RBCWiki:Suggestions

From Ravenblack CityWiki

(Redirected from Suggestions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Brain.png The author of this article wants some input from other minds.
Please read and participate on its talk page.
This Page's Archive.

Contents


Suggestions

For now, there's no official guide and policy how to make a suggestion. We will see how this will develop.

Featured Article

I have been thinking (Since the discussion on the example page) that now that we have enough pages and a vote template, is it too early to do a featured article? We could make up a nomination template. Do you think it's too early for that? --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 23:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Right now I am dealing with rules. --Cliff Burton Marco 23:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Another one of Archibalds nice ideas to enrich this wiki, if you ask me. As there are already featured articles out there, is anyone able to think about how to keep that one running or to get it refined and enhanced? --Cliff Burton Marco 20:25, 22 January 2011 (CET)

Naming In Clan Pages

I probably don't know enough about what's usual in game, but would it a good idea to name all clan pages in the wiki beginning with clan eg. Clan Xendom instead of Xendom? --Cliff Burton Marco 14:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

At the moment I'm not sure what the best approach is for this, and when I began inputting clans into the wiki I wasn't too sure then either. Personally I would prefer to not list clans with preceding words such as "clan" and "the," in the interest of keeping everything in true alphabetical order. In some cases these words may be important enough to warrant inclusion in the main wiki entry for the clan in question, but that seems like an issue to be explored as (or if) it arises. People know they're looking at clans, so keeping the word "clan" in the title is a bit redundant for the most part. Something like "Clan of the Purple Butterflies" would keep the word Clan in front, since the name wouldn't make any sense without it, while others such as Yggdrasil don't need to. It's a bit subjective, really, and relying primarily on the capricious rules of grammar the English language has. --G/Upir Talk 18:50, 26 January 2011 (CET)
Still it is possible to do a redirect to the clans own naming. Like: Clan Yggdrasil could be redirected to Yggdrasil or Yggdrasil Clan... while Purple Butterflies (Clan) could be redirected to Clan of the Purple Butterflies. I think this will solve your headache. :) --Cliff Burton Marco 22:29, 26 January 2011 (CET)
To address the main question, I don't see the need to name all clans with "Clan Something"; in some cases it would look bad, like "Clan Hall of Rogues" or even with brackets, and most clans that I can think of that have a name like that don't need to have it pointed out that it's a clan. And if there's any uncertainty, then the bottom Category should sort that out. The main reason we'd want to make all clan pages uniform in title would be for either clarity or aesthetics, right? Clarity is solved by Categories, and Upee explained the aesthetics. So, in short: naaaah. Unless there's another issue I haven't considered... --Cora -talk | vamp- 01:33, 27 January 2011 (CET)
You have been demoted... NOT :P Well, finally I get some ideas and answers to my Q's. I hate to make all the descicions here. --Cliff Burton Marco 02:02, 27 January 2011 (CET)
Looks like this is more or less resolved. Clarification on what we'll be doing regarding the naming of clan pages? --G/Upir Talk 00:40, 29 January 2011 (CET)


Rented Pubs

I am thinking about putting the privately owned pubs into their own category, and putting this [[Category:Privately Owned Pubs]] under [[Category:Pubs]]. But first I need to be clarified about the actual meaning of privately owned pub. --Cliff Burton Marco 00:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well thing is, when someone re-names a pub, they dont actually own it like when you purchase a city square for a lair/clan building etc..... as taken from Lost in Shadows "Understand that you are only renaming it, you do not own it or get special privileges other than being able to give it a new name" Now that being said, most that donate to change the name of a pub will RP it that they do own the pub and it seems to be accepted by other players (I dont know of anyone that has complained)... here is an example taken from a city history's page from RBCRP. You will see they have the pubs listed with a section for "owners" (see post 20 for a completed example) http://rbcr.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=history&action=display&thread=830&page=1 ... I think its a good idea to have a separate category for for pubs that have been donated for, but I think the new category should be "Donated for for pubs" or something to that nature so no one gets their nightie in a knot thinking people that donated for name changes are trying to claim ownership on the game board also and not just in the RP scenario. Also I like the idea of having the pubs past name (before the name change listed on the page) for history sake.--Miranda Dawn 01:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, in spite of the RP, nobody "owns" the pubs they rename. If somebody wanted to be a jerk, they could rename a pub that somebody has already paid to name, and there isn't anything anyone can or will do about it. (RB could, but he won't)--Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 03:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So, what you just said, Arch, never happend? Also, Pubs for renaming usually get picked by not being renamed before, I assume. Could it make sense to name them something like Rented Pubs instead? --Cliff Burton Marco 13:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
RB will NOT rename a pub that someone has already donated for a name change...that being said a couple years ago he admitted to me his records are not that good and he should "flag" the pubs that have been re-named already. I don't think he has even done that though. (so mistakes could happen) As far as the new category name I'm not fond on "rented" because rent is a temporary thing and the pubs, once the names have been donated for are not going to change. I would think the best thing is to call them "donated for" even though that is OOC. That is what is accurate. Someone gave RB 50.00 to change the name. Then of course on the individual pub pages could be the history from the RP view. Also If the category is called "donated for pubs" then on the main page it could be stated that the pubs listed are donated for with 50.00 and an explanation could also explain how the pubs are not "owned" but most that donate for the name change RP that they own the pub and the pubs pages descriptions are from a RP standpoint only.--Miranda Dawn 14:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that RB *would* rename a pub even if it was changed first by somebody else...what would be the point of him saying it's not "owned" if you control the name? All said, you are probably correct Miranda, simply because RB is known for this sort of confusion. Obviously if you pay for a name change, and nobody can change it after you, you OWN it, and the word "rented" should not be used. I wonder if somebody can't email him for clarification? --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 18:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Nope he will not re-name a pub if he *thinks* he's already taken money from someone else for it. My guess would be he doesnt want people to act as if they "own" the square and try to take it over in game, possibly because pubs are needed for information and vampires need to go there on quests. Thats just my guess--Miranda Dawn 23:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

