Discovery Wiki:General Discussion

General Discussion Archives: 1 2 3

If you would like to reopen discussion on an archived topic, please create a new section here rather than posting in the archive.

This is a general page to propose your ideas on how this Wiki should move forward.

To post a suggestion: create a new section, and write everything you wish. Here you'll get more chances for your idea to be brought to life than by posting in a forum thread.

Year pages

Wikipedia has pages for each year that lists general information, events, and so on. I think this could be a highly useful addition to this wiki, making it easier not only for people to investigate the history of Sirius but also for people to add more historical information.

As a player faction founder, I had considerable trouble piecing together the vanilla history of the NPC faction. I had to take the pre-release history from the House design document, keyword search through infocards and rumors (often by year), and fill in blanks myself. It would have been far easier if there were historical events listed in a relatively sequential manner, such as on a timeline.

A wiki based timeline would, I think, be a fantastic resource for any community member who is researching for a character, ship, story, faction, curiosity, or free cake.

I say we start making links out of years A.S. and encourage people to add information. If this is a success, we may need some sort of citation policy.

--Eyvind (Talk) 02:17, 29 January 2010 (MST)

I have to say, making articles with events in each century is a great idea.

In my opinion we dont have enough events to make pages per year or per decade.

"Tracky 14:46, 30 January 2010 (MST)"

You're probably right. We can stick to pages for each century to begin with, at the very least, and if they get over-sized or difficult to keep cohesive and organized we can split them up. I will make these now, to the pages I have already created.

~ Eyvind (Talk) 23:06, 30 January 2010 (MST)

I have begin working on this.

I suggest we stick to a minimum of pages before we finalize the system and policy. The ones I am doing at the moment:

• 51 AS UPDATE: Proposed for deletion
• 1st Century A.S.
• Template:Years UPDATE: moved to Template:Centuries
• Category:Years UPDATE: replaced by Category:Centuries
• Category:1st Century A.S.

One question, albeit minor, is whether we should use "first" as opposed to "1st" for century pages and categories. I am leaning toward "first," myself, but will wait to change anything until I get some input.

Please post here with any ideas, feedback, suggestions, questions, concerns, or cake. This will likely work out better if I don't end up doing it by myself.

--Eyvind (Talk) 04:09, 30 January 2010 (MST)

Hit another concern; "A.S.":

• "BC" and "AD" are rarely (ever?) written with dots, perhaps there is no reason for us to put dots in AS.
• Should pages titles include the AS or should the title only contain the year number? On the one hand, it may be important to distinguish Freelancer years from real years, but on the other hand distinguishing the two here may be irrelevant or moot.

Thoughts?

--Eyvind (Talk) 04:17, 30 January 2010 (MST)

I'd think that a page per century would be good. One century would be under a hundred words, most likely - some could be over a thousand. One page per year would be a bit of overkill.

I'd also think that tagging "A.S." onto years should be essential. It helps us keep everything in perspective.

-- Sprolf (Talk) 06:07, 30 January 2010 (MST)

Outdated information, commodities, and related

This needs to be discussed properly.

Reference: [1]

Proposed, partial, possible solutions:

1. Change version category tags on Discovery content pages with templates to more easily be able to, for example, add noticeable notices to outdated pages once versions are no longer current. Being adopted currently, including in the Wiki Code Generator.
2. Change the various spoiler table (sale locations, mining locations, etc) into dedicated templates for much the same reason. Also see below.
3. Add notices to commodity spoilers indicating that they may be partially or wholly inaccurate due to on-the-fly price changes.

Please discus these issues, suggest your solutions or simply start putting your solutions into work right away. [2] [3] '

I will be disheartened if this is yet another thing for me to try to get started without adequate support.

-- Eyvind (Talk) 00:27, 1 February 2010 (MST)

I'm creating a template now for versions, keep an eye out for {{Version}} ~cshake ^{(talk) (sysop)} 09:45, 1 February 2010 (MST)

I think the possibility of removing some of this information completely should be considered, especially if it is "partially or wholly inaccurate" -Tazuras 00:30, 1 February 2010 (MST)

I've been told that Ores, Event-specific commodities, and prices that were bugged (extremely high profits, etc) are the only thing changed on the fly, so the vast majority of commodity prices are going to be accurate, not counting ores. I propose removing prices from the ores pages and simply stating that they are 'subject to current markets' or somesuch, and then anything else that changes can be manually fixed (like artifacts in Gamma, as the only bugfix that I'm aware of now) ~cshake ^{(talk) (sysop)} 09:45, 1 February 2010 (MST)