| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 11 Sep 2014 : 06:48:56
Following on from the last thread.
Well again! I'm here to proudly report that the Forgotten Realms Wiki is still going strong.
Currently, we have 13,834 articles, and our Wikia rankings, seen here remain high and are rising. Our Main Page is regularly updated, with a Feature Article every month and more on the way, a weekly Did You Know? to present Realmslore from our latest articles, regular featured images, and a daily Today in the Realms to present history, rituals, and festivals. We continue to grow and attract new editors and readers.
I'd estimate most of the old unsourced material has been tagged; the copied material has been deleted, tagged, and being rewritten; and the homebrew material has been removed, putting the problems of the past well behind us. Pages are also being thoroughly categorised.
I'm confident to say the FRW is now a reliable source for a wide range of Realms topics, and very useful and detailed for a handful of specific topics (according to our editors' interests, at least). If you want to want to research some topic of Realmslore, then the FRW is a great first stop, or even your only stop. Check out the following recent and active projects, as well as related articles:
* The Heralds of Faerûn
* Maerimydra
* Tantras
* Waukeen
* Eshpurta
* Church of Ilmater and Ilmater
5th Edition lore is now coming onto the wiki, with "The Lost Mines of Phandelver", the Neverwinter MMO, and others, but that hasn't stopped the flow of earlier lore, as a variety of classic-era articles show. You can see a list of our most recent new articles here, most quite good or soon polished or tagged for more work by other editors.
So, please, go check us out, read some of our fine new articles, make a few corrections to others, or even add new lore. Everyone is made welcome and you can ask any admin for advice and guidance (look for talk pages for BadCatMan, Darkwynters, and Moviesign). Let's explore and detail the whole of the Forgotten Realms together.
I'll also take the liberty of passing on the happy news that our sister site, the Baldur's Gate Wiki for the Baldur's Gate games, has just spawned the Icewind Dale Wiki. There you can get in on the ground floor detailing the Icewind Dale games.
What's more, we're currently engaged in a tournament against a rival wiki for the upcoming Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor video game. They've pitted their player character Talion against Drizzt Do'Urden of all people. They've also challenged the Baldur's Gate Wiki, putting Viconia DeVir against Galadriel. Who would win in a fight? Who's most popular? Follow the link from our main page and vote. (Be warned, it's an advertising gimmick for gaining pre-orders for the game.) |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 22 Apr 2015 : 17:14:55
This is great news.  |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 22 Apr 2015 : 15:50:25
Despite being BadCatMan, you're awesome. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 22 Apr 2015 : 14:45:44
Hi all.
I have a small announcement on two new features / changes to the FRW.
First, we've decided to remove red-links to core monsters appearing in the navigation/content boxes appearing at the bottoms of many of the monster pages. We hope this will limit the number of core-only monster articles added to the wiki. We've started removing these links. Furthermore, existing non-FR articles are being tagged with the Unrelated notice as they are found.
Second, the old Requests page has been rediscovered, revamped, and given new life. So, if you have a specific request for a new article or more lore on an old article, or an article to cleaned up, referenced, or fact-checked, or you simply need some help on wiki editing, then drop us a note at Forgotten Realms Wiki:Requests. You can find the link from the Helping Hand box on the front page too.
(Ironically, despite being BadCatMan, I need help on catlords.) |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 22 Mar 2015 : 17:43:02
In general I agree that if there is no Realms-specific information but there is a red link (a link to a completely empty page) on an article then campaign-neutral information should be added. What we shouldn't get into the habit of doing is filling those pages with campaign-specific information unless it also relates to the Realms. Let the other wikis deal with that. If you like you can edit an article on, say, Greywiki then link to that one from the article on FRwiki.
Personally, any article without Realms-specific information is a low priority for me unless there are a lot of other pages that link to it. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 22 Mar 2015 : 16:31:20
I like taking an inclusive approach, as opposed to an exclusive one. We can see from the sources listed whether something is explicitly tied to the Realms, and the Unrelated template makes it even more clear.
