1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Vote for us!

Remember to vote for ZEJ at our Top RP Sites page! You can vote only once daily, so make sure to do so and help us reach the top!

DISCUSSION General Wiki Discussion

Discussion in 'The Manaverse Wiki Project' started by Eebit, Apr 13, 2015.

Page 1 of 3
  1. This thread can be used for anything that doesn't fit into the other individual threads, or otherwise for the purposes of discussing the nuances of the Wiki such as formatting and whatnot.
     
    #1 Eebit, Apr 13, 2015 at 10:59 PM
  2. A couple things...

    I feel like we could stand to have some of Wikipedia's in-line clarification templates, so that even if individually we can't add onto an article, if there is something that is unclear we can at least tag it for the purposes of expansion. Any thoughts on this? Would it be helpful for anyone to have a few clarification/whatever tags, or would it be more of an annoyance? Particularly, I think it would be good to have things for ambiguous wording, awkward phrasing, etc.

    What is our standard for measurements? Are we going with Imperial or Metric for species? Because I can see instances of both, but it would be a good idea to focus on one of the two of them.

    @"Starrie" in particular, are you committed to the term 'Angelic' (singular) and 'Angelics' (plural) for the Angel (Greniou) page? Or would Angelic be an appropriate pluralized form as well? Shadow seemed to use both when he went through and edited the page. I just want to make sure one way or the other before I comb through.
     
    #2 Eebit, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:04 AM
  3. While potentially annoying, I believe this can be really useful in the long run. I approve.

    I would go with the Metric system, personally. Imperial is just really awkward in general. :p

    Oops, my bad. I meant to pluralize every instance as "Angelics", but it seems I missed quite a few.
     
    #3 Shadow, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:20 AM
  4. What Shadow said~
     
    #4 Ziolang, Apr 14, 2015 at 9:45 AM
  5. just saying now I'm not going to learn an entirely new measurement system for roleplaying and continually trying to convert between the two is going to get very annoying very fast, so if you want my pages in metric you can do it yourself :p

    Edit: hasty bbcode fix
     
    #5 Keileon, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:08 PM
  6. If you guys want to use the metric system, then by all means, I'm not going to stop you. I just personally don't use it that much (which is kinda ironic given me). So really, conversion never really enters my mind at all. Most likely, I'm just gonna completely forget to do so.
     
    #6 Lord X-Giga-X, Apr 14, 2015 at 4:37 PM
  7. "I'm not going to bother learning anything new because I think it's annoying and people should do it for me instead."

    yes very good
     
    #7 Shadow, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:57 PM
  8. You know I'm lazy.

    Though that comment was a bit unfair, seeing as I learned stuff like IPA and the science behind electricity for roleplaying purposes. I just know Imperial better than Metric, and Imperial works, so I have little interest in Metric beyond occasionally giving something in meters.
     
    #8 Keileon, Apr 14, 2015 at 10:14 PM
  9. I've forgotten how to do it, but the "Manaverse Wiki Project" link in the sidebar needs to be updated as we no longer use the plugin that generated the URL so it's a dead link.
     
    #9 Keileon, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:12 AM
  10. Got it~
     
    #10 Eebit, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:37 AM
  11. @"Keileon" (and potentially others), I feel like this is a good time to bring up a discussion on the matter, and don't take this as an attack or anything, but would you really classify Shapeshifters on Euthora (particularly) as monsters? I feel like in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are sapient and capable of rational thought in the same way that humans are. I don't know if it warrants the monster infobox. Unless you intend to have them appear as a common monster/enemy in some upcoming ER statplay?

    What I kind of imagined the "Monster" infobox was going to be used for would be things such as Sand Funnelers or Arctic Wolves and other Manaversal things of that ilk. Things that aren't capable of rational thought and appear as an enemy to fight in our roleplays. That (in my mind) is where the 'rarity' thing factors in; it'd be akin to how common of a grunt they would be in a statplay equivalent, or something. In that sense, something like the Skull Wyrm would be "Only One" or "Unique" for rarity, whereas something like a Sand Funneler would be "Common" in its native 'biome'.


    On the side, if it's not too much trouble @"Lord X-Giga-X", do you think you could work the planetary icon parameter into the other infoboxes (species/monster/planet)? I feel like it would work in those as well. If it's not something other people want to see, then I'm fine with that too.
     
