Your thoughts on starship format?

[Strangelove]

I've heard at least a few people making some noise on the way the StarWiki requires a certain style for formatting so I thought it might be a good idea to get some community input in on how it should work. Now, typically there have been two ways to write a vessel: #1 what we have used in the past, both on our HTML pages and the older Wiki articles, and #2 the new proposed (and enforced) system by Wes.

#1) The Traditional Writeup. The old fashioned way of adding everything into the article directly instead of replacing it with links. Subheaders with ship stats, weapons, rooms, etc.

#2) The Link Catalog. The new method being proposed. All systems and weapons are simply linked from separate articles; it essentially replaces the ship's equipment description with an extended list of links to other pages.

Why should we change to system #2?

• Updated descriptions. The issue seems primarily aimed at updating descriptions. Since the bridge section for all ships is kept under a single article, you only need to edit that one article to update all SAoY vessels.
• Streamlined for reviewing. With stuff sub-indexed neatly a submission writer only has to say to the staff member, "Look at links #1, 4, and 5 to see new tech. The rest is preexisting stuff." This may vastly cut down on the time needed to review an article since a tech reviewer won't be forced to redundantly reread the entire article after each and every edit.
• Streamlined for writing. Instead of just copy-pasting entire article sections, you only need to add links. That can potentially cut down on the editing/formatting time, and allow writers to produce more ships than their time would normally allow.

Why shouldn't we change to system #2?

• #2 is not streamlined for new players. Uses the assumption you already know a faction's subsystems well. Someone who has never read about this factions technology may be required to open 6-18 separate windows, one for each subsystem and weapon, in order to read the entire ship article.
  • Further compounding the streamlining issue is the use of ship variants. Some variants of a ship are kept on separate sub-pages listing only their changes, so someone will have to read the main article, then all the ship subsystem pages, then jump to the variant article to see the differences.
• #2 may be misleading for tech reviewers. By viewing systems out-of-context a ship's strength may be solely determined by how many guns of each type it carries, rather than the ship as a whole. It's much easier to overlook potential issues when an article is fragmented across many separate pages rather than side-by-side on a single page.
  • For example: A writer may put a link to a reactor and energy weapon in a ship writeup. No one may notice that the reactor's large size in comparison to the guns may allow the writer to achieve higher-than-normal in roleplay by overcharging his weapons.
  • Another example: A write may put three types of shielding on a vessel, and a tech reviewer may not notice each article has its own damage rating, thereby giving the vessel a triple-DR shield.
• #2 May Have Outdating Conflicts. If all ships automatically auto-update their own internal systems, then ships would never go out of date. If still they do, then this will create an ship article that contradicts roleplay. (i.e., most 20-year old ships shouldn't have a recently-developed bridge interface listed under its description). Old ships should maintain old descriptions for the sake of consistency unless specifically retrofitted.
• Discourages creativity. Copy-pasting was used in the past, but each separate article having a copy meant that a write could modify the systems or room description for each vessel to make it unique, or give it a particular atmosphere. This might be doable with a Link Catalog, but having a douzen mirror pages for a single article defeats the purpose of standardizing articles in the first place.

* * * * * * *

If you feel I have missed any points or misinterpreted any, please feel free to point it out here and state your own (counter-)arguments for any of the above points. If you have any opinions on the matter either as a technology writer, or maybe just someone who reads starship articles, let us hear your input too.

 

[Gamerofthegame]

In certain cases? Its good for two.

But other ships (IE: Civie ships, Freespacers (I think), etc.) that don't have standardized stuff don't really profit from #2.

 

[Doshii Jun]

They don't have to use it, though. If it's not standardized stuff, there's nothing to link off to.

Honestly, I think the linking is more streamlined for players -- sure, they might have to open 6 - 18 windows ... but there's less scrolling and pecking for the system the actually want. They can store the links in their bookmarks folder, in different subfolders.

As for tech reviewers ... it's a trust issue.

 

[MissingNo]

Sounds like the only thing 2 saves is time for reviewers (who are usually people who already know the systems) and writers. If that's how it's set up, you could effectively use a generator program to create new ships.

I think number 1 is the most player-friendly, especially if you have the page formatted so there are links in that box at the top of the page to jump directly to the section you want to read.

 

[Doshii Jun]

You can't make those links with wikicode, though ... right? I thought you had to use HTML, which Wes doesn't want.

And I think you guys are being a little narrow-minded here. Yes, No. 2 does save time for reviewers and writers ... but it also allows players to more effectively learn the systems, which they should learn anyway.

Just because you link to a system doesn't mean you can't modify it at all. Just introduce the basic link, the list the changes to that system below the link. If you're specific enough, it's easy.

 

[Strangelove]

Doshii: Huh? When ever you create an article, the Wiki automatically turns each header into a subsection. So at the top of each article is a table of contents listing all the headers/sections, and you just click one to jump to it.

Is that what you meant?

 

[Doshii Jun]

Oh. *smacks forehead* Right. Duh.

OK, that part of my argument can be ignored.

 

[OsakanOne]

You could overcome the linkage-loss of scope-issue by including basic information so people can tell what a part or system is at a glance.

Each part linked to a parent article (say a weapon or defensive system) has it's Damage/Defense Rating posted and a single paragraph of the initial description of the part explaining what it is along with some very spartan critical information so you can get a loose idea of where it's used.

Say...

AA-471
Manufacturer: Company, inc
Released YE 29
Info: Type: Class-C Power Armor, Rate of fire: X, caliber: Y, Weight: Z
Description A high performance rifle with excellent firing range.
DR 5

Modifications: The AA-471 has been modified to allow ammunition from belt fed weapons. Unfortunately, the rifle cannot be exchanged in the field unless the belt source is kept within a 1 meter range or jamming risks begin to emerge or the belt may rip.

We list what the thing is but at the same time, we keep the area spartan. If you want to see performance or the workings and not the base-demands for the submission, you click the link.

We put originally back in by including original modifictions which can be anything to little love-tweaks to overhauling the power-transfer conduits of a ship or unit. These are prefixed with the "MODIFICATION" flag before the system name or if the system is a modification of an existing piece of equipment, we include the modification flag as one of the short-fields under the light-description we give for the linked area.

In short, we encourage re-use of existing kit and standardization but keep th fun of modifiction, custom rounds and so forth, keeping the player creativity high.

It'll mean newer players can understand what a unit does at a glance and not need to invest themselves in how it works or the physics behind it or the requirements/history, etc.