The alternative would be finding only explicitly Realms-related stuff on the FR Wiki, and having to go somewhere else to find everything else whenever we want to find something that we might want to include in our own Realms campaigns. That would be annoying, and would disservice the FR Wiki by regularly sending us elsewhere for large chunks of information.
The whole point of summarizing the lore found in each source (as opposed to just listing sources) is to be a "one-stop shop" for lore. Including things that aren't (yet) explicitly part of the Realms is consistent with that goal.
(edit: Sorry, not trying to be contrary or disagreeable, and I know a "devil's advocate" might not be needed or welcome in this case.) |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 22 Mar 2015 : 12:05:22
FWIW, I kind of agree, I don't see the point in someone adding something to the wiki that has no known Realms collection. But I can't make a major objection to it either. Cerebrilith was one such drive-by article, sitting there for a year before I noticed it. I realised it had been copied from the source, I recalled the creature's appearance in Realms of the Dragons, and decided to rehabilitate it, including the bit from the short story.
But don't take my word for it. IIRC, you have a Wikia account and some small history with the group. You're welcome to make a policy proposal. Just post on the forum, outline the problem, and write up the rules of the proposed policy. Then the rest of the community can debate it, pick it apart, make suggestions, and vote, until we get bored and an admin determines the outcome. :)
I'd recommend working on the wiki for a bit to earn some cred, and rehabilitate some pages to demonstrate any style you'd like to see. It helps to have examples to look at, and I find getting stuck into the work gives one an appreciation of the practicalities and revises one's opinions.
Aha! I found my Unrelated template. I've used it at Astral dragon, Kyuss, and Warforged. Just add {{Unrelated}} to the top of any page without a Realms connection. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 17:11:12
That's disappointing. For me it's frustrating to come upon a page on a topic I am interested in when I discover their are entries for creatures I either have not heard of or have not yet seen detailed in the Realms, and then discover the entries for them are not sourced from actual Realmslore.
It's antithetical to the purpose of the wiki, because in cases like the Beholder entry what little Realmslore that is available is diluted by material that explicitly is not Realmslore.
Regardless, I am just one user, and I recognize the effort you all have put in over a good number of hours. I have made small contributions to the wiki, but for the time being I will collect and post Realmslore to this forum. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 05:05:38
I should clarify that our canon policy requires that the FR lore be primary and that Core lore only be used to supplement or complement it. After all, a lot of FR lore about monsters and so on is told assuming knowledge of the core ("you know about beholders, here's what beholders are doing in FR"), and that background is needed for a comprehensive. That's what I expect to see. Of course, a lot of race and monster pages still need to be updated to reflect that.
A lot of monsters don't exist in the Realms, until an author decides to use it in a story or a designer includes it in an adventure, then suddenly it's always been in the Realms. Like cerebriliths. It's difficult to check every possible source and say for sure X doesn't exist. So I see these articles as laying groundwork for potential, future inclusion. People are more likely to add new lore to an existing article than make a new article from scratch.
So I don't think it harms the wiki to have the generic lore, though it is a burden to manage.
No, we don't have a relationship with the D&D Wiki. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 02:38:41
BadCatMan I appreciate your quick answer.
It's certainly true that DMs are encouraged to use whatever sources are at hand to create fun Forgotten Realms campaigns.
The Realms has been a home to portals connecting it to countless worlds, resulting in migrations of several races, creatures, ideas and magic, and the Realms has even been billed as a place where "If it's in D&D, it's in the Realms."
However, the Forgotten Realms wiki is for the Realms and not for D&D at large. I appreciate that you see the difference inasmuch as you have observed users treating the FR Wiki as a default for information that ought to go on the D&D wiki. There is value in this sort of effort.
I do not believe that effort is sufficient reason to leave it on a page. Likewise, I do not agree that it helps to beef up a page by including generic D&D lore. It would help if the generic information was either called out as such at the top of a page as not being sourced from Realmslore/as being generic, or if the information was deleted and the user given a copy of their work with a link to the appropriate page on the D&D wiki where their work should go.
Do you have a relationship with the main people on the D&D Wiki?
Regarding settings with the "core" status: as far as I know 5E is treating every D&D setting as the core for D&D. The Realms is just first in line to get attention. I don't think this is reason enough start adding everything printed in 5E.