    #11 Eebit, Apr 22, 2015 at 4:02 PM
  12. Shapeshifters are not inherently sapient, and only become as such through contact with humans. By default, no matter the planet (unless F. M. Candor is different) they're mainly just highly intelligent monsters. Part of the reason Euthora hasn't shown them otherwise is because Sulsian Shapeshifters tend to lean more towards civilization- were the Cult to go to Ethanol or Farixya, or perhaps even Acaran, you'd see the more feral variants.

    The "Shapeshifter as monster" thing was Shadow's idea anyway, one that I just happen to agree with, so take it up with him. :p
     
    #12 Keileon, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:35 PM
  13. Actually, this is subject to change at any given moment now. Early on during Phantasia's development, I established that the concept of a "monster" was a lifeform with inherent anomalous and/or magical properties--a concept which carried over into the Manaverse's integration. But now, this definition, or rather the lines that define what "monsters" are, are very blurred and unclear, and simply do not hold anymore.

    If we consider monsters to be anomalous creatures, then are Sky Serpents monsters? Would Angelics be monsters as well, considering their nature? Are Euthoran Shapeshifters, who are easily predisposed to sapience, monsters? My answer would be no on every case. I've briefly mentioned that I'm planning on enacting a "Monster Reform" in that regard, so that all of these inconsistencies are fixed under a new definition of what truly constitutes a "monster".

    So, for now at least, I would classify them as regular species.
     
    #13 Shadow, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:58 PM
  14. Species and Monster I can do. Planet... depends. Like I can change the current image parameter for it, and set it up to have tabs which would have both the map and the planet icon. I also can make the tab container not visible. I've tested this already, so it'll be no problem to set up. If enough people are fine with something like that, I can just go ahead with that. Otherwise, I can just do the same thing as I'm doing with the other infoboxes.


    EDIT: ... Apparently, doing so breaks the categories bar... o____O
    EDIT (2): Oh duh, I forgot to close the tags! Man, I'm an idiot...
     
    #14 Lord X-Giga-X, Apr 24, 2015 at 6:45 PM
  15. When I added a bunch of "relationship" placeholders to Giga's main's page, I was thinking... would it make sense to split the CoU characters' relationships up further by Season, since the relationships change and develop over time (i.e. Giga's main's relationship with Jason)? I figure this is how we're going to be handling it for characters that appear in different plots over the span of a canon, so it would make sense to do so for CoU's seasons, as they are equivalent to the plots of other RPs, I guess.


    Or would that just be too much work for everyone, given how barren so many Relationships sections are :x
     
    #15 Eebit, May 2, 2015 at 8:17 AM
  16. Anyone have an idea of how I could go about adding Drakine's vocabulary to the wiki? I have a sub-page set aside for it, but there are a lot of words and I think it'd be extremely impractical to add the roots in particular in subsections.
     
    #16 Keileon, May 13, 2015 at 5:15 PM
  17. When creating the Vol en-ait Rae page, Kuda raised the point of us not having a dedicated Deity template, causing her to simply use the generic character page template instead. I wanted to ask... do you guys think it's worthwhile creating a separate template for Deity figures in the Manaverse? Or should we instead just make slight adaptations to the current template?

    My thought is that, since they are essentially just "higher-being" characters, a separate template might be overkill. Maybe adding/modifying one or two sections and a slight change to the infobox -- after all, the templates are just that: templates.
     
    #17 Eebit, Jun 29, 2015 at 1:48 AM
  18. Adding/modifying as needed would seem to be the best approach and add the "Deity" category to it~
     
    #18 Ziolang, Jun 29, 2015 at 2:02 AM
  19. In that case, I guess the question becomes what sort of things are necessary for a deity page?
     
    #19 Eebit, Jun 29, 2015 at 8:51 AM
  20. Couple questions...

    Should we have a navbar for the "baseline concepts" of the Manaverse? As in, a navbar that points newbies to pages with the most immediately-relevant concepts that should be learned for a Manaverse RP? If so, what would that look like?

    Do we want to have "Meta:" pages to explain particular terms that are thrown around OoC? Chatplays, etc. Do we have enough terms to warrant that being A Thing?

    I've also been toying with the idea of setting up a "manual of style" for editing the Manaverse... would that be worthwhile?
     
    #20 Eebit, Nov 19, 2015 at 9:19 PM
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page