
+
:I agree that it is something that doesn't fit on Holocron, even less so on one-line articles. Its like cheap spam advertising.
== Sub-Faction Pages ==
+
:--[[User:Lilith Delcroix|Lilith Delcroix]] 14:04, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
 
+
:My first impulse was to agree, but I actually find it quite clever, how it makes the Holocron interact with Darkness. Maybe we should even use this more. But then it should become a standard that is applied to all people, facions and possibly other objects. Why not work it into the character and faction template? I would not see any fault with a last section (maybe even witha button appearance) that say either "Contact [character]" or "Join [faction]". It would make the Holocron more interactive and better integrated with Darkness. And if it is a standard efature of the template it is not breaking format as much as it does now.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 16:10, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
For sub-faction organisational units (e.g. [[Imperial Navy]]), should these be their own page and risk conflict between similar pages, or be subpages of the main faction page (e.g. [[Galactic Empire/Imperial Navy]])? Or should pages of this type be avoided altogether and any relevant information incorporated into sections on the appropriate pages? Obviously we'd need to cap things at a certain limit, e.g. a page for the Imperial Navy might be appropriate, but for every Imperial military unit that has ever existed may be a bit excessive. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 07:23, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
::I wouldn't terribly mind such a link on an organisation page, but adding it to the page of every organisation member? What if that person is also a member of several NFGs? Do we allow for adding advertisement for each of them? or any of the organisations that this person belonged to in the past?
 
+
::A better integration and interaction of holocron with darkness is a worthy goal, but is advertisment promotion the way to go about it? I would rather for example see planet/system/entity description while in darkness be shown from holocron articles... it can be achieved by placing such description within custom tags IIRC, but would certainly require better cooperation with description/writer teams and probably policing as well. But it would add a bit more flexibility and allow more actual SWC history and flair to flow into such descriptions. But I digress.
:My view is that we should follow the wikipedia rules for naming pages (thus [[Imperial Navy]] and [[Imperial Navy (Other Empire)]]). --[[User:Owen von Ismay|Owen von Ismay]] 08:50, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
::--[[User:Xesh Randell|Xesh Randell]] 17:21, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
 
+
:::No, you don't. Your examples rather extend waht I wanted to say. I agree that a recruitment page for every faction member is not the way to go. Note that I rather suggested to add a contact/join link in the character/faction template box of a characer/faction. I think having a button for the join form on the Holocron page of the faction isn't unfair or inapproriate advertising. Doing it the other way around - linking from Darkness to the Holocron - would be another story, but an interesting one. I would not like to see any Darkness content incoporated into any Darkness pages, as we do not have the same level of control over them, but linking to it or maybe even putting up snippets in a way that makes clear that this is taken from the Holocron sounds interesting.
::People aren't getting the hint nor read this page, they continue on creating pages with no extra throught, maybe I should post a Sim News asking not to do this. --[[User:Ryan Roche|Ryan Roche]] 16:32, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
:::--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 18:49, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
 
+
:::SWC already has proper venues for recruitment. In addition to which, player pages already list their affiliation, and that link (or the faction's holocron page) link to the faction homepage, so this seems like a redundant and cheap method to scrounge for new members. I find it a detrimental use of the holocron, which is designed to compile information rather than to be used as a recruitment tool. You don't find links all over Wikipedia's people pages either that link you to the jobs databases for the companies they work for. It has nothing to do with the articles.
:::Without rules somewhere clear for people to read, and clear guidelines, and admins to enforce them, any Sim News will be limited in effect. Couldn't hurt though, if it just said not to wantonly copy and paste stuff from elsewhere, and not to create article categories or anything like that until we've sorted things out. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 16:48, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
+
:::--[[User:Syn|Syn]] 18:45, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
 
+
::In my opinion, a recruitment advertisement in the External Links section might be appropriate for faction articles, but is quite inappropriate for character articles. Furthermore, if factions wish to attract players via the Holocron, they should do so by writing quality articles and not merely one-sentence article stubs with recruitment links. In contrast to the Infinite Empire's approach, Alex Tylger's [[Hapes Consortium|Hapes Consortium article]] is a good example of how a well-written backstory and appropriate imagery can serve as an effective recruitment tool. An informative article about a particular faction often makes me want to join them. However, I do agree with Dreighton that &mdash; in the future &mdash; Holocron templates could be more interactive faction-wise and database-wise. For example: When you mouse-over the Affiliation field of Infobox Character, "[HoloSite]" and "[Enlist]" links could fade-in (via CSS) at Size 7 pixel font to the right of the faction name. The two links would fade-out when your mouse moves away from that field. This would be  less tacky than a "Join the XXX!!!" link at the bottom of underwhelming article stubs. However, we might need [[Talk:Holocron:ToDo#Requests_for_admins|a few Wikia Extensions]] to do this. We could improve the Holocron's functionality and visual appeal in general if we installed a few extension modules. But I think that is a separate conversation alltogether. -- [[User:Rupert Havok|Rupert Havok]] 20:54, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
::::See above. But who is "we" in your last sentence? If it is "us, the users", I fully agree. ;)--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 16:58, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
:::::As above, letting people create random pages with no structure, and ending up with [[Imperial Navy (Galactic Empire]], [[New Republic/Navy]] and [[Other Faction#Navy]] around the place because we let everyone name things the way they wanted, rather than forming a consistent naming system (like on Wikipedia), will only make things messy and difficult to maintain. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 17:15, 22 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
:::::: Have we corrected this? [[User:Horthon Gorthy|Horthon Gorthy]] 17:00, 15 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Faction Categories ==
 
