I can do some templates that mark 1.0 versus 2.0 citations, kind of like how WoWWiki does citations for different source material. I think any necessary demarcation can be done in text ("Prior to the Calamity, XXX (1.0 cite). This tradition has changed after the Calamity (2.0 cite)..." or "This is XXX (1.0 cite, 2.0 cite)"), since some lore has changed, some hasn't, and some just doesn't exist in one version or the other.
I'm personally not in favor of turning a review system on. I'd prefer to rely on RC patrol and the usual wiki rules of Be Bold and Be Verifiable. The reason why is that a review panel gives the reviewers fairly inordinate power over what "is" lore, and even things that can be cited can be interpreted rather differently (White Mages, Gridania, and the Elementals, just to name a few that feature prominently on the RPC). Requiring citations and authorizing people to remove uncited content and discuss cited content that may not be accurate is, IMO, a better solution than having reviewers. In fact, controversies can be something that's reported on in the article. For instance, one might have a section under White Mage for "Controversies," flag it as speculation or a meta discussion via template, and note the different interpretations of the Job storyline.
On the topic of a timeline, not only are there some slick extensions to create those, but we already have much of one on the wiki. That might be a good starting point for article writing -- turning many of those statements into links and writing articles about those.
I'm personally not in favor of turning a review system on. I'd prefer to rely on RC patrol and the usual wiki rules of Be Bold and Be Verifiable. The reason why is that a review panel gives the reviewers fairly inordinate power over what "is" lore, and even things that can be cited can be interpreted rather differently (White Mages, Gridania, and the Elementals, just to name a few that feature prominently on the RPC). Requiring citations and authorizing people to remove uncited content and discuss cited content that may not be accurate is, IMO, a better solution than having reviewers. In fact, controversies can be something that's reported on in the article. For instance, one might have a section under White Mage for "Controversies," flag it as speculation or a meta discussion via template, and note the different interpretations of the Job storyline.
On the topic of a timeline, not only are there some slick extensions to create those, but we already have much of one on the wiki. That might be a good starting point for article writing -- turning many of those statements into links and writing articles about those.
The Freelance Wizard
Quality RP at low, low prices!
((about me | about L'yhta Mahre | L'yhta's desk | about Mysterium, the Ivory Tower: a heavy RP society of mages))
Quality RP at low, low prices!
((about me | about L'yhta Mahre | L'yhta's desk | about Mysterium, the Ivory Tower: a heavy RP society of mages))
