Sounds mostly good. Two points for you to consider:
Do we need separate pages for the unimplemented skills? Beast Signer does have an alarmingly large number of them, and none of them have all that much information we need to (or can) add. Besides, if we remove all the skills from the type pages and put a summary and links on Techniques (Beast Signer Alpha), the type pages are going to end up pretty redundant and/or stublike.
Secondly, in a similar vein, Techniques (Beast Signer Alpha)/Default can probably be removed altogether once its techniques have individual pages.
I looked into it and that seems to be all they do. (I think they modify more than just those two skills though, but I'm not sure.)
For Beast Signer: OH MY, does that whole game need some serious work. (Maybe after I'm done with Miasmon) But from what I can tell, everything but the actual Beast Signer page is related to the Alpha.
For Miasmon: The category is full of basically way too much development information, and we have next to nothing about the prototype yet. I'm working on righting that, and moving pages to the appropriate category as I go. Hopefully, when I'm done, the Miasmon category will have only the main page and a couple of pages worthy of deletion.
Can I ask how you extracted it? For future use.
I know. I just end up using an incredibly bullshit definition of hacking here because even though what I really mean is "obtaining information in a manner in which it was not designed to be obtained", that's a ridiculous mouthful with no easy term to describe it and most people confuse it with hacking anyway.
This is pretty much the definition of canonicity I've been personally using. Not that there have even BEEN any such plot contradictions to my knowledge. I mean, reusing plot elements? It's not like the same story could possibly happen twice in the entire history of an entire galaxy! That's complete rubbish!
Also, returning somewhat to the original purpose of this thread: I've run into a weird bug while investigating trainers. There's one trainer in Zenith Forest Pt1 (the hippie chick who goes to such lengths describing how awesome her boyfriend is that you know right away he's a moronic jerk. Classic Pseudo humour). She has an Arph that spams Lux (because its other move is Light Affinity), and a Fungoblin. If you kill the Arph and it's replaced by the Fungoblin, it sometimes uses Lux on its first turn, despite not being coded with it. Confirmed multiple times on multiple playthroughs. Obviously, some move queue isn't being properly cleared. I haven't been able to reproduce this anywhere else, though, so I'm trying to figure out what triggers it (to see if there's anywhere else it COULD happen). Any help/advice would be appreciated.
Also, are you making the NPC list by taking the game apart, or just using 'legal means'?
Really? What source did that come from that's been available for over a year?
But I think the rule would apply to the release date anyway, simply because there's no way to prove the information from your source is still valid for the current release without hacking it.
And I am doing this using entirely unassisted legal means (mainly because the relevant data seems to be in separate XML rather than the actionscript, and I don't know how to extract it).
Yes, FM, you are exactly right about the skills shown in the bestiary.
Also, don't bother doing trainers. I'm currently working on a really in-depth list of them (including, for example, their beasts' skills and stat boosts).
That's a nice table there, Michos. I'll just write out what the columns mean for anyone unsure:
A: Just a reference number
C: Primary Type
D: Secondary Type
E: Base Power
F: Base Spirit
G: Base Vitality
H: Base Agility
J: Rarity (determines cloning cost)
K: Does the sprite fly?
P: Tier 1 skills
Q: Tier 2 skills
R: Tier 3 skills
S: Family (determines skills if none given)
T: Available genders
U: Levelup stat point chances for wild mons
V: Regular evolution
W: Totem evolution(s)
(Also, obligatory reminder that per our Content Policy we need to wait a year before putting anything that can't be found without hacking on the wiki.)
Aww, I liked T15M! Even though I totally made that one up and started using it for mysterious reasons. i was lazy Mysterious! Very well, FM it is.
I didn't really mean to imply that non-tree-based categorisation was ineffective. Indeed a well-planned-out categorisation system can perfectly effective regardless of whether it's tree-based or not. The thing is, the main reason we are planning to switch to tree-based (I believe; DK correct me if I am wrong) is the excess of redundant categorisation our wiki suffered from before DK's recent updates, where most pages are placed in a category and several subcategories. If we commit to switch to tree-based categorisation, this becomes a non-issue. Otherwise, we'd have to set some policy for when multiple categorisations are acceptable. It's just a lot more work, is what I'm saying.
