Post #14, written by TheFifteenthMember

Err, no. When I said something is "game-specific", I don't mean it's a "gameplay" article, I mean that it only appeared in one game so we don't need to worry whether we need to single it out or have a shared page on all games. I know that seems like a non-solution seeing as future games could also include subjects that were "game-speciifc" before, but we can cross that bridge when it comes to it. Unless, anyone else has any better ideas?

About the mockup, here's a couple of nitpicks:

• In "a Planetary system", the "P" should be lower-case as "planetary system" isn't a proper noun.
• Can't the "Theory" section be a sub-section of Ninevah since that's the only planet it applies to?
• The "Trivia" section is filled with etymology. Wouldn't it be better to break it up and mention the etymology under each planet's section (e.g. "Ramal is the third planet in the Girru system. Little is known about the planet apart from the fact that in real life, Ramal is a village in Azerbajian.")

Post #15, written by DarthKitty

This is getting us nowhere, so let's start from the beginning. Imagine that Figverse Wiki is a building. It isn't in the best shape, after years of use, so we need to rebuild it. We need to do two things to make our new building easy-to-navigate:

• Use a logical "blueprint".
• Give people an accurate "map".

The "map" in this metaphor refers to navigation, which tells people where they can find information. The "blueprint" refers to a page hierarchy, which is a system we use to put information in place. A map tells people where to find information, but a blueprint tells people where to put information.

Like its metaphorical counterpart, navigation is easier to make because it is based on observation; there's little thought involved. Making a page hierarchy is trickier because you have to decide where things should go, and navigation will be less useful if you make bad choices.

Categories are used for both navigation and the underlying page hierarchy, so I'll talk about those. Our top-level category is Category:Browse, which is split into Category:Content and Category:Organisation. The latter isn't important to the page hierarchy, so we'll ignore it.

Category:Content is split into three groups: Category:Creators, which isn't very important to the page hierarchy; Category:Figverse which is our "lore" category; and Category:Series, which is our "gameplay" category.

The page hierarchy is pretty simple beyond that. There are two main parts of the Figverse, so Category:Figverse is broken in two. Category:Series is broken into individual series, as you'd expect. The problem is, some subjects could be "lore" or "gameplay"; some have one page (e.g. Goznor), others have two (e.g. Lingonite and Lingonite (SMECOF)).

We can't ignore this problem, like TFM suggests, because that will make our wiki harder to navigate and less Future proof; this needs to be standardized. Fixing our hierarchy also lays the groundwork for updating our current pages, and splitting mega lists, like Accessories (MARDEK), apart. So what do we do?

We have a few possibilities:

• Focus exclusively on "lore".
• Put "lore" first, and "gameplay" second.
• Split everything equally between "lore" and "gameplay".
• Put "gameplay" first, and "lore" second.
• Focus exclusively on "gameplay".

If we focus exclusively on "lore", we would have to get rid of most or all of our gameplay information, so that's not an option. The same goes for focusing exclusively on "gameplay". Splitting everything equally is more-or-less what I suggested above, which Firecrow shot down (for good reason).

For the remaining two options, let's imagine that all of the articles on Figverse Wiki are actually a delicious pie. In a "lore"-first approach, our friend Category:Figverse shows up first and eats as much of the pie as they can. Our other friend, Category:Series, gets the leftovers. A "gameplay"-first approach is the exact opposite.

Since Figverse Wiki is about the Figverse, a "lore"-first approach makes more sense to me. The only remaining problem is, how do we define "lore"? TFM defined it like this:

This doesn't quite work, since it excludes some things which we all (probably) agree are "lore". Things like Physical (Element). So, if there are no objections to my proposal, all we need is a better definition of "lore"!

I could change both of those things, yes, but I'd rather not. The existing layout is more future proof than your suggestion, since people can add new trivia or theories in existing sections. It also makes that information more obvious, which is especially important for the "Theory" section.

