User talk:SourceRunner

From GodWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:


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.



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)


  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)

Thank you for taking the time to write this out, FeRDNYC. It helps me to understand a little better how the GodWiki part of Godville culture works.
Could you please help me understand why you say that WardPhoenix and I talking should necessarily override your "lone voice"? You and Djonni expressed perfectly cogent arguments (that I didn't know about, initially), and they deserve to be heard and considered, whether or not I was advocating something else. The fact that you're the only one left active from the earlier discussion doesn't mean it's worth any less. (As an aside, thank you for the "out of line"-- you took the 😳 out of it so I can try to see what you were really saying, instead of mentally freezing in place.)
The valued difference between deletion and renaming among ideaboxers is something I might be able to explain. It's probably different for everyone, but there are several factors that seem to play into it, whenever a fight happens.
  • Firstly, as you said, very often in the game, the monster's name is the only thing we see as evidence of a monster's existence. Chances are, to be in the game it has already survived three rounds of cuts (1. Mass voting. 2. Enhancement room support. 3. Dev's final decision), or possibly four, if the ideator advocated for it in the "Misunderstood but Brilliant" thread. To do that, the ideator has to be open and accustomed to the idea being changed, enhanced, and adjusted, all of which mean that other people think it's a good idea, just could fit a little better. So a "change" or "rename" becomes an affirmation that it is a good idea. Deletion is exactly the opposite. The only evidence that the monster ever existed gets wiped out. The only existence that the monster ever had gets erased. Someone decided that, in spite of everything it has survived, this is a bad idea, and it doesn't deserve to get read or shown. There is nothing redeemable in it.
  • Secondly, contrary to what you said, the monster's name is not its only existence. All monsters have additional attributes saved in the tables that run Godville. Is it a field monster, miniquest boss, dig boss, dungeon boss, or sailing beastie (first, second, or third ring)? Is it strong or weak? Does it drop a defined artifact? Does it have a particular assigned death rattle? What are its mottos? How much gold does it carry? Which skills or adjectives can it bear? Some ideaboxers are aware of and value those attributes behind the name we see. If a monster is renamed, its stats are all still there, it still exists "in spirit;" it only gets moved to a different part of the table from which the server draws at random. But if a monster is deleted, all of those stats go away with it. There is nothing of it left.
  • Thirdly, there are very few times when the Devs erase player-generated content. They seem to prefer to erase the content that they first provide to demonstrate a mechanic, making as much room for player content as they can, and even sometimes have seemed to recode sections of the game to allow more player content when the table gets full (some of us have theorized that that's the real reason they added seasons to the diary and earthly news entries, but I don't think anyone actually asked). If an idea is deleted, rather than renamed, repurposed, or readjusted, that's an indication that it was either terribly out of date, terribly out of sync with the game, or something else went terribly wrong with it. Nobody wants to have originated one of those ideas.
KKC was a slightly different situation. It was part of the devs' initial content when purposing bosses from just a random or dig creation into a triggered mini-quest event. It was introduced along with the Drowned Captain and that Werewolf one as a sequence-end thing. Whether it was because KKC blew up in their faces (KKC was the only part that had any sort of sensitive overtones), or the devs moved onto the bigger and better dungeons and never looked back, or ideaboxers just never read the devs correctly, the devs have never actually implemented any player content for miniquest sequence bosses. The Drowned Captain sequence has never changed, the cheese moon sequence has never changed, the clown sequence has never changed. The only thing that changed was the Clown's name. So... that's the reason I was defining it as renamed instead of deleted. (And BlueStapler should have known about the rename; he witnessed it, too. Perhaps he was watching GodWiki and the Forums, not the Ideabox, at the time.)
But you probably already knew that. Don't know why I wrote it. Sorry for falling into some sort of weird archivist mode. Will re-read to see if it's even worth posting. Anyway, I'm open to debate on KKC if you and WP want, but I'm also willing to let things go as they are.
The reactivity of GodWiki is something I hadn't considered before. From the outside, GodWiki looks like such an unscheduled and free creative space. GodWiki doesn't have to wait for the devs to check up on and approve something (I know, now, that's not entirely true, looking at how you have to strive to get coding changes pushed through), it can expand without borders, and Random has no sway over anything. It is or can be this massive and wonderful repository of all of Godville's institutional knowledge and imagination, the "expanded universe" that you termed it. That there's a form of latency in such a fluid space is just unexpected. I see where the lag can cause problems, as you've pointed out; is it something to be fixed, or something to be taken in stride? The latency probably means cooler heads prevail on sensitive subjects, so maybe there are additional benefits.
The dedication to consensus and mutual respect in GodWiki is amazing and inspirational. Is there an accepted mechanism for determining when there is stalemate? Or an accepted mechanism for how to resolve a stalemate in a way all sides will respect (even if unhappy with the result)? Just if latency is a problem to be solved. Ignore, if it's not a problem.
(Here, response jumps the shark.)
Something you said that I think we could leverage to get more people into GodWiki (and I love that you said it, because I hadn't seen it this way before) is that here is where a monster has a fully realized existence. Here is where it is more than just each player's mental image when he or she reads the name in the game.
There was something that we used to do in the ideaboxing community... we used to watch for implementation. Seeing an idea appear in the game was kind of the highest level of achievement, the end goal. We used to watch for the ideas and congratulate each other. It's kind of gone by the wayside, lately, I think, but if we restart it, we could make it a privilege or achievement celebration to start the GodWiki page for that artifact, monster, equipment, or quest when implementation occurs. "Well done! This is awesome! Tell us about how you see your idea appearing in the game, in your mind's eye, in GodWiki?" Or the ideator could invite others to write their interpretations, on implementation.
Spitballing randomly here, about ways to pull content into GodWiki... other ideaboxers publicly track their accepted ideas... if we need some sort of ongoing content incentive (not that we should, but sort of an invitation-to-GodWiki thing), we could pull a selection of links to GodWiki pages where people track their ideas, and offer either charges or a feature in a monthly GodWiki thread news review post to people who pull an accepted or implemented idea that hasn't been put into GodWiki yet, and write an article for it.
Even without an incentive, a monthly GodWiki update about new articles might have merit. We have a pinned thread, so why not make use of it to keep GodWiki in front of everybody at all times? "Hey! We're here! We're active! These are the cool things that these active people have done on GodWiki this month."
This response has rambled far from its intended subjects, so I'm going to close with the question that maybe should have come first thing: what is your vision of/for GodWiki, FeRDNYC? --SourceRunner (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
(By the power of {{talkback}}, I have been summoned! I'm actually finding myself short on time to fully respond, so I'll post what I've gotten down so far and plan to come back to this later on today.)

Could you please help me understand why you say that WardPhoenix and I talking should necessarily override your "lone voice"?

Oh, no, what I meant was that I'd asserted the (previous) KKC decision as a group consensus that would "need to be overridden/reviewed". But because it was really just Djonni and myself agreeing with each other, you and WardPhoenix having a discussion on the same topic is already on equal footing in terms of participation, to which I can bring only a third point of view.
You asked about a process for reaching consensus or at least compromise when participants are at a stalemate. TBH, over at The Other Wiki, in a way there isn't one. And because of that, there's a whole bureaucracy that's grown up to address that fact. Which is confusing, but I'll try to explain.
Like I said, there isn't really a process for concluding discussions — if consensus isn't reached, or some compromise arrived at, then there simply is no consensus. Attempts to achieve consensus, and/or to assert a particular viewpoint, can at times get ugly, and the articles in question and/or their talk pages get turned into battlegrounds of opposing factions. At that point, administrators will usually step in to block the combatants and impose a cooling-off period. Sometimes if the subject is contentious enough that it involves more than just a few editors, they'll temporarily disable editing on the article(s) in question entirely, locking it at The Wrong Version of the content until attention shifts elsewhere. But even then, the freeze is only temporary, and no decisions are made based on the content of the article, only the conduct of the participants.
So, despite all that, the flat organizational structure is often held up as a strength of Wikipedia's model. In most organizations, eventually it would fall to someone "in charge" to halt discussion and make a final call. Wikipedia has no such hierarchy, in terms of content. There are no Managing Editors or Topic Managers or anything like that, nobody has any authority to assert over anyone else regarding what goes into the encyclopedia, and there is no deadline. Nobody will ever find their arguments dismissed or vetoed by a "command decision" from a higher-up, and the only authority recognized is that of consensus.
As a result, asserting consensus can be a powerful thing. Without it, every discussion would go on forever. Even when there truly is consensus on a long-settled issue, there will always be someone who wants to assert their opposing viewpoint. Hence, the snowball clause: If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process. While it is Wikipedia policy that all voices should be heard and all viewpoints are equally valid, they don't have to be given equal weight, especially when compared to the weight of consensus.
As you can probably imagine, this power can also be abused by those seeking to shut down a discussion or win an argument. A false or exaggerated assertion of consensus is as inevitable in any contentious Wikipedia debate as Hitler comparisons are on internet forums. Essentially, I was calling myself out for doing exactly that — unintentionally, because I'd misremembered the original discussion/participants, but it still happened.

But you probably already knew that. Don't know why I wrote it. Sorry for falling into some sort of weird archivist mode.

Most of it I actually didn't, at all, so it's quite helpful really. Thanks for the deeper insights into that side of the "Godville universe".

Anyway, I'm open to debate on KKC if you and WP want, but I'm also willing to let things go as they are.

And that, ultimately, is how many decisions on Wikipedia end up getting made. If there isn't a clear consensus that everybody agrees on, then it typically comes down to people making small moves that nobody feels strongly enough about to raise any objections. Djonni removed the KKC from List of Monsters and {{Navbox bosses}}, which is relatively unobjectionable for all positions since because Mad Clown is already there, so nobody's going to argue that it should be added back in. Djonni also replaced the image that was created for the article with a blank one, nobody seems to have cared enough to revert that change. WardPhoenix just recently placed the {{delete}} template on the article, which has also failed to draw any objections. In part, perhaps, because it's not like anyone really expects anything's going to be deleted anyway. (At this point, if the pages in Category:Marked for deletion ever were cleared out, I worry what the shock might do to people.)
The fact that all of those moves went unopposed may also be a sign that, in reality, we're all in general agreement on the course of action regarding the KKC. Rather than leading toward consensus, discussing it may only be obscuring that fact behind the different ways we express the same basic point of view. That happens not-infrequently, which is why one commonly-held model for Wikipedia's edit cycle is WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss.
In other words: First, take action. (Be Bold.) If anyone has any strong objections, they'll revert the edit. At that point, a discussion can commence to resolve the disagreement. If every proposed course of action started with a discussion about it, very often no decision will be reached and, therefore, no action taken — not a desirable situation for a site that requires constant editing if it's going to improve and remain up-to-date. Sometimes it really is better to ask forgiveness than permission.
More later, as I said up top. -- FeRDNYC (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Mini-quest articles issues

Hi! I started a talk on the Talk:Mini-quests about how we should organize them. Give a thought when you have time! --WardPhoenix (talk) 12:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.png
Hello, SourceRunner. You have new messages at Template_talk:Quest#Incorporating Diaryquest.
Message added 14:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Possible backstage page(s) needed.

Do we need a page (or pages) for the in-universe journals, libraries, associations etc. that are now cropping up in articles so that there is a one-stop shop to look them up for anyone who may also wish to use them? Leaving this here as it's generally you who've been creating them, but a few others have as well. -- S624 (talk) 17:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

We can do that, sure. I've been trying to make sure that the ones I reuse frequently get mentioned on the actual town and territory pages where they're supposed to be, but most people don't want to scan over place pages for a organization, journal, club, or agency to reference. You're right, having them all together would probably be beneficial.
If you want, and if I can figure out how to make a sandbox, I can try to start pulling together the people, places, organizations, and journals everyone made during JanuWiki and the ones I've added since. --SourceRunner (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that (even if it's more work on top of your current creative streak). Making a sandbox is as simple as adding /Sandbox to the end of your user page URL (User:SourceRunner/Sandbox). -- S624 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2019 (UTC)