Regarding creatures: while the core rulebooks treat Drow as Drow, and Elves as Elves, just about every splatbook written after has delved into differences in races, not just in terms of game mechanics, but in outlook. The novels go into even greater detail on the differences.
Thus, the elves of the Realms are absolutely not the elves of Dragonlance, nor are they the elves of Eberron. I submit the case is the same for beholders.
Ed has done a lot to detail beholder activity recently. He's described their cults, their societies, their migrations. Likewise their varying shapes and appearances.
That's the sort of information that belongs in the FR Wiki.
If a user can't show that a piece of information comes from a Realmslore source, there is no good reason to add it to the primary online source for information on the Forgotten Realms. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 02:05:10
That depends on the topic. Information in Core sourcebooks is generally intended to be applicable to each setting, so you can insert them if you want. There may be nothing to say something is present in the Realms, but equally nothing to say it isn't. So there's the possibility that each thing from a core sourcebook exists in the Realms.
Generally, we assume that monsters, in both ability and lore, are more-or-less the same in each setting. Drow have roughly the same society, beholders have the same powers, etc. So using Core lore for a monster makes sense, and helps to flesh out an article that would otherwise be a bit piddly if a creature gets only a minor appearance. For example, the cerebrilith. The minor beholder subraces are an extension of that: they might exist, and someone decided to make articles for them. No one's worked on the beholder pages in a while.
A lot of anonymous and passer-by users create these. I don't see the point, but we don't have a rule against it. We've kind of become the ''de facto'' core D&D wiki, as the main one isn't as big, well-developed, or active (and indeed now appears near-dead and vandalised).
I did once create a tag notifying that a page had no known Realms connection, but I don't know what happened to it.
We're wholly against including setting-specific lore (Eberron, Dragonlance, Dark Sun) and eradicate it where we find it (but we of course include Al-Qadim, Kara-Tur, and Maztica). I'm not happy to see the Warforged page, but it appears to be a 4th edition thing and I can't confirm it.
I'm going to scream and cry if 5th edition makes Forgotten Realms the core setting. |
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 01:09:40
What's the policy on incorporating material from sources that are not specified as Realms-specific?
For example, in the Subraces portion of the Beholder page there are some beholder and beholderkin types listed that are sourced from books that aren't branded as Realms books, and that in their interior pages don't call out the Realms as part of the entry for the given beholder subtype.
I hope I'm wrong about that last part (my entire gaming collection is in storage), but if I am right it begs the question why generic D&D lore is being presented as Realmslore in the FR Wiki. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 21 Mar 2015 : 00:54:00
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Quick citing question: When using a sourcebook from a box set, do I just cite the box set? The sourcebook does not have its own ISBN but the box set does... but I don't want things to get confusing if I want to cite another sourcebook from the same box set.
I think, in most cases at least, each booklet within a boxed set has a separate reference template, in order to make your citation as precise as possible and avoid the confusion you mention. 
So aim for being as specific as possible. (Web enhancements also have their own reference templates!)
Edit: woops, didn't see that Badcatman had already answered this. |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 20 Mar 2015 : 20:31:53
Tables are avoided because of our 'no crunch' policy. Maps are okay as long as they're not edited from the original and aren't ripped directly out of a sourcebook (i.e. most maps were published on the Wizards site - these are fine to upload). If you can argue a fair use point, you can also use that logic to upload an image. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 20 Mar 2015 : 19:12:03
What's the rule for adding images of maps/tables from sourcebooks? Is this a copyright violation? |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 15:24:56
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas EntreriWhat worked for me was to just focus small and expand from there. Initially I just typed in the text and cited it. After that I saw what others would add to my pages to really make it stand out and appear "professional." Adding things like categories, headings, etc goes a long way toward changing a bit of info from a blurb to a legitimate page. I've still got alot to learn, but my comfort level with the Realms wiki grows each day.
That's the best way to start. My first article, on another wiki, was a type of food, with a single line of information and a reference. Just something to test the waters. I followed a bit of code and style from similar pages, but still made some mistakes. Then I left it, saw how the admins touched it up, then incorporated what I could follow into another, similar article. It all kind of snowballed from there.
