Location Template

[admin]

In the interest of getting a standard format for articles about Locations in Rhydin, what information would you want to know about each location?

[SLWatson]

Hm...  for towns/cities/villages/population-places, I like how I have the Liath stuff set up.  Which is:

Overview
History
Today
Demographics
Climate
Trade

For actual buildings, etc:

Name:
Owner(s):
Location:

(Then any other relevant facts)

[Ehzoterik]

That is a very nice setup, yes.

Snapshots or images might be a good thing to add as well.  Like: if you were walking through this area, this is the sort of thing you might see.  Sort of like a travelogue.

[Lilithiel]

How about adding a section to list characters or groups that were regulars? Like everyone was a regular at the People Connection Red Dragon Inn, pretty much, but I'd be interested to read who hung out at the other taverns and the like.

[Alysia]

I'm not going to have time to work on this tonight, but I wanted to get some ideas down that Ehz brought up.

I don't consider Locations, in general, to be personal articles.  Taverns, businesses, villages, towns, cities, provinces, realms are generally made available for public play, and the public should have a right to add their insight, shouldn't they?

I think character homes might be an exception to that.  What other exceptions might there be?

I would like any contributor to be able to add objective content to a public location, as long as it is written from a historical, encyclopedic perspective.  Mutually developed articles are what we're going for. 

If something inaccurate is added, a discussion thread should be started on the forums.  If that person trashing someone else's "baby" with inaccuracies couldn't provide some sort of reasonable source to support their addition, it would be reverted and possibly regarded as defacement.  What would be a reasonable source?

A template showing who the "owner" or "original creator" is would help, as the owner/creator should ideally have the final say on whether an addition by another contributor is accurate or not.

Thoughts?

[Ehzoterik]

This may cause a reluctance to post locations based on those thoughts, Eve.

For instance: I've been considering adding The Bone Grove to the list, but it's a very closed off location that does not change.  The location is similar to a private home, I guess.  It's where She Who Tends the Dead (Faye Random) lives.  Her personal, private domain.  And the description (as posted on the ME forums) makes this abundantly clear that only those with "the key" can really access it.

I have also considered adding The Dreaming as a location, but there's a trick to that.  Most of the idea of that "other world" was inspired from Changeling:the Dreaming (a White Wolf system).  I'd have to add a lot of links and cite a lot of resources.  The Dreaming has been considered because I allude to it as where some of the other fae live, such as Kymeera and Revari.  Though it has also been referred to as the In Between (which admittedly was sort of stolen from the television show Charmed). 

I also know that the creators of the Rambling Rose Tavern (http://www.ramblingrosetavern.net) are very protective of their environment.  Nothing gets added to its description (or the building itself) without their express permission.  The fact that they've devoted a website to it should account for something.

There was also a website once for Northedge University.  I am uncertain whether or not that is still operational, though.  I think not.

Anyway: I think the point is that the content should speak for itself.  I'd suggest not making any judgments on ruling until there are some definite examples to work with.

[Alysia]

We could all speculate about what may make people feel reluctant to post something, but it's not going to add anything to the discussion at hand. 

I'm still not sure a public tavern that is roleplayed in almost every night of the week should be an article flat-out limited only to adds by the creators.  I would really like to talk directly about this with the creators of the Rambling Rose, since they have some very specific concerns and so do I.  I couldn't find out who to contact from their website, and from the times I've been there, I don't know who the owner is. Ehz, maybe you can help me out on that.

I will be talking with some other people who operate public RP settings, too, so as not to base this decision on limited feedback.

I believe a setting owner should retain the right for a final decision on adds/edits to his or her article, regardless of whether it is public or private. 

With a "private" RP setting copied from some other media (this is copied name/setting, not just inspiration), how would you deal with someone else having used the same name/place as their setting as well?  Do you think whoever got here first gets to claim ownership of it?

