RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

Jariana · **10-01-2014, 04:10 PM**

(10-01-2014, 03:14 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Side note,
What are the thoughts of making a 1.0 vs 2.0 page as well for this lore wiki? like a page to show interesting differences between the two [maybe a comparison of terrain/maps/monsters and the like?]

Please do this? Â Pretty please?! *bounces up and down in glee*

*ahem* So yeah, I'm a bit of a lore fan (addict) in any game I get associated with, just because I really like teasing out those little tidbits that story writers sometimes tuck away here and there. Â I would be more than happy to help contribute to something like this, however, since I've only been playing here for a couple of months, my experience with the world at large isn't near as broad as others. Â But I will say, one of the big things that has always fascinated me was the differences between the 1.0 and 2.0 versions. Â Especially since I obviously wasn't involved in the history of 1.0 myself, but since my character is older bit older than five, she was (even if she wasn't a Carteneau survivor.)

So I'd be more than happy to help out anyway I can, even with just the little snippets here and there I've run into and collected.

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 04:12 PM**

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: I definitely think that 1.0 lore needs to be filtered out somehow, or at the very least be sectioned so that it's very apparent that it is dated lore. Some of it might still be valid (or even fill in voids), but I imagine there is a lot of changes to - and this IS 2.0 we are playing, so naturally that should be the focus.Â

I can dig that, I just think things like map comparisons would be pretty cool even for people fresh with 2.0 the whole character looking over a vista and recalling when there used to be a river or somesuch.

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: In terms of spoilers, I think a big fat disclaimer on the "front page" of the wiki should be all there is on it. Because at the end of the day, there's a lot of things that could be spoiled, but in order to explain something or involve somethings history (ie. garleans) you kind of have to spoil it. I think it would be a waste of time if we have to sit and hide individual things that are spoilers, might as well just let people know what to expect and be done with it.Â

Yeah a big cover would be nessicary for "spoilers ahead!" but what about with stuff thats based on content cleared? like Nael Van Darnus, do we want to just have his page filled out? or do we want to spoiler tag stuff like

Show Content

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: As for validation, I would say having two people sign off on it would be a-okay, but perhaps lower it to just one if there are screenshots in the sources? That way you essentially just need to have one person validate that the screenshots are valid and not of someones cat.Â

I like that idea, save on effort I think..

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: One thing came to mind, how about proofreading and such? Despite being pretty fluent in English, I still make some grammatical errors. Is it something to think about when validating something or should we just let people fix the errors as they get discovered?

I'm quite obviously not the best at spelling, and grammer, my ESL aside, so perhaps we could have a log of recently updated pages, and people practiced and proof reading could go over the edited sections once a month or somesuch? I'm not sure how best to organize that review system..

(10-01-2014, 04:10 PM)Jariana Wrote: Please do this? Â Pretty please?! *bounces up and down in glee*

*ahem* So yeah, I'm a bit of a lore fan (addict) in any game I get associated with, just because I really like teasing out those little tidbits that story writers sometimes tuck away here and there. Â I would be more than happy to help contribute to something like this, however, since I've only been playing here for a couple of months, my experience with the world at large isn't near as broad as others. Â But I will say, one of the big things that has always fascinated me was the differences between the 1.0 and 2.0 versions. Â Especially since I obviously wasn't involved in the history of 1.0 myself, but since my character is older bit older than five, she was (even if she wasn't a Carteneau survivor.)

So I'd be more than happy to help out anyway I can, even with just the little snippets here and there I've run into and collected.

Hrm, have you taken a look at
http://www.ffxivmaps.com/old.html
and
http://www.finalfantasyxivcutscenes.com/

they're quite handy.

Erik Mynhier · **10-01-2014, 04:16 PM**

I am against segregation of 1.0 lore unless it can be proven to have been retconed. To segregate the lore by version number will open a can of worms that will be dumped on us every time there is an expansion. By separating 1.0 from 2.0, do we follow suit in a few months when we hit 3.0? Just throw it out all together. We are only playing 2.0 now because we are, we will be in 3.0 before you know it, and 4.0 in a little over a year.

I think the problem with 1.0 lore is it is hard to come by and in many cases is second hand from players who were in 1.0. That does not invalidate the data, on the contrary, lore from 1.0 could enhance a wiki. I know one of the mods on the SE lore board in passing. Let me get with him and the others and see if they would mind compiling the lore from 1.0. That way we can have a central official source.

