Talk:Toying With Humans - Revision history

Phobia at 16:45, 17 February 2006

2006-02-17T16:45:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 17 February 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)		****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)
			*****A 1 line summary of a scenario on the book's page does provide a way to show what is in the book without having to click on a bunch of other pages too. I do not think that a 1 line scenario summary (or teaser, or whatever you call it) (in addition to a detailed scenario page) increases maintainance of the wiki. IMO a page about a book needs to summarize its content (even if very brief) on the book's page. I am not saying the information should be repeated on the book's page, either. This is mostly from a UI standpoint. If all you want is a brief summary of whats in a book (with 4 scenarios) having to click 10 times to get it all seems a bit excessive. --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:45, 17 February 2006 (EST)
			*****Don't get me wrong here. I am not suggesting that each scenario shouldn't have its own page. I think they should, for the same reasons you do. I am definately a fan of the idea that the scenarios have detailed pages with a complete summary, description of setting, handouts and whatever else. I will do one today, as a matter of fact for "Crazy Block."--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:45, 17 February 2006 (EST)

Squashua: /* From Phobia */

2006-02-15T16:38:01Z

From Phobia

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 15 February 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???		***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???
	***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book. I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book. I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	*** You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every editio nfo every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)		**** You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every editio nfo every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)		****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Squashua: /* From Phobia */

2006-02-15T16:37:47Z

From Phobia

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 15 February 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)		**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)
	***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???		***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???
	***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.		***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book. I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	~~***~~I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.		*** You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every editio nfo every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)		****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Squashua at 16:36, 15 February 2006

2006-02-15T16:36:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:36, 15 February 2006
Line 6:		Line 6:
	***I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.		***I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
			****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Phobia: /* From Phobia */

2006-02-15T16:20:21Z

From Phobia

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 15 February 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Since these scenarios are* the content of this book, please leave the short summaries here, alone. Also, don't add a page for a scenario and put a 1 line summary on it. If you aren't going to add more information its not worth splitting the pages up.		Since these scenarios are* the content of this book, please leave the short summaries here, alone. Also, don't add a page for a scenario and put a 1 line summary on it. If you aren't going to add more information its not worth splitting the pages up.
	**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)		**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)
			***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???
	***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 for each scenario??? I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.		***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.
			***I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.
	I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Phobia: /* From Phobia */

2006-02-15T16:18:51Z

From Phobia

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 15 February 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:
	**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)		**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)

	*** Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 for each scenario??? I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.		***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 for each scenario??? I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.

	I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-)		I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)

Phobia: /* From Phobia */

2006-02-15T16:18:30Z

From Phobia

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 15 February 2006
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Since these scenarios are* the content of this book, please leave the short summaries here, alone. Also, don't add a page for a scenario and put a 1 line summary on it. If you aren't going to add more information its not worth splitting the pages up.		Since these scenarios are* the content of this book, please leave the short summaries here, alone. Also, don't add a page for a scenario and put a 1 line summary on it. If you aren't going to add more information its not worth splitting the pages up.
	**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)		**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)

			*** Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 for each scenario??? I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book.

			I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-)

Squashua at 23:02, 14 February 2006

2006-02-14T23:02:50Z

New page

==From Phobia==
*Since these scenarios *are* the content of this book, please leave the short summaries here, alone. Also, don't add a page for a scenario and put a 1 line summary on it. If you aren't going to add more information its not worth splitting the pages up.
**Two things; (1) Please maintain non-topical discussion on the DISCUSSION page; that's what it is for. (2) The scenarios were moved to their specific pages. The reason they are one-line summaries is because that's specifically what the original poster left for me to work with when setting them up as Scenario templates. Each Scenario (and future Scenarios) will be added to different, currently undefined, groups such as "Modern Scenarios", "Classic Scenarios" and "Gaslight Scenarios". It's a lot of work and I haven't gotten to it yet, but if you're going to maintain a non-spoiler 1-sentence description for each scenario, it should be consistent with every single layout for every single supplement, not just this one. --[[User:Squashua|Squashua]] 18:02, 14 February 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:45, 17 February 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)		****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)
			*****A 1 line summary of a scenario on the book's page does provide a way to show what is in the book without having to click on a bunch of other pages too. I do not think that a 1 line scenario summary (or teaser, or whatever you call it) (in addition to a detailed scenario page) increases maintainance of the wiki. IMO a page about a book needs to summarize its content (even if very brief) on the book's page. I am not saying the information should be repeated on the book's page, either. This is mostly from a UI standpoint. If all you want is a brief summary of whats in a book (with 4 scenarios) having to click 10 times to get it all seems a bit excessive. --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:45, 17 February 2006 (EST)
			*****Don't get me wrong here. I am not suggesting that each scenario shouldn't have its own page. I think they should, for the same reasons you do. I am definately a fan of the idea that the scenarios have detailed pages with a complete summary, description of setting, handouts and whatever else. I will do one today, as a matter of fact for "Crazy Block."--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:45, 17 February 2006 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 15 February 2006
Line 4:		Line 4:
	***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???		***Nah, you've missed my point. The Toying with Humans page contains the 1 line summaries because that's all there is. Why remove the summaries to pages that contain ONLY the summaries? So, to see the summary for specific scenarios contained in a book you have to look at a page for the book and also 1 page for each scenario???
	***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book. I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I guess I'm suggesting that 1 or 2 line summaries be included on the book's page too, so users don't need to to click on 10 things to see exactly what is contained in a book. I dont have any problem with seperate pages for the scenarios. All I'm saying is the summaries should stay on the book's page. The book's entry is alot more useful if it summarizes the content a bit.--[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	*** You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every editio nfo every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)		**** You're talking potential maintenance nightmare. For every scenario in every editio nfo every book that it appears in (we've got scenarios here that are in 3-4 different books), we have to maintain the same sentence for each appearance. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:37, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)		***I am the original poster, and I've got little interest in expanding the scenario pages into complete descriptions. Thats what the book is for. =-) --[[User:Phobia\|phobia @ the Shoggoth Network]] 11:18, 15 February 2006 (EST)
	****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)		****The reason we're going to split scenarios off is to categorize them properly. As said earlier, any scenario can have multiple categories and the linking/search system for a wiki is massive. Let's say (for example) that I'm looking for an adventure that uses Yig in the 1920s. With the one-line, non-expanded summaries in Toying with Humans, I'd have no idea that (for example) Reborn to Die involves Yig in the 1920's. Or maybe I'm looking for a good use of the Book of Eibon. If Funk-a-thulhu isn't expanded upon, how would I ever know that it centers around use of the Book of Eibon? It might just be the adventure I was looking to run, and therefore would make me run out and buy your book (which, I'm sure, is the reason you're expounding upon this particular MULA). The way the Wiki works, I can click the page for the Book of Eibon and click "What links here" to see all the pages (read: Scenarios) that link to the Book of Eibon. Then I'd go and look through all of those to find the one I'd want to run with. And '''that''' is why I highly recommend that every scenario have it's own page with it's own detailed description. --[[User:Squashua\|Squashua]] 11:36, 15 February 2006 (EST)