Elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/NPCs

From elanthipedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Article naming conventions

To include as much info as possible and help with searching, NPC page titles should include the entire name (first and last) but no titles (General, etc.). However, there should always be a redirect page from the first name only page. -Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 14:06, 19 April 2008 (CDT)

I disagree. They have been changed back and forth a few times, but I think the first-name only approach is working well. --Aetherie 03:40, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
In order to be fair, until a consensus is reached on this point we should hold off writing that section. I'm going to put a note in to indicate that it's still evolving. --Farman 10:46, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
I'd like to echo what Aetherie said above. As I recall, there was a fairly involved discussion about this a while back. I'm currently trying to find it. I want to say that it started because of changes to the Alicia Crowther article... --Basselope 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
In my opinion using First name for page titles is best, unless there is a disambig reason to further qualify it. (you can use the DISPLAYNAME directive of the wiki to edit the displayed name, iirc). Searching for Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig will still find the Sirolarn page, and a redirect from his fully qualified name won't hurt either. It also helps given the fact that "family" names can change, (due to a person/NPC clearing it, adopting someone into the family, and marriage). First names are almost always guaranteed to be unique, "full names" can change. --Callek 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)
I agree with Callek for the following reasons: (1) first names are usually unique; (2) last names are subject to change; (3) people generally refer to characters by first name; (4) last names are not visible unless you LOOK; and (5) if you enter only the first name, GO will take you directly to the article; if the article name includes a last name, you have to go through the extra step of clicking a search result.

The first name format is what people are accustomed to using, and it has worked reasonably well. In the unusual case where two characters use the same first name, the disambiguation link can be used, or additional identifying information can be used in the name-space (e.g., Kalag the Black and Kalag the Sly). --Isharon 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of disambiguation pages (and redirects)

Aside from the discussion on how to name the article, I'd like to discuss this passage from the proposed new Manual of Style:

"When at all possible, avoid making pages for two individuals, even if they are closely related."

I believe this is a bad idea. Doing so would result in pages with information on two (or more, as in the case of Penelope) characters, sometimes with absolutely no connection other than a similarity in names. Disambiguation pages exist for a reason, and this particular suggestion would do away with them entirely. The information presented on each page should be semantically connected; the similarity in names between two characters does not meet this standard. --Basselope 13:13, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

In this case, I was meaning more along the lines of the husband and wife combined pages I sometimes run across.Caraamon Strugr-Makdasi 17:24, 29 April 2008 (CDT)
Caraamon, can you provide an example? Furthermore, could you please explain where you see disambiguation pages being used improperly, thus necessitating the statement ("When at all possible...") above? --Basselope 18:21, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

NPC Free Text Order

I would like to propose the following as a consistent format for NPCs "Free Text". --Hithrael 15:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Any brief description of the NPC.
Description - Any free form verse that is NOT the same format as looking at a PC
If Multiple, start with most current.
Appearance - What you see when the NPC is about and active (aka looks like a PC)
If Multiple start with most current. Special event descriptions would come after the most current 'normal' one
Trading Card - Text if available
Other - Any other tidbits of information
Conversation Topics - Any areas of conversation, such as guild introduction speeches, when asked about other things, etc.
List only major topics. Any subtopics should be bolded within.

For a populated example, see Kssarh or Selinthesa

  • == main information
  • === secondary information
  • ''' tiertiary
  • ---- divide out large text chunks within tiertiary

Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --thilan 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I did it, but the TOC became about 50 pages long for some entries where it was broken down (see Kssarh for example of how long that'd be) Hithrael 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
True, didn't think of that. Bolding's fine then. --thilan 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)