What is the policy on adding data from wikipedia as long as wikipedia is cited(referenced)? There is a handful of data on different dragons I was looking to add. (For example) One could be a new page dedicated to breath weapons that along with just a short blurb could have info from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)
I feel I'll have a handful of upcoming questions regarding some upcoming edits / adding to the Original Rollplay Series. Do you think me creating a "Original Rollplay Series" topic in the help desk portion of the forum would be best? I'm hesitant to flood the admin's message walls with each question or flooding each wiki page's comments section with the questions.
Since I cannot see a place to have this discussion aside from here or chat, I decided here would be best. Personally, I believe this latest season should be separated as Solum and the Original series are, which means relocating weeks from Solum to the new category. This is due to the massive difference in time between the two that greatly separate them as campaigns.
Ok, I totally unmarked them. Are you sure these pages need to be deleted. Yes, I know they are not finished, but I've been working on themfor a time and I'd like to fill in all the blanks/placeholders in these pages as wel as add a bunch of new ones.
I see you are deleting a bunch of my pages. I don't know what direction this wiki is going in, so I won't unmark them. I would really like to discuss though, why and what next. Be sure to ping me back.
The reasoning for the story arc ones is basically they were duplicate information. The week summaries should contain all the story information there. I marked them for deletion to discuss them rather than just delete them as there was clearly a lot of work put into them. Also it's very hard to determine what a story arc is. For instance the Orb and Sword story arc was very split up in game.
I get the intention for the story arcs to be pages in their own but I would ask are they needed and if so why do you think so?
You named the reason yourself - for someone who seeks knowledge of how the story ends the information in the Wiki is as split up as in the game itself. The story Arc pages were there to keep things that are related in one place for someone seeking some continuity. Pages for characters and items do mention related things, but as you said it yourself - The Orb and the Sword story was dragged all over 30 or so episodes. The arc pages are useful to anyone who wants to know how it all went down, because locations, items and characters can contain only so many events. There are no Events described in the Wiki (and there shouldn't be).
Week summaries are bad for this - they are super useful, don't get me wrong - but a week summary is usually like an episode - a list of quite random scenes. What made these games great is the continuity of the stories, and I think pages that summarize entire plots would do great on the Wiki. Plus, if these are categories, all related pages are automatically listed below.
And I object that it's difficult to cut out a story arc out of the game - it's actually quite easy because of how Neal constructs his stories. You can always carve out an employer/starting point and a task/mystery and means to it's resolution.
It is fine if a resolution is reached but say what happened to the Giants happened. We don't know that that is resolved as they never revisit the island and a giant did get away and while if a campaign ends like the original rolleplay did and we jumped 70 years it's probably safe to leave it as it is. If it remains unresolved for ages and another party just happens to stumble onto it is it the same story arc?
I realise that kind of situation has not yet arisen in any campaign.
It's as if two different parties visited the same spot on the map. Geoff did notice that Victarian and his group are getting closer and closer to the Red Desert - the area he remebered Vincent visited. If you had a 'Red Desert' page, you would just put both parties and their visits in it. The same with the story arc. Once it's revisited, we expand the story. Right now it ends like it ends - with some things resolved and a bit of mystery.
Then again - I came back hope with a head full of ideas, but if I get real for a moment, I actually can't afford to rewatch Rollplay TOS and Solum. And I would have to to make this complete. So sorry for taking up your time, but you should probably delete the Story Arcs - not that I think they are a bad idea, they are just too much additional work you will not want to spend time on. And I would love to spend time on them, but I know I don't have the time necessary to make them what I see they can be. So let's drop the topic right here.
Personally I am unsure if they are necessary. I mean, yes, things like 'Narutopedia' have arcs outlined but Game of Thrones doesn't. I can see the merit but is it truly necessary? I'll keep an eye on them for now.
Game of Thrones has too many intevining stories for this to make sense. If you read some of the interviews with G.R.R.Martin he said a number of times, that when writing it after a career of writing for TV he wanted to make something super messy that could never be used in TV (the irony). So nah - you won't easily separate plots there, it's more a trope oriented thing. But Neal has a mind of a late 80's DM - he needs to have a main quest in is head and throughout Solum so far he always had one, or maybe two overlapping main quests. That's why it's easy to follow these. Also, there were not as many main quests that need a Story Arc page.
In example, the werwolf 'main quest' in week 5 of Solum was a single week. There's no point in making a story arc page for that.
Where I see these is the stories that are not tied to a single character nor item nor week. These are hard to get a glimpse on in the wiki, because they're usually a big mess.
I dunno quests make up a story arc and really sometimes they aren't even quests they just set themselves goals to do as and when they can such as killing Hector where they came back later and just killed him for no real reason.