Difference between revisions of "Veteran Comments policy"

From FreeSpace Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(made some additions to the policy)
m (link to HLP Wiki board)
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its Veteran Comments sections had devolved into blogs. Veteran Comments were originally intended to provide useful information about various ships that wasn't apparent from their table statistics. From now own, contributors are asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.
+
<div style="padding: 1px 2px 1px 2px; background-color: #351515; border: solid 1px #995050; padding: 0px 4px; font-size: -1; color: #FFCCCC"><font color=#FFFFFF><center>
 +
The FreeSpace Wiki's Veteran Comments policy, in a nutshell, is:
  
−
The community is currently deciding on a solution to this issue. [http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25506.140.html A Wiki forums discussion] has come to some conclusions. Here are a few examples of what information a ''useful'' Veteran Comment might include, although this list is far from all-inclusive:
+
<big>'''Do ''<u>not</u>'' treat the Veteran Comments section like MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter.<br/>
 +
Verified and useful information is valued. Highly subjective and useless comments are not.'''</big>
 +
</center></font></div>
  
−
'''All articles:'''
+
Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its Veteran Comments sections had devolved into blogs. Veteran Comments were originally introduced to provide useful information about various ships that were not apparent from their table statistics and/or in-game descriptions. Consequently, contributors were asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.
−
* Notes on the vessel's use canon and user-made missions (the ''Lilith'' has an incredibly powerful beam but is relatively rare; the Scorpion has weak weapons but is often deployed in great numbers to distract the player from more important targets)
 
−
* Notes on the ship's storyline signifcance (in FreeSpace 2, the SD ''Lucifer'' is meant to be extremely powerful according to canon but never appears in-game and has feeble weaponry)
 
−
* Notes for FREDers (the [[SB Nephilim|Nephilim]] doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout, certain bombers carry Pheonixes but the [[good-secondary-time]] SEXP must be used to enable them to fire)
 
−
* Info on special gun placements and which banks corrospond to which guns (Ursa's top-right gun, which is uselessly inaccurate versus anything small)
 
−
* Warnings about any problems with the ship (Tauret can't really use Kaysers due to energy constraints)
 
−
* Weaknesses (the weapons systems on the Erinyes and Athena are extremely exposed. Think 95% hull and no weapons working)
 
−
* Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere
 
  
−
'''Capship articles:'''
+
[http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,25506.140.html A discussion on the Hard Light Productions forums regarding the subject] has come to the following conclusions, and some examples of what a Veteran Comment should and should not contain:
−
* Blind spots (in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, only a single blob turret can reach you)
 
−
* Special issues (the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement)
 
  
−
The thrust of the Veteran Comments reform movement is, ''' '' do not treat Veteran Comments like Myspace. Verified and useful information is valued; highly subjective and useless comments are not. '' '''
+
{| border=1 cellpadding=4 style="border-collapse: collapse; border: solid 1px #995050;"
 +
|- align="center" colspan=3 style="background:#351515; border: solid 1px #995050;"
 +
| style="width:8%" |
 +
| style="width:46%" | '''All Articles'''
 +
| style="width:46%" | '''Capital Ship Articles'''
 +
|- align="left"
 +
| '''Should Contain''' ||
 +
* Notes for FREDders (e.g. the [[SB Nephilim|''Nephilim'']] doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout; certain bombers carry [[GTM Phoenix V|Phoenix missile]]s but the [[good-secondary-time]] SEXP must be used to enable them to fire).
 +
* Info on special gun placements and which banks correspond to which guns (e.g. the [[GTB Ursa|''Ursa'']]'s top-right gun is inaccurate against anything small).
 +
* Warnings about any problems with the ship (e.g. the [[GVF Tauret|''Tauret'']] cannot really use Kaysers due to energy constraints).
 +
* Weaknesses (e.g. the [[GTF Valkyrie|''Valkyrie'']]'s Comms tends to get disabled when unshielded, which may cause the player to miss critical dialogue).
 +
* Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere (e.g. the mediavps version of the [[GTC Aeolus|''Aeolus'']] adds a fighterbay).
 +
|
 +
* Blind spots (e.g. in front and ever so slightly above a [[SCv Moloch|''Moloch'']], only a single blob turret can reach you).
 +
* Special issues (e.g the [[ST Azrael|''Azrael'']] is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement).
 +
|- align="left"
 +
| colspan=1 | '''Should Not Contain''' || colspan=2 |
 +
* Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances.
 +
* Speculation about how powerful the given ship would be if its default armament was changed (e.g. an [[GTI Arcadia|''Arcadia'']] could be more powerful if its blob turrets were replaced with beams).
 +
* Speculation about the motives behind the use of a given ship or weapon (e.g. in-universe speculation of why the NTF use the [[GTW Prometheus R]], or the decommissioning of the GTF ''Valkyrie'')
 +
* Mission-specific comments (e.g. the [[GTM Trebuchet]] should be used to destroy the forward flak guns of the [[SJ Sathanas|''Sathanas'']] in [[Bearbaiting]]). Comments like these should be integrated into an article related to the mission.
 +
* Highly subjective and debatable statements like "extremely weak" or "totally useless" that are not backed up by facts.
 +
* Vulgarities (e.g. "the [[GTW Leech Cannon]] is fucking shit").
 +
* Redundancy with comments already made; if a particular facet of tactics, weapons, or facts about a ship has already been pointed out, do not repeat it.
 +
|}
  