Additionally, I want to make the "Trivia" and "Theory" sections standard in our new manual of style: the former has been a de facto standard for ages, while the latter will reinforce our Content Policy. Using standard sections will make Figverse Wiki easier to read and edit.

Besides, we cover fictional information (except for Pseudolonewolf and Firequill). It would be more than a little odd to, without warning, encounter real-world facts in the middle of one of our articles!

Post #16, written by Firecrow91

They are at least mentioned in multiple games, and temperaments at least do have some in-universe importance (beast temperaments modify stats in Beast Signer). On the other hand those are some valid points. What about contracting them down to one article each?

What about in the case of slight spelling variations (namely spaces) between games? I believe we've already agreed to use hatnotes instead of disambiguation pages; should we rethink that? Or would we just have, for example, GlyphShield redirecting to GlyphShield (Deliverance)? Or not have tags in these cases?

Why does Belfan still have its own article? Is it because it is directly featured in a game?

Seconded. That seems like the best option for our wiki.

Let me try this:

*There must be a better wording to put in place of that section in square brackets, but I can't think of it right now.

Notes on my location definition:

• Everything continent-sized or bigger is lore, because there are no cases where it doesn't match the second definition.
• Everything that has been a gameplay level is not lore, because nested levels has never been seen, and if they were, the large level would certainly be highly inconsistent with the smaller levels. This would be a canonical conflict, which we shouldn't consider a "highly likely" possibility.
  • Exception is overmaps, but these have never been considered levels in their own right, and I see no reason to start right when it would open up new conflicts.
• SMECOF levels seem to contradict the previous statement, but in reality, they don't consist of the entire planet, nor a section of the planet, but a section of the planet's airspace. Thus, they are highly unlikely to contain other levels, and cannot be lore. The tags might need to be changed to reflect this.
• Unexplored cities must be lore under this definition, since they could contain CBC-type levels. However, they generally won't have enough information to merit their own pages anyway (possible exception of Charleston).
• Normos is not lore, despite containing multiple levels, because it does not physically exist within the Astrostles Galaxy.

What do you think?

Post #17, written by DarthKitty

Your definition of lore is... pretty confusing. Would you mind giving some more examples?

Does alignment play an active role in either "lore" or "gameplay", or is it just "background information"? A page about alignment would be fine, as long as it's relevant (like the four temperaments). Otherwise, we can just link to Wikipedia when the subject comes up.

I agree with what TFM said a few days ago:

"GlyphShield" and "Glyph Shield" are two separate subjects with very similar names, so people might go to the wrong page and be unable to find the information they need. Name tags are required because there is a need for clarity. We should also use redirects to make search more useful:

• "GlyphShield" and "Glyph Shield (Deliverance)" should redirect to "GlyphShield (Deliverance)".
• "Glyph Shield" and "GlyphShield (MARDEK)" should redirect to "Glyph Shield (MARDEK)".

Finally, each of the correct (tagged) pages should have a hatnote directing people to the other one, in case somebody ends up on the wrong page anyway. I think we should only use disambiguations if there are more than two similarly-named pages.

Yes, that's what TFM suggested.

Post #18, written by Firecrow91

...Let me try that again.

Lore consists of all aspects of a fictional universe that can be considered characteristic of that universe. To be counted as lore, a concept must exist in or have its absence easily explained in the majority of settings in that universe. Things created by sentient non-divine beings are NOT lore, unless it is made clear that all examples are from a common source, rather than convergent design. Lore also consists of all locations that are known to exist within the universe in question and that either contain multiple gameplay levels, or are large enough and known poorly enough that a game set there would be highly likely to have multiple gameplay levels within the area.

I didn't change the locations part, because I can't think of how else to word that while still keeping the same ideas in mind. If you still want examples, just ask again.

No. No it does not. Links to Wikipedia are good. Let's all link to Wikipedia.