You're assuming the use and acquisition sections are the only differences between games for abilities and items. Most of them will also have varying appearances and require their own intro section due to classification differences between games. Also, active abilities also have a somewhat extensive Formula section that should be taken into account.
But you're right, those aren't my biggest concern. Monsters and status effects would be a lot worse. How not monstrously long is the combined page of Blade Bee (MARDEK), Blade Bee (Deliverance), Blade Bee (Beast Signer Alpha) and Blade Bee (The Rise of Yalortism) going to be?
And yes, the table of contents mitigates scrolling. Specifically, it mitigates scrolling TO something. It does pretty much nothing to help with scrolling between different sections, because you'd have to scroll back up to the top of the page just to find it. (And anyway, using it multiple times clogs up my history, which is annoying as hell if I want to go back a page.)
Yes. We could also spend several months arguing about how to decide which game gets the top tab before eventually moving on to other discussions and forgetting that we hadn't actually reached a consensus until it comes time to implement it.
Using my reasoning, Physical, Thauma and Divine are lore. My reasoning was in fact designed precisely to avert this problem. That is what made my reasoning so complex that we started having this discussion in the first place.
...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:
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.
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.
...I really was asking for examples, you know. You didn't have to write a novel on eighteenth-century law.
I actually mainly edited it because I reread my first definition to think of some examples, and I could honestly barely understand it.
Elements and their relationships
Monsters and miasma
Magic and Status Effects
LeatherArmour (or other items)
...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.
"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:
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:
That's 3 info pages, 4 redirects and a disambiguation.
...But I don't have any better ideas, unfortunately...
Mnice. I have played it, and I pronounce it Quite Good.
...Should we start adding information now, or do we wait for the new Manual of Style so we don't have to do everything twice?
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:
What do you think?
No, hopefully that won't be necessary :/
The edited version meets my somewhat lofty standards.
...I'm somewhat skeptical of this, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
THIS. Wholeheartedly. This is what we should do. This is what I would have said if I could put my thoughts into words better.
They're from the lost-to-the-ages Fighunter Encyclopedia. Unfortunately. But here is an archived version!
Eh, this seems a bit extreme for my liking. Besides the galaxy articles might go from stubs to overwhelming monster articles, devouring bandwidth and spreading lag wherever they go. Howabout just merging the planet pages into the star system pages?
Since Potion (MARDEK) is separate from Potion (Deliverance), shouldn't Poison (MARDEK) be separate from Poison (Deliverance)? Shouldn't Fire (MARDEK) and Fire (Deliverance) also be separate? Category:Figverse has a lot of "general" pages like that.It isn't a perfect plan, but it's a good way to start a conversation.
And start a conversation it will.
The items fairly obviously do need to be separated between series. They in many cases have different properties, different appearances, sometimes even different purposes. They are fundamentally different between games. (There are of course exceptions, but for the sake of consistency we shoehorn them into the standard pattern. Of course.)
For status effects, it's true that there are some universal status effects that appear in some form across many different games. But they are tightly linked to the magic system, and as the games have repeatedly shown, the magic system is not consistent across the Astrostles Galaxy. Spells are highly person-specific and can be used and eventually learnt by wearing equipment. They are made from monster souls bound into a book and can be learnt by anyone. They are taught by crystals that monsters drop. There is no way to prove, and strong arguments against, Raider Zero's Poison, MARDEK's Poison, Deliverance's Poison and Beast Signer's Poison being the same thing. It's much more likely to be different types of magic working in different ways, and happening to achieve similar results.
No such argument can be made for elements.
Elements are an established concept of the Astrostles Galaxy. In every game that features them, they are described the same way (a fundamental property that everyone and everything has), the same relationships are described between them, the same elements are common. Kiernan and Kerah, fish out of water from an utterly magicless society, are fully aware of elements. The only games that don't feature elements (Raider series, SMECOF) are also the only games that don't feature combat magic of any kind, preferring technological weapons; it is entirely reasonable that elements are present there, but they're just overlooked because they don't feature in combat.
