White Wolf:Paw Prints

console games
not trying to nitpick, but console games mean computer games? for me console sounds a little like just the game computer games like for nintendo / play station and such. Boneyard 13:30, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, "console games" means what you call "game computer games" (like the Hunter: The Reckoning games for Xbox and Playstation 2). However, comma, I think the "video games" category also includes the Vampire: The Masquerade computer games. AberrantEyes 14:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * ok, but on the main page i just see console games at the media part, would that include pc games also or not? and if it does wouldn't changing the name to computer games or electronic games be wiser?


 * ps: you can indent with using the right ammount of colons " : " Boneyard 15:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. As a sysop, I may have to make that change if Ian doesn't. And thanks for the indenting tips! AberrantEyes 17:08, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The change has already been made by AberrantEyes, but it's fine by me. I was trying to come up with a term that encompassed both, but as I recall it was pretty late at the time. IanWatson 17:26, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Needed pages
Don't know if people'd find it handy or not, but we have a wanted pages area here. It will show you all the nonexistent pages, sorted by how many other links exist that point to them. As I write this, Aberrant is at the top with about 25 links, fr'ex.

So those would be the pages that we "need" most, given how many times they're linked to. Don't let this dissuade you from creating other pages entirely, of course, if you think we need some content that isn't covered at all. IanWatson 17:39, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this (the WWWiki as a concept as well as the particular "Wanted Pages" list) is an excellent Idea. It's much more satisfying to complete existing links and "connect the dots", than add pages floating in the void. UKR

How about a new link for the "Other Pages" Section on the main page, title being "Community Pages" - a page with subsections containing URLs and maybe short descriptions of sites that could be of "General Interest" (whatever that might mean) to the WW community in general (RPGnet, for example) or to one game in particular (Exalted Wiki comes to mind)? Just a thought. UKR


 * If you want to add it, go for it. IanWatson 21:41, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah right. Why don't I? Sorry, I thought the main page was protected from public editing. UKR


 * It was, but I changed that a few days back. IanWatson 22:20, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Same Word, Different Game
Running into this more and more when editing my W:tA entries; there are a lot of terms that are used in more than one game and can refer to very different (or confusingly similar) things; the obvious solution is to point to an article that clearly refers to the term as used in that game (Auspice (WTA) vs. Auspice). But would it be a good idea to edit the "Auspice" entry (as an example) such as to make it an entry of disambiguation - linking to all known examples of that term? --PalominoMule 22:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * There's a similar porblem with terms that have a meaning in game and out of the game. For example, Vitae mean both blood in both editions of Vampire, but is also specifically used to mean "blood points" in V:tR.  I suggest the following convention.
 * * The Generic term is used for a disambiguation page.
 * * all instances of the term for a game use a WikiWord formatted as TERM_(game) where game is the short form of the game (i.e., WtA, VtM, EtA and so on), with 'real' reserved for the term outside of the game.
 * So for using Vitae,we'd have Vitae, Vitae_(real), Vitae_(VtM), and Vitae_(VtR)...eventually. Similarly, Shadowlands, Shadowlands_(WtO) and Shadowlands(E) for the different uses of Shadowlands in Exalted and Wraith.  We also can probably just skip the disambiguation if the target pages are less than, say, a typed page each.