Locations that are not physically (or metaphysically!) in Rhydin are still going to have to provide a coherent explanation of that location's relevance to Rhydin.  (I'm sure everyone would be rolling their eyes if I started importing crap about Rhilshen to this wiki. I do not think that the fact Rhydin characters are played there is a strong enough tie to make Rhilshen all that relevant to a RhydinWiki.)  This probably could bear some more exploration.

I'll be discussing these location template ideas with Admin:

*Two location templates, one for private locations, one for public locations?
*Templates include a field for something like Reputation / Patron Feedback?
*Two sub categories in Locations category, private & public?
*Use character sub pages for protected, private/personal character-owned settings?
*Note Moderation Guide that owner has the final say on changes?
*Note Style Guide for relevance to Rhydin?

[admin]

At present, if someone adds or wants to edit information to a Location for which they can't provide their sources, and the edit is contested by another user as not being factually correct, it may be removed by wiki admins. (See Help:Style Guide, 1. General Guidelines). 

Something to consider, though, is that every contribution to the wiki is made with a warning right on the page of "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here."  That's standard language on a mediawiki project, even Wikipedia uses it; the spirit and nature of a wiki project is to permit changes to be made.   In the spirit of this specific wiki project, we hope that it will document all those different factual POVs across Rhydin.

We're hoping to protect articles, particularly Location articles, beyond that little warning by requiring sources and factual writing.

[Zonker]

   ... perhaps the creator of an entry, subject to the verifiable and "source" guidelines already in pace, should be able to define whether it is a personal article or not a personal article.

   For example, at this time, all characters are defined as personal articles.  In many cases, NPCs (e.g. Guido, et al) should have multiple editors and are better suited to not be personal articles.  Alternately, many locations (e.g. Maritime?, LCI, Rambling Rose Tavern, etc) should not be freely editted but should require permission of the creators or a password to edit or some bloody thing.  I must admit that I was VERY reluctant to put the LCI up here based on this "could be editted and distributed mercilessly" guideline.  Much of it had to be left out because I did not feel I could place work that was entrusted to me here.  Basically, I only put up those pieces that I created.  (The futility of copyright protection notwithstanding; I feel I owed contributors something.) Truth be told, were it not defunct, I may not have done so.  In addition, I still have this uneasy feeling because anyone could go in and say they magically made it reappear, exactly as it was.  While I trust that I could get an admin to step in if this occurred, it would be nice it there was a way to prevent it from happening in the first place.

    Of course, perhaps I just don't quite get the notion that EVERYTHING in a Wiki (or everything short of characters?) has to be fair game.  Would allowing some protected content go against the spirit of things?  I have "used" Wiki (capital W) on many occassions, but I have rarely given the philosophy behind it (and others) much thought.

   

[Ehzoterik]

We could all speculate about what may make people feel reluctant to post something, but it's not going to add anything to the discussion at hand.

Uh.  Speculate, what?  I gave you one speculation and two very real concerns.  My own.

However, yes I can tell you who to contact.  It is no small secret that the IC owners of the Rambling Rose Tavern are the characters Seamus Wylie and his wife Katie Rose Wylie.  (These are also their AOL screen names.)  Last I spoke to them about the wiki, the first informed me that it was something they'd be willing to do on their own; sign up and add content.  Though I am uncertain whether or not they have registered yet.

...how would you deal with someone else having used the same name/place as their setting as well?  Do you think whoever got here first gets to claim ownership of it?

I think if a circumstance like that were to arise, the best way to handle it is to keep one article with separate parts.  A notation at the top of the article should be made that the name of this location is also the name of another and another, but they are completely different establishments or settings.

All could be covered under one article, since it does not seem possible that multiple articles of the same name can be made.  They would just need very clear lines of separation.  This is a different setting of the same name.  As I said above, let the content speak for itself.

[admin]

Noting that this may change after the results of the poll on the 21st are final, and after we work out the sources as referenced in Alysia's post, the way possibly contentious changes to articles are being handled are:

First, by discussing proposed changes before making them; and
Second, by providing sources (see Alysia's latest topic on sources) showing the veracity of a contentious change. 

