Log in

PathfinderWiki talk:Campaign Setting Inclusion Initiative

From PathfinderWiki
Revision as of 09:27, 8 August 2015 by Fleanetha (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
← $1


I think we should add the {{WIP}} template to the top of any main page (deity, nation, etc.) that is being worked on as part of this project. Or we should create a similar template for the CSII (Campaign Setting Inclusion Initiative) to inform users a) that it's a work in progress and b) of the project as a whole. Thoughts? --yoda8myhead 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I created the {{CSII}} template to go at the top of any root page for a topic you're working on. Just put {{CSII|your user name}} at the top of the page and it'll add the page to Category:CSII and Category:Works in progress. -- yoda8myhead 20:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I call dibs!

We should probably also let each other know what we're working on both so we aren't doing parallel work and so that we can encourage one another to stay on track. For example, I've been working on Absalom, since it's the first nation alphabetically and a major setting in the world, but have been distracted by all the info being poured into Mwangi Expanse, Sargava and the Shackles. Should we use this discussion page to check in and let the rest of the project team know what everyone's calling dibs on? --yoda8myhead 20:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Chapter 5: Equipment section is just about halfway done now. Cpt kirstov 21:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm working on the Demon Lords section of Chapter 3. --Aeakett 19:44, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Taking Cheliax. --Nizos 25 Nov 2010

Two minor tweaks

I added tweaks on two pages. Changed a reference to Gencon 2008 to past tense. Add the word 'that' and 'it' to the introductory page inviting people to contribute to the Wiki. --Basilforth 02:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed those in the recent changes listing. Thanks for the help. Every little bit helps to make the wiki a more useful resource for everyone. Let me know if I can be of any assistance to you as you make yourself at home here. Welcome to the team! -- yoda8myhead 02:51, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Crossing off topics before they're done

I think we need to be careful about crossing off topics before they are complete. While a nation article will appear complete when the primary article and maybe a few cities are included in the wiki, any sidebars or proper nouns that appear on these pages should also have articles. For example, the Razmiran topic is not complete until the details of the hierarchy of the church of Razmir is incorporated into the wiki. If these small facts aren't included as part of this initiative, they risk never being included, as people might never go back to this topic to ensure they are here. That's sort of the purpose of the project—making sure there's nothing in the CS that isn't on the wiki. -- yoda8myhead 20:23, September 5, 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I will stop crossing off the nations unless absolutely everything from their page in the Campaign Setting is included. Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.--Cheddar bearer 17:46, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
It's no problem. I just wanted to make sure we're all on the same page about what the CSII entails. If you don't want to make the smaller articles, just make a note in the talk page about what elements you did under a header titled "CSII". That way someone else can come along and see that the process has been started and know what still needs to be done. Thanks for all your help on this, because the nation articles you've done so far are a great asset to the site. Keep up the great work. -- yoda8myhead 17:49, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some of us only have time for smaller articles, so feel free to just make a note if you don't want to do the smaller articles on the talk page of the main article, and I would suggest noting it in this talk page as well, just so that we can make sure they get done. Cpt kirstov 02:21, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

The future of the CSII

With the announcement of new products last Friday, it is now clear that the Campaign Setting hardcover we've been using for this project (and the wiki as a whole) is going to be superseded by a newer version in September. For the most part this isn't a big deal as information is simply going to be shuffled around or rephrased instead of invalidated, but James Jacobs has already said that that will happen to some extent, especially in areas where things slipped through into the final version that they really don't like (such as the Slohr and Sargavan goop). As if this weren't enough, pdfs of the Campaign Setting as we now know it will no longer be available, so only those of us who already have it will be able to use it for the CSII.

So we have two options: We can put the CSII on hold until the World Guide: The Inner Sea comes out in seven months, or we can continue with even more vigilance in order to get this whole book up so we don't have to worry about it ever again. I much prefer the latter, especially since this project is halfway though. It will be much easier for us to transition and update existing, complete articles to the new, revised content of the World Guide if we don't have to check the original document to see what's changed. We can just look at the wiki article and the new source.