To answer your question, cliff. A "privately owned pub" would be a pub that somebody has paid RB to change the name of. It should also be noted that some groups are calling these pubs "clubs", so that may play into it on some level. The "ownership" of the pub or club is a bit dubious, but hey, what's not in this game? I think the term "privately owned pub" or "club" is appropriate.--Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 23:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The term "rented" btw. came just from the thought, if someone pays for a "pub/club" but isn't the owner and could be replaced with someone else by the owner (RB), I thought the best term for it would be to call it "renting". But knowing now, that RB doesn't do the replacing thing, this sounds fair to me. Clubs or Privately Owned Pubs could it be. I would put the new category under Category:Pubs. Are there any other opinions? Sharon/Mir another comment? --Cliff Burton Marco 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
'Sponsored', maybe? Though I like short and snazzy, so I'd be pro-Category:Clubs, with a short introductory blurb as to what that means on the category page and the category being a sub-category of Category:Pubs, possibly even with pages dual-categorised into both just so no one's confused. ...er. >.> It sounds perfectly simple to me? *flails a bit* >.>;; -Dread 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I think just Pubs template is just fine. I think that I own the pubs I have renamed but then again we only own what we can control and if I have renamed a pub only I and I alone can rename it again. I also can control who is allowed in by having a "Bar Keeper" there and I can claim it as MY property although like anything in the city it is open for public use. If someone want to make a page on a certain bar then they can put on that page "Owned by" which would basically mean that they have renamed it and as long as RB don't forget it was renamed by yada yada only that person can rename it. Likewise if there WAS to be a case of a bar being renamed twice by different people I am sure it would be fixed and the second party would be asked to pick a different location never before renamed. --Lord Galamushidon't talk to me 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

New Bar Rumors

Please see the link HERE to help us come up with new standerd bar rumors. --Lord Galamushidon't talk to me 23:13, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How a wiki works

I suggest that a policy page be written that spells out how a wiki works. A lot of people, including a sysop or two (Maybe even me!) DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT A WIKI IS A GROUP EFFORT. I see people forcing their opinions, acting like they "own" pages, getting upset when others edit "Their" pages, etc., etc. This wiki really needs a document that explains this. It's clear that many simply don't understand. We need to help them.--Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 19:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I have more help and guide in the pipeline... but it doesn't help if nobody reads it. I am wondering if the dismissable prominent wiki-message today have done anything. Reading still needs a head willing to do so, and reading doesn't mean understanding, remembering and last but not least... agreeing, accepting and following. --Cliff Burton Marco 06:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'd be willing to write up something like that. I'm generally very wiki-obsessed - e.g. we have one at work and I'm the one almost constantly on it. I like the wiki spirit and agree - it'd be good to have somewhere explaining it. Want me to draft something on a profile-subpage of mine? -Dread 21:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't come to answer this one yet. I'm glad for any suggestion and help in any kind of way. I also have written some policy which was more or less requested by the folks here. Some people need rules, some don't. I had to learn that. Feel free to show me what you think. Ich bin auf jeden Fall dankbar. --Cliff Burton Marco 01:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Gosh, you must've answered just as I stopped going back to this page and checking, and apparently I don't get e-mails of changes to pages in my watchlist (I probably broke this setting, myself, fail). :| Sorry. I'll be on this ASAP, so expect something in the coming days. <3 -Dread 21:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
So, it actually turns out I am extremely slow. Don't wait on me. I still want to do this, but if someone beats me to it, by all means. Apparently I have too many private projects sucking up my time. *kicks self angrily* -Dread 14:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I still have faith in you Dread, I simply have zero time. If I end up doing it, I'll probably find myself plagiarizing some other wiki, rather than write original material...somebody must have some spare time, lol. --Archangel Talk * Welcome * Support 22:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)