For instance, if someone wants to go into the Less Crowded Inn article and change it to read that the tavern was actually eaten by an ogre, rather than being destroyed by a fire, they would have to propose that change on the forums first.   That way other users can openly discuss it before any wacky stuff is done.   

Second, the veracity of an article (or any edits) can be challenged.  If there is something which is factually incorrect, a user can bring it up on the forums to challenge it.  If its author cannot or will not provide a source for this information which is being challenged, it will be removed. 

So if someone goes in and posts that the Less Crowded Inn was eaten by an ogre and the regurgitated into a complete whole building which is still doing business in Rhydin under Zonker's management, they're going to have to provide a source of some sort to prove it.  If a user questions this change but no source is provided for this change, that change can be removed (or possibly flagged as unverified, again, this is going to be determined after next week).  However, if a user suggests this change and comes up with some forum posts or logs showing that this is currently being roleplayed in Rhydin by some people, that would be a source showing that it was valid.

The spirit of this is to get the whole picture, all sides of the story, with facts.

Here is a suggested outline for the Template.  We would like to get as broad a collection of information as possible, as with the Character Template, noting that people can delete lines that don't apply:

INFOBOX
Location Name:
[Image]
Location Type (Area, Landmark, Geographical Feature, Business, Building, Personal Property, etc.):

{Quote include. This should be a quote about the location.}
==General description==
Give a general overview of the location, its purpose, and its ambience here.
*If there are multiple descriptions of this location, based on different venues, owners, etc., this should be indicated here.
===Location within Rhydin (Bordering Areas/Cities/Businesses)===
Describe where in Rhydin this location is, and what else is around it.
===Terrain Type (if applicable)===
Describe the terrain around this location.
===Climate (if applicable)===
Describe the climate around this location.
===Population (include species if applicable)===
Describe the Rhydinian (Rhydinite? ) population in this location. If it is frequented by elves, vampires, dragons, etc., state this.
===Trade (if applicable, or business type)===
Describe the sort of trade going on in this Location, or if it is a business, describe the nature of the business.
==History==
Give a brief overview of the location's history.
===Founding===
Describe the founding of this location, and how, when and by whom it got started.
===Present day===
Describe the present day status of this location.
==Sources==
*List Owner/Proprietor/Founder
*List PCs known to play there
*Web sites, forum posts, or chat logs featuring the location

If you have other additions or suggestions on this template, please share your thoughts:

[Alysia]

I am inclined to note somewhere (not sure if it should be in the template, the Style/Mod Guidelines, or what) that the creator of a location should get a final say on edits.  The creator's imagination is the ultimate source on that location.

What problems could you foresee with this?  How could this be abused?

Specific examples would be helpful.

[admin]

I am inclined to note somewhere (not sure if it should be in the template, the Style/Mod Guidelines, or what) that the creator of a location should get a final say on edits.  The creator's imagination is the ultimate source on that location.

What problems could you foresee with this?  How could this be abused?

Specific examples would be helpful.

The creator's imagination is the best source of the idea or goal of a Location, but I believe that what was actually roleplayed in that Location is the ultimate source.

The main problem I see with the above is that people may perceive and have roleplayed a Location differently.  The Red Dragon Inn is a good example of that; we have multiple descriptions of it, and there are a lot of features that roleplayers have played with that aren't in the "official" descriptions.  The varying descriptions of the Docks area are probably another good example. 

If the creator of a location decides to submit an article and never visits the site again to go over about any proposed edits, there is obviously going to be a problem there.   For instance, say I founded the Rhydin Postal Service, and create an article consisting of a one-sentence description of the Rhydin Postal Service with a link to the USPS, saying it's just like that. Some other people who played there want to suggest some changes, but I can't be arsed to respond, so that article will never be updated with the whole picture.   From my experience with roleplay wikis, this is a very likely problem.

