Now, I think that it would make sense to have these category pages under the greater umbrella of the Condition category (that should maybe be renamed into Conditions). But right now, the Condition category has only two sub categories (Buffs and Debuffs) and I didn't want to add more subcategories without discussing this change first. Any opinion?
Also, do you think we should use these conditions categories at the Monster level depending on the effects of their abilities? See for example, the Infiltrator that can apply a Wound Condition or a Poison Condition. Or is this just a missuse of the Conditions categories?
Ipodah 03:55, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
I think it should be fine to add them under the Condition category. I'm also fine with renaming it to Conditions, but I realized that there isn't really an in-built mechanic to easily do this. Normally you'd have to unlink every single article from that Category, and manually aim them at the new one. Annoying, right?
WRT Mobs falling under Conditions, I don't think it would be accurate. What would happen is if you clicked the Poison Category at the bottom we'd be taken to a page which lists mobs, instead of Conditions. Ideally we'd have something along the lines of each Skill having their own article, with links to the correct Conditions they give. So a Skill like Breaching Defense would have it's own article, but the condition of Breached Defense would also have it's own article under the Conditions and Wound Conditions category and subcategory.But this might be drilling down too much so yeah...
Varalas 05:03, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, very annoying that we can't rename a category page and unlinking/relinking manually sounds like a bit painful. I've seen that this can be done by a bot though and might look at this solution later. For now, I guess I can live with what we have.
Regarding mobs and conditions, I agree, finding mobs under a given condition (e.g. Poison Condition) instead of conditions doesn't feel right. I'll remove existing conditions from mobs and just link to condition in the abilities section.
Ipodah 07:12, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Went ahead and used a bot to "rename" the category Condition into Conditions.
Ipodah 18:41, June 3, 2012 (UTC)
Questions/comments about the Wiki Editing Guidelines (structure) section of the main page should go here.
The issue about "things" having the same name but being different should be handled by a disambiguation page imo. A little more work but looks nicer/is more organized. 1234qwerty4321 19:52, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
Could someone help link the following oraphan pages:
Dna0008 02:14, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Made it so that "Links" is now under the General Topics section of the main page. Not sure what to do with the changelog page, thinking it might be best to merge into the links page and just give links to the various versions. I'll wait awhile and see if anyone else has opinions about what to do before merging the page. 1234qwerty4321 17:11, June 11, 2012 (UTC)
Okay, finally going to update the other equipment. There are some things we need to discuss first though.
1. In-game descriptions of items go with One-Handed, Melee, Sword. Should I change current (and future) categories to the singular instead of the current plural Swords?
2. Conditions and Skills - How do we tell apart the condition 'Bleeding' from the enchantment / skill that causes 'Bleeding'? Should I put something like a 'Cause Bleeding' or 'Cause Breach Defense' as a category?
3. Should we create some sort of flowchart / map we can use as a guide to what goes into what category?.
4. Instead of separate strategy entries I'm seeing on the various mobs, would it be better to condense all those into a separate Strategy / Walkthrough section? I know the one-man army thread from the Kongregate forums definitely deserves its own section.
Varalas 04:11, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
Interesting points :)
1. This is somehow very close to the question I had about conditions. Here is how I view things on second thought. If you look at the Conditions category page, or the Monsters category page, sure, you get a list of things and the plural sounds ok. But, if you go down at a page level (a specific condition, a specific monster, a specific sword), using a singular feels more natural (it's a condition, a monster, a sword). In other words, I actually prefer the singular (and kinda regret changing Condition into Conditions which makes things even less consistent with sub categories such as Mental Condition, etc). I might rollback the chance once we'll decide which path to take.
2. This is a tough question. I like the "Cause XXX" idea tho but I'm not sure it solves entirely the problem. On monsters for example, many have abilities (or skills, we should maybe use skills for consistency instead of abilities) that just apply the condition of the same name (e.g the Fearsower and his Wither skill that just applies the Wither condition). Using "Cause Whiter" as category on a potential Whiter (the skill) page would work. But how to name the Whiter skill page in that case?
3. Yes, definitely a must have for contributors since things are -already- starting to get complex. We should also write down conventions that we decide to use for consistency. I didn't look at templates, don't know if we can create our own templates, but this might be an idea too (for conditions, for items, for monsters, etc).
4. I really like the idea of some global Strategy / Walkthrough (what kind of party works well, what kind of 2/3 chars party works well, how to apex forge and maybe character reset to go farm gold/achievements, and so on). I still think that a few mobs deserve an indiviual note how to deal with them tho (like focusing them first because they are really annoying, taking them down last because they will transform themselves and get full HP back). But, yes, most of mobs don't really need such a note.