 
 
Simple question - should we allow faction categories? E.g. [[:Category: Galactic Empire]]. I'm of two minds about it - on one hand it does keep pages together, on the other hand unless the faction is one of the large ones likely to have numerous pages about it (Empire, NR, etc), most will see little use. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 13:46, 23 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
As they are clearly useful for larger factions we should rather have those type of categories. And in those cases where they are not useful they don't hurt either. Or do they?--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 11:57, 25 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Template tweak ==
 
 
 
:Can we get links to pages that you've visited, but don't exist yet, made a separate colour? As it is they're the same colour as body text, so if I click a link to create a page, but then forget to/accidentally close that tab/decide to do it later, the link blends in with the text and it's hard to pick up that a page actually needs to be created. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 13:42, 25 February 2011 (GMT)
 
::Thanks for the heads up, I will do that. --[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 10:18, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
:::This still seems to be a problem? [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 09:10, 4 May 2011 (GMT)
 
:::: Isn't the color of the link white then? - Kinsa Rha, 4.05.2011, 18:38 GMT
 
 
 
:Can we change the lue of all templates to something more SWC-ish ? [[User:Veynom|Veynom]] 14:17, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Images ==
 
 
 
There seems to be a server error when MediaWiki tries to resize an uploaded image - 'Error creating thumbnail: /usr/bin/convert: Unrecognized option (-thumbnail).' [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 14:02, 25 February 2011 (GMT)
 
:I made a report on the bug tracker: http://bugs.swcombine.com/view.php?id=507 [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 03:05, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== British or American? ==
 
 
 
I was just asked this - should the Holocron follow British or American English? I've been following British on the basis that many Euro people play and they seem to be more familiar with British spelling over American. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 03:57, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
:I would say that either can be used, but an article should adhere to just one form for the sake of consistency.--[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 04:01, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
::I was thinking more for categories e.g. [[:Category:Organisations]] vs [[:Category:Organizations]]. Having multiple categories pop up with variations in spelling would be tedious. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 04:10, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
:I gave it some thought and found it very difficult to decide this. If we follow the Wikipedia manual of style (which is something I suggest we stick to, as it is a lot easier to refer to an existing standrad for something like this than having to draft on on our own) we should allow all vareities of English, as long as it is consistent for any one article. On the other hand, the Combine clearly favours British - or as Khan would put it '''international''' - English over American English. Of course players and factions may use whatever they like for their websites, chats and DMs but the website itself and the rules are not US English. SO I would rather favour British over American English for the wiki as the norm.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 10:23, 26 February 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Rewriting History ==
 
 
 
The Holocron is IC, but though much of SWC's history the line has been marginal at best, or ignored regularly. This makes it hard when adding historical documents, which often make reference to 'the game', 'factions' ,'NFGs', 'IRC', 'forum', 'ICQ', etc. - all terms that don't exist IC (or at least not in that context).
 
 
 
