• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!


Etiquette Discussion

Page history last edited by Tim 15 years, 10 months ago

Back to Disputed Pages

Unresolved Questions:

* What happens if the original author doesn't fix a major inconsistency? Should you fix it yourself? How long should you wait?

* Should someone be able to 'own' a page - i.e. be able to make a binding decision on the directon that page takes?


I would like to note that the "breaking character" that occurs on this page is a clear ploy by the splinter-sect of the Dark Fourteen to generate some kind of support for their Conspiracy Theory. They obviously looked back through the old etiquette log, took the names of individuals who had done editing on the blog, and then produced "comments" by those people to make it appear that they had actually had a conversation about "making up" the wiki. I suggest that we leave this "out of character" section as a testament to their childish tomfoolery. dan.heck
Dan Heck, you should know better than to continue the myth that the Dark Fourteen is somehow behind the PACT. I mean, as far as I can tell their beliefs are mutually contradictory...
One way that I like to resolve and discuss disputes is to talk about common sources of confusion, such as the Finnish translation and The Elspinster Saga. Things can also be noted as fan fiction and moved to the fan fiction section. And that's just for starters on creative ways to resolve disputes so that a satisfying wiki is made while still being extremely inclusive. dan.heck
This is not Kingdom of Loathing (www.kingdomofloathing.com). ELotH:TES is a very serious fantasy saga and deserves to be treated as such. Spaghetti Plane? Come on. That sort of stuff doesn't belong in this, the most epic and grand and brilliantly non-cliched (hint hint) fantasy saga of all time. It deserves to be taken very seriously. And will be, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
I notice alot of people are linking off wiki. Should this be allowed? I think as a chronicle of a serious work, ELotH, that out going links should be clearly marked, and only link to relevent information, not 'funny links' that a page reminds you of.
I'd just say that this is unlike normal, er-- I don't want to break character. The difference between maintaining a Wiki page here, and writing, let's say, fanfiction is that the Wiki belongs to the community, not to the individual. To use the example that comes immediately to mind: the episode summaries I came up with for the first season of Wizbits aren't set in stone. If they don't work, or they're "broken" from a canonical perspective, then I've got no problem with someone else coming through and editing them beyond recognition. Maybe I got something wrong. The pages don't have by-lines, and that should be a telling detail. Nobody 'owns' a page within this context -- everyone owns it, and thus everyone should have a free-shot at every page. However, I think it's the group's responsibility to absorb as much strangeness as they can -- convoluted explanations for non-canonical entries and major inconsistencies should be encouraged at every turn. To go OOC for a minute: how can there be a Major Inconsistency in a work that doesn't actually exist? If something doesn't quite line up for you, it's your obligation as a member of the community to come up with some hilarious, or clever way of explaining it away -- and, if you can't, I think it's perfectly reasonable for you to make what changes you feel are necessary. As long as everything remains focused on fun, and doesn't descend into spite or drama, this project will work great. For me, this whole endeavor has already been a really fantastic way of re-filling my flagging creative sails. However, remember this: if you think an idea is really great, and shouldn't be changed by anyone, a public for-fun wiki is not the place for you to be posting it. Save your moments geinus for your private writing.** --EA
I think by "Major Inconsistancy" they mean anything that really shouldnt be referenced to a Fantasy series, even if it is faux series. Personally too many direct refrences to PA should be frowned upon, as well mention that this is one big joke which I am breaking currently but someone can delete this comment out later. DM
The problem I have with this sort of approach is that we should be as respectful as possible of other author's ideas. For example, if a section has a major inconsistency that can not be repaired without completely changing the meaning of the section, then it would be presumptuous to go and fix the error without giving the original author a chance to salvage those parts of his idea that he thinks worth keeping. btw: 2+2=615 is not a 'major inconsistency', it's minor, as fixing it is unlikely to change the drift of the section it's embedded in. --Shans
For the two unresolved questions, it seems silly for anyone to 'own' a page on a Wiki-- it defeats the purpose of a community-built information resource. If someone knows better than you do, their information should take precedence. If the page says 2+2=615, and you know very well that it doesn't, it's your duty to fix the error. Adopting this sort of policy should clear up the first question as well: if you know there's a major inconsistency, edit the page yourself and make a note of what you changed in the comments section. --EA
I think we should be careful to allow the spirit of contradiction due to the many different timelines of all the different incarnations of the principle to continue. As a community effort, some contradictions should remain due to different people assuming different parts of the franchise are "canon" or not. On the subject of PA specific references, such as the wang mountains and the cardboard tube samurai... I don't mind them as long as they are balanced things like Pratchetwood and hovering pasta fiends and other such pop-culture references. Gabe has already "admitted" to having been inspired by "The Wizbits" right? - Sinbad_EV (also, it's annoying for me to keep seeing people "signing" their work... this is a wiki people...)
I'm tired of people putting themselves in this. This is a group project, not a forum for self-aggrandizement. Don't sign works, don't put yourselves in the wiki, don't make mary jane character that happens to have your name, don't have a seperate storyline that only exists to spread fame of your own name or your handle - patkelly
In reference to putting ourselves in the story you commented on one that I made up, Tad Huffelbuns was just the most innocuous name I could think up at the time and one That I was certain would lead to abuse as a child. I on the other hand am named Mike and am six foot four and have no real problems with people from my child hood. I was using him as a generic skinny geek that was granted great power and let it go to his head. Ps my handle is mitEj(nickname I got from a friend who died 10 years ago this spring)
patkelly is right - unless you were a close, personal friend of Mr. Brahe, or perhaps one of the Wizbits production members, I doubt very much that they would write in a character resembling you. Don't muddy up our attempts to reconstruct the already-complicated ELotH universe with things that you know don't belong there. On the other hand, I encourage - even insist - that comments and notes be signed.

