t2twiki:Community Portal

From t2twiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Portal! Here, we can discuss standards, ideas, and upcoming projects.

For older discussions, please see the Archive.

Contents

[edit] First Time User?

  • Consult the FAQs for how to make and edit pages here.
  • Consult the Forbidden page to see what you should NOT add to the Wiki.
  • Sign your posts on Talk pages (and here) by clicking the "Your signature with timestamp" button above.
  • Basic format can be found on most of the newer pages - note the Professions pages in particular.
  • If you create a bunch of links to pages that don't exist yet, it would be polite of you to create at least some of those.

[edit] The To-Do List

  • We need a better "Help" page!
  • All these pages need to be created: Wanted
    • The majority of wanted pages are for items.
    • There are also plenty of pages not listed on the Wanted pages that need to be created.
  • More categories can still be created, if necessary.
  • Pages needing content need to be marked with the appropriate templates.
  • Pages WITH the "Description Needed" and "Needs Content" tags should be finished.

[edit] Things to Know

  • Use appropriate tags on new page names - (ability), (skill), (race), and so on.
  • If you need to communicate with another user, add a note on their talk page.
  • Roleplaying is just as important as the more "hardcoded" facets of the MUD. Please take time to make thematic descriptions and tips as well as the less thematic kinds.
  • Feel free to upload images, but don't overuse them. Also, though we won't be patrolling as heavily as Wikipedia does, please try to be conscious of copyrighted images.
  • Don't orphan pages. Always add a "Related Pages" area to the bottom of every page whenever possible, and link it to those pages.
  • Limit use of player names, since these are often intangible and hard to patrol after a while.

[edit] Discussion

Have standards to propose? Ideas for new formats, pages, categories, etc.? Post them here so we can discuss them.

[edit] "Forbidden"

I've created a "Forbidden" page to let people know what they CANNOT (or should not) add to the Wiki. The page is simply at Forbidden. Think anything needs to be changed? Taken away? Added to?--Dorf 14:12, 11 May 2007 (MDT)


I think first off, it is impossible to distinguish between "Q1" and "Q2" quests, and therefore impossible to distinguish between their questinfo. This site is to breed the open flow of information. --Mute 13:56, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

I don't feel that it would be impossible to distinguish between QI and Q2 quests if the restrictions are set in stone. For example, we could say that no QI is allowed for uniques and quests released within the last [period of time - six months, more? less?]. Of course this site is designed for the flow of information, but as we have said, if certain areas are made completely known to the average player, balance is thrown to the wind as difficulty is typically no longer a factor if you can look at a wiki page and make an alias. That seems very much like the wrong way to go to me.--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
To me, there is a very clear line of what should/shouldn't be here. Anything available to a mortal player, that is legal to tell someone else, should be available here. So examples of things that could not be posted are weapon stats, alts, and past or present ainur alts. Aside from using the t2t game rules as guidelines, it is wrong for us to differentiate between what people 'should' have available to them. --Mute 19:27, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

[edit] "Related Pages"

The current related pages standard is to places a "Related Pages" section at the end of every article and to link from it to any important related pages, regardless of whether they have already been linked to in the article. As this contradicts the standard practices of both reference works (e.g., encyclopedias) in general and Wikipedia in specific (whose format and software we're using), I propose that this be changed. I propose that, instead, we use the "Related Pages" section when there are related pages that are not mentioned in the article itself.

In addition to conforming to the standard practice for the field, this will aid those who are familiar with Wikipedia and may assume that our linking standards are similar. This will require some work to change those pages currently existing (and since I proposed it, I'll do my fair share of that), but better to do it now than once this thing gets really large.

