# Wiki conventions



## Merkuri (Jul 11, 2008)

I think some conventions/rules should be made about the wiki before too many pages get made.  It's much easier for people to follow a set of guidelines when they're creating pages than after the pages have been made.

I suggest the following:


*Templates:* Use them as much as possible.  Create new ones if you see the need and link them to the templates page.
*Categories:* Use them as much as possible as well.  Take a look at the list of categories and add any to your page that you think are applicable.  Pages taken from OGL sources should all be in a specific category.
*Campaigns:* To avoid fighting over page names, large groups of pages that go together, like users' campaigns, should have one main page created for them and all other pages should be subpages of the main page using this sort of formatting:
MyCampaign
MyCampaign\Classes
MyCampaign\Races
MyCampaign\PCs

*Naming collisions:* When you want to create a page for something that already exists, like multiple versions of a class or race, and it's not a part of a specific campaign there should be one main page for the topic and all the different versions of the topic should be subpages.  The main page links to the subpages.  Example:
Bard
Bard/Official 3e
Bard/Merkuri's 4e
Bard/Someone Else's 4e


For #4 I was also thinking of putting the info about the version in parentheses, like "Bard (Official 3e)", but I don't know which one I like better.  This way is probably more like Wikipedia.  "Bard" itself could be a disambiguation page.

Comments?  Anything to add?  Anything to take away or change?


----------



## starwed (Jul 11, 2008)

Merkuri said:


> For #4 I was also thinking of putting the info about the version in parentheses, like "Bard (Official 3e)", but I don't know which one I like better.  This way is probably more like Wikipedia.  "Bard" itself could be a disambiguation page.
> 
> Comments?  Anything to add?  Anything to take away or change?



It's probably better to use wikipedia's style unless there's a specific, well thought out reason not to.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 11, 2008)

I agree; I'm only just learning this stuff as I go along, though.  I've gotten the hang of categories, which I've been mercilessly editing the OGC Compilation section to feature, although I think the organisation of much of the rest of the Wiki is very disjointed.

I haven't looked at templates yet; I see some people have created templates already, though.  

I'm not sure about the naming conventions; there's definitely some randomness going no there!


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 11, 2008)

starwed said:


> It's probably better to use wikipedia's style unless there's a specific, well thought out reason not to.




Sure, that's a good idea.  I remembered how Wikipedia used the parentheses after I thought up the supage idea.  So here's the updated set of conventions:


*Templates:* Use them as much as possible.  Create new ones if you see the need and link them to the templates page.
*Categories:* Use them as much as possible as well.  Take a look at the list of categories and add any to your page that you think are applicable.  Pages taken from OGL sources should all be in a specific category.
*Campaigns:* To avoid fighting over page names, large groups of pages that go together, like users' campaigns, should have one main page created for them and all other pages should be subpages of the main page using this sort of formatting:
MyCampaign
MyCampaign\Classes
MyCampaign\Races
MyCampaign\PCs

*Naming collisions:* When you want to create a page for something that already exists, like multiple versions of a class or race, and it's not a part of a specific campaign there should be one main "disambiguation" page for the topic and all the different versions of the topic should share hte name of the main page but contain information about what makes them different in parenthesis.  This is similar to how Wikipedia does it.  Example:
Bard
Bard (Official 3e)
Bard (Merkuri's 4e)
Bard (Someone Else's 4e)




Morrus said:


> I'm not sure about the naming conventions; there's definitely some randomness going no there!




I'm mainly concerned about people creating their own campaign mini-wikis inside our wiki.  I see a lot of opportunity for people to "fight" over page names unless they somehow include the name of the campaign in each of their page names, like you can do with subpages.  Somebody else suggested using categories to group campaign pages together, but that doesn't help when two people want to use the page called "My House Rules".  It'll really be a pain to move campaigns over into subpages if they're not built that way already, which is why I want to agree on something and get it slapped up on the main page as soon as we can.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 11, 2008)

How would you like to be Official in Charge Of Categories, Templates and Naming Conventions?  Assuming you ahev the time, because I imagine that'll involve some heavy lifting on the editing front, but you can post guidelines and so forth to ease the load.


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 11, 2008)

Morrus said:


> How would you like to be Official in Charge Of Categories, Templates and Naming Conventions?  Assuming you ahev the time, because I imagine that'll involve some heavy lifting on the editing front, but you can post guidelines and so forth to ease the load.




Sure!  

On Wikipedia they often create things they call Projects to fix things they think need fixing.  For example, on Wikipedia you're not supposed to link to "disambiguation" pages, but people do it all the time anyway.  They created a Disambiguation Project, and people participating in the project find links to disambiguation pages and fix them.  So, basically, one person doesn't have to do all the work since wikis can be edited by all, but it might be useful to have one person coordinating it.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 11, 2008)

Merkuri said:


> Sure!
> 
> On Wikipedia they often create things they call Projects to fix things they think need fixing.  For example, on Wikipedia you're not supposed to link to "disambiguation" pages, but people do it all the time anyway.  They created a Disambiguation Project, and people participating in the project find links to disambiguation pages and fix them.  So, basically, one person doesn't have to do all the work since wikis can be edited by all, but it might be useful to have one person coordinating it.




Cool!  Well, consider yourself Mr Wiki, and feel free to organise any projects or make any decisions you feel are necessary.

I'll have to work out how to give you sysop status there, too, so you can delete pages [edit - OK, that was easier than I thought!]


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 11, 2008)

Morrus said:


> Cool!  Well, consider yourself Mr Wiki, and feel free to organise any projects or make any decisions you feel are necessary.
> 
> I'll have to work out how to give you sysop status there, too, so you can delete pages [edit - OK, that was easier than I thought!]




That's Ms. Wiki to you. 

I'll wait a bit longer to see if anybody has any comments on these proposed conventions and then will post them up, probably after work today or some time tomorrow.


----------



## Merkuri (Jul 12, 2008)

Okay, I added a new page for the editing guidelines here.  It's still able to be edited (and always will be) if people have suggestions or things to add.


----------