Remember, we're all working towards the same goal. -Delduwath
I think some people are taking this too seriously. It's a fictional work telling the history and overview of a fictional fantasy story. How non-serious can you get? I was enjoying making up funny people, places and things until someone started deleting them saying they weren't serious enough. Do we really want to be the kind of people they make fun of in scathing documentaries? BTW, I agree with not putting your real name in as a character or item and told a friend not to use mine in his edit. -Furnie Mac
There needs to be a balance, and its going to be difficult to maintain. There needs to be some silliniess and some canon arguments, or this work wont appear realistic enough. Even MTG has some silly or pun-y cards, and being PA based, and with the success of HHG2G and Pratchett, I dont think its outrageous to have some sillyness. With that said, there needs to be meat. We need some serious details on the Four Underdogs, I would think, perferably that would reflect on adult versions of the characters that were chosen to represent them as kids. We do need fewer non sequitors like the now expunged astrovixen/chicken thing. I strongly recommend, when you create an entry, that you try to find already extant people/places/things to link into it and back -- this creates the foundations that make a world. - ravensign
I agree that there should be a little silliness, but let it be mostly meat. I also think that while it's good to respect other people's contributions, there should be no prohibition on 'adding' bits to any particular page, whether or not it's a stub. I also think that it's just good practice to leave unexplained links on individual entries, so that there's always plenty of stuff for new people to add. It's like with lumber--when you cut down a tree, plant a new one. It "grows the brand," or something. - Shadowtext
The trick is to put the silliness in the right place. There's plenty of room in the cartoon or the CCG for really dopey stuff that would be out of place in the books. It's just jarring if it's in the wrong context. - Montykins
I have a bit of a request (and this is the first and last time you will see me break character): can we all try our best to remain in-character? I realize that it's difficult at times, but here's the way I see it: this wiki should appear, in its entirety, to support the verisimilitude of ELotH as a body of work. That breaks when we start discussing things like "making up new characters". I don't want to sound like a heavy-handed tyrant, but, you know... And anyway, I, for one, have just as much fun maintaining character as I do writing new entries. Thanks! </end> -Delduwath
I think some breaking of character on talk pages is necessary if we want this wiki to be something worth reading instead of just a big sandbox full of useless wastes of space. We do need to have direction and focus and a set style, so we don't wind up with the very absurd clashing with the very mundane. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding oneself to the world as long as it's very minor. I, for example, created Chardish's Cloak of Embiggening with the creator (Enn-Wyn) being a play on my own name. However, I don't plan to take it further or make Enn-Wyn a person of great importance. I do think that minor pages should belong to their owner. If someone says "Blah blah blah is X", and then another person explicitly edits the page to contradict the old version by saying it's something completely different (I see many mundane pages being turned into absurd pages recently), the page creator has precedence. -Chardish
Yeah, forget about being "in character" on this page, there's no point. I think there's room for both outright silliness, and sly fantasy satire in ELotH:TES, but some of these articles are just stupid. Unfunny. Jame Bort? NOT FUNNY. Astrovixens? NOT FUNNY. Roig Syndrome? NOT FUNNY. If anyone other than the original authors find them funny, please say so. -CJ
This page seems to be a non-RP zone, and should be kept as such. The rest of the Wiki, though, yeah, that should be in character. Anyway, yeah, I'll admit I've snuck myself in the Wiki--when I created the Lord Hopebane and The Hyacinth Emperor pages, I played Hopebane's birth first name and Hyacinth's birth last name on my own, but I appropriately (I believe) fanstasy-tized them beyond immediate recognition, and the names are only minor footnotes. But anyway, if it were up to me Roig Syndrome, Astrovixens, and James Bort would all be dead. I find them all unfunny--Bort, at least, could be made funny, I think, if it were toned down; the author was trying too hard. But that isn't the discusion here. Etiquette discussion is not humor discussion, and I think the Disputed Pages section is a more appropriate place for that. As for "pages being property," I think that it's rude to majorly change any given page. It sometimes ends up being funnier if you end up twisting yourself in pretzels making two seemingly conflicting pages work, but if overdone it can be more confusing that funny. -patkelly
I was under the impression that ELotH:TES was supposed to be an absurdist parody of fantasy "epics" by pushing a bunch of tired cliches to their extremes. Hence the term "Elemenstor" to begin with, lampooning modern fantasy's banal obsession with elements and "elemental" magic. . . . . . the point is, it's subtle humor. It's not over the top. It seems that the most popular trend seems to be a cross between what I describe and more Douglas Adams-style wry humor that seems kind of in place but also kind of out of place. So you wind up with terms like Yar the Sorcerial, where you can't really tell if we're making fun of fantasy or trying to hard to write really, really fantastic fantasy. Bottom line is that we need some better definition of what we're trying to achieve here. -Chardish