What do people (particularly the editors) think? --Vigilante 15:35, 11 May 2007 (MDT)

  • I would agree, with the slight alteration that "not mentioned in the article itself" be changed to "not linked in the article itself." If something's mentioned and not linked, what's the point? But anyway, this sounds like a solid idea, if a good chunk of tedious work.--Dorf 15:46, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
  • Does having multiple links to the same page hurt anything? Also, the Related Pages section provides a more concise list of pages. Is there a reason to go through every page and check to see if the "Related" pages are already linked to or not? Chord 15:49, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
    • It's conceptually cleaner? It's what every book in my professional library does, and we want to look serious? "Related Pages" is the wiki term for "see also", "also" being the key word; anything already mentioned can be taken as assumed. Does every guild need "guilds" in the "Related Pages" section, or does the "Category:Guilds" tag suffice? (Note: The current guild entries are split on whether to include a link to guilds.) Does "Rim-Ainacam, also known as the Sheriff's Guild, was one of the original guilds" somehow not do enough to suggest that "guilds" is relevant, that you have to put "guilds" in the related pages? --Vigilante 16:18, 11 May 2007 (MDT)
      • In my opinion, double links aren't bad at all. If someone is reading through an article and wants to know what a word or phrase means, then they can click the link right there (instead of searching the page for the single link to the page they want). The 'Related Pages' section, in my opinion, is to add an extra emphasis on certain links or add addition relevant links that were not in the page's body. As for a Guild page having Guilds as a related page, that sounds reasonable to me, but then again, that follows my train of thought on the purpose of 'Related Pages'. -Chord 09:30, 12 May 2007 (MDT)
      • I think Chord does have a point here. This is the reason I particularly started doing this in the first place - I linked things that I thought were semi-important in the article itself, and under Related Pages I put the things I felt were most important in relation. I could go either way on this, really. I'd like to hear some more input from others.--Dorf 01:56, 13 May 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Legends

I suggest that we include pages for all of the Legendary characters (plus, perhaps, a few odd ducks like Celebedhel, who got made into an NPC instead). We could include their legend plus some additional details (e.g., race, profession, guild membership, trivia, &c.). They could be linked to from a category, plus individuals might also be linked to from "legendary [whatever]" sections in the guild, race, and profession entries. As this involves adding to the template for guild pages, &c., I'm proposing it here. --Vigilante 16:24, 11 May 2007 (MDT)

  • Yep, sounds like something that warrants doing. I suggest using Category:Legends, and I suppose within that we could create the "legendary [whatever]" sections. I think a separate section should also be created for players who have been memorialized, as opposed to "legendized."--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 16:29, 11 May 2007 (MDT)

As players are important parts of the t2t community, I think it is reasonable that they are included here. I do think players should be split into 'legendary' and non legendary players. I think that each page should be held to a similar standard as wikipedia pages on individuals. Vanity entries are quickly deleted, but those with actual reference values are fine. --Mute 14:00, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

Including non-legendary and non-memorialized players IS creating vanity entries. I think that we can have a discussion page for proposed pages for current players or ainur that have been extremely significant for whatever reason, but otherwise should limit these sorts of pages to User: pages.--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

[edit] History

I've added Category:History and populated it. Anyone who knows of something that should be added (and doesn't already belong to a sub-category, which presently means Legends and Defunct guilds), feel free to add it. See the category page for its description, although hopefully it's self-explanatory. --Vigilante 19:12, 11 May 2007 (MDT)

Firstly I love the idea of the Wiki and on behalf of past, present and future players I would like to say thank you. I have added entries under Regor and Edge on the Legends list but I really think they are a good resource for the History of Arda. Please place them where you feel appropriate. Edge's memoirs are a history of the founding of the Meglivornth. --Regor 21:33, 23 November 2007 (MST)

[edit] General Tolkien Entries

Recently, a few pages were added which were more focused upon characters and events within Tolkien's actual works, as opposed to here on the MUD. Personally, I feel that these are unnecessary and could provide an undue burden for those needing to moderate and create such information. Other resources, such as the Encyclopedia of Arda, do this much better than I believe we could hope to reasonably achieve; this Wiki is about the MUD, not about Tolkien's works in general. I've taken the liberty of contacting the author of these articles and deleting them for the time being. If someone feels strongly about this and would like to comment, please do so, otherwise I think this should be a standard.--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 02:00, 13 May 2007 (MDT)