New Clan Categories

For the sake of organisation I thought of adding status (active, inactive, unknown status) categories for the clan pages for ease of reference. While I think it could be a nice option to implement, it would take a bit of time to go through all the clan pages (but not too much) and it might be seen as superfluous/clutter-y to have additional categories for each page. Thoughts? --G/Upir Talk 00:31, 29 January 2011 (CET)

If a categories get used, I do not see a problem of making them. --Cliff Burton Marco 00:49, 29 January 2011 (CET)


Suggestion - Use of Lost in Shadows on character pages

Timestamp: Cricket -talk -character 21:20, 7 March 2011 (CET)
Type: Characters
Scope: Remove (Lost in Shadows) comment from an active character page.
Description: All active city vampires should not have lost in shadows on their wiki page since they do not remain this way.

For example: †Nuruhine SIn is an active vampire roaming around the city and †AQelDroma is no longer active but both pages show they are Lost in Shadows. AQD is not returning to the city and is not D&B therefore remaining in deep shadows forever.

I think this is a legitimate reason to have lost in shadows applied to her page and it should be removed from the pages of active vampires.

Discussion

Sounds reasonable. Make it so. --Cliff Burton Marco 02:17, 8 March 2011 (CET)

I like this idea and would be more than happy to help make it so. --Susan 02:38, 7 May 2011 (CEST)

Thank you, that would be wonderful!! I had started searching on pages with 'lost in' sometime ago and ended up correcting a lot of 'br' tags while removing some LOS of active character pages. :) Have fun with it and let me know if you have any additional ideas to search on the context, it's a tough one. --Cricket -talk -character 05:11, 7 May 2011 (CEST)


Category page layout

Disclaimer: I view the following problems as "potential for improvement", but am willing to accept a continuation of the status quo.

Problem

The wiki's category pages do currently display only the pages directly in it, and links to subcategories. This means that for meta-categories, where all articles are in subcategories, those articles aren't listed. One must open each subcategory page separately when looking for the articles in a meta-category.

Deep category trees then result in a lack of overview, which is a pity. In [[Category:Items]] this is currently worked around by placing the articles in both sub-category (for example [[Category:Potions]]) and main category ([[Category:Items]]), even though this violates the category hierarchy system.

The problem is not the deep categorization in itself, but rather how it is displayed. Deeper categories become obscure and difficult both to navigate and manage. I have problems finding my way around the subcategories of [[Category:Templates]], and would like to peek down the tree of subcategories.

Proposed solution

The mediawiki extension CategoryTree allows a different layout of category pages. If it were to be deployed, a category page could (if I understand it correctly) show its subcategories and their articles as a tree. Subcategories could be clicked and their member titles displayed (similar to how a file manager displays folders/directories and files). The initially displayed depth in levels could be set to, say, two levels down.

Discussion

What do you think? Would tree-structured category listings improve your wiki experience? Pro and cons of such a change? Any third solution? --deCarnacT·C 18:29, 1 August 2012 (CEST)

I looked over some if the things you developed. Looks pretty handy to me. --Cricket -talk -character 19:07, 2 August 2012 (CEST)
Hi, Jennifer! :-) To avoid confusion, the category tree extension suggested here is not my work. --deCarnacT·C 19:23, 2 August 2012 (CEST)

Suggestion - policy on objective categorization

Timestamp: deCarnacT·C 23:30, 3 January 2013 (CET)
Type: Policy discussion
Scope: Characters, [[Category:Crowds]] and some templates
Description: Some previous vampboxes and some new (by me) categorize character pages that has them (now in a sub-category to "Crowds"). To avoid future drama I suggest a discussion leading to a policy (or consensus) against far too subjective categorization of characters.

Some existing problem cases are [[Category:Great Pages]] and perhaps [[Category:Founder]]. They imply that an admin decides who does/doesn't fit into these categories. "Great Pages" lacks transparent critera. "Founder" status is hard to verify and impossible to disprove, and also a misnomer (Primordials would fit the definition better). Another devious problem with "Founder" is that it dissolves character/player distinction by ranking players based on game seniority. I believe such things should either be done tongue-in-cheek by people themselves or not at all.

Safe examples: Categories based on public (i.e. Second-sighted) info can be totally objective. Things like lair ownership are often verifiable in-game. [[Category:Clan Leaders]] is based on reports that may be false, but at least clan leaderhood is a testifyable, either-or quality.

Proposed actions: "Great Pages" scrapped as category; {{GreatPage}} perhaps kept as an affirmation template for any editor to hand out, possibly signed "<name> likes this page". I would also like to rename category "Founder" to "Primordials", and use less highbrow imagery.

Primarily though, let's have a discussion about this.

Discussion

Starting myself - I guess the suggestion is based on a sense of wiki-egalitarianism. Am I overdoing it? Would the wiki benefit from the suggested changes, or are subjective categories best left as they are? --deCarnacT·C 19:52, 4 January 2013 (CET)

Personal tools
advertising