My question is - should we keep historical documents intact for posterity or rewrite them as minimally as possible for IC appropriateness (or do both)? [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 01:01, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:In my opinion, since this is an IC wiki, it is acceptable to edit content that seems to be in a grey zone between IC and OOC, yet still has importance to the game's history. For the Allied Tion article I have quotes from the diplomatic talks, but I have every intention of editing them to some extent to make it more explicitly IC. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 01:06, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::Maybe if we have the IC versions as [[Article]] but have the unedited versions as [[Article/Original]]? That way we have the IC version for actual use, but keep the original around for historical purposes. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 01:10, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:::Alternatively we keep the rewritten version of the wiki and link to an off-site source with the original content. --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 01:12, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::::After all the research I've done, I don't trust SWC hosting to remain accessible in the long term, let alone off-site sources. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 01:16, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:I share Orphea's concerns, all of them. I also appreciate the concern about keeping source material intact. I feel like we may need something like Wikisource, just to store all source material in unedited form. At the same time, it is probably impractical to have a seperate Wiki. I suggest we use a seperate namespace or a category for source material and articles can refer to these pages. Articles could then clip and edit source material for quoting or just refer to the source. Of course any edits should still be recognizable as an edit, perferrably by using brackets for edits. For occasional minor OOC refrences we should probably take a pragmatical approach. If there is a good way to edit them out or replace them easily to make it more IC, we should go for it, but sometimes it will be better to tolerate a bit of OOC for the sake of making things easier to comprehend. I would appreciate, if everyone could share his oppinion if we should rather use a category or a namespace for source material. I think a namespace would be more logical, but a category may be easier to handle.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 08:26, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::I think Orph's original suggestion of an /Original page added to the main one would probably be best, along with a link/note leading readers to that particular area.  Keeps things relatively organized and tidy. [[User:Weylin vi Cron|Weylin vi Cron]] 09:04, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::A namespace or second site effectively means maintaining two pages for one historical document with minimal linking. Using subpages keeps the related pages tied together, and then using something like [[:Category: Original Documents (Meta)]] would keep all the subpages tied together as well. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 09:45, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
==Rewriting History - Characters==
 
 
 
A similar, but more sensitive issue - should we rewrite character backstories to follow what would be the expected path? For example, some older Imperials will have stories like 'rebels killed my family' (or vice versa), but given the current SWC timeline, that would make them teenagers when they were also Grand Admirals and the like. Do we let the inconsistencies stay to keep the stories intact, or should we go ahead and edit them for conformity? [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 14:19, 1 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== CGT Day/Time Variables ==
 
 
 
MediaWiki has several in-built variables, e.g. PAGENAME. Could we get some custom variables added, e.g. CGTDAY and CGTYEAR for the current SWC day/year respectively? It [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Variable doesn't look that hard] to add custom variables. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 03:07, 2 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Community Admins ==
 
 
 
At this point I just want to make it aware that no one gives about the rules we wanted people to follow in this wiki and as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to clean up after everyone's articles and add categories or fix OOC mistakes. I strongly recommend a group of community middles is created in order to literally take care of things and prevent people from 'doing whatever they want'. Who is going to select a featured article every month? And who is going to take care of "This week in history" in the following years? I'm sorry but this is just not going to work and that's my professional opinion. The situation is bad now already, why are there so many articles about the Empire? And a lot other pages which are all OOC, have we lost the ICness? At any rate I guess everyone is just going to take care of his/her own articles from now on, good luck to us all. --[[User:Ryan Roche|Ryan Roche]] 13:56, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
:The reason that there's so many articles about the Empire is probably in part because the two administrators most involved are former Imperials adding old content (much of which, I should point out, is obscure or has otherwise been lost via other sources), and in part because the Empire has a reasonably well developed wiki of its own with a number of good and (relatively) neutral articles that can be brought over with minimal work. I could go and make pages for all the RA Supreme Commanders like I have the Emperors, I suppose, but I'm far more qualified to write about the Emperors than the SCs (and thus far more likely to return to fill them out when I get the time).
 
:And I am seeing a general improvement in the standards, if not the writing. People seem generally to be uploading images and using templates and categories correctly, even if there are bias/OOC issues with content. With more articles being created and improved (as is slowly happening), and with the new main page design with a reasonably prominent link to the guide, I think people will get more easily familiar with what we expect and when they come to start writing they'll do it properly.
 
:We're still in the relatively early stages (though a number of us have done a proportionally great deal of work towards it); of course we're going to have growing pains.
 
:This doesn't all mean that I'm against community admins simply to keep things tidy (deleting pages, images, etc. as necessary rather than people blanking pages and making them untrackable / relying on Dreighton to do it all) - indeed, I think it should be an official team like the Art Team or Galaxy Team - but we've already been told that's not happening, and I can't see much that has significantly changed for the worse that would be convincing now. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 15:51, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::Thanks, Orphaea, that is already most of what I would have to say on the matter. About blanked pages: You can use the "to be deleted" category to mark pages for deletion. That would make it easy for me to check for them. (I carted the category [[http://holocron.swcombine.com/wiki/Category:To_Be_Deleted]], but I think it is not showing up correctly on the cetegories page, even if I don't really know why this is. In general pages should rarely be deleted, even if they are e.g. not following naming guide e lines. It would usually be a better idea to make a redirect, simply because there is a high chance a different user will create the page anew at some point. Actually a blanked page or a redirect is easier to track than a deleted page (even if this is possible, too). So if you find a page no longer needed, consider the possibility to make a redirect.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 16:03, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:::Which is fine if people other than the handful that keep an eye on things here know to do that... which they don't :-). Maybe we need to put it in the guide? [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 16:16, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
==How to Deal with GalMap change==
 