--205.201.9.174 01:31, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The system I've been using (and would prefer others use) is to keep the abbreviation all in caps, like so: Trinity Universe (TU), Age of Sorrows (AOS), Vampire: The Requiem (VTR), Werewolf: The Apocalypse (WTA), Mummy: The Resurrection (MTR), and so forth.
 * I'd prefer people use AOS for stuff in the Exalted universe.
 * Also note that some stuff will include lower-case for clarity's sake: New World of Darkness (nWOD), Old World of Darkness (oWOD), Mage: The Ascension (MTAs), Mage: The Awakening (MTAw).
 * So the pain old link will be disambiguation, link (oWOD) and link (TU) will point to seperate terms. In the case of vitae as mentioned above, I suggest something like advantage vitae (VTR), or something similar. However, sspecifically with vitae, I think we can keep both entries on the same page. A seperate page for the Blood and for the game term aren't really necessary. IanWatson 01:35, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia White Wolf content?
Wikipedia has quite some entries on White Wolf material and a number of wikipedians who pursue the articles with quite some gusto. Could we (should we?) copy some of their content here, and ii think we could leave some of their contributors a link here... i'm pretty sure they'd be pretty interested in helping around with this... --Asmodai 15:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Someone was kind enough to put us under "External Links" under White Wolf, Inc. If you want to direct those contributors over here, I'm all for it. (: IanWatson 16:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Canon Policy and Computer Games
Well i'd say this wholly depends on how well the content was transferred between the games and the new form of media... for instance Bloodlines got the mood and details rather well, as did to some extend Redemption (even if it was mostly Hack and Slash). On the other hand... Kindred The Embraced... well i think that falls somewhere under "Star Wars Holliday Special" (the one that Lucas said he'd gladly pay to never have made ;)). How do we define it anyway? The number of other media creations is rather limited, and most of us probably have a modicum of access to it... Thoughts? --Asmodai 16:51, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned, only the game books constitute Canon-with-a-capital-C. Where novels and game books contradict, game books take precedence, although novels can certainly elaborate on certain events (like the 1999 Sabbat invasion of Atlanta).


 * The electronic games are not to be referenced except where the games themselves are concerned. They're not canon as far as the site is concerned, but they are material we're going to be covering. If that makes any sense. The same goes for Kindred: The Embraced and any future media go. IanWatson 21:23, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Game Rules
Hello, this is my first Paw Print in WWWiki, I joined yesterday and couldn't resist the temptation of already contributing. However when writing a short piece on willpower I asked myself if I wasn't going to far in explaining what it means in WW games. I think it's pretty obvious that we're not going to put every printed gamerule here, but for willpower it was fairly necessary as an illustration. I wonder, where do you draw the line?

Also, but this is just a minor question, my contributions will be 99% old world of darkness. Would you like to give a clear indication of how everyone should use this in their articles, just by oWOD? I assume if a rule is still used in the new world of darkness then this will eventually be corrected (that's what a wiki is for :) ).--Mithras 08:14, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Even insofar as your Willpower article goes, I personally wouldn't have added that much in the way of game rules. Cover the basics of what Willpower is and what it does, but point people to the game books for more information. I'm very big on referencing sources; if you tell people something about Willpower (or Caine or whatever), include a reference so they can check the information for themselves. Like so: (VTM: Ghouls: Fatal Addiction, p 34), which appears like so: (VTM: Ghouls: Fatal Addiction, p 34)


 * It's fine if you're going to focus on the old World of Darkness, but please remember that this wiki covers other game lines as well. Where a term is used in multiple games (like Kindred, used in both VTM and VTR, or Abyss, which is at least used in VTM, WTA, DTF and MTAw), please remember to identify the article by the game line it's in. So if you're making an article about the shadowy Abyss that the Lasombra access, name the article Abyss (VTM). You can link to it by typing Abyss, which will show up as Abyss. IanWatson 21:35, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok thanks for the tips. Unfortunately I don't have the advantage of knowing all the game lines out there, but now at least I know how to label everything here!--Mithras 22:00, 21 Aug 2005 (UTC)

New Reference System
There's a new system for citing sources. The general format is the same as above, minus the parentheses.

Create a new heading called "References" or something similar, like so: == References ==. It should be at the bottom of the page. Then, next to the appropriate block of text, make your footnote link as follows:

(where "yoursource01" is whatever name you choose to assign). Then under References, start a new line like so:

* VTM: Clanbook: Ventrue Revised, p. 34

Or whatever.

This way you'll get fancy little footnotes which will link to the appropriate reference at the bottom. References at the bottom will likewise link to the appropriate block of text at the top. IanWatson 11:27, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)

Example: This is some obscure reference to pants.


 * Not Elfpants? I'm disappointed, chief. 8-) AberrantEyes 11:31, 20 Sep 2005 (EDT)


 * Indeed. Check the Werewolf 2nd Ed Players Guide, under "P." It lists "pants." Which, of course, points to the page about the Nuwisha.


 * WTA: Werewolf: The Apocalypse Second Edition, p. 332

Front Page Layout
Okay, everyone. Look at the front page.

There's a lot of information there. Lots of sections. I've also been thinking of adding additional sections: a Featured Article section, Did You Know, and WWWiki in the Media. The former two are fairly standard on Wikis... take a look at Memory Alpha. The latter seems like a good idea after hearing the great things CamTalk said about us on their latest podcast.

Thoughts? What should we keep, what should we add, what should we get rid of? How should it be set up? Does the current display work for everyone, or would you rather see the semi-dynamic stuff (most wanted, today in history, etc) further down on the page with the encyclopedia links at the top?

Lemme know! IanWatson 04:32, 29 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Timeline Issues
I was considering working on the timeline, when I started running into problems. I'm not sure how to handle events that are described as having occurred somewhere in a range of time - for instance, the Silent Striders may have been banished from Egypt by Set's Curse anywhere from 1880 BCE to 1633 BCE. And then there are events and trends described as happening within a century or decade - for instance, the Uktena are described as first arriving in Australia during the 1840s CE. How should I handle this stuff? --PalominoMule 23:05, 11 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * If it's during the 1840s, I'd say you add a mention of the Uktena arrival in Australia to 1840d (oWOD). For the Silent Striders, you might note the dates you mentioned as the earliest and latest dates for Set's Curse. AberrantEyes 00:36, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Stuff set in a particular decade would go in (fr'ex) 1840d (oWOD), as Austin mentioned. Something in a century would go in 1800c (oWOD). Set's curse would have a "earliest possible date for Set's Curse" entry in 1880 BCE (oWOD), and a "latest possible date" entry in 1633 BCE (oWOD).


 * Since there will never be very many entries under BCE, if you prefer, you can put those entries in the decade or century instead of the year. IanWatson 03:32, 12 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of the Spoiler Policy
Hi, all. I've just started contributing to the Wraith and Orpheus sections, but I had some questions about spoilers on the wiki that I'm afraid the help section doesn't really clear up for me. To what degree are we allowed to give plot points and information on past releases, and do we have to put up spoiler warnings for the nitpicky if we choose to do so? Just being cautious here...


 * I should make a page about this.


 * As far as I'm concerned, once a book has been released, it's fair game for spoilers. That's the official release date, btw. If someone gets a hold of a book before the official release date, they shouldn't post anything about it here.


 * Since you're talking about Wraith and Orpheus, both of those are oWOD games, and we've seen all we're going to see. In the case of Wraith, the final book is six years old already. So post whatever you like. If someone doesn't want something spoiled, they'll just have to avoid following certain links.


 * On a related note, I encourage you to sign up for a named account. Don't even need to give us your email address. IanWatson 22:33, 19 Oct 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Actually, signed up yesterday, I just forgot to add my signature.  Using a wiki as a forum is a bit new to me. BebopKate, 19 Oct 2005


 * Actually, you appear to not be logged in. Recent Changes shows just your IP address. Log in via the links in the upper-right. You can sign a post by using four tildes: ~ or by using the signature button above the text-entry field (second from the right). IanWatson 00:43, 20 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Adding to Articles
As someone who is contributing, especially on the Aberrant pages at the moment, it's always good when people can further add to your contributions. In some cases a contribution may be in the process of being completed and another user may add their own contribution to such an article half way through. I was just thinking that in these kinds of cases, it would make it easier for the original author to continue with their updates if any other contributers were to say what they had changed or added in that articles discussion page. I don't think that is against policy and hopefully it will make things run smoother for returning authors. Luthaneal 11:20, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)Luthaneal 24 Oct 2005, 12:18 GMT


 * In cases such as this, the system warns you that the page you were updating has been changed since you started, and shows you both versions. Additionally, by clicking on the "diff" link next to each change listed under the Recent Changes link on the left-hand side, you can see exactly what has changed between different versions of a page. I see no reason to clutter up Talk pages with stuff that's already incorporated into the Wiki system. IanWatson 14:00, 24 Oct 2005 (UTC)