A few years later I came to the FRW. Though I was already a wiki veteran, there was more to learn about the way the FRW did things. My first article was Uzurr, a little-detailed city from a single source, and the home of a PC of mine. Then I tinkered, examined other pages, improved on it, then moved on.
Making new pages is trickier as it requires filling in a template, adding categories, arranging sections, and working out the citation and footnote reference templates. If you just want to start, you can find an existing article and improve upon it. Expand on a stub page, rewrite a copied page, revise a badly written passage, fact-check a topic you know well, or add extra lore to an article.
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Quick citing question: When using a sourcebook from a box set, do I just cite the box set? The sourcebook does not have its own ISBN but the box set does... but I don't want things to get confusing if I want to cite another sourcebook from the same box set.
Generally, we have multiple reference templates for each box-set, so you can cite a specific book in the set to avoid confusion. That's preferred. It's possible to cite a box-set itself, but the template may spit out a complaint instead. But this is more of a technical question it would be easier to explain on the wiki. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 14:42:42
Quick citing question: When using a sourcebook from a box set, do I just cite the box set? The sourcebook does not have its own ISBN but the box set does... but I don't want things to get confusing if I want to cite another sourcebook from the same box set. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 13:27:51
quote:
Originally posted by Eli the Tanner
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Ok I think I'm officially addicted to adding/editing over on the Wiki.
You and the other recent crop of editors seem to be picking things up quickly. What tipped the scales for you Artemas and made you plow through the things that have put other editors off? It would be really interesting to hear what a new editor thinks.
What worked for me was to just focus small and expand from there. Initially I just typed in the text and cited it. After that I saw what others would add to my pages to really make it stand out and appear "professional." Adding things like categories, headings, etc goes a long way toward changing a bit of info from a blurb to a legitimate page. I've still got alot to learn, but my comfort level with the Realms wiki grows each day. |
| Eli the Tanner |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 12:45:15
quote:
Originally posted by Artemas Entreri
Ok I think I'm officially addicted to adding/editing over on the Wiki.
You and the other recent crop of editors seem to be picking things up quickly. What tipped the scales for you Artemas and made you plow through the things that have put other editors off? It would be really interesting to hear what a new editor thinks. |
| BadCatMan |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 09:30:07
So many notices! Clearly I need to check my Hotmail – or Candlekeep – more often. And the Forgotten Realms Wiki for that matter. My current work, family, and gaming commitments are eating into my wiki time. When I do get into the wiki, I'm spending my time polishing the work of the new editors and anons.
Thanks, Eli! Yes, we regularly get new editors who join, create a flurry of new articles, then soon appear to burn out or get bored, and fade away. Many seem to not have English as a first language – don't get me wrong, I welcome fans from all around the world, and I'm happy to help with language matters, but in my role as language editor, it's quite a chore polishing so many articles. Also, most new articles are short, stubby, and about minor NPCs, so they're not terribly important either. Unfortunately, though we can suggest they slow down, take their time, work on articles more, this never seems to happen.
What is it about FR fans that this is so common?
Jeremy: The coding is a hurdle, I agree. All experienced editors have struggled to learn it all, and few have mastered it. For the most part, you just find a prepared template and fill it in. Look at existing pages for guidance, copy them and fill in your information. But then, Wikia's new editing systems are ''supposed'' to make it easier to edit without even knowing the code (though old hands find it terrible). And we don't expect new editors to know the code right off. As long as the information is there, and the source it came from, one of us experienced editors can fix it up. Practice the basics, then inch your way up like an apprentice mage.
Jeremy: I've seen Wookieepedia do something similar, a Barnstormer where everyone involved has to add information about Hutts, for example. I've considered it for FRW, like a Drizzt project, but wasn't sure how popular it would be. I think the slow-pace of wiki work and our time-zone differences would make this a project that takes place over weeks.
xaeyruudh: The emails get annoying, especially when you have as many followed pages as I do. I turned the option off, but check the Recent Changes regularly, where followed pages are bolded so you can easily pick them out.
dazzlerdal: I concentrate on 1st to 3rd edition lore myself, a bit of 4th where I feel obliged to create a complete article, if I can find/access something. I know nothing about 5th and don't plan to. Our policies now are designed to remove any edition focus (a problem in the past), and each new revision or feature we make has this in mind. We're against splitting pages by edition, but, for the most part, where something does change greatly with edition, this is made clear by section breaks, especially in the larger articles made by us regular editors. Check out the feature articles for this sort of thing.
