elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/NPCs - Revision history

ISHARON at 04:22, 9 May 2009

2009-05-09T04:22:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 8 May 2009
Line 11:		Line 11:

	::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.<br><br>		::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.<br><br>
	::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).		::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). --[[User:Isharon\|Isharon]] 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
	:::--[[User:Isharon\|Isharon]] 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

ISHARON at 04:22, 9 May 2009

2009-05-09T04:22:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:22, 8 May 2009
Line 9:		Line 9:

	: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 <code>Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig</code> 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. --[[User:Callek\|Callek]] 12:41, 20 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 <code>Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig</code> 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. --[[User:Callek\|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.<br><br>
			::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).
			:::--[[User:Isharon\|Isharon]] 04:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance script: /* NPC Free Text Order */

2009-04-24T20:04:39Z

NPC Free Text Order

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 24 April 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)		:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|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) [[User:Hithrael\|Hithrael]] 19:27, 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) [[User:Hithrael\|Hithrael]] 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
			::True, didn't think of that. Bolding's fine then. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance script: /* NPC Free Text Order */

2009-04-24T19:27:34Z

NPC Free Text Order

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:27, 24 April 2009
Line 44:		Line 44:
	<br />		<br />
	:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)		:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|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) [[User:Hithrael\|Hithrael]] 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance script: /* NPC Free Text Order */

2009-04-24T19:09:38Z

NPC Free Text Order

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:09, 24 April 2009
Line 42:		Line 42:
	*<nowiki>''' tiertiary</nowiki>		*<nowiki>''' tiertiary</nowiki>
	*---- divide out large text chunks within tiertiary		*---- divide out large text chunks within tiertiary
			<br />
			:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Maintenance script at 18:27, 24 April 2009

2009-04-24T18:27:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:27, 24 April 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	::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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 18:21, 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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 18:21, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

	== NPC Free Text Order ==		===NPC Free Text Order===

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

Maintenance script at 17:06, 24 April 2009

2009-04-24T17:06:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:06, 24 April 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::List only major topics. Any subtopics should be bolded within.		::List only major topics. Any subtopics should be bolded within.

	'''For a populated example, see [[Kssarh]].'''		'''For a populated example, see [[Kssarh]] or [[Selinthesa]]'''

	== main information		*== main information
	=== secondary information		*=== secondary information
	''' tiertiary		*<nowiki>''' tiertiary</nowiki>
	---- divide out large text chunks within tiertiary		*---- divide out large text chunks within tiertiary

Maintenance script: /* NPC Free Text Order */ -- added more detail to template

2009-04-24T17:04:50Z

NPC Free Text Order: -- added more detail to template

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 24 April 2009
Line 36:		Line 36:
	::List only major topics. Any subtopics should be bolded within.		::List only major topics. Any subtopics should be bolded within.

	'''For an example, see [[Kssarh]].'''		'''For a populated example, see [[Kssarh]].'''

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

Maintenance script: /* NPC Free Text Order */ new section

2009-04-24T15:19:07Z

NPC Free Text Order: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:19, 24 April 2009
Line 22:		Line 22:

	::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? --[[User:Basselope\|Basselope]] 18:21, 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? --[[User:Basselope\|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". --[[User:Hithrael\|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 an example, see [[Kssarh]].'''

CARAAMON: New page: ===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.)....

2008-05-30T21:59:02Z

New page: ===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.)....

New page

===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. -[[User:Caraamon|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. --[[User:Aetherie|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. --[[User:Farman|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... --[[User:Basselope|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 <code>Sirolarn Tirof-Sorvendig</code> 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. --[[User:Callek|Callek]] 12:41, 20 April 2008 (CDT)

===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. --[[User:Basselope|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.[[User:Caraamon|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? --[[User:Basselope|Basselope]] 18:21, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:04, 24 April 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)		:Looks good to me. My only suggestion would be to use ==== rather than bolding for the tertiary information. --[[User:Thilan\|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) [[User:Hithrael\|Hithrael]] 19:27, 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) [[User:Hithrael\|Hithrael]] 19:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
			::True, didn't think of that. Bolding's fine then. --[[User:Thilan\|thilan]] 20:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)