 
 
this is a serious issue considering this is an IC only wiki. names of battles wont make sense because the locations have been renamed etc etc etc. any thoughts? [[User:Horthon Gorthy|Horthon Gorthy]] 19:36, 8 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:There will be a retcon of biblical proportions. [[User:Orphaea Imperium|Orphaea Imperium]] 00:54, 9 March 2011 (GMT)
 
::The best thing we can do right now is go on the current galaxy map and make note of the ID of a planet (or system in some cases, depending on how they're due to be split up) that was involved in the incident in question. Then save the ID somewhere and check its new name and location once the new gal map is released (alternatively where it is now if that particular spot's location has been finalized.) --[[User:Alex Tylger|Alex Tylger]] 00:57, 9 March 2011 (GMT)
 
:I am less concerned about the name of battels no longer making sense. Most people IRL don't know where most of theses places are, anyway. Try it! Ask someone on the street to tell you where Waterloo is or Navarino :). It has been suggested to me - and I like the idea a lot - to fidn an IC reason for the drastic changes to the galaxy. Like some natural desaster that hit and reshaped the galaxy. Farfetched, I know, but it would work like an C code word to say: "And then the admins changed the galaxy map". "Again", as I would like to add. It's not the first time the galaxy map is drastically changed (we did the same when moving to Darkness), and it would only make sense to work these changes into the IC story of e.g. planets and systems.--[[User:Dreighton|Dreighton]] 22:16, 12 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== Marked for Deletion ==
 
 
 
Ive [[:Template:Marked for Deletion|created a template]] that puts things into a category for Drei to follow and then delete things :D
 
[[User:Horthon Gorthy|Horthon Gorthy]] 17:30, 15 March 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
== SWC Wiki vs Wookieepedia ==
 
 
 
I've noticed quite a lot of pages recently have been using Wookieepedia citations and information about various planets and races. Is this considered an acceptable path to take considering that we have our own information about each race within the Combine? I would hate to think that we are becoming a clone of wookieepedia for our pages, especially when it isn't considered a validated source when we apply it to other areas of the Combine. I'd like to know what the thoughts are of this?--[[User:Dakha Rednax|Dakha Rednax]] 10:39, 06 May 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
:My thoughts are such: The Guide says: "While SWC is derived from canon, the whole point of SWC is that it isn't canon and lacks all the heroes and much of the history we're familiar with in favour of our own characters and history. By all means refer to canon information where appropriate, or provide references to canon sources (e.g. Wookiepedia), but don't get canon information confused with SWC information."
 
:It doesn't say we can't add it, it says to be careful and not to copy things that are not compliant to SWC timeline. So I ditch every mention of canon SW characters (like Thrawn in the Chiss article), and every mention of the happenings from the canon SW Empire period onwards.
 
:I also do not repeat information that is already in SWC. I add information when it's missing from SWC (planets' orbital periods, common names for races, ancient history etc.)
 
 
 
:My thought is: many newbies will refer to Holocron as the information source. The descriptions in SW Combine Database (Rules page) are sometimes confusing. No paragraphs in some of them, no order...; little information on the society and history of each race. So a newbie will probably type the name of the race into Google... and the first thing to pop up will be Wookieepedia. Some information there conflicts with Combine. And a newbie will try to use Thrawn in his Chiss character's background, for example, not knowing they don't go together.
 
:So to prevent such situations, it's better to have the relevant information in the Holocron, this way the said newbie will find everything in one place and will not get confused (because he won't need to look into Wookieepedia, he won't probably even notice the differences/disrepancies/what call you).
 
 
 
:Besides, I think adding such information makes it easier to roleplay, say, Twi'lek character. That's one of the reasons I try so hard to find example names.
 
 
 
:-Kinsa Rha, 06.05.2011, 09:54 GMT
 
 
 
::I realize why you've done it however some things are inconsistent with SWC. For example race descriptions, if I take the example of the [[Dug]] since it caught my notice playing a Dug myself you make mention of events surrounding Malastare. This is inconsistent with SWC history and no explanations appear to describe how one canon event transfers into SWC when different events occurred. Obviously if there is a correlation between the events made through the documentation of factions then I wouldn't see a problem with that but what I see as an overuse of wookieepedia to be used as just filler for the sake of creating a page, which I make my point again is not considered an appropriate source in other aspects of SWC's develop i.e. Races, Galaxy suggestions. This overuse will eventually create continuity errors and displacements with SWC own timeline which doesn't follow canon events.
 
