Star Army is a landmark of original sci-fi roleplaying.

Opened in 2002, Star Army is like an internet clubhouse for people who love sci-fi, roleplaying, anime, and/or gaming. New members are welcome!

Nomenclature Redundancy Problem in Approvals

Discussion in 'Setting Discussion' started by Toshiro, Nov 9, 2017.

  1. Toshiro

    Toshiro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    4,384
    Likes Received:
    237
    I've noticed an issue. Simply put, two weapons sought to claim the M2-W3901 nomenclature in approvals at the same time, and neither was noticed initially. I was going to ask one to change to the M2-W3902, but decided to check the availability of the M2-W3900 nomenclature on the wiki first for due diligence.

    A search for "m2-w3900" revealed two weapons and a supplementary article for one of those weapons, neither of which were still in the WIP space. A third subsequent M2-W3900 weapon had been submitted as "M2/12-W3900", but had been withdrawn from the approval process for unrelated reasons. The withdrawn weapon still shows up as a wip in the secondary results even if it's not an exact page match.

    I've posted requests to resolve the issue, and it is on the way to resolution (two of the three weapons have shifted nomenclature at this point), but an issue remains. The idea that nomenclatures can be easily double or triple-booked so easily without being noticed worries me. Can we please have increased scrutiny by submitters and reviewers that the nomenclature they're exploring isn't already employed? Even something as simple as searching for the nomenclature and making sure there are no redundant approved or in-process WIP articles takes no more than a few seconds, though pruning rejected or abandoned WIPs becomes more important.

    Weapons like the Ke-M2/M12-W3903 (an in progress weapon, formerly one of the W3901s) still show up when searching for "M2-W3903", just not under exact page match. Looking at the first few results aside from page matches is still important.

    Maybe adding a "Nominclature is present and unique if required" requirement or something, if it continues to be an issue?
     
    #1 Toshiro, Nov 9, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017
    Wes and FrostJaeger like this.

Share This Page