It might be cool to put the "current date" on the main page - ie the most recent shared date in-game (I think currently it is 21st Sovereign 635 HR) Pheodora 10:52, 2 January 2008 (EST)
this is actually a fantastic idea. I'll create a place for it. Z-Ro 11:15, 2 January 2008 (EST)
No wait, I wonder if we should just link (Maybe from "Aaron Roco") to Current Events and create a header or something in that page, that way Greg (who knows what day it is, etc) just changes that when he updates the page. Not that I'm looking to heap more responsibility on Greg (he would be the wrong person to give any MORE responsibility to), but I feel like maybe the current in-game date would belong there.
Thoughts? If the Beastlands campaign starts actively using the wiki like the Sigil game does, then there might need to be a current events page for that game as well, or we divide the current events page or something. Just thinking outloud.
Also, ANY page could be styled in the fashion of, say, the main page, if we want to create portal pages for certain sections. Wikipedia is robust with such examples.
Z-Ro 11:25, 2 January 2008 (EST)
Beastlands & Portal Pages
Yeah, I guess I don't yet know how to organize the Beastlands stuff quite yet - its something I want to do. For instance, create the episodes from that campaign, but where to put them. I guess we can create a category Category: Beastlands Episode and a page List of Beastlands Episodes. Simple enough. But the current events thing...I dunno. I like that page. And I think it is just as important that the Beastlands campaign have it. Perhaps a page Beastlands Current Events? I dunno, I just don't like dividing the existing page at all.
Also I think we should look into creating portals (see example of Lostpedia Portal)as Zac mentioned. There are a number of ways to do it, but I thought to use them to tie together similar topics. Like the "Grundelthum Technology" Portal (e.g. mimir, sensory stones, autoscribes etc) or the "Lawshredder" (murders, victims, energy, etc) Portal each of which would contain links to all pages that deal with that topic. I have no idea if this is a good idea, but at some point as increasing amounts of content become added, it may be more useful than "See Also" and "Categories" which are not always inclusive enough. This may provide some connections between pages. Just thoughts - wanted to get them out before I forgot them.GPK 16:54, 9 January 2008 (EST)
Where are the wanted pages links? I liked that and I could do places and patch pages to fill linkedshit atleast to get stuff started--Geoff 09:10, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I totally got your back, you can now find a link to wanted pages on the on the upper right section of the main page, underneath the category lists. It may move in the future, but that's where it is for now. We can also use that to consolidate pages which may be linked to repeatedly under different names. an example would be Noxona, whom I just added several links to from the new Temple of the Abyss pages. Z-Ro 12:08, 14 January 2008 (EST)
I think we should add a new category something like 'needs work' or 'hot topic' or some other name that lets people know what pages we are currently concentrating on now. I don't really like 'needs work' because the entire wiki needs work. Something that we can put the current episode in and so we can highlight a small number of pages that we would like to flesh out for whatever reason. Thoughts? Grey 19:53, 30 April 2008 (EDT)
Dude, I think on some level this is kind of silly. You are proposing another category that means the same thing to replace a category we already have. I can't speak for others others, but I use "stubs" to keep tabs on what pages still "need work" and then slowly make my way through them adding to the previous work people have completed. Sure, I guess if you want to replace every page that has a "stub" with a "needs work" category that is fine, but it seems unnecessary when we already have a system in place. Sure they might not be stubs in the traditional wiki sense, but we should not be making simple place holders anyway, because pages like this are not helpful. I am all for "clearing out" the stubs but some/most of these could still use a significant amount of work and I would prefer it if they are not forgotten about - so why make a completely new category? GPK 00:00, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
I think stubs are a good way of indicating what does and does not need work. If you want to keep tabs on what's hot, you can use the Recent Changes page - there are different views you can use on said page that can be used pretty quickly to determine what's been edited or added lately. Additionally you could take an RSS feed from the Recent Changes page.
I guess what I'm saying is that I see creating another category - as suggested - as unnecessary. I mean, if the provided options are not enough to allow people to figure out what is being worked on presently, too bad. The focus here should probably be on the composition of content, and not micromanaging the categorization of said content. That's why I like the stubs.
Alternately if a small list of pages needs to be created that is being worked on, it could just be created manually here on the Recent Changes discussion page. Though I'm not sure why you would need to do that. Z-Ro 06:55, 1 May 2008 (EDT)
We should get fans. They could sign up for the wiki and edit our talk pages. Leave comments about the story or whatever. Grey 21:29, 4 August 2008 (EDT)
Those are signups from spambots.
The easiest way for us to allow people to become fans of our wiki is for an email account to be setup where people can contact us to request an account. Then we can create an account for them. If you want to set that up and administrate it, it can totally go in a section on the main page, or whatever. This is not a topic that I believe warrants any significant group attention. Z-Ro 16:23, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Do people give an email when they sign up as part of account creation? Grey 17:13, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Get off it. "Getting fans" is ridiculous.
Is getting contributors? Grey 22:35, 26 January 2009 (EST)
In my opinion I do not see the benefit of people who have nothing to do with us or this game contributing in any way. Those are my thoughts. I do not think it matters too much though because I do not foresee anyone, even the BIGGEST PS geek in the world actually taking the time to contribute to our discussion pages in a game they are not in. Maybe I am wrong. But if they did, I think it possible I, at least, might find it annoying...GPK 22:57, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I actually think this is a bad idea, having given it some thought. We have some copyrighted material here, and I don't think attention should be called to that; I think it is a bad idea to do that. Also I fail to see what the concept of fans has to do with the concept of contributors. I don't want joe DnD adding shit to this wiki, because it's not some universal planescape wiki, it's a wiki of our PS game. Also why do we as a group regularly have to tell Aaron "no"? Z-Ro 23:19, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I don't now man, you gotta cut that shit out. If you are worried about it we could go to a login to read format (if you even can). Grey 23:29, 26 January 2009 (EST)
Concurrence on both Greg and Zac's points. 23:32, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I mean, apparently there is nothing we can say to immediately convince you this is a bad idea. Just please do not invite any "fans" until we have time to discuss this further - perhaps when we are all together.GPK 23:55, 26 January 2009 (EST)
I have the banner image on the main page set to a particular # of pixels in size. This looks great on my browser but I realize if you look at it on a screen with a different resolution in may not go across the entire screen. I'm not sure how to set it up where it will auto size depending on your resolution. Grey 19:47, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
- The banner looks great. The main page was in need of some upgrades so thanks for both the images and the rewrites. GPK 22:01, 5 September 2010 (EDT)
|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|whatup||3||08:34, 6 March 2014|
|threaded discussions||2||08:33, 6 March 2014|