Talk:Main Page

From YSDC Wiki
Revision as of 16:49, 17 February 2006 by Squashua (talk | contribs) (Page with Single Line of Data)
Jump to: navigation, search

  • Currently we re-direct to It's cleaner to simply keep and run the wiki at . Would suggest looking into it - allows access and usage to be tracked easier.

Basic Wiki Rules

Wikipedia vs CthulhuWiki

  • A lot of information has been extracted from the original Wikipedia. If I'm not mistaken, this is primarily a CoC RPG resource.

Under the impression that this wiki is more for gaming/keeper/player purposes - that's where we can help guide it. If combining both factual and fiction information, there is a {{mythos|text}} template for this.

I recommend that we:

  1. Revise any page stolen from Wikipedia
  2. Leave only info relevant to this wiki
  3. Emphasize a link BACK to the Wikipedia entry.
  • repeating information specifically unrelated to COC or other Cthulhu gaming concerns does seem redundant. Especially since we will not keep said topics as up-to-date and correct as they will be on the Wikipedia. I agree. Link to the relvant articles, do not reproduce them. --phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 13:22, 14 February 2006 (EST)

Fact vs. Fiction

CoC:Supplements or Not ?

  • Need to determine if we should sub-categorize the supplements found on Category:CoC:Supplements. Input needed. Rules Books, 1890's Setting, 1920's Setting, Modern Setting, etc. --Squashua 18:15, 3 February 2006 (EST)
    • Some of the books would be tough to catagorize in only 1 catagory. Taint of Madness, for example. --phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 01:43, 4 February 2006 (EST)
      • Taint of Madness is the insanities sourcebook, right? It would go under Sourcebooks, just like the Cairo and Bermuda Triangle Sourcebooks. --Squashua 08:18, 4 February 2006 (EST)
        • it covers historical and game info for all 3 eras, and includes a scenario for each. Where would you put it?
          • Sourcebook. Scenarios are listed individually, so each gets listed in the Scenario's section; and the portion on insanities would be listed as an Article, and all would be linked to within the Sourcebook's page. Because there is SO MUCH re-use/reprinting in Chaosium (I've seen the same article in the CoC Main Book, an old Campaign Book AND in a Keeper's Compendium), it makes sense to list the portions individually and leave the details regarding such out of the books themselves. On a related subject, Scenarios should probably be sub-divided based on era/setting. --Squashua 23:07, 4 February 2006 (EST)
          • Fair enough. You've got my vote to catagorize them in this manner. *How are monograph scenarios to be catagorized? Are we treating these as official scenarios, fan material, or something else? How about scenarios in other publications? I think it would be simplest to catagorize them all in the same Scenarios catagory and just have the source listed as part of the overall page. --phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 11:14, 10 February 2006 (EST)
            • All Scenarios are to be categorized as CoC:Scenarios, whether published, availability, etc. All articles ("Lovecraftian Supers" for example, or "The Keeper's List of Lists") are CoC:Articles. Each will link to whichever book/etc. published it. Some scenarios and articles have been published multiple times in different places. --Squashua 13:12, 10 February 2006 (EST)

Page with Single Line of Data

  • It makes no sense to create a new page with nothing on it. In the event that all you have for a scenario is a one line summary, why not leave it until a user adds relevant information to the supplement/book entry itself? By creating new pages with 1 line of content all youre doing is diluting the content until the Wiki is no-fun to browse. Plus, you pretty much kill the point of the "random page" link when it can bring up pages with no content. --phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 13:20, 14 February 2006 (EST)
  • Attempts are made to have pages with any amount of data. If there is a page with a single line of data, that line was entered into the wiki at some point by someone. I'm going to assume that you are referring to the four scenarios for "Toying with Humans", which were categorized based on the data that was provided for them. You obviously have intimate knowledge of these scenarios; expand on their individual entries. 1% of information is better than 0%. --Squashua 18:08, 14 February 2006 (EST)
  • I agree that 1% is better than none. But 100 pages with 1% information each is not as good as 1 page with 100% information. I do not disagree that scenario details should be organized onto their own pages, but the summaries (at least the 1 line - short ones) still belong on book's page as well. --phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 11:26, 15 February 2006 (EST)
    • You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every edition of every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --Squashua 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)
      • I've already discussed this on the other page. Should we move that discussion here? or just continute it there?--phobia @ the Shoggoth Network 11:48, 17 February 2006 (EST)
        • My suggestion is to always discuss "matters of import" on the more visible page - hence; here. --Squashua 11:49, 17 February 2006 (EST)

Additional Suggested Categories

  • Fact
    • History
      • The Development of the Cthulhu Mythos
      • History of the CoC RPG
    • Media
      • CoC as Pop Culture
  • Games
    • Role-Playing Games
      • The Call of Cthulhu (RPG)
        • Rules Books
          • Investigator's Companion
          • Keeper's Compendium I
          • etc.
        • 1890's Setting
        • 1920's Setting
          • Cthulhu Classics
          • Masks of Nyarlothotep
          • etc.
        • Modern Setting
          • Delta Green
          • etc.
      • GURPS Cthulhupunk