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 04:25 PM**

(10-01-2014, 04:16 PM)Erik Mynhier Wrote: I am against segregation of 1.0 lore unless it can be proven to have been retconed. To segregate the lore by version number will open a can of worms that will be dumped on us every time there is an expansion. By separating 1.0 from 2.0, do we follow suit in a few months when we hit 3.0? Just throw it out all together. We are only playing 2.0 now because we are, we will be in 3.0 before you know it, and 4.0 in a little over a year.

I think the problem with 1.0 lore is it is hard to come by and in many cases is second hand from players who were in 1.0. That does not invalidate the data, on the contrary, lore from 1.0 could enhance a wiki. I know one of the mods on the SE lore board in passing. Let me get with him and the others and see if they would mind compiling the lore from 1.0. That way we can have a central official source.

I don't think the jump from 2.0 to 3.0 will be the same magnitude of change to the existing basis of the world, especially considering a lot of changes were made between 1.0 and 1.1 [just look at Thaumaturges going from Astral/Umbral spell casters to elemental] where as 2.0 all though its major patches have added instead of over written.

I support a method of "If you'd like to know what this was like in 1.0 click here" or a 1.0 tab on the page of each wiki entry that has 1.0 data to include*, just in an effort to make people who don't want to know the particulars of how shitty it was to have to grind infernal tapers from having a page cluttered by it. [The tab system is quite handy, Ciel Wulfes wiki page uses it to great effect.]

Erik Mynhier · **10-01-2014, 04:39 PM**

I am not saying not to use a tab system for changed Lore, I'm just not wanting to throw the baby (lore still valid) with the bathwater (lore that's been retconned).

To that end I have emailed the mods and posted an official request on the SE forums. I just want to make sure we don't lose valid lore. All I'm really doing is double-checking before we proceed.

Sounsyy · **10-01-2014, 04:54 PM**

I'm with Erik in regards to 1.0. I think by creating a separation between 1.0 lore and 2.0 lore we will be promoting a lore source that dismisses 1.0 facts. We already have enough people challenging 1.0 lore by saying "yeah well this is 2.0, it's not the same game!" When, it is, in fact, the same game from a lore perspective. The game itself references 1.0 lore all the time and (most importantly) refers to how something from 1.0 may have changed in 2.0 because of the Calamity.

From a purely roleplaying perspective, everyone here roleplays a character over 5 years old. So pre-Calamity (1.0) lore facts are pertinent to everyone here and they should (IMO) be treated as canon until proven otherwise. A good example is the Central Thanalan S-rank, Brontes. If you talk to the Hunter-scholar about Brontes, she'll tell you that he belonged to a pair of cyclopes that were captured on Vylbrand and sold to an Ul'dahn circus. Welllllllll in 1.0, players participated in a levequest called "Operation Crosseye" in which we brought those two cyclopes down.

From my own research, I've only found one case in which lore was actually retconned by SE. This, of course, was when Conjurers were stripped of Fire, Thunder, and Ice elemental spells to accommodate the introduction of Black Mage and War of the Magi lore stating that early Magi used fire to survive the Age of Endless Frost. However, this was a retcon that happened in 1.0. I have found no other hard retcons between 1.0 and 2.0 lore. There is a whole lot of missing lore (lore that was expressed in 1.0 but has not yet been expressed in 2.0), but not retconned lore (lore from 2.0 that states 1.0 lore to not be true).

Melkire · **10-01-2014, 05:04 PM**

If contradictions between 1.0 lore and 2.0 lore are not as prevalent as I've been led to believe they are, then by all means, work them together.

Perhaps segregation was the wrong word to use. In hindsight, I'm far more interested in demarcation and/or notation of 1.0 lore. If someone's reading over the lore wiki, and theyÂ come across something they're not familiar with despiteÂ adamantly perusing every piece of in-game text available to them, there should be something on that page, in that section, that clearly says, "this is from 1.0" so that they're not left wondering "but where the heck did this information come from?!"Â

Sure, we can slap citations on those sections, but I don't want to have to scroll down to the very bottom of a potentially long article to check the references in order to learn that it's 1.0 information. Maybe have the paragraph or section boxed in with a highlighted border... or maybe a little symbol for 1.0 lore in the margin. Something.

