Difference between revisions of "User talk:SourceRunner"

From GodWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Continuing the deletion/rename discussion: new section)
m (Continuing the deletion/rename discussion: Typo)
Line 97: Line 97:
 
That issue (equivalency of outcome) also creates a tricky situation for the GodWiki, because here is where it suddenly ''does'' make a difference what's done with a game element. This is the place where the identity of game elements is fleshed out, where they're given backstory that expands their identity '''beyond''' just the name that represents their sole existence in-game. In addition, because we're reactive rather than proactive (by design and necessity), changes to the game will often lag in being reflected here, and will be reflected inaccurately by nature of the whole process.
 
That issue (equivalency of outcome) also creates a tricky situation for the GodWiki, because here is where it suddenly ''does'' make a difference what's done with a game element. This is the place where the identity of game elements is fleshed out, where they're given backstory that expands their identity '''beyond''' just the name that represents their sole existence in-game. In addition, because we're reactive rather than proactive (by design and necessity), changes to the game will often lag in being reflected here, and will be reflected inaccurately by nature of the whole process.
  
Coming back to the issue at hand, when KKC was renamed to [[Mad Clown]], that wasn't reflected here because, presumably, nobody who was updating the wiki information was aware of the decision. And even if they ''could've'' been, simply doing a page-move to change the name of the KKC article to "Mad Clown" wouldn't really have made sense — the article contained information about the monster under its old name that simply made no sense when describing a monster under its '''new'' name. But, regardless,  whether {{u|BlueStapler}} was aware of the rename or not, he created [[Mad Clown]] independent of the article on the KKC, and it was subsequently fleshed out with information about something called a "Mad Clown".
+
Coming back to the issue at hand, when KKC was renamed to [[Mad Clown]], that wasn't reflected here because, presumably, nobody who was updating the wiki information was aware of the decision. And even if they ''could've'' been, simply doing a page-move to change the name of the KKC article to "Mad Clown" wouldn't really have made sense — the article contained information about the monster under its old name that simply made no sense when describing a monster under its '''new''' name. But, regardless,  whether {{u|BlueStapler}} was aware of the rename or not, he created [[Mad Clown]] independent of the article on the KKC, and it was subsequently fleshed out with information about something called a "Mad Clown".
  
 
The KKC article, on the other hand, was simply ignored. It was left in place, and left included in things like [[List of Monsters]] and {{tlc|Navbox bosses}}, ''even though'' there was no longer any such monster present in the game. [[Mad Clown]] was ''added'' to all of those resources, even though it was arguably a duplicate since it was already present under its "old name", effectively.
 
The KKC article, on the other hand, was simply ignored. It was left in place, and left included in things like [[List of Monsters]] and {{tlc|Navbox bosses}}, ''even though'' there was no longer any such monster present in the game. [[Mad Clown]] was ''added'' to all of those resources, even though it was arguably a duplicate since it was already present under its "old name", effectively.
  
 
So then six years later, the question becomes — became, really — one of: What do we do about that? Does it still make sense to keep the information around, when it's purely historical and of no use to current players? I laid out my thoughts on the subject [[Talk:Boss-monsters#Godwiki Editors and the Case of the Obliterated Monster With an Offensive Name|in that previous discussion regarding the KKC]], and {{u|Djonni}} and I were of the same mind on it. But we were the only two involved in that conversation, so there ''of course'' is plenty of room for debate there! But as I said, I do think the issues involved are slightly different in terms of "expanded universe" GodWiki content, than they are for in-game content itself. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
 
So then six years later, the question becomes — became, really — one of: What do we do about that? Does it still make sense to keep the information around, when it's purely historical and of no use to current players? I laid out my thoughts on the subject [[Talk:Boss-monsters#Godwiki Editors and the Case of the Obliterated Monster With an Offensive Name|in that previous discussion regarding the KKC]], and {{u|Djonni}} and I were of the same mind on it. But we were the only two involved in that conversation, so there ''of course'' is plenty of room for debate there! But as I said, I do think the issues involved are slightly different in terms of "expanded universe" GodWiki content, than they are for in-game content itself. -- [[User:FeRDNYC|FeRDNYC]] ([[User talk:FeRDNYC|talk]]) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:32, 22 February 2019

If you need to talk to SourceRunner but can't get through to her on the forum and don't want her as a friend (trust me, no one could understand that feeling better-- she's my Guardian Spirit, after all), leave a note with me, Tarintodont, right here, and I'll pass it along in my prayers. If it regards something on her holy--... well, it's not a book. Holy page? Is there such a thing as a holy page? Anyway, if it regards something on her holy page, she's likely to put your contribution up within a month of receipt.


Your Note:

°

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Hello, SourceRunner. You have new messages at WardPhoenix's talk page.
Message added 16:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.



Experimenting with Uploading and Using Imagery:

This trader is probably only masquerading as human.
Bright attire not recommended for hiding from bosses.
Pets often take advantage of their adorability to infuriate deities without repercussion.