The only problem I see with this is that if we have wrong-name-right-tag redirecting to right-name-right-tag, we're going to end up with a ridiculous list of autocomplete entries that could easily confuse people for this appearing in 3+ games. For example:

• Leather Armour (MARDEK)
• LeatherArmour (MARDEK)
• LeatherArmour (Deliverance)
• Leather Armour (Deliverance)
• LeatherArmour (The Rise of Yalortism)
• Leather Armour (The Rise of Yalortism)
• LeatherArmour
• Leather Armour

That's 3 info pages, 4 redirects and a disambiguation.

...But I don't have any better ideas, unfortunately...

Post #19, written by DarthKitty

...I really was asking for examples, you know. You didn't have to write a novel on eighteenth-century law.

Post #20, written by Firecrow91

I actually mainly edited it because I reread my first definition to think of some examples, and I could honestly barely understand it.

Anyway, examples:

Elements and their relationships

• Commonly used in Astrostles Galaxy games
• Portrayal is consistent between games
• Previously explained how they could be not explicit because technology in the other games
• Not created
• Some elements only found in MARDEK, but again their absence in other games is potentially explained by them being rare and/or unimportant
  • Verdict: Lore

Monsters and miasma

• Used in multiple AG games
• Portrayal is consistent between games
• Encyclopedia stuff pretty much states that most, but not all, planets have monsters, justifying their absence in some games
• Divinely created
  • Verdict: Lore

Gruuls

• Used in multiple AG games
• BUT monster species are based on the thoughts of sentient beings
• AND no reason to believe they have a common origin rather than being based on common thought patterns
  • Verdict: Not lore

Deities:

• Used in multiple AG games
• Portrayal is consistent between games
• It's reasonable that not all deities appear in all games
• Not created
  • Verdict: Lore

Yalortism:

• Used in multiple AG games
• Portrayal is consistent between games
• As a concept, it is not ubiquitous, therefore its absence is easily justified
• CREATED by the Lingons
• BUT spread throughout the galaxy from that common source
  • Verdict: Lore

Save Crystals

• Used in multiple AG games
• Portrayal is consistent between games
• Games without save crystals usually have some technological substitute that is possibly derived from the same
• Not KNOWN to be created
  • Verdict: Lore (tentatively)

Magic and Status Effects

• Used in multiple AG games
• Portrayal is NOT consistent between games
  • Verdict: Not lore

LeatherArmour (or other items)

• Used in multiple AG games
• Are created by non-divine beings
• No known common origin
  • Verdict: Not lore

Post #21, written by DarthKitty

Thank you, those examples are very clear and easy to understand. :)

That's only a theory, though; a potential explanation. I could come up with dozens of theories to explain why Status Effects are inconsistent, but I don't think you (or TFM) would accept that. So why do elements get special treatment?

Also, what about:

• The Sandflow Caves, which contain three or four gameplay levels (Xantusia, the Dark Temple of Belfan, the Miasmal Citadel, and arguably the Sun Temple)?
• Super Mega Extreme Cyber Ortek Flier 2005 X?
• Mardek Innanu El-Enkidu?

Post #22, written by TheFifteenthMember

I haven't posted for a few days because I've been taking some time to actually form a full opinion on the matter of lore vs gameplay. And my outlook on the situation has taken a complete 180 degrees turn.

At the moment, my idea of "lore" is pretty confused. FC's definition requires so many examples just to be understood and even then, there are still a high amount of ambiguity. Here's a few points to throw out:

• According to FC's definition "Things created by sentient non-divine beings are NOT lore", which implies that things that *are* created by divine beings are lore. Divine beings created the elemental crystals but is the Water Crystal (plot item) in MARDEK, really "characteristic of the universe [as a whole]"?
• RPGs are open-ended so they don't have specific, clear-cut "levels" as such. This makes it hard to judge the second half of your definition, concerning locations.
• "Lore also consists of all locations that... are large enough and known poorly enough that a game set there would be highly likely to have multiple gameplay levels within the area." This borders into terrain of speculation: Could a deserted planet really have multiple gameplay levels since there's nothing there? Do you think this temple is large enough to have multiple divisions and areas?

