Talk:Hook Nebula (System)

Interview

Although I appreciate the effort, I don't think that the interview should be placed on an encyclopedic page. As a primary source, the interview should be hosted on a offsite faction site or in a namespace comparable to Wikisource and then incorporated into the article using the WP:Summary Style guidelines. --Qatar Shendo 20:24, 13 February 2012 (GMT)

There appears to be some precedence for storing "media"-related materials in Category:Media so the interview could arguably be categorized there. --Raith Starlight 02:02, 14 February 2012 (GMT)

Only that that's a CATEGORY not a NAMESPACE like "Talk: " "User: " "Holocron: " etc. I don't like the sources being in the same namespace as the articles as people will get to the pages just by browsing normally (e.g. by using the "Search" function without changing the default settings you only search the article namespace and not the others) . Also, PlayImp in that Category has the same issue with the interview/part of the magazine being in the arcticle and in the main namespace. Is it even possible to create more namespaces for someone atm? --Qatar Shendo 21:09, 14 February 2012 (GMT)

Wikisource is actually not a name space in Wikipedia, but a seperate wiki that is linked to Wikipedia as part of the Wiki project. Setting up a seperate wiki to hold documents would be a bit overrated, more important it would create extra work for Sin. We opted to use the category that Raith pointed to for this.--Dreighton 13:54, 15 February 2012 (GMT)

I know that Wikisource is a seperate Wiki and I don't want to suggest one as it really would be too much extra work ;) MediaWiki:Using Custom Namespaces shows though that it would be possibly to create a namespace like "Source: " or similar. Although work, I think it's better having Sources (including GNS posts in my oppinion that shouldn't be own articles either as they're a primary source) in their own namespace and only linking to them from the articles than them showing up as real articles. Is "we" the Admins of the Holocron or the majority of users here? I would like having a seperate namespace instead of the category but if the consensus is it's too much work I'm fine with the Category. --Qatar Shendo 18:38, 15 February 2012 (GMT)

I'm still not used to best practices in here, I am available to split the interview in a separate page, and put a link to it in this page. I would need some help from someone more expert than me in this, so I can follow a good example on how to deal with such cases. Also, I have created the Resh system page, putting a reference on the GNS article. I don't know if I've done it well or there is a better method to do it. Ready to learn. ;) --Ruben Wan 14:00, 15 February 2012 (GMT)

I updated the page to show you how the references work/should be used. Basically I think any fact should be cited if possible (which it won't be in the Combine) following the WP:Citing guidelines. So for example the "The re-discovery of Resh led to a new wave of exploration and many other discoveries followed" right now is more of "Original Research" as it's uncited and there's no proof of a "new wave of exploration" or "many" other discoveries. I hope that explains a little. But I'm not TERRIBLY good with the Wikipedia standards and such so I'd like someone else to coment on this as well. --Qatar Shendo 18:38, 15 February 2012 (GMT)

Ok, I see your point Qatar, and I can say that I wrote "new wave of exploration and many other discoveries" because I thought I had to leave it open to the update of other discoveries being made after the devs re-implement the uncharted systems. Perhaps I am going too ahead on this, and must write exclusively on what is currently known, without worrying about the future of the Combine. I like the "citing" procedure. :-) --Ruben Wan 01:09, 16 February 2012 (GMT)

It's not entirely bad to leave some facts that are undisputable right (not this one though as the future has not happened and one system isn't many I think), but at least it HAS to have a [Citation needed] in place. Unfortunately we don't have that template yet. I've been doing the <ref>Citation Needed</ref> although I don't like that too much, so I tried Template:Citation needed. Feel free to edit that page to make it better. --Qatar Shendo 13:16, 16 February 2012 (GMT)

"Station Brochure"

At least go to the trouble of creating some kind of brochure as well?! If you're trying to make the point that making up IC stuff that isn't going to be ever implemented in the Combine Database is okay, you're of course right. But the point of an Encyclopedia (even one in a fictional universe based around a game) is to state verifiable facts (Conforming to WP:NPOV as well, that's why I removed the sentence "a fantastic holiday resort) which is only possible if we cite and prove our facts. I don't know how we even SHOULD handle this to be honest but requiring IC sources for stuff like this will at least encourage better RP and the such so I'm all for that. So, please link the Brochure at some point? --Qatar Shendo 00:59, 18 February 2012 (GMT)

If you hover on the Trading Station you read the description. This is the brochure. Are we sure we must be so stringent with the Holocron like it is another wikipedia? I'm just asking, since what the two have in common is only the MediaWiki platform that manages the pages. But the Wikipedia wants to be a real encyclopedia, while in the Holocron there are also profiles of players which are of course all made up from scratch and without real sources. So, where is the boundary line? Hook Nebula didn't existed before, there is no SW canon reference, what is a good RP in this case? A good imagination is not a good RP if it is at least consistent with the situation?
I'm not complaining, I'm trying to understand what are the house rules here. For example, I was also thinking to add descriptions of systems here. Of course planets' descriptions must be created from scratch from most planets in SWC. How to deal with it in that case? I'm willing to rewrite my text, I'm not attached to my style and so jealous that I don't want it changed, but I'd like to understand what is required and how to stick to it.
I could write a sort of brochure advertising the station, I think that would be fun. If I do this, where should I put that? In the Holocron, under Media category? --Ruben Wan 16:51, 18 February 2012 (GMT)

I think the Media Category would fit best, and I too would like to know where citations are needed and where not. Would make writing the articles about RP Aspects of the Combine hard. Ex.: Why would we need a citation for the Hook Nebula but not for Heretic ? -- Abyhsen Squeegor 00:26, 19 February 2012 (GMT)

I'm sorry if my comment came across wrong, I of course am not setting the house rules here, after all I'm just another contributor to this wiki. I just wanted to start a discussion about Citations. In my opinion we SHOULD try and give sources wherever possible! I don't think however, as pointed out by you, that we need to remove uncited facts or anything as we then would have not much left here. I do think that we should use {{Citation needed}} quite often though to encourage citation use and in some cases make clear that the facts aren't completely verifiable. I think creating a brochure is a great idea, as I said in the above section however, I also think it should either be in a special namespace here (just to keep things organized and don't have stuff like that (including GNS) flooding the main article namespace) or even better hosted offsite and only mirrored on here. --Qatar Shendo 23:12, 20 February 2012 (GMT)