There's still a lot of work to be done on the CSII but I think we can do it. Especially if we really push to get more people involved in the project and spread the word to those already active (but infrequent) on the wiki. So? Who's with me?—yoda8myhead 08:45, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think you lot are doing really valuable work here. I hope you continue to do it. I haven't got the campaign setting yet (and now I know - thanks to PathfinderWiki, I may add - that it is going to be revised soon, I don't intend to buy it until the new version comes out and I can decide which is best for me). But I do think that every campaign setting should have an encyclopaedia like this one. (For those who don't know me, I'm involved with the Spelljammer Wiki which is still really tiny compared to this wiki, but which hopes to eventually do for the out of print Spelljammer Campaign Setting, what you are doing far faster for Pathfinder.)
I've started a thread about this project over in the Pathfinder forum at The Piazza and hope that thread gets you a few more visitors to this project page, even if it does not get you additional contributors.
I will say one thing though, while your project is a great one, and I hope it continues, PathfinderWiki is already tremendously useful. The Piazza is a forum where any campaign setting or any edition of D&D can be discussed. People over there are a mixture of people who own Pathfinder stuff and people who are just interested in the rules or the world. Your wiki has allowed people to link over to one of your articles and use it to get a discussion started. And discussion of Pathfinder helped convince the admin to set up a Pathfinder forum at The Piazza.
As far as I can see, Pathfinder is expanding far faster than any setting out there, and I think that part of that is down to the fact that resources like your wiki make it so easy for potential customers to read more about products. So please keep up the good work with this wiki. For what it is worth, I think you should continue with this project and try to get as much done by September, as possible.
I think it would be a mistake to put this project on hold, because the information in existing books is valuable information that will need to go up anyway. Paizo are always going to be doing new things, so you are always going to be shooting at a moving target if you try to wait for their production schedule. And even if there are differences between the existing book and the new book, I think there will be a number of people out there who want to know what those changes are. I doubt that Paizo will remove anything (with the exception of 3.5 rules) but I honestly think that there should be content up here that tells people what was added and what (if anything) was taken away. If Pathfinder runs for 30 or 40 years, they are bound to revise al sorts of things and people will be turning to this wiki to find out how the original campaign setting started out.
Keep up the good work! List me as a 'PathfinderWiki cheerleader' on this issue! ;-) David Shepheard
Thanks David, it's nice to know that our community's efforts are appreciated. I agree that we should probably press on with the current work on the CSII. If there is going to be information that will be retconned away or down-played (Alkenstar I'm looking at you) then I think we should get it recorded now for posterity. —aeakett 21:27, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I already did Alkenstar! Luckily, we will still have access to our pdfs of the current version, so doing searches for terms which may have changed in the new book will continue to bring up information from the old book. We'll have to accept any retcons though, and should change the canon hierarchy to reflect the revision in September—yoda8myhead 21:36, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
I think we should just continue in the same way we have been working up to now. The setting is making slight changes with every publication that comes out, so I don't think that the new World Guide will be that big of a shock. It's not like they are going to suddenly pull a "4E Forgotten Realms" switcheroo on us and upend the setting completely. Incremental change happens every month, and the World Guide's publication will not affect that. --brandingopportunity 22:28, February 21, 2010 (UTC)
To Aeakettt: I think the thing with a resource like this is a large number of people enjoy using it, a smaller number remember to say 'thanks' and an even smaller number have the time or ability to help out. But if you do want to collect links to other places that are talking about PathfinderWiki, poke me on my talk page and let me know where you are putting the list. Then if I see anyone talking about you, I'll try to remember to surf over and post a link.)
To Brandingopportunity: I can't see Paizo 'Spellplaguing' their own setting, either, but if they ever do retcon stuff, it would be nice to keep the old stuff for two reasons:
  1. There may well one day be Pathfinder grognoids, who play with an early form of the universe and they would appreciate access to information retconned by later products
  2. If you do actually pull information completely, someone in the future may buy an old book, think you have forgotten a fact and put the retconned fact back into the article
But enough back seat wikification from me. ;-) David Shepheard 01:04, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
I think a total retcon of anything is unlikely, but we should be prepared to deal with some discrepancies or contradictions of canon. This isn't anything new, since there have been other situations without a reprint that have arisen in the last few years. In general, I think we should include the most recent information and try to justify in-world any changes and if we can't, then use the conflicting canon template to distinguish the differences. But I think the revised version should supersede the original in terms of canon hierarchy. —yoda8myhead 01:19, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Unlinked headings in the 'to do' list

Have you considered linking these to something like a category? That might make navigation a bit easier (for anyone who wants to check what has been done so far). I realise a category will not be as appropriate as an article, but I think it is better than nothing. David Shepheard 12:18, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know what you mean. Are you suggesting we add all articles which have been written/edited as part of the CSII to their own category?—yoda8myhead 18:20, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
No. I just meant, that you could link something like 'Weapons' in Chapter 5: Equipment to Category:Weapons. I thought that might help anyone who needed to double-check things or follow this up with a later improvement. But please ignore this if it is not helpful. David Shepheard 00:22, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The Inner Sea World Guide