 
 
::Like I say, I'm curious to know what position we're going to take on this.--[[User:Dakha Rednax|Dakha Rednax]] 12:29, 06 May 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
::I would like to echo Dakha's concerns and add a question - Does refer mean copy and paste entire passages from wookieepedia?
 
::Unless one rewrites and adopts the canon information from wookiee simple copypasting creates a lot more issues than it solves. Each instance will have to be tracked, verified, corrected by multiple people who actually know what happened and until then it will be misinforming an unfortunate newbie and putting things into his mind that are contrary to the combine's and holocron's design and intention...  --[[User:Xanyarr Chyakk|Xanyarr Chyakk]] 12:00, 6 May 2011 (GMT)
 
 
 
::: Give me a shout on my userspace's talk page or on the relevant pages' talk and I will fix the problem(s) myself. I mostly work on races and planets - I'd like to have all the races and their homeworlds well documented in the Holocron for the newbies' benefit (after all, I'm a newbie myself :D)
 
::: And I'm trying to adapt the info from my source, be it old Compedia or Wookiee, but I'm not a native speaker of English and I'm afraid of losing something important in the process of rewriting. So I prefer to copy/paste stuff with minimal ingerention. -- Kinsa Rha, 6.05.2011, 12:47 GMT
 
 
 
:::: I've done some revisions of the [[Dug]] page and explained there some of the things I've had issues with. I think we need someone to revise pages that are referenced from wookieepedia. I'm happy to take on the task myself. Some things such as dates of when events happened shouldn't be included because we don't really go by BBY/ABY. I'm going to try and find out actual historical events in SWC and how the groups over those planets view the transition of canon to SWC events.[[User:Dakha Rednax|Dakha Rednax]], 10:40, 07 May 2011
 
 
 
:::: I have no problem with your revisions or you taking on the task, quite the opposite. I don't know the exact year difference between Year 0 in our timeline and the Battle of Yavin, so I usually try to give vague dates, like "some five thousand years ago". - Kinsa Rha, 07.05.2011, 10:59 GMT
 

Latest revision as of 13:27, 27 April 2024

Archives:
2011

Contacts

Since we restricted editing to those who are in the members group in order to combat spam, we've had a decline in contributions (or so it seems at least.) I think this probably relates to people not understanding that they need to be manually moved to the correct user group after registering. (There was a question about this in the SWC Questions Center recently.)

Perhaps we should set up a page somewhere on the HoloCron, and visibly link to it from the Main Page and/or Community Portal (and possibly other places where it would be useful) with a list of users who are able to change the status of newly registered members to the proper setting. Each name could have a hyperlink that opens the SWC DM window with the recipient name already added, thereby letting the prospective editor shoot off a request for status change right off the bat. --Alex Tylger 19:31, 30 August 2012 (GMT)

Agreed. I guess we would create a sub-section with the Contact List at the top of the Holocron:Guide page and then link to section from the Main Page in a prominent, can't-be-missed way. -- Rupert Havok 20:26, 30 August 2012 (GMT)

OOC Terminology in 'legal documents' or sources

A few days ago Rupert Havok replaced OOC terminology in Mindabaal League Charter, which from what I gather is just a copy and paste of the constitution-like document of an alliance of factions. My question is should we replace OOC terminology in source material? Would we not thus 'falsify' such documents?

I think that a boilerplate message or a footnote indicating that this document may use different terminology and by a word "faction" may mean an "organization"... or something along those lines would be more appropriate.

Another question is whether or not such source material has a place on Holocron. IMHO yes, but it should be marked as such via a different namespace or other indicators. --Xesh Randell 11:49, 5 September 2012 (GMT)