It's an interesting point, Chardish, and there is some kind of contrast between the style in Yar the Sorcerial and things like the 100 swords. Yar may be a little more wry, the parody not QUITE as obvious. (And it's by me). That said, I also think it goes together in a way. I think that ambiguity is what makes it interesting; the best parodies are self-parodies. Lacking that possibility, I'd say its best to approach the appearance of self-parody, of someone who might not quite know that they are being ridiculous. But that doesn't have to be everyone's voice. I don't think we should aim for a "unified voice". It's a wiki for chrissakes. About an imagined fantasy epic for chrissakes. And that universe certainly includes things by VERY diverse authors, from the Whizbits to Brahe's (?) own authoritative work.
That seems to be the BIG THING this project should be going for, the "better definition of what we're trying to achieve here": a parody of the entire obsession with "canonicity" , "true intent" and the "true message" of a world that is not only made up, but (as in all fantasy) drawing from innumberable influences. I think that different voices, to a very broad degree degree, support that end. That's what makes it an environment that liberates people's creativity. You can write stuff that's interesting/funny/kind of neat that other people will read without it having to be great or perfect. Dan
Good point, Dan. I like to think of ELotH:TES as a sort of improv comedy, uh, thing. One of the cardinal rules of improv is that you don't disagree with the other players (in the sense of saying "No, that isn't happening, something else is happening". Arguing for comic effect is okay). The idea is to take what the other people add and just go with it. That's why I hesitate in deleting other peoples work. Sure, the end product is crazy and disjointed, but that's almost the point. ~Lucres
That's why contradictions are never funny, but the thing about deletion is that it's as if the deleted material never happened. If a player yells something offensive and idiotic, clearly they'll have to run with it IRL, but here we're blessed with the ability to kill it. Take Roig Syndrome or James Bort. The first was an awful idea, and nobody thinks it should have stayed. Bort was a decent idea but was painfully executed, and a massive overhaul managed to get it to where it was funny. So I do think deletion of work can be acceptable, but only in rare cases--that is, everyone believes it's offensive. And I think massive overhaul can also be acceptable, but in similar cases--everyone, after discussion, agrees it's unfunny and detracts from the Wiki. But this is not to propose willy-nilly attacks. The more complex the wiki gets, the better it is. The more one-off jokes and running gags, the more silly attempts to rectify things done by different people, the better it is. -patkelly
Guys. I think some of you need to listen to yourselves. You're arguing about the fact that certain parts of a make-believe backstory of a make-believe fantasy epic that goes by the ridiculously long and obviously intentionally satirical name 'Epic Legends of the Hierarchs: The Elemenstor Saga' are not serious enough. Therefore you leave me with no choice. If you insist on continuing to be serious, I will have no choice but to channel my powers of Dark Elemenstation to ambulate the desks that your computers are sitting on in your parents' basements and dump them crashing to the floor. -Jeema
Oh, parents' basements. Very witty. Come on, now. I don't think that cliché has been either funny or remotely true for 10 years. That said, look around this wiki. Can you find one single article that isn't silly? Is there anything in here that's serious? If we call for seriousness, we call for seriousness in the same way that Monty Python's Minister of Silly Walks was serious--a demeanor of intense gravity and dedication wrapped around an utterly absurd, inane concept. If John Cleese dressed like a clown and acted silly while he did that ridiculous high-step, it wouldn't have been funny. It would have been slapstick, but uninteresting. Same here. If it were all "LOL TYCHO WAS A FAG" and "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOU TILL YOU LOVE ME" it wouldn't be funny, it would be juvenile and uninteresting. There's a reason this project wasn't named "Lord of the Farts." It was given an utterly bombastic and pretentious name, and the fact that we're seriously approaching silly material with gravity and pretention is the humor. You're right in that it's satire. And satire, by it's nature, is completely and utterly serious. You find us ridiculous. That, my friend, is the point. -patkelly
What is the etiquette policy concerning people who post pointless stuff that has nothing to do with elementors saga? I'd think there should some policy against racist/hate jokes and being crude for the sake of being crude. I refer mainly to "Convicted Rapist" (I edited out, now I wish I had left it at least for now to be an example) someone obviously thought that was funny. -Foolster41 EDIT: Oh forget it, I doubt anyone will object so I added to the etiquettue page
Create a discussion page for it, and it'll be worked out. -patkelly

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.