−
Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. '''Be bold''', as they say on Wikipedia. If you're not sure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can very easily be corrected or removed later.
+
This is a Wiki, so Veteran Comments are not handled like forum posts by individual users&mdash;other contributors are allowed to edit any Veteran Comments for accuracy, clarity of expression, or grammar. For this reason, do '''not''' sign any Veteran Comments you make.
 +
 
 +
Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. '''Be bold''', as they say on Wikipedia. If you are unsure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page or [https://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?board=122.0 forums]. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can be corrected or removed later.
 +
 
 +
[[Category:Main]]

Latest revision as of 10:25, 1 November 2020

The FreeSpace Wiki's Veteran Comments policy, in a nutshell, is:

Do not treat the Veteran Comments section like MySpace, Facebook, or Twitter.
 Verified and useful information is valued. Highly subjective and useless comments are not.

Early in 2008, the FreeSpace Wiki community came to the consensus that many of its Veteran Comments sections had devolved into blogs. Veteran Comments were originally introduced to provide useful information about various ships that were not apparent from their table statistics and/or in-game descriptions. Consequently, contributors were asked to maintain a certain level of quality in their Comments.

A discussion on the Hard Light Productions forums regarding the subject has come to the following conclusions, and some examples of what a Veteran Comment should and should not contain:

All Articles Capital Ship Articles
Should Contain
  • Notes for FREDders (e.g. the Nephilim doesn't carry bombs in its default loadout; certain bombers carry Phoenix missiles but the good-secondary-time SEXP must be used to enable them to fire).
  • Info on special gun placements and which banks correspond to which guns (e.g. the Ursa's top-right gun is inaccurate against anything small).
  • Warnings about any problems with the ship (e.g. the Tauret cannot really use Kaysers due to energy constraints).
  • Weaknesses (e.g. the Valkyrie's Comms tends to get disabled when unshielded, which may cause the player to miss critical dialogue).
  • Any interesting facts that have not been pointed out elsewhere (e.g. the mediavps version of the Aeolus adds a fighterbay).
  • Blind spots (e.g. in front and ever so slightly above a Moloch, only a single blob turret can reach you).
  • Special issues (e.g the Azrael is effectively impossible to disable due to the engine placement).
Should Not Contain
  • Blog-like descriptions that point out strengths/weaknesses under rare circumstances.
  • Speculation about how powerful the given ship would be if its default armament was changed (e.g. an Arcadia could be more powerful if its blob turrets were replaced with beams).
  • Speculation about the motives behind the use of a given ship or weapon (e.g. in-universe speculation of why the NTF use the GTW Prometheus R, or the decommissioning of the GTF Valkyrie)
  • Mission-specific comments (e.g. the GTM Trebuchet should be used to destroy the forward flak guns of the Sathanas in Bearbaiting). Comments like these should be integrated into an article related to the mission.
  • Highly subjective and debatable statements like "extremely weak" or "totally useless" that are not backed up by facts.
  • Vulgarities (e.g. "the GTW Leech Cannon is fucking shit").
  • Redundancy with comments already made; if a particular facet of tactics, weapons, or facts about a ship has already been pointed out, do not repeat it.

This is a Wiki, so Veteran Comments are not handled like forum posts by individual users—other contributors are allowed to edit any Veteran Comments for accuracy, clarity of expression, or grammar. For this reason, do not sign any Veteran Comments you make.

Through all this, remember that this policy is not meant to discourage helpful contributors. Be bold, as they say on Wikipedia. If you are unsure of something, start a discussion on the Talk Page or forums. If you are fairly certain of it, edit the article accordingly. Thanks to the Wiki architecture, errors can be corrected or removed later.

Retrieved from "https://wiki.hard-light.net/index.php?title=Veteran_Comments_policy&oldid=62733"