User talk:Kymtastic

From Discworld MUD Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Millie Hopgood

Hi! I saw you posted a message on Ilde's talk page about the page Millie Hopgood.

That page was deleted due to spam, not for any reason of content. You can recreate it if you want.

I was thinking that pages for the witch npcs could either be separate from the page of their cottage or on the same page. I don't really have a preference. Making pages for them is fine.

--Frazyl (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2017 (EST)

Thanks for taking the time to respond! I recreated the page with some basic information and left a stub tag on it. I'll try to flesh it out a little bit more once my Witch speaks Morporkian better and can suss out some of the history lines she speaks about the area/herself. I can see why you're torn on the cottage pages; the meatiest information is usually there vs the witch herself, but I do find the character pages fun to read when I'm away from the MUD or to discover I may have missed some function they perform. If you decide one way or the other I'd be happy to help you clean the pages up however I can. -Kymtastic (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2017 (EST)

Formatting Guidelines


I don't have much time right now to explore the link you gave, but yes an article pointing out useful templates would be nice. I also wanted to document them all, but sometimes it was just inconvenient at the time and after I forgot. More and better examples for templates, infoboxes and such would be good.

For naming and to a certain extent categorizing I usually follow what's on the mud. So a page name for a character would be the same as the character's short name on the mud, aliases would be made for other less formal names. If there's more than one page that would end up with the same name we put words in parenthesis, like short sword (custom), to differentiate them.

For descriptions and other things from the mud (or text maps) it looks best I think by using {{prebox}}, since you can still link things and add bold and italic using wikisyntax (which code does not I believe), but it uses a fixed font which is nice for some things. If it's only one word or two there's "quotes", italic or bold that have been used in the past. It depends, but when trying to indicate the word to use in a normal phrase quotes break the flow more.

Since the mud uses British spelling such is preferred, but it mostly only matters for syntax or options. I only go out of my way to fix typos that are not valid in any English version.

Including repeating information is preferred, since needing to update several places is more difficult to remember and tends to leave outdated information, making it hard to tell which is the latest one. But sometimes it's significantly difficult not to repeat something.

Basically, there should not be restrictions which make it not-fun to contribute to the wiki, but using templates (especially for external links) means fixing disappearing websites is much easier. Emphasis should be to make it easier to use the tools available not to impose a specific style. The way pages are formatted evolves over time (for the better I hope).

--Frazyl (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2017 (EDT)