So, by the responses, I take it that people would like a comprehensive set of help and how-to pages, rather than our current master and apprentice sage arrangement? :) Wikia, the umbrella site, has its own help information, but I can see how something nearer to hand would be more useful. I had begun arranging our help pages last year, with the aim of overhauling them, but was derailed by other projects. So, anything in particular we should start on?
I mostly focus on revising new articles, plagiarised articles (the Years pages), and occasionally the most-visited pages (often long and involved), though I'm not sure how desired these are. What articles would people actually like to see revised and rehabilitated? Would a requests page be appreciated? |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 02:22:43
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
I am exceptionally pleased to hear that Artemas.
I'm enjoying it more and more as I learn how to properly setup a new page. Right now 99% of my edits and additions are focused on Zakhara ... but I'm sure I'll branch out more later on.  |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 02:18:46
I am exceptionally pleased to hear that Artemas. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 19 Mar 2015 : 01:57:41
Ok I think I'm officially addicted to adding/editing over on the Wiki. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 19:27:24
Sorry, I should have noted that I just need the reminder because my perspective of choice is different. Since commentary on "D&D Next" started talking about "era-neutral" presentation, I've liked it and tried to get into that. For my own campaign/blog writeups I aim for the present tense on everything... X happens in 18 DR, Y happens in 1800 DR. Of course, in a particular campaign, if the current year is 1365 then there's a past and a future, but outside of that context it helps me get into an event/context to talk about each thing as a current event.
Not trying to change or naysay wiki policy; it serves your purposes. Just noting my oddness and the resulting challenge.
|
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 17:19:16
quote:
Originally posted by hashimashadoo
Imagine, if you will, that you're a sage reading the wiki in the far future of the Realms, long after Augathra's year names have been and gone. Everything is in past tense because everything we write about happened in the distant past. That's how we write a page - all in past tense, even if the event we're writing about appeared in the most recent Realms publication.
I just had my new page on "kohl" rewritten in the past tense by someone. I'll write my future edits in past tense to help out.  |
| hashimashadoo |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 17:00:37
Well, at least in terms of eras, our policy has been to remove articles from the current timeline.
Imagine, if you will, that you're a sage reading the wiki in the far future of the Realms, long after Augathra's year names have been and gone. Everything is in past tense because everything we write about happened in the distant past. That's how we write a page - all in past tense, even if the event we're writing about appeared in the most recent Realms publication.
We do rarely separate articles by era. Neverwinter is a prime example since New Neverwinter is practically an entirely different place.
As for a chat party, time zones are a major issue. We did have our own IRC room and we can always set up a new chatroom with Wikias own software. For the moment though, we're using our Helping Hand forum to discuss things publically. |
| Artemas Entreri |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 13:15:11
quote:
Originally posted by dazzlerdal
I'd be more than happy to help, but there are a few things stopping me.
1 - I dont know how (never updated a wiki in my life.
2 - I dont do 4e onwards so i would only be concerned with 2e and 3e stuff and from what i have heard most wiki's are only concerned with the current. If each page could be split into the various eras then that might mean i could actually help.
3 - I'm not entirely sure what should or shouldnt be added. I've been cataloguing realms stuff for 4 years now and have a considerable stockpile on various regions but can i just rewrite the info i have and put it all on the wiki, do i need to cite sources, should dragon, dungeon, and polyhedron mags be included, what about info from Ed, George, Eric, Steven, etc from here, what about novels?
4 - I'd probably word things in favour of how i run the realms, purely accidentally, the differences are subtle and a matter of interpretation but its difficult to stick purely to something i find has been interpreted incorrectly by later products when the earliest products had the flavour correct (in my opinion).
I'm all for a vast catalogue of realms info, but i just dont think i'm one of the people that should contribute to it.