I agree that the source materials should be left intact and at best (imho) be moved to a seperate namespace making them easily distinguishable from the main articles. As discussed here already as well. I do think that (as discussed there) a category would be easier to handle, I'd still prefer a namespace though as to make people see that OOC language is ONLY okay there as to not drag it over to any article pages again. --Qatar Shendo 15:40, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
This was my point-of-view on the question: Overall, I am worried this will set a dangerous precedent. According to Dreighton's instructions regarding the Fizzban article and later community discussions among Holocron editors, OOC articles are only permitted if they are of "exceptional importance" (such as the Combine Commander article). Unless the Charter article warrants exceptional importance on par with the Combine Commander article, I believe the content should be changed or the article should be removed from the Holocron. More importantly, if the Charter article is not deemed "exceptional importance" yet is allowed to include OOC information, this would set an alarming precedent that would allow many articles to likewise contain OOC content. If this occurs, the Holocron would be no more different than Compedia. -- Rupert Havok 19:20, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
I tend to agree with Rupert here because I feel that if we do not set a certain standard now, we open for more issues of this kind down the road that would require arbitrary consideration of all new articles with this problem. The term "faction" is OOC in some manners, but I don't see it being excluded entirely from proper IC articles. For example, an article describing a civil war of some sort might very well refer to factions, but you guys know all that. In terms of the article in question, I can't really say for sure what is most appropriate. On one hand, editing the document from its original form means it is not really an accurate representation of how it was originally written and that spoils it. On the other hand, I am not sure that a document that was written in an OOC manner should be allowed on here, regardless of its overall IC significance. Then again, is the usage of the term faction in the article really so inappropriate? I see a few options. 1 - Add a header to the article stating the content has been revised from the source material for the sake of IC purposes; 2 - Contact the owners of the document and ask if they'd consider changing it so it might warrant inclusion on the Holocron. 3 - Make some sort of distinction - such as brackets - in the text to reflect what has been edited from the source content. An example of this would be the quote on the right in this article where the source content was somewhat poorly written and necessitated some small edits to make it clearer. --Alex Tylger 19:55, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
In my opinion the document owner(s) should be contacted first(before anyone changes ANYTHING in the article). They should be notified that the article contains OOC terms. An appropriate header should be placed above the article and they should be given an opportunity to change the article so it meets the standard.Then perhaps, after a designated waiting period(maybe two weeks), we can add "footnotes" for clarification. Unsigned comment by Drak`ora Sabosen (talk • contribs).
And yet that charter (and similar documents) unlike Combine Commander is an IC document, and reflects only to well that the majority of the combine does not differentiate all that well between factions and organizations, as evidenced by plenty of GNS articles, and many public IC documents (e.g. see article 1 section 1 of Treaty of Coruscant).
My point is that I do not think an editor should change terminology of an IC legal document without any indication for such change! Options 1 and 3, that Alex mentioned above should certainly be carefully considered on one hand, while on the other a policy or a guideline for posting source material on Holocron should be agreed upon and implemented ASAP. --Xesh Randell 20:37, 5 September 2012 (GMT)
If it hasn't been done yet, I think we need a temporary stub or category to mark articles that are about 'legal documents' and sources. It would help us figure out how many of these articles there are and how much OOC terminology there are in these documents. With data in hand, we can figure out a policy or guideline that covers most scenarios. The options that Alex mentioned are all viable and as long as the original document is linked externally, we should be fine. As for a special namespace, if I'm not mistaken, someone mentioned the need to edit the server file in order to add a new namespace. --Raith Starlight 03:09, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
Yes LocalSettings.php will need to be edited. Instructions can be found here - http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Using_custom_namespaces. --Xesh Randell 13:03, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
The Holocron has always been an IC based source of information. All OOC terminology should be altered (if possible into an IC sense) to keep it all IC. As Alex has said, factions can exist in certain cases, but if it's obvious that it should be company/organisation then the change should be made. If its an OOC then at bare minimum should be stubbed or rewritten to be IC related. Ignatius Paak 6 September, 2012

So implementing Orphaea's suggestion (thanks for reminder Qatar) would something like this work? --Xesh Randell 13:03, 6 September 2012 (GMT)

This article or section contains a modified source document. The original document can be found here.