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 05:05 PM**

Right, the idea I was putting forward was not to disassociate 1.0 from 2.0 lore, but to make a clarification between the two easier, for example.

< big long blurb about the Mun-tuy cellars with 2.0 pictuers and information>

<something akin to a spoiler tag about "If you want to know more about how it was in 1.0 please see here">

<expandable option or second tab on the wiki entry for the Mun-tuy with links to the 1.0 maps and descriptions about how adventurers used to be able to use it to get from one part of the shroud to another/ how it was an 'open dungeon.'>

Erik Mynhier · **10-01-2014, 05:14 PM**

(10-01-2014, 04:54 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: I'm with Erik in regards to 1.0. I think by creating a separation between 1.0 lore and 2.0 lore we will be promoting a lore source that dismisses 1.0 facts. We already have enough people challenging 1.0 lore by saying "yeah well this is 2.0, it's not the same game!" When, it is, in fact, the same game from a lore perspective. The game itself references 1.0 lore all the time and (most importantly) refers to how something from 1.0 may have changed in 2.0 because of the Calamity.

From a purely roleplaying perspective, everyone here roleplays a character over 5 years old. So pre-Calamity (1.0) lore facts are pertinent to everyone here and they should (IMO) be treated as canon until proven otherwise. A good example is the Central Thanalan S-rank, Brontes. If you talk to the Hunter-scholar about Brontes, she'll tell you that he belonged to a pair of cyclopes that were captured on Vylbrand and sold to an Ul'dahn circus. Welllllllll in 1.0, players participated in a levequest called "Operation Crosseye" in which we brought those two cyclopes down.

From my own research, I've only found one case in which lore was actually retconned by SE. This, of course, was when Conjurers were stripped of Fire, Thunder, and Ice elemental spells to accommodate the introduction of Black Mage and War of the Magi lore stating that early Magi used fire to survive the Age of Endless Frost. However, this was a retcon that happened in 1.0. I have found no other hard retcons between 1.0 and 2.0 lore. There is a whole lot of missing lore (lore that was expressed in 1.0 but has not yet been expressed in 2.0), but not retconned lore (lore from 2.0 that states 1.0 lore to not be true).

Here here, I mean, even the Calamity itself could be considered 1.0 lore. I myself use various points from my 1.0 character that was eaten before Erik and my new account came along. Despite it being a terrible game in many ways, the Lore was rich, and in some cases richer then 2.whatever lore has been.

Sounsyy · **10-01-2014, 05:30 PM**

I'm definitely amenable to a system in which lore is cited based upon whether its 1.0 or 2.0 information, I just don't think we should hide or separate lore if it's from 1.0. Doing so might inform the reader that said 1.0 lore is no longer relevant or viable, when in fact said 1.0 lore may be more informative about whatever subject than the listed 2.0 lore was.

Like 2.0 gives veryyyyyy little information about what guildleves are and whatnot, but 1.0 lore informs us that there are 40 different types of leves, and that each of the little leve plates is made out of colored crystal. The inscription on each leve is one of Eorzea's 40 Virtues, and the artwork upon each card is a representation of one of Eorzea's 40 Saints who upheld said virtue.

A 2.0 player may ask, "Who is Saint Coinach? And why does he have an organization called Sons of Saint Coinach named after him?" 2.0 offers no lore on this. However, from the guildleve topic above, we know that Saint Coinach was an archeologist who proved the existence of the ancient Allagan Empire, when before the Allagans were dismissed as nothing but a myth.

So my only worry about employing a tab system wherein 1.0 lore is not readily visible in the main article, is that new players or players who are just skimming may just bypass the 1.0 section completely and needlessly miss out on a wealth of lore.

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 05:33 PM**

thoughts on the template system? Perhaps a variety of templates for different types of pages?

"Characters/Monsters" could be more biography based like the current wiki entries? Separate using tabs maybe Character appearance, then Location(s), then perhaps general Lore?

eg.
-Pictures of a Coblyn from different angles/ Variations in type
-Pictures/lists of places where you can find them and maybe a little blurb about the area "Copper bell mines, a source of resources for Ul'dahn yadda yada"
-Then one for stats? "health in the range of _____" "Drops _____"

That sounds a bit tedious at first, but sue me, I like making lists.