I think it might be time to put the CSII to bed and start up the ISWGII. The page would basically be modeled on the main CSII page, since that seemed to work well. Who is up for it? --Brandingopportunity 06:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I shall help--Fleanetha 12:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What did you all learn from CSII as well - what worked well? what didn't?--Fleanetha 12:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The main thing I learned is that it's a LOT of work :) Seriously though, the best part about the CSII is that people "signed up" for various sections, providing an easy overview of what had been checked, and what hadn't. --Brandingopportunity 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Happy to take part. I probably won't do much until my book arrives - find it easier than working from the PDF - but I'd be looking to do Mwangi Expanse, Shackles, Mediogalti Island, Sodden Lands, Sargava, Geb and Nex. I'd also be willing to do the Darklands, if no one else fancies it.--Amethal2 15:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
I learned that I don't like writing about one place for more than two days at a time.. So that's why I took the equipment sections and other ones with lots of small entries during the CSII.. I'll prolly do the same now. Only having 2-3 hours after work hampers my ability to get big articles written. I'll help with anyone who needs it to get the smaller articles on the information for any given section written though.

I would also point out the inclusion of red links to each noun in the section on that section's talk page as something learned. When doing this kind of 'just get the whole section up there' editing it's a good practice to make sure you don't miss anything. -- Cpt kirstov 16:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've created a list similar to the one on the CSII page on the top of my Sandbox page. Please take a look at tell me what you think. I'm looking at the intro of the original page, and guess that a lot of that is still applicable for what we could call the "ISWGII" project. --Brandingopportunity 04:49, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Deprecate and note, or delete?

Aside from one category edit in May, this page has been idle for 5 years, Category:CSII has an RfD on it, and CSII is superseded by ISWGII. Should we put a note on top noting this initiative is inactive and pointing to ISWGII, or should we just delete and redirect to ISWGII? I'd lean toward keeping the page unless we also merge any relevant progress and notes with ISWGII. —Oznogon (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this is still relevant, perhaps even more so. The ISWG is out of print, the campaign setting isn't... so you can still pick up a campaign setting, but any info that is in the ISWG that hasn't been pushed forward to the campaign setting book, I think this is oneo f the few ways to get that. I do think we need a better way to present these projects to the casual editor, thoug, so they will be looked at and updated. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No to deletion, but I like the idea of some sort of note pointing to ISWGII plus the fact that ISWG is a higher authority now. However, there is info in CS that is not in ISWG but does that mean we need an II? I think this is now a potential source of confusion so maybe the CSII should be brought to an end. Category:CSII should be deleted and I have done so as I set the RFD and no one has commented. For the record the following pages linked to that category:--Fleanetha (talk) 16:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
   PathfinderWiki:Campaign Setting Inclusion Initiative ‎ (← links)
   PathfinderWiki talk:Campaign Setting Inclusion Initiative ‎ (← links)
   Template:CSII ‎ (← links)
   Template:CSII/doc ‎ (← links)
Personally, I say yes. Even if the information is in the ISG, if should have a ref link for the CS, as the information is also found there, and there is are many small facts that you miss with either one not having the other.-- Cpt kirstov (talk) 18:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
I am being daft Cpt kirstov, but which question are you saying 'yes' to above as I am not clear? If I understand you correctly, you think we should log a reference to the CS and to ISWG where the information is in both books - I'd agree with this as someone may only have one of the books. I also agree that there is much in CS that is not in ISWG that we do need. I think you feel this merits us keeping the CSII active??? Is that right? However, I think a question asked is do we need a Inclusion Initiative now for the CS? We do not have IIs for every book so to close the CSII would simplify things as the books are very similar and may cause confusion. --Fleanetha (talk) 13:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I have two minds on it. I think CSII and ISWGII could really be condensed into one initiative with 2 check-boxes per category/chapter, and multiple References should be given for facts that intersect. Barring that, I think that there are enough things unique in the ISWG that won't get documented without its own initiative specifically because it widely considered "outdated" due to the CS. -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
The idea of merging the CSII into the ISWGII is an interesting one Cpt kirstov and could solve the problem overall. Unfortunately, I can a see an immediate flaw that, for those who own no copy of the older CS, they could never complete their work as they could not know if they'd incorporated any additional info from the earlier book. But your two tick box idea would again get over this problem. I like it - others' thoughts?--Fleanetha (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)