Ipodah 11:04, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
Here's my thoughts concerning Varalas' questions (currently working on the Epic Equipments page myself) plus some general thoughts of my own:
1) I would change them. It's easier and more consistent to use the game's exact text as a guide.
2) Thinking about this I wouldn't differentiate between the two. The condition is similar regardless of whether it was inflicted by a monster or a player. Differences (if any) between the two could be put on the main bleeding page. I can see where you're coming from in wanting to be more specific but categories that are too specific are worse than categories that are too broad imo. For example when editing the Black Incunabulum page I originally created a category called "-power to enemy on hit", which is far to narrow a category.
3) I would say no, since that would take too much effort and should not really be necessary. Having said that, here's how I would like to see the overall wiki design end up:
- User starts at main page. The main page has links to very broad categories such as monsters, items, etc.
- The pages for these broad categories give a general description, then subdivide into more specific categories. For example, monsters could have categories such as humans, demons, etc. Also note (this is important) that these pages all link back to the main page, ideally at the location where the user last left off.
- Keep on repeating this process until you get to a very specific page. For example, demons could have a link to the ragebringer page. The ragebringer page, being about a single thing ("thing" could be a monster, item, ability etc.) would then link back to demons.
This way a user could start at the main page, follow links to anything in the game, and end up back at the main page. The only somewhat tricky part is determining what categories should lie on the main page, and how to subdivide the categories etc. The best part about this method is that you could either start from the very specific (pages such as ragebringer, tesseract, bleeding etc.) and edit working upwards or start very broadly and work downwards.
4) I like this idea. Also any general page about strategy should be linked to from the main page (remember to link back).
1234qwerty4321 16:54, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
2. Varalas, could you add an example to illustrate the problem we are trying to solve? I have the feeling there might be some misunderstanding here. What would actually be the problem if we have a Bleeding category and a Bleeding page (for the condition).
3. I don't know if things have to be that complicated and if it would take that much effort to make a flowchart. However, I reallyl think that we need to start writing a few things about conventions, some kind of guidelines for contributors.
Ipodah 19:50, June 4, 2012 (UTC)
Gah. Some things have popped up in real-life that will take some time to resolve. Sorry to leave you guys like this, but this is pretty important. That said, I like the idea of everything linking to everything, just need to think of a way to present it logically. The main problem with something like a bleeding enchantment and a bleeding condition is that it might take the user to somewhere other than where he expected. If that's a small thing, we can go right ahead and make a Bleeding category (for weapons and skills) and the page(for the condition which is pointed to by the aforementioned skills and weapons).
Good luck with the wiki, tata for now!
Varalas 14:07, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
It's all good, the wiki will still be here when/if you decide to come back. Gl with the real world fellow faceless entity on the Web :)
As for the Bleeding case (and similar cases) I say stick with only the condition. A bleeding enhancement (or ability) causes the condition and if the user is curious what bleeding does then he/she will be directed to the bleeding page. The link back will be to "conditions" so the user can't just click a link back to some items/monster associated with the skill but this is acceptable (cross-linking between pages of different categories is what the Web is all about). I'm going to throw up some linking guidelines on the main page, have to think about how to present information. That way we can focus on constructing the skeleton of the site before filling in the meat on the pages. Right now construction has been a mixture of both, for example I've been obsessing over the Lore and War Golem pages (people will know all they ever need to know about golems lol) which is fine but these edits should be more of a latter stage. Just find it more entertaining to actually fill in information than to worry about structure.
1234qwerty4321 17:42, June 8, 2012 (UTC)
I changed the theme of the wiki to something a little less generic. If you hate it or you have suggestions for changes to the color scheme let me know.
The only thing I like about this theme is the new picture that links to the main page, nice little touch. Everything else is awful. The color for the background makes me feel like I'm in a red-light district. Not a bright pink, but a soft pink. Plus it is now difficult to distinguish between links to pages that exist (like tesseract) and links to pages that have yet to be constructed (like Bloody Murder). Thinking about different color combinations I'm not sure what would fit for the game and not be an eyesore other than the default. Perhaps a simple inversion of the usual colors (black background and white text, links remain the default)? Don't know what effect that would have on pictures however, plus would have to see what it looks like.
1234qwerty4321 04:20, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Haha, fair enough. I was trying to replicate the "paper" feeling of the game UI. I've changed it to something more neutral.
So much better, I say keep this one. 1234qwerty4321 14:58, June 7, 2012 (UTC)
Monsters' Den GodfallEdit
Monsters’ Den Godfall, a new downloadable game in the Monsters’ Den series, is now on Kickstarter!
Please take a look and consider supporting the project!