The elements are FUNDAMENTAL properties of the Astrostles galaxy. They are near-ubiquitous, have little variation between appearances and no argument for different appearances being different things. I see absolutely no benefit to dividing them into a page for every game.
...That doesn't really answer my question.
With Aurelia as my example: Her father's last name is Moonglow. Her mother's last name is Moonglow. These are both explicitly given to us. Her last name, however, is never given. It is a logical and reasonable assumption to make that it is also Moonglow, given the above, but we do not know the naming conventions of Proteus, and this has a small chance of being every bit as wrong as Mardek El-Regis.
So what do we name the article? Which is official according to the source material?
And Category:MARDEK is a list of pages about MARDEK. Pages is plural. MARDEK, however, is not. There is no sensible way to pluralise this category name, yet your Manual of Style explicitly says that we need to.
Speaking of mockups, I always thought they were temporary tools, places to experiment and try out different layouts or writing styles. I figured they existed to help us figure out what we wanted to do, but they would be replaced by the Manual of Style once we wrote it. In fact, this is the definition of a mockup:
...What is this Featured Article system you speak of? Explain that more to me.
Also, I agree that once we come to an agreement on a mockup, its purpose as a mockup is done. But I don't think that some generic Manual of Style section will provide the detail necessary to deal with a given type of article's specific irregularities consistently, and I don't like the idea of our official policy being "make it look like an existing similar article" due to the risk of a troll edit being spread across the wiki. I suppose what I really want is some kind of protected master template (I hesitate to use the word due to its different meaning on wikis, but it's the only one that really fits).
Yes, I was, uh, totally here lurking disapprovingly the whole time and not elsewhere. True story which is true.
This is just for the Series categoryspace, right? Because the Figverse categoryspace, by its very nature, completely violates this. And we have pretty much agreed to that being an important part of the wiki.
A couple of comments on what you have there:
Hi, and sorry for the long absence! I have been very busy out in reality, and I was somewhat waiting for some commentary on my huge "path forward" post a while back. But I'll comment briefly on what's here.
Also, under the "Resistance" section, is it worth including the amount of resistance each item gives? At the very least, we should have two separate sentences for quick reference:"The following items offer partial Poison resistance..." and "Some items convey full Poison resistance..."
Yes, I figured auto-effect items (and passive skills!) would just merit a sentence in the "Causes" section.
As for differentiating between full and partial resistance, that... might be a good idea? I should look into that. When I have time.
Also, maybe a list of enemies that resist it. Collapsible collapsed, because that would be very long otherwise. (EDIT: this is a stupid idea.)
I... don't much like portals, to be honest. (Wiki portals, not Portal portals. Portal portals are awesome.) Mainly because I like the idea of the main page being a navigation hub, with lots of handy links, rather than just an entry page that no one will ever go back to. Plus it's less clicks to get to the content.
That said, our current setup does seem a bit cluttered... Not enough to make me want to switch to portals, but enough to make me wonder if there's some third option we're overlooking.
I like your community suggestions, T15M. We should definitely try to include at least some of those. But as I mentioned above, community features is pretty much the last stage of this transition.
Also another idea. I don't think this has been mentioned here before, but implementing Achievements might help increase editor interest.
I don't really use chats, ever, and have no idea what IRC is, so I'm going to stay out of this one.
This applies to more than just pages; for example, I've been pretty much running in circles trying to work on the navboxes. What pages deserve links in the game navbox? What groups of pages deserve their own navbox?
The trouble is, all of this seems very tricky to apply any kind of objective definition to, so I'm not sure how we can even communicate suggestions, much less decide on one.
And regarding the disambiguation drafts, I prefer T15M's. The headings just seem a little superfluous here.
...I just realized that partial transparency doesn't work with .gifs, making my initial request pretty stupid. So new question: Which is preferrable?
Is the change related to the recent thread I posted in this board? Because it no longer seems to go here. It no longer seems to go anywhere. This confuses me.
Ah, yes, I forgot about SMECOF. It... complicates things, to be honest.
I can't see splitting the city pages into locations and levels. Take Template:Sandbox/DarthKitty/Goznor, for example. If we split a location page out of that, what would it have? The description and location, both very small sections, seem the only things that are really more Location than Level. And since Goznor isn't really all that important in the greater Astrostles galaxy, splitting off a few tiny sections into a separate page that is likely going to be always referenced at the same time as the original page doesn't seem to do anything but act as a slight hindrance to navigation.
Planets, on the other hand, are different. Lingonite in particular, but the other Draco system planets to a lesser extent, is relevant to the Astrostles galaxy. It is referenced in other games. It is very much setting, and there is a lot of information about it that is neither found in nor referencing SMECOF. So there's enough information to support a separate page, and enough relevance to call for it.
But, as you mentioned, this would mean we'd probably have to introduce suites. As we've already pretty much made the decision not to majorly incorporate them into the site's navigation, this provides a problem. We don't really want to incorporate them for such a minor usage...
This is just an idea, so let me know what you think, but we do already have something sort of superficially similar to suites on the wiki. Namely, the you may be looking for similar-page warnings. If we made a more obvious template for those, it could be a kind of 'pseudo-suite'. The pages wouldn't be grouped as subpages of the first one, and the primary method of navigation would still be from the individual game or universe pages, but it would allow us to link Location and Level pages together wherever both are necessary (As hinted previously, I don't think any games except SMECOF have enough non-level information on their levels to require a location page as well, so setting location pages as only used at the continent level or above [at least for now; this doesn't have to be a written rule] would sort that out nicely). As a bonus, this would also provide easy links between related concepts in different games, better tying the wiki together as a whole.
I have made a mockup for a single-game Poison article. There is more than enough information here to make an article (and I suspect that the shortest status effect articles are also the game-specific ones). There doesn't seem to be any justification for combining the games' status effects if we don't combine the items.
I think I have done this. It combines most of the basic information from the game's pages in an easy-to-read, single-page format. All it's missing is an Unfinished Game notice, which I left out because I wasn't sure if Template:Alert is ready to be rolled out yet. Check it out and let me know if it's missing anything obvious.
RE getting community:
Sounds like we have a clear plan here:
1. Get Structure
2: Get Content
C) Get Features
Our overt navigation relies on six main features: Categories, Navboxes, Disambiguations, the Main Page links, the Navigation Menu and Search. DK's done some excellent work on sorting out the Categories. I'm going to try to work on the Navboxes (content only, of course, since I'm not nearly competent enough to fix what isn't broken). I won't push this onto the wiki yet though, given the large number of redlinks that are going to be in this due to missing content.
The main page linkboxes are pretty important to get fixed. We're missing SMECOF, TRoY and Cultling Quest; also, some of the existing ones need work (and I don't like how the Raider series and Raider Zero are combined while the rest of the wiki and the games themselves present them as separate, unrelated stories happening to the same character).
As for the other three parts (Disambiguations, Navigation Menu and Search), these are all tied pretty closely to the next thing:
The Page Update Thingy
This not only ties into navigation as stated above (it includes fixing the Disambiguation pages, allows us to update the NavMenu as we add missing pages and pretty much makes Search not nearly as useless), but it's also pretty much the single fix for our Comprehensibility problem (the other half of structure) and serves as a handy springboard into updating and fixing Content. But to start this, we need to finalize both the mockups and the manuals.
For manuals: DK, you've been working really hard on this, and we've been sitting here nodding a lot. Can you give us some sort of status update? What exactly needs to be agreed on to finalize these?
For mockups, here's what we have currently:
These ones still need debate:
I think we've concluded that games and transcripts can just use one of the existing articles as their template, and most articles in the Figverse and Developers trees will by necessity be on a case-by-case basis, and just stylistically based on the other stuff.
So what else DO we need?
Off the top of my head:
Blah. That is my epic path forward post. Questions? Comments? Unwarranted insults? Well-warranted insults? Non-sequiturs? (Just kidding, no non-sequiturs.)
PS: DK, you probably knew this, but your recent update to the Text template broke the hover feature for me.