Talk:Database:Planettypes:Trantor Class

jackSNo. No. No. And for what it's worth, it's "DATABASE". It is early, I am grumpy, and this hasn't helped.

lee: Indeed, thx, I've just noticed that and moved the page into the database. How comes that you don't like it? In which way isn't it helpful?

• jackS 00:56, 3 May 2005 (PDT)

Apologies for snapping a bit earlier, but what I'm not happy about with the description is this: it has precious little to do with anything in the VS universe. "Trantor class" (as the warning/caveat I posted on the wiki page with the dump of planet types clearly states) is (despite bugs which display the name to the user) a purely internal naming convention. It's nothing more than an easy way of reminding us which planet texture we needed (something that looked massively populated). It could just as easily have been termed "Coruscant class" - but that doesn't mean that Asimov, Seldon, or Jedi have any appropriate place in the description thereof. Nor do Trantor, Coruscant and their ilk have any place unless, for edifying reference for the uninitiated reader, you wished to populate a "see also" section with some links to wikipedia articles on planet-scale development throughout the history of science fiction.

In short, you wrote a very misleading description based upon a name that's eventually going to be completely hidden to the player about a planet whose fundamental natures are not yet entirely stable. I appreciate your enthusiasm for wanting to help flesh out the wiki, but, when researching what to put in a description of entities in the VS universe, one would be well advised to consult those familiar with the details of the VS universe in those cases where the potential exists for significant ambiguities.

User:Lee Well, since you added your first comment on the article, I've already suspected that there's a different story behind things I don't know of. Maybe there should be some general statement or some guidance so that people new to writing articles in the Wiki will know better. The Wiki just invites you to go ahead in editing or in creating new things.

There is two sub-categories in the forum related to documentation ('Documentation & Document Generation' and 'Documenting The Vega Strike Universe'), and they are in different forum categories. Maybe it's only me, as a non-native English speaker, that I've only recently learned, by reading some article on Wikipedia while writing one here, what 'The Canonical Vega Strike Universe' could mean. And I must admit that I have actually ignored that forum category title until right now and that I vaguely considered it confusing to have two sub-categories for apparently almost the same topic ...

What I'm going to say is that we should think about having a single forum category in the forum, containing sub-categories as needed, related to documentation. The category should highlight having to do with the Wiki. If we were going to have that, we could have categories in there related to the Wiki, one for discussion about the content and the way how the content should be organized, and another one for questions about how to do the editing (like 'How do I get images displayed in my article?'). A third sub-category might be for proposals of new articles or changes of existing ones.

That would imho be less confusing and a good place to develop background story and from there actual articles that go into the Wiki. It would also be a good place to have sticky articles to instruct new Wiki authors in advance to first discuss their ideas for new articles in the forum.

What do you think about it?