I was in a similar mindset, but the wiki is pretty easy to use. 2E is my preferred setting as well, but I add things that don't depend on a specific edition ... I'll leave that for braver souls. Also, you can create a simple page with a sentence or two of information and just site where you found it, after that others can come in and do the "hard" work for you by adding the proper categories, etc.
As a side note, most of the stuff I've been adding deals with Zakhara which has had zero 4E/5E attention I believe. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 08:43:23
I'd be more than happy to help, but there are a few things stopping me.
1 - I dont know how (never updated a wiki in my life.
2 - I dont do 4e onwards so i would only be concerned with 2e and 3e stuff and from what i have heard most wiki's are only concerned with the current. If each page could be split into the various eras then that might mean i could actually help.
3 - I'm not entirely sure what should or shouldnt be added. I've been cataloguing realms stuff for 4 years now and have a considerable stockpile on various regions but can i just rewrite the info i have and put it all on the wiki, do i need to cite sources, should dragon, dungeon, and polyhedron mags be included, what about info from Ed, George, Eric, Steven, etc from here, what about novels?
4 - I'd probably word things in favour of how i run the realms, purely accidentally, the differences are subtle and a matter of interpretation but its difficult to stick purely to something i find has been interpreted incorrectly by later products when the earliest products had the flavour correct (in my opinion).
I'm all for a vast catalogue of realms info, but i just dont think i'm one of the people that should contribute to it. |
| xaeyruudh |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 04:59:27
I agree that the wiki is a great resource. Sorry if I've been one of the scribes who comes off as dismissive.
There are a couple of things I find daunting, which have kept me from being a regular editor.
Probably the biggest thing is that I'm not up-to-date on Realmslore. So it's not really a simple matter to "fix" a page that seems wrong to me, regarding some 2e or 3e thing, when it might have been changed completely in 4e. It's also tough to keep going back to the wiki every day when it means learning many things I'm happier not knowing. That should change in 5e, once someone opens the floodgates and gives us some lore to chew on.
I feel a certain responsibility to watch over the pages I've edited. Because wikipedia isn't the only place that gets vandalized, and because there's a pile of people out there who are inclined to copy/paste out of books instead of paraphrasing. Growing and maintaining even just the pages related to one's particular interests in the Realms can be a truckload of work. That gets to me more than it probably should. The wiki system sends me an email when someone edits a page that I've modified in the past, which is handy except that the list of watched pages can get long quickly. One solution is to prune the list occasionally, which is easy, so others with that issue can look into that.
I like Jeremy's idea. I don't know if it's practical to get the admins together, since I think several of them are on different continents, but in my experience BadCatMan, Moviesign, and Darkwynters are all helpful and responsive to messages left on their userpages. There is a learning curve, but it's not a bad one and there are people who are tickled to help you, which is really pretty cool.
I think a "cheat sheet" of the things I'm most likely to want to do would be great, if I found/made one. The tag that asks for a source on a particular sentence, formatting (''' for bold, etc) since it's different than anything else I use, the most common "boxes" that go at the top of various pages, which tags should go on a new city/npc entry (there's quite a list, iirc)... basically all the things I should be doing so that the moderators don't have to clean up so much after me. Even if moderating is the job they've taken on for themselves, it would make me feel better about contributing if I knew I wasn't leaving a trail of additional-needed-edits. Putting everything in past tense is counter-intuitive; that's another thing I need to remind myself of (a few times) before clicking publish.
|
| Jeremy Grenemyer |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 02:17:13
One of the drawbacks for me is wiki coding.
It's something that can be learned, but it's not easy to do on your own, even when you have other pages that you can draw from for examples.
Has the FR Wiki ever tried a get together? Sort of like a Twitter party where everyone picks a subject they all like and they tweet about it, but in this case you find a subject that needs more wiki coverage, an admin provides a list of references and a date to start, provides the basic code (like a reference to a novel, a subject/category or a magazine) then everyone bangs out entries and the admins show the newbs how to clean up their coding in real time. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 17 Mar 2015 : 01:59:07
I've used the Wiki. In fact, I used it just last week. It's a great resource.
-- George Krashos |
|
|