That definitely is a workable solution. I like it -- Drak`ora Sabosen 13:13, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
I do like this solution, although to me personally the issue still stands as of if source materials/gns posts really warrant to be copied to the Holocron 1:1 as "real" articles, as they obviously don't meet an encyclopedic standard and are a primary source that shouldn't even be referred to at all times. As suggested in the old discussion something like wikisource would be needed to make clear that that's not how an article is supposed to look (lack of Intro sentence, no explanations etc.) and as already stated in the old discussion this is not a good idea considering it would split up our limited editing power even more, henceforth the suggestion of a seperate namespace to make it clear they are not "real" articles. I can live with the boilerplate being added instead, but I'd still vote for a namespace if possible. --Qatar Shendo 19:25, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
I agree with Raith, in the sense that, I support the boilerplate solution so long as the original document is linked externally. -- Rupert Havok 22:30, 6 September 2012 (GMT)
I agree that 1:1 copies of source materials are out of place in a normal encyclopedia. On the other hand normal encyclopedias also do not have articles on topics that do not have sufficient and readily available sources, which can be verified by whomever wants to do so. And that availability or absence thereof for [m]any sources pertaining to history of SWC factions and peoples, is in my opinion exactly the reason why we need to have unmodified source documents on Holocron, because whatever was "external" ten or even five years ago is likely to be only accessible via web archive and then only if you're very, very lucky.
Wikisource is just another wiki, and would be a 3rd one for SWC should we(?) decide to go that route... I'm not quite sure there was a need for two separate wikis in the first place, as everything can easily be accomplished on one via different namespaces, portals, and something similar to era icons you see on wookieepedia. --Xesh Randell 09:31, 7 September 2012 (GMT)
Xesh, you've brought up a valid point. Most of our activities are centered around the internet so if the faction implodes and no one (not even the web archive) kept a copy of the original documents, we would essentially lose the originals. A different namespace would work for keeping the originals somewhere without sacrificing the IC intent of the Holocron. For the original documents, we have the question of whether to introduce policy/guideline on what could be stored under the namespace. --Raith Starlight 00:52, 8 September 2012 (GMT)
I am 100% with Xesh on this. I have seen tons of material disappear from faction servers, even from the SWC server itself. So using this wiki as a repository is a good idea in itself. The boiler plate would be a great way to keep main articles IC, yet make it easy for people to find the original material in a separate namespace. As I am a historian IRL you can possibly guess that it almost physically pains we to change as much as a typo in any source, yet all texts - including Holocron articles - have a specific audience and intention, and this rather requires a moderate and careful rewrite. I am glad that so many people are concerned about this, aware of the problem and willing to work on a soluton that tries to be true to the source and the intention of the Holocron. I have to say that I am also a lot more relaxed about the whole matter now than I was a year ago. I take a look at many, many edits in this wiki. I see how people change names of ships, NPCs etc in articles, for example because they decided it would be more fun to have their IC mother named "Lara" than "Sandi" (or vice verse). So replacing "faction" with something more IC in a source document - when done carefully - is by now way down on my list of concerns when it coems to historical consistency of our universe as depicted in the Holocron. We will never be able to police all those edits, even if we wanted to. We can ask people to be reasonable. But we have to keep in mind that our main focus is story telling and giving orientation, not factual information as a "normal" encyclopedia. Yes, we also try to record and sometimes write the history of the universe we play in and this calls for some good practice, just as for a real life historian, but we will not be able to train those standards into all our users and editors and it will sometimes be at odds with the purpose of story telling. As this is not only a problem of documents, but also other OOC material that is included because of its exceptional importance, I decided to set up a namespace "OOC" and "OOC_Talk" for the respective talk pages.--Dreighton 16:21, 12 September 2012 (GMT)
So what kind of articles should go to OOC namespace? Would the original Mindabaal League Charter go there and the holocron-ified version stay in (main) namespace? Would Combine Commander and similar articles be moved into OOC namespace? --Xesh Randell 21:13, 12 September 2012 (GMT)
That is the idea. Let's try it and see, if it works.--Dreighton 21:23, 12 September 2012 (GMT)

new infobox race variant

I've made a conditional variant of infobox race. Please have a look at it and let me know what you think.
The template can be found at Template:Infobox_Race/v2, and I've switched infobox on Hapan page to showcase it. Basically what it does now is omit any field without information.
I'm not really happy with how the known members work, but for now left it mostly intact.
Now that the template is conditional other fields could be added for various species, see http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Species for an example... --Xesh Randell 14:25, 5 September 2012 (GMT)

That looks great. -- Rupert Havok 22:30, 6 September 2012 (GMT)

multiple ship infobox templates in use / modifications to one of them

This was already discussed earlier this year on Talk:Holocron:ToDo#Different_Ship_Templates, but I guess not everyone has seen it. We currently have FIVE templates for ships: {{Infobox ship}}, {{Infobox Ship}}, {{Starfighter-Current}}, {{Freighter-Current}}, and {{Special-Ship}}! First FOUR are (almost) identical!
It was agreed that we should use one. User:Rupert Havok created the latest ({{Infobox Ship}}) and attempted to unify everything in one template. I have further modified the template adding a few fields and making it conditional, i.e. if fields are left empty they will not show on the page that uses template. Please review my modifications - {{Infobox Ship/v2}}, before they are implemented in the main template. Example Infobox can be seen in Pulsar Battle Cruiser article.
Further modification I've considered, but did not implement at this time - displaying amount of escape pods, medical room and various other characteristics like hangar/docking bay, repulsor etc.
Once changes are reviewed and further modifications are implemented and tested, I would like to ask Rupert, who may or may not use special bot script to replace other templates in all ship pages. Or we can divide ship classes and do it manually... --Xesh Randell 04:25, 9 October 2012 (GMT)

I've added a few more fields and moved some fields around.
Still unsure about the field/variable "affiliation" - IMHO a ship class can be associated with multiple factions... What the SWC rules page means is "owner of the datacard" - does anyone have suggestions as to how to phrase that sort of entry in an IC encyclopedia? Manufacturer doesn't quite cut it... Designer? Blueprint owner?
Anyways I would like some feedback before replacing all of the ship templates with this one.
Also any thoughts on whether or not we want to include fields from {{Special-Ship}} and thus remove all but one templates? --Xesh Randell 19:13, 29 October 2012 (GMT)

article deletion discussion

Do "we" want to setup a special page for discussing article and file deletion suggestions?
At the moment many deletion suggestions do not provide any reason at all, and getting involved in discussion of deletion is somewhat complicated with admin and whoever wants to get involved needing to discuss it on the talk page of each article/file. Maybe having a centralized location would allow for better visibility and participation.
Also as some of you may have noticed I've modified {{delete}} to include a reason for deletion right in the header. The usage is simple: {{delete|This file is unused.}} --Xesh Randell 19:21, 29 October 2012 (GMT)

recruitment links

I was contacted by an SWC member and asked about organisation recruitment links in the personal pages.
It seems Infinite Empire is doing stub profiles of their people and adding recruitment links to them. Here are some of the examples:

What do you think about it? Do or don't?
Personally I don't think it's (1) neutral and (2) something you would find in an encyclopedia.
--Xesh Randell 13:55, 29 March 2015 (GMT)

I agree that it is something that doesn't fit on Holocron, even less so on one-line articles. Its like cheap spam advertising.
--Lilith Delcroix 14:04, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
My first impulse was to agree, but I actually find it quite clever, how it makes the Holocron interact with Darkness. Maybe we should even use this more. But then it should become a standard that is applied to all people, facions and possibly other objects. Why not work it into the character and faction template? I would not see any fault with a last section (maybe even witha button appearance) that say either "Contact [character]" or "Join [faction]". It would make the Holocron more interactive and better integrated with Darkness. And if it is a standard efature of the template it is not breaking format as much as it does now.--Dreighton 16:10, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
I wouldn't terribly mind such a link on an organisation page, but adding it to the page of every organisation member? What if that person is also a member of several NFGs? Do we allow for adding advertisement for each of them? or any of the organisations that this person belonged to in the past?
A better integration and interaction of holocron with darkness is a worthy goal, but is advertisment promotion the way to go about it? I would rather for example see planet/system/entity description while in darkness be shown from holocron articles... it can be achieved by placing such description within custom tags IIRC, but would certainly require better cooperation with description/writer teams and probably policing as well. But it would add a bit more flexibility and allow more actual SWC history and flair to flow into such descriptions. But I digress.
--Xesh Randell 17:21, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
No, you don't. Your examples rather extend waht I wanted to say. I agree that a recruitment page for every faction member is not the way to go. Note that I rather suggested to add a contact/join link in the character/faction template box of a characer/faction. I think having a button for the join form on the Holocron page of the faction isn't unfair or inapproriate advertising. Doing it the other way around - linking from Darkness to the Holocron - would be another story, but an interesting one. I would not like to see any Darkness content incoporated into any Darkness pages, as we do not have the same level of control over them, but linking to it or maybe even putting up snippets in a way that makes clear that this is taken from the Holocron sounds interesting.
--Dreighton 18:49, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
SWC already has proper venues for recruitment. In addition to which, player pages already list their affiliation, and that link (or the faction's holocron page) link to the faction homepage, so this seems like a redundant and cheap method to scrounge for new members. I find it a detrimental use of the holocron, which is designed to compile information rather than to be used as a recruitment tool. You don't find links all over Wikipedia's people pages either that link you to the jobs databases for the companies they work for. It has nothing to do with the articles.
--Syn 18:45, 29 March 2015 (GMT)
In my opinion, a recruitment advertisement in the External Links section might be appropriate for faction articles, but is quite inappropriate for character articles. Furthermore, if factions wish to attract players via the Holocron, they should do so by writing quality articles and not merely one-sentence article stubs with recruitment links. In contrast to the Infinite Empire's approach, Alex Tylger's Hapes Consortium article is a good example of how a well-written backstory and appropriate imagery can serve as an effective recruitment tool. An informative article about a particular faction often makes me want to join them. However, I do agree with Dreighton that — in the future — Holocron templates could be more interactive faction-wise and database-wise. For example: When you mouse-over the Affiliation field of Infobox Character, "[HoloSite]" and "[Enlist]" links could fade-in (via CSS) at Size 7 pixel font to the right of the faction name. The two links would fade-out when your mouse moves away from that field. This would be less tacky than a "Join the XXX!!!" link at the bottom of underwhelming article stubs. However, we might need a few Wikia Extensions to do this. We could improve the Holocron's functionality and visual appeal in general if we installed a few extension modules. But I think that is a separate conversation alltogether. -- Rupert Havok 20:54, 29 March 2015 (GMT)