Randomness in God Voices

Heya, first I wanted to let you know that I really like the *"Humor in Eighty Characters or Fewer: Voices for Fun and Profit"* section on your page; it's well written and has very useful guidelines.

Then, the reason I'm adding words to your talk page (by the way, I'm sorry if you keep this empty for a reason). When reading the guidelines, I felt the effect of randomness was a little underexplained. It's there, in other guidelines, but I was thinking it might deserve a guideline on its own. After all, most witty godvoices rely on it, and if your godvoice is random in the right way, you can safely ignore multiple guidelines.

The kind of randomness I'm talking about is the kind that doesn't make sense, and that thus surprises the reader in such a way they upvote the godvoice, without really knowing why. For example, a godvoice of mine that said something like "Flip. Flap. Flip flap flup fap. Flippupoluflap." got upvoted enough. *It's interesting, because people don't expect it.* I know it's already there in your guidelines, but perhaps make it a separate one?

Whew. I'm not good with words, but I think I wrote it down in a way that at leasy I understand myself. Hopefully you do too. Or not. Anyway, writing this was fun. Have a nice day ;-). God Wawajabba(UCT) 21:28, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Your in-progress JanuWiki article

Hi GodSourceRunner , I'm leaving this message because you have one or more articles still marked as "under construction" for the JanuWiki 2019 event, which officially ended on February 1. We've set a goal of having all articles ready for review by the end of Sunday, February 10, with the reviews to be completed by Friday, February 15. All work completed by then will still be counted when scoring the event totals.

The article(s) you're listed as the author for are:

If you think you'll be able to finish by the February 10 deadline, that's great! You don't need to do anything more in response to this message. Feel free to take your time, and let us know at Help:Requests when you're done. (If an article is already finished, please let us know that as well so someone can review it.)

If you don't think you'll be ready in time, or don't wish to continue, please drop us a line at Help:Requests as soon as possible so that we can make arrangements. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


The Rumor Mill JanuWiki article

Hi GodSourceRunner  SourceRunner,

Thank you for fixing and finishing The Rumor Mill Wiki. I went on holidays and complete forgot to finish it and/or send a Help:Requests. I wanted to know if as the JanuWiki is over, I can create /edit other wikis if i have some time.

Hope this reachs you, as I still don't really understand what I am supposed to do lo "Leave a message" in the User talk section.

Regards!

Muralin

Salutations, Muralin! I got your note about The Rumor Mill GodWiki article. It was such an intriguing concept and so close to finished that I couldn't resist tightening it up and calling it done for JanuWiki. You got four points for it.
If I did anything to it that you hate, please feel free to continue to develop and change it-- GodWiki is entirely mutable.
You also asked if it was OK to work on other GodWiki articles, now that the content drive is over. The answer is yes! Absolutely! The GodWiki is always open for any sort of writing, editing, picture addition, or anything else you want, at all times. With an imagination like yours, it would be wonderful to have you writing in the GodWiki.
If you ever want an editor's eye, feel free to contact me here or on GodWiki. If you ever have a formatting or template usage question, FeRDNYC and WardPhoenix are our most active GodWiki experts about those, so feel free to contact them on GodWiki.
Is there something in particular that you want to create?
(Posting this here. In the Godville Private Message thread to you, and your GodWiki "Talk" page.) --SourceRunner (talk) 16:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Continuing the deletion/rename discussion

(I did want to respond more to this, but it was already archived at WardPhoenix's talk page, so rather than continue it there...)

Going back to the Ku Klux Clown example, all available evidence now points to that monster having been deleted from the game itself way back in 2012. But because it already had its own article on the wiki, and it's appeared in List of Monsters, in Boss-monsters, in {{Navbox bosses}}, and possibly other places, we've essentially "kept it alive" for over six years after its deletion — in fact most of our information about it was added after it had already been removed from the game! (It wasn't added to List of Monsters until 2013; {{Navbox bosses}} wasn't created until October 2012.)[A 1] There are probably some who'd even argue that we should still be documenting it for posterity — which is an equally valid position, though I would personally disagree. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notes

