User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games

Where to put in articles

Hi Bob, I saw your edit on the Commando... and I disagree. Strongly. Sarna isn't covering any particular version of anything to begin with; when you look at the stats given in the infobox you'll see that these aren't tabletop stats, they are fluff stats (though these are of course derived from tabletop rules). I think you're mixing up two things here - the canonical existence and configuration of the Commando, and how it is represented in various rulesets including tabletop and computer games. This is not a distinction Sarna should make. Mind you, listing variants, even apocryphal ones such as the 'Blazing Inferno' and 'Death's Knell' variants from The Crescent Hawks' Inception and MWO, respectively, is okay and even positively desired. I also think the "See also" section is okay. But the text at the article header should be removed. It doesn't belong there and implies a segregation between tabletop and computer games that we don't actually have nor want on Sarna. My opinion, anyways. ;) Frabby (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

I put that there to tell people who were looking for the apocryphal video game versions where to look so they could easily find them. Without that line, it is hard for people to know to look down there at the bottom of the page. It is simply meant as a navigational aid, and not to make differentiation between the canonical and apocryphal. I've added the line to the top of many weapon pages (after getting someone else's approval), and if this should be changed, then please tell me what it should be changed to and I'll gladly change them. I just wanted to make it easier for people to find the pages they are looking for. Perhaps would it be better if I just removed the words canonical and apocryphal in that line? It still gets the point across of where to look while not dividing canon and apocryphal directly. -BobTheZombie (talk) 10:44, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

For the record, we don't have any policy (that I'm aware of) regulating this question on Sarna and I'm in no position to 'decide' anything here or to tell you what to do. So this is really an open-ended discussion. Perhaps we should move it to a more suitable place where other users might chime in - suggestions?

I guess I don't see the problem you're trying to fix here, while at the same time I don't like the fix itself. I'd expect a given user who's interested in 'Mech designs from, say, MechCommander 2 to look up the MechCommander 2 article first, and easily find the list in that article. If a user calls up the Commando article looking for this info and can't be bothered to read the article (or, more likely, CTRL-F search it) then I'm not sure if we can help him.

And then there's my general article format nitpicking. The line you put to the top to highlight something relatively insignificant that's dealt with in one of the last article sections is somehow self-defeating. If this is important, move it up; if it isn't, don't highlight it at the very top. Hm. I somehow can't find the right words for why this is bugging me so much. It simply feels wrong to have there.

A compromise might be using an appropriately named section header which would show up in the TOC. But I can't think of a suitable wording right now. Again, I'm open for suggestions. Frabby (talk) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

I have responded at User talk:BobTheZombie/Project Video Games. We can more publically discuss it there. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

Perhaps moving them to the prexisting "apocryphal variants" section would help solve the problem. They'd be easy to find and it wouldn't mess with the current layouts, plus it would flow better. As for what we should do with the weapon pages, I'm not sure. -BobTheZombie (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2014 (PDT)

I've pretty much spoken my mind and don't know what else to say. As a suggestion that might work equally well for 'Mechs and equipment (esp. weapons), perhaps a section called "Representation in games" could be added. I like this title a lot. "Representation" is the key word here, because the issue at hand is how the fluff "reality" that Sarna seeks to cover is represented across various rulesets, online and offline. Frabby (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2014 (PDT)

I believe that the heading is not the biggest issue, rather the line at the top of the page. Should it be removed altogether, or modified to remove the words "canonical" and "apocryphal" in that line? I'll remove the top line from the 'Mech articles and simply move the info to the Apocryphal Variants section of the page. -BobTheZombie (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2014 (PDT)