Talk:Main Page
From Champions MUSH
Contents |
Purpose
I think "The purpose of this site is to list the Plots and Characters of Champions Mush" is a bit restrictive as a statement of purpose. For instance it might prove a good place to give more details of places, of history, even of tech - more convenient that the EVENTS files. —Stephie
Agreed. I've modified the home page to have a more generic message.
--Angstrom 00:14, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Tree links
Just a thought - should we try to make sure that all top-level categories are linked from the main page? This should make the whole wiki tree-searchable as well as searchable by search feature - well, to the extent all articles have at least one category. Stephie 16:57, 18 November 2006 (EST)
Agreed.
--Angstrom 00:14, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Name format
I added a (dead) link referring to Stephie's father as "Dallimore, Quentin", but I notice that some Starguard personnel are listed with their first names first. Is it better to list them under first names or last (which matters for purposes of lists)? And should we make it policy to cross-reference from the other name, or just rely on Search? Stephie 19:24, 18 November 2006 (EST)
In think that the convention should be First Name then Last Name, as in "Quentin Dallimore". For the purpose of the sorting order in categories, you can specify how the article should be sorted in the category that contains it. I've moved the guidelines to its own page and I cover the topic here. I don't think it's necessary to set up a cross-reference table. I think people will find the page through search or from Lore's page.
--Angstrom 00:11, 19 November 2006 (EST)
I've set my preferences so the wiki is supposed to email me when changes are made to pages I'm watching, or my User page. So why doesn't it? Stephie 19:27, 18 November 2006 (EST)
- Hm, well I've had a couple now, referring to changes on this page and the main one. Stephie 04:16, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Teams: Categories vs Articles
Right now, I've got the teams set up as categories. This has trade-offs. It's easy to maintain the list of people in the category, but it's more confusing to link to categories. To make it simpler, I'm going to make sure all team references are articles and not categories, unless someone objects.
Moving forward, I think the only categories that will exist are Characters, Heroes, Villains, NPCs, Aliens... broad categories like that.
--Angstrom 00:24, 19 November 2006 (EST)
- Myself, I've been coming to the conclusion that categories were the right way to do teams. It's also ultimately lower-maintenance - it means that membership on a team, for instance, can be adjusted from the character page, rather than having to maintain a separate list under the team - I'd sooner spend some time debugging broken links than have this problem. As a middle way, perhaps we could have raw team names that redirect to the group? That way you could for instance have a simple [[New Blood]] link in your text which would redirect to [[:Category:New Blood]], thus keeping the best of both categories and simple links. It wouldn't take too many redirects, since categories aren't numerous.
- I also wouldn't want a blanket large-category only rule - we never know what we might want in the long run.
- Stephie 04:14, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Ok. I've been digging around on Wikipedia to see how they do things there. Based on that, I think it's best to have teams and organizations as both Articles and Categories. The Article will contain the description of the group, headquarters, equipment, history, etc. The team Article will belong to the team Category. The team Category won't have any of the descriptive text, but it will likely have a link to the team Article. Team members will belong to the team category as well. Team plot will belong to the category too. I'll set up the teams to reflect these ideas. There's a good guideline on Wikipedia for how to handle categories. [1]
--Angstrom 03:08, 21 November 2006 (EST)
- Unfortunately the Category:Organizations page has ended up a bit of a mess. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the scheme itself (in some ways it makes things more complicated, but reflecting Wikipedia practice should make it familiar, and in fact I was surpised this wasn't practice from the start) but I think the categorised list of groups at the top and the alphabetised list are quite adequate without the the third list (to main group article). Worse, I don't think it's clear to users what links to the main article and what links to a category.
- If this scheme is defifinitely adopted we should searching for all links to Categories and (generally) redirect them to the main article.
- -- Stephie 05:12, 21 November 2006 (EST)
- Actually, I've changed my mind about Category:Organizations: alphabetised lists to both the main article and the category are useful. Arguably the fourth should be added: categorised links to the categories, though it's not important. But I think a bit of text added to the article explaining more clearly what each set it might be beneficial.
- -- Stephie 05:23, 21 November 2006 (EST)
tangent.dune.net
Might be nice to give the what-do-you-call-it address consisting of four numbers as well as tangent.dune.net. I hate losing access to the MUSH just because my nameserver goes down. I'd add it myself but don't know it. —Stephie 04:29, 19 November 2006 (EST)
Media
The first 10 +media articles are up. Let me know if the format for them needs any work.
- The main page link should take you to the Category page, which should exist. :) Really there should be a chronologically ordered index by headline, as well (a table, maybe, with all the header into? Also, you should have signed the above so we know who you are. :P
- More of a general question: should wiki media replace the existing +media? It makes it much easier to write an article, and easier to search the media, but lose editorial control. Unless it can be set up so media aren't official till the page is locked by a staffer of the like (if it can be arrange that staffers can lock pages!) -- Stephie 16:51, 22 November 2006 (EST)
- I agree with Stephie here, migrate media onto the wiki would be a good thing. We also get to use links and graphics and other stuff like that within media.
- I'm not too worried about editorial control - wiki maintains the history, so we can roll back if we need to, and it's no worse than having people edit your character or RP log.
- In fact, this _is_ the 21st century... IC edits representing hacker activity, hyperlinks to personal or corporate blogs, dissenting opinions and so forth might be a lot of fun and entirely appropriate. Shadowrun source material used to do stuff like this, where there was the "official" writeup about the Elf Kingdom and then half a page of far-more-informative snarky commentary about it.
- I may tackle this once I'm happy with EVENTS.
- Cale, 7/3/08