  • We could have the "background" LotR links go to the actual Wiki articles on the topic. -Chord 12:07, 13 May 2007 (MDT)
  • To clarify, instead of making an actual page for "Tolkien", we have that page redirect to Tolkien. -Chord 22:13, 13 May 2007 (MDT)
  • I'd like to see individual pages have both game information as well s thematic background. I think we can easily do this by putting the game information at the top (since this is a wiki for the mud), and either A) writing thematic things at the bottom, B) copying them from open source places or C) putting a link to an outside source. But yeah, I believe this is appropriatly done by making a section called "thematic background" --Mute 14:13, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
  • I am fine with some thematic background elements, however, our scope is not to recreate The Encyclopedia of Arda. Lets just settle on having a high level Thematic Background and then say 'For more information...' and link off to Glyphweb or the proper wikipedia entry.--Melkor 14:54, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

[edit] "Standards"

Speaking of standards, should we create a page specifically for "standards," including what precisely is wanted here on the wiki? Obviously for some this is a bit unclear, and understandably so. Thoughts?--Dorf 02:00, 13 May 2007 (MDT)

Yes, we should. This will mold this growing into a polished product as opposed to a convoluted mess. I have a few quick ideas. First off, quest info shouldnt be included in an item page. It should be a seperate page. When you search for emerald shield, you should get emerald shield (item) and emerald shield (quest) That way players will be able to look at the item without having to look at the quest (should they choose) I also think the spoiler tag is a poor way of doing this, because quite bluntly, its ugly. Hmm, other things..... I suggest categorizing each quest by subarea, region, and signpost. This way you can click each of those things, and get a list of stuff that is close to whatever location you chose. The more things like this that we build in from the get go, the better the page will be after a ton of postings. And yeah, last and very important, someone should make a shining example of item/quest/player all types of pages, so people can easily emulate them. --Mute 14:09, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

I agree that we should clean up how our items and quests are currently done. The format doesn't make it very easy for people to add new things - it was more designed so that people will be able to access an item or area in IC and OOC terms, and not have to be subject to both. I still think that's a worthy goal, but perhaps how we do it needs another look. I think leaving the spoiler tag on, but the current design is a bit ostentatious. The category proposal is a great one, though, and we should implement that as soon as we have something real to work with.--Dorf (Talk | Contribs) 17:45, 14 May 2007 (MDT)
To elaborate on what I said a bit more, I want everyone to remember that not all items are items that are quested. How I envision this, is I could search for a bowl of stew, and i'd get stuff about it. Or I could search for a bottle of cleaning fluid (quest item for the finely crafted axe) and it'd say stuff about that item. And of course would link to that quest. But there is no 'quest' per se for that bottle. Yet this wiki should be as comprehensive as possible, so I think we should have a structure that is inclusive and... for lack of a better word, object oriented, so that we can have quests/areas/items/etc be as scalable as possible. No need to pour every bit of information onto one page.

--Mute 19:41, 14 May 2007 (MDT)

[edit] Main Page Reformat, tags, and nav bars

Currently the main page is a bit cluttered and formatted poorly.. therefore, I made an example page of a better formatted page that makes navigation easier. Take a look at Main Page Format Proposal

In addition, added some possibility of tags and want to add a page that has all available tags, preview of each, and how to use them. Check out Proposed Page Tags

Also, added some examples of nav bars that could help when navigating through item pages and such making it much easier. I started some examples at Proposed Nav Bars

All of these items are up for debate, ideas, suggestions, etc.. I personally find these much easier and intend on adding new type of page for item lists in addition to town overviews and others..

Gyro 19:16, 13 July 2007 (MDT)

Retrieved from "http://angband.com/wiki/index.php/t2twiki:Community_Portal"
Personal tools