In the philosophy of science, simplicity is a meta-scientific criterion by which to evaluate competing theories. If the definition has that much ambiguity and so many individual cases must be argued, the definition doesn't seem to be a strong, clear or stable one. Unfortunately, my new proposal will set us back quite some time but as it was said at the start: "Measure twice. Cut once".

Anyway, I think that everything should have pages that are shared across all games: items, monsters, characters, locations, abilities, everything. This would solve a great deal of confusion, make wiki navigation easier, and allow new users to understand the policy much easier. Also, it may or may not benefit the general layout of our articles as combining pages of more-or-less the same subject will improve the main flow and fluidity of our articles. The main problem to watch out for is ensuring the more technical articles (items, enemies, abilities, anything with lots of "numbers") are comprehensive enough so that the reader understands which pieces of information applies to which games.

And this means we need to revise all of our mock-ups. The ones we spent many hours (and days) working on. It's not all bad though: we can keep the skeleton of our mock-ups the same, we only need to add a new brush-up to them. Ability and item pages can mostly be sorted out by having sub-sections to describe each game (e.g. two "MARDEK" and "Deliverance" sub-sections under the "Acquisition" section of an item). Lists can stay the same since they're built to describe a group of articles for a particular game. The monster mock-up will need the most work, though.

But before we go onto discussing how we change the mock-ups, we need to first decide whether this plan is something we're even going to do! So guys, what are you thoughts on this?

...The problem here is that I'm trying to work this in some way so that neither group (elements or status effects) is split between lore and gameplay. So I'm trying to put them where most of their examples seem to go:

Earth, Air, Fire, Water, Light, Dark, Aether, Fig -> Lore

Thauma, Divine, (arguably) Physical -> Not Lore

PSN, PAR, DRK, SIL, CRS, CNF, SLP, PSH, MSH, RGN -> Lore

Excessively-huge list of highly situational status effects -> Not Lore

I'm essentially categorizing them as groups, because otherwise, things get way too messy. If you have a better way to deal with this, I'll gladly take your advice.

And in the same vein, Subprotaia?

Good point. Let me think about that one.

...Not sure what you're getting at with SMECOF. If you're asking about game pages, they are essentially stories that take place in the universe, and therefore are not characteristic elements of the universe. Same goes for Mardek.

You're misinterpreting that a bit. Something has to be BOTH "characteristic of the universe as a whole" and "not created by sentient non-divine beings" to be lore. The Water Crystal plot item obviously fails the first part, and therefore is not lore. Elemental crystals in general, however, meet both parts and would be lore.

We had no trouble struggling with differentiating "levels" when we made pages on them.

...Actually, why don't we define "level" as an area that can be travelled through without accessing menus, worldmaps or plot-specific transitions? That would solve the Sandflow Caves/Subprotaia conundrum too, since the sub-levels are now part of the level.

• Yes. The idea of an entire planet being completely deserted with absolutely nothing of interest there is utterly ludicrous.
• It depends. Have we been in the temple? Then we know it's not. Have the descriptions of the temple gone on about how absolutely ginormous it is? Then it probably is. Do we basically know nothing except that there's a temple? Then probably not. This is inductive reasoning, not pure speculation; every temple we have seen, including those lauded as being grand and expansive, has only been a single level.

As tempting as this is given the difficulty we're having with this definition, I am going to have to vote against it.

Firstly, this would absolutely ruin our nice tree-based categorisation system.

Secondly, by splitting each section into different games, we'd be spreading out the information our users are looking for (which will typically be for a single specific game) forcing them to scroll through mountains of filler.

Thirdly, our infoboxes are going to be pretty much useless, since in many cases the information we're putting there isn't consistent between games. We couldn't use the element colours at all there.

Fourthly, (well, this is less a point than debating one of yours), how exactly would adding more information to an article improve its flow? It seems to me that that could only really make it worse.

It's true this isn't a strong, clear, stable definition. That doesn't mean that it's better to have no definition. That just means we need to improve it.