  1. Not that I'm claiming that the people who made those edits knew it had been deleted, or even could have known. Hindsight often makes these things much clearer once the events are a little further in the past. I'm just illustrating the process by which outdated information can appear lifelike, even long after it's joined the legions of the undead. Limiting the spread of bad information is one of the major reasons behind Wikipedia's rule that it can never use itself as a reference, under any circumstances — in other words, "This other Wikipedia article says ____" is never sufficient justification for repeating that claim elsewhere on Wikipedia. An external source is always required.
Uh... how to say this... I remember the whole event, but can't substantiate it: "Ku Klux Clown" wasn't deleted from the game. It was changed over to "Mad Clown" after there was a big scuffle aboit it in the box of Ideabox that used to be devoted to voting about objectionable ideas (and then that box was deleted, because we kept misappropriating it for "arguments"). It kept all of the same stats, and retained its status as a mini-quest boss, it just got its name changed. If anything, that particular page needs some sort of redirect and an historical note put under "Mad Clown." Is this one of those "Be Bold" things? As a witness to that period of GV history, should I be doing that? --SourceRunner (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess so, since not a lot of people could testimony about it. So please, be bold xD --WardPhoenix (talk) 20:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'd say please don't — IMHO things are fine the way they are, with the KKC excised from the Wiki. ("Renamed" to Mad Clown, "Deleted and replaced with" Mad Clown... I don't see the difference between those two things, functionally.)
At the very least, please do read this (wide-ranging) discussion first, where we hashed out what to do about the KKC article and list entries, and then did it. (We settled on making it all go away; that was a conscious decision by multiple editors. So I'd say let's reopen that discussion before acting, if anyone feels we should've gone a different path.) -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Actually, sorry, we discussed how to actually deal with the KKC in a different section slightly farther down that talk page. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Not touching it. "Deleted" versus "Renamed" is a big deal in Ideabox (we've done pitched battle multiple times over proposals to delete GorgeousGeorge's Holy Mass Murderer, but never fought over proposals to rename it; the "Spring Cleaning" thread is nothing but snarls every time it comes active), but if it is not a big deal for GodWiki, no sweat off my brow. And given that the various incarnations of the Mad Clown seem to be a sore issue, I apologize for having prodded it inadvertently.
Your bailiwick, your rules. --SourceRunner (talk) 21:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It's not, really, at all. And I need to apologize, because looking over the decision-making regarding the disposition of KKC, I see now that it was really only a discussion between Djonni and myself. (I had thought at least S624 was involved as well, but clearly misremembered. In the earlier fact-finding, yes, but they didn't participate in the discussion of how to handle the remaining references to the monster.)

So, of the whole 2 people who made that decision, I'm the only one currently active, which hardly represents a compelling level of consensus. I was out of line to assert the current state as any sort of group decision that would need to be overridden/reviewed, or to use it as an attempt to stifle further discussion. You and WardPhoenix discussing it already represented twice as much consensus-seeking power as my lone voice represented on "my side" of the issue.

"Deleted" versus "Renamed" is a big deal in Ideabox (we've done pitched battle multiple times over proposals to delete GorgeousGeorge's Holy Mass Murderer, but never fought over proposals to rename it; the "Spring Cleaning" thread is nothing but snarls every time it comes active)
— User:SourceRunner

See... now, I find that absolutely fascinating, from a psychological/sociological standpoint. Because, in terms of Godville the game, a monster's name is their entire existence. It's literally everything they're made of. There simply is no practical difference between renaming and removing/replacing a monster. If you were to delete monster A and add monster B in its place, vs. renaming A to B, it would be impossible for anyone to say after-the-fact which of those two actions you performed. The outcomes are completely equivalent. So the idea that one would be objected to so much more vehemently by some players (or some Ideabox participants or whatever) is surprising and interesting. It probably reveals a lot of things I'm not insightful enough to discern regarding the ways people think about these issues, or what motivates their passions and relative level of investment.

That issue (equivalency of outcome) also creates a tricky situation for the GodWiki, because here is where it suddenly does make a difference what's done with a game element. This is the place where the identity of game elements is fleshed out, where they're given backstory that expands their identity beyond just the name that represents their sole existence in-game. In addition, because we're reactive rather than proactive (by design and necessity), changes to the game will often lag in being reflected here, and will be reflected inaccurately by nature of the whole process.

Coming back to the issue at hand, when KKC was renamed to Mad Clown, that wasn't reflected here because, presumably, nobody who was updating the wiki information was aware of the decision. And even if they could've been, simply doing a page-move to change the name of the KKC article to "Mad Clown" wouldn't really have made sense — the article contained information about the monster under its old name that simply made no sense when describing a monster under its new name. But, regardless, whether BlueStapler was aware of the rename or not, he created Mad Clown independent of the article on the KKC, and it was subsequently fleshed out with information about something called a "Mad Clown".

The KKC article, on the other hand, was simply ignored. It was left in place, and left included in things like List of Monsters and {{Navbox bosses}}, even though there was no longer any such monster present in the game. Mad Clown was added to all of those resources, even though it was arguably a duplicate since it was already present under its "old name", effectively.

So then six years later, the question becomes — became, really — one of: What do we do about that? Does it still make sense to keep the information around, when it's purely historical and of no use to current players? I laid out my thoughts on the subject in that previous discussion regarding the KKC, and Djonni and I were of the same mind on it. But we were the only two involved in that conversation, so there of course is plenty of room for debate there! But as I said, I do think the issues involved are slightly different in terms of "expanded universe" GodWiki content, than they are for in-game content itself. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 03:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)