The initial author of an article may not be the creator of that Location, and as above, the creator may never visit the site to review any proposed edits.  There are a handful of popular locations (AOL rooms) in Rhydin for which I never knew the original creators.  As an example, someone who played in one of those Locations could create an article describing the Rhydin Forest, Rhydin Cliffs, etc.,  yet I'm not sure anyone knows who the original creators were. 

Also, the creator of a Location may refuse to permit edits which indicate that others played with a setting of that same name -- or picked it up after it was closed/shut down -- just to preserve their baby and not allow descriptions of how other people roleplayed it. 

For example, if I founded the Location Rhydin Post Office, and there were regular murders roleplayed there, but I decided I didn't want people saying it was a crime hotspot because that wasn't my vision of it, as the creator I could simply refuse to let anyone change the article to say they witnessed the murder of CharacterSoandSo there -- even if they had logs and forum roleplay detailing it. 

And if I have since moved on to roleplay elsewhere and shut down the Post Office, but someone else picked it up later and is now roleplaying it somewhat differently, but still under the same name, I could refuse to permit that edit -- even if people are in fact now roleplaying with that location.  And once again we would not have the whole picture.

[Alysia]

I am looking at this as the creator of the location potentially being someone different from the creator of the article about that location.

If Player B posts an article on a location that was primarily dreamed up and operated by Player A (not getting into permission issues), and Player B gets it wrong, then Player A should have some sort of right to correct it.  However, I would not want to see Player A using that as a blanket rejection of all suggested changes, even those made by players who also used that location.   

This is probably something that would come down to sources.

If the creator of a location decides to submit an article and never visits the site again to go over about any proposed edits, there is obviously going to be a problem there.

I see what you mean. That is a big problem.

But it goes beyond that -- who decides whether any change to any article is acceptable or not?  If you propose a change to an article, how long should you wait for someone to decide?  Should changes to articles be put up for polls?  How long would you hold such a poll open?  What would you do if someone came back later and said, hey, I didn't get to vote, blahblahblah.

This could prove to be a problem with any proposed change to any article.

Of course -- it's all hypothetical at this point.  I don't really think people are going to trample anyone else's work right now.  Howevrer, looking toward the future, it is likely to happen, unintentionally or otherwise.

----

As for tackling articles where people have roleplayed the settings differently?  Per the suggestions that we treat the differing descriptions of the Red Dragon Inn as "definitions," I intend to redraft that article with subheadings to separate the different "official" views of the place.  Obviously I haven't done so yet.  If someone else wants to take a stab at it, feel free. 

Any other areas that have grown through public contributions could conceivably be treated the same way.

This could include the docks, graveyard, various "districts" in Rhydin City, etc.  It could also include different places with the same names created by different people.  (I know there is a group currently working out of a Rhydin Hellfire Club, and I'm sure those people have a completely different idea of what it looks like than I did from when I played there.  I'm just as sure they're completely unaware that there *was* another Rhydin Hellfire Club.)

----

What do you think about a section in each Location allowing for the various player additions that aren't contained in those "official" definitions? 

Like -- at the DM RDI, Icer has a beat up old couch she flops on. That's not in the official description.  In AOL's RDIs, some people played that there was a cobra in the till.  While dice were the rage, some people included a dart board in the RDI.  Some people played there was a meatgrinder on the bar.  Fayalki's RDI had a chalk board behind the bar that was used to tally up people doing stupid stuff.  Grail's Stew of Kings (arguably this is a character by now?) is an addition that some people use in their play every night. 

[Lilithiel]

(I know there is a group currently working out of a Rhydin Hellfire Club, and I'm sure those people have a completely different idea of what it looks like than I did from when I played there.  I'm just as sure they're completely unaware that there *was* another Rhydin Hellfire Club.)

Zomg!!  INTERESTING! I gotta look into that!  But yeah, at least with that setting, I think it'd be neat to compare/contrast old and new in different ==Sections==.