"Locations" could utilize a series of <thumbs> galleries at different times of day? maybe
-Picture of the map and description of the general area on the first tab
-Picture of hot spot locations and descriptions of each/history
-3rd tab for Some of the people in that zone and links to their entries?
-these could have 1.0 tabs where an overlay of the old map vs the new map is as well as some notes on the changes?

and "events" template for stuff like the Autumn War
in the "info box" like characters you could have a Date, Factions/combatants, Result?
I'm not sure what the best way to seperate event information would be.. maybe a "timeline" tab showing the general series of events, and then just headers below that go into each point in greater detail?

I'd make sure to require a "Put links to the pages of people/places involved in the event"

I suppose Events would only really be needed if they weren't included on the people or places tabs, but I think that those with events that are longer termed and have people drop in and out of them as time goes by an seperate host of information would be handy. For example if you Had a page about Nym and mentioned how their Scholars and Marauders worked together to great effect, i'm not sure if you'd want to mention everything that was going on at the mainland at the same time.

But now i'm just rambling.. thoughts?

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 05:35 PM**

(10-01-2014, 05:30 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: So my only worry about employing a tab system wherein 1.0 lore is not readily visible in the main article, is that new players or players who are just skimming may just bypass the 1.0 section completely and needlessly miss out on a wealth of lore.

Do you think if they're skimming they're going to take note of that information if its hidden in a spoiler tag anyways?

The Tab system isn't "hidden away" much, you can look at my wiki page to see an example if you like, and I think if we and others are diligent about "for more information about how it was before the calamity see here" the curious people who would truly benefit will click it, while the skimmers continue to skim.

EDIT: I suppose I should express that my fear is people will click on a lore link, see a scroll bar, my name on the "last edited" part and go "Oh god he just rambles on about how much he loved 1.0 all the time" and close the window.

Sounsyy · **10-01-2014, 05:47 PM**

(10-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Do you think if they're skimming they're going to take note of that information if its hidden in a spoiler tag anyways?

EDIT: I suppose I should express that my fear is people will click on a lore link, see a scroll bar, my name on the "last edited" part and go "Oh god he just rambles on about how much he loved 1.0 all the time" and close the window.

I guess I'm just advocating no separation, merely citation. No spoiler, no tabs, etc.

But you do bring up a valid point on length... Will having a super lengthy article turn people away? Maybe... hmm... It may turn away the skimmers and the people who aren't really looking in depth, but it may excite those who are really into the lore. So I guess it's six and one-half-dozen of the other.

arrrrgh lol.

I do like the psuedo timeline idea though. A massive Eorzean timeline with dates leading to events which are linked to the article of that event's pertinence.

|
|
|
1468-1469 6AE ------ The Autumn War
|
|
etc...

/furiously scribbles notes.

Olofantur · **10-01-2014, 06:30 PM**

(10-01-2014, 05:47 PM)Sounsyy Wrote:
(10-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Do you think if they're skimming they're going to take note of that information if its hidden in a spoiler tag anyways?

EDIT: I suppose I should express that my fear is people will click on a lore link, see a scroll bar, my name on the "last edited" part and go "Oh god he just rambles on about how much he loved 1.0 all the time" and close the window.

I guess I'm just advocating no separation, merely citation. No spoiler, no tabs, etc.

But you do bring up a valid point on length... Will having a super lengthy article turn people away? Maybe... hmm... It may turn away the skimmers and the people who aren't really looking in depth, but it may excite those who are really into the lore. So I guess it's six and one-half-dozen of the other.

arrrrgh lol.

I do like the psuedo timeline idea though. A massive Eorzean timeline with dates leading to events which are linked to the article of that event's pertinence.

|
|
|
1468-1469 6AE ------ The Autumn War
|
|
etc...

/furiously scribbles notes.

Yes! exactly, I suppose i'm more used to trying to coax people into wanting to know more by doing the bread crumb method and trying not to intimidate them, it makes me a bit shy of overburdening.

I totally dig wanting to create one seamless flow I just [using Mor Dhona as an example] Think it would be cool to have the cover page with the most up-to-date information and then if people wanted to see how it changed with each patch they could delve into the side sections or the tabs or however things get organized.

A huge "timeline" page with off shoots/links would make a great example page to introduce people to the wiki..

FreelanceWizard · **10-02-2014, 12:33 PM**

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.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (5): « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

WikiLore planning and discussion

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes