Citizens of the Imperium

Citizens of the Imperium (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/index.php)
-   Wiki Discussion (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/forumdisplay.php?f=105)
-   -   Canon vs. Fanon & The Wiki... (http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=36270)

maksimsmelchak June 14th, 2016 12:33 PM

Canon vs. Fanon & The Wiki...
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Whipsnade (Post 542007)
If you want to truly help out the Traveller Wiki, start removing all fanon from it and stop spamming it with more "content".

Star Trek's Memory Alpha and Memory Beta could be a guide for us here.

Memory Alpha limits itself to only what can be found on TV episodes, movies, and their scripts; i.e. "true" canon. Memory Beta then handles all the novels, games, RPGs, fanzines, blogs, and whatnot.

User Whipsnade has brought up an idea to bifurcate the Wiki into a canon OTU site and a non-canon IMTU "fanon site".

*** What do you think of that idea? ***

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

atpollard June 14th, 2016 12:54 PM

What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.


This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard
If you don't like color, then a box identifying the author would also work to serve the same function. The important part is to make any proposed change easy on the people doing the work rather than doubling their work load.


RandyB June 14th, 2016 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 542104)
What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.


This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

I don't think that would be enough. Separation into distinct wikis has proven effective in other contexts (see the original thread for examples) and would gain much while losing little in this case.

atpollard June 14th, 2016 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RandyB (Post 542105)
I don't think that would be enough. Separation into distinct wikis has proven effective in other contexts (see the original thread for examples) and would gain much while losing little in this case.

Is it relatively effortless to create an entire second Wiki (which is what the proposal sounds like)?

[I am not arguing, that is a question born out of my ignorance on the subject. I am just familiar with the saying "perfection is the enemy of good enough".]

flykiller June 14th, 2016 01:05 PM

given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

maksimsmelchak June 14th, 2016 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykiller (Post 542107)
given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

Those terms were created precisely because of various Traveller schisms... LOL

Marc, of course, was the final arbiter, with Don as his hermeneutics specialist... LOL I seriously miss Don. RIP.

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

maksimsmelchak June 14th, 2016 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by atpollard (Post 542104)
What about simple color coding?

Canon is in black at the top.

'Fannon' is in blue and comes below some dividing line.

This places all data in one location, while still making it VERY clear what is official and what is not.

There are already library canon and non-canon articles, and I started separating materials into canon and non-canon bits with clear writing to that degree, but I can only do so much with well over 10k worth of articles. I plug away a couple at a time...

Great ideas!

Shalom,
Maksim-Smelchak.

flykiller June 14th, 2016 01:25 PM

Quote:

Those terms were created precisely because of various Traveller schisms
actually the schisms appear to be entirely within "otu".

you'd have to divide "otu" into "old otu" and "new otu" at minimum.

Quote:

Canon is in black at the top.
superseded canon in gray above that ....

whulorigan June 14th, 2016 01:27 PM

I certainly think what is and is not canon should be clearly delineated, and having OTU and MTU "sub-sites" seems like it ought to work at first glance. Just have each OTU article at the end (before or after the references section) linked to the appropriate page(s) on the MTU site.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flykiller (Post 542107)
given the significant range of "otu" you might have to explain very clearly which is "otu" and which is "imtu". to avoid any confusion ....

This is the key issue. How broad or narrow do we define "OTU" in light of the different game-versions that have arisen over time? Sometimes articles on the Wiki are a harmonization of several earlier and differing "canon" sources. Additionally, the canon-Wiki forum seems to be the best hope for preserving the DGP material in light of the current state of its copyright and licensing issues.

Further, does there need to be a differentiation between various kinds of "Non-canon" as well? For example, does there need to be a clear distinction between pure "fanon", versus work by prior approved and published licensees which are no longer officially considered canon, such as old Paranoia Press material or, more significantly, the status of "Apocryphal" work like the Keith brothers under FASA or Gamelords?

whartung June 14th, 2016 01:27 PM

Not really my bailiwick, but seems to be segregation shouldn't be too difficult.

First, a list of canonical sources needs to be created (this is likely already done by someone, somewhere, dunno if it's posted).

Then entries in the wiki MUST have references to said list.

I would ask though that articles that have a long life, and that have been "recanonized", i.e. changed over time from edition to edition, have notes as to what's canon in the version when they were introduced and what's canon currently.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright (c) 2010-2013, Far Future Enterprises. All Rights Reserved.