Ghyll:Lexicon discussion

If you've any questions or suggestions about the wiki and its syntax, the Lexicon rules, Ghyll continuity errors, letting us know you're gonna miss a turn, etc., use this page to wax poetic. Be sure to sign your name (using either the second - from - the - right toolbar icon, or typing two hyphens and four tildes), which also includes the timestamp. Similarly, we'll probably end up using horizontal rules to seperate "threads" that develop. We'll cross that bridge when we get there. --Morbus Iff 11:32, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Frequently Asked Questions

1. How do I dib an entry?
   If there is a specific phantom you'd like to write, wait until the proper turn occurs (ie. waiting for the "R" turn to dib phantom "Rancor") and then edit the phantom to just include a statement of dibbing ("MIIine! ALlL MiIInnE!") and your name/signature. Naturally, the intent of dibbing an entry is so that you actually write it - if you don't during that turn, your dib expires and it'll be ready for definition again on the next loop.
2. Can I cite more than I'm required to cite?
   Each turn after the first, you're required to cite two phantom entries and one existing entry. Neither of these three citations can be terms you've created or written. However, if you've properly met these requirements, your entry can certainly refer to other terms in the Ghyll encyclopedia, including those you've personally written.

Comments, Clarifications, Complaints?

The random page algorithm is clearly crap. Even though we only have like five pages now, I still got Agony Uncle roughly ten times in a row. --Sean B. Palmer 12:59, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I disagree. A truly random algorithm could display the same thing 100 times in a row - that's the uniqueness of something being "random". Any algorithm that remembers previously displayed pages creates an expectation: that the next page you see will be one you've not seen before. When you can expect a certain result, that's decidedly not random. Regardless, I'd say this is very faw down on the list of FIXME's, solely because a) I don't really think it's broken and b) the longer the wiki is up, the less it'll be an issue. Thus, entropy rules. --Morbus Iff 13:45, 20 Aug 2004 (EDT)

---

Bah, talk about meta meta. What would a "Lexicon discussion" discussion be about? /me grumbles. --Morbus Iff 15:36, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

---

So I added a phantom category. I did so because I thought it'd be nicer that way to be able to directly see alphabetically which pages need filling in, though I must admit it's not much of an improvement over using the old use of Special:Wantedpages instead. On the other hand, I don't think there are any disadvantages: for example, it's still possible to find out what pages link to a phantom by using the what links here link in the page's toolbox; on the other hand, using a category and phantom boilerplate for each new entry tells the entry's creator what the initial citation to that entry is, as opposed to just links. For example, (Folktown Records) has two inbound links already, but which was the first one? In fact, it was (Agony uncle) and not (Quezlarian numerals), but its 'what links here' page, and hence the old Wantedpages approach, won't reveal that. The new boilerplate texts, on the other hand, do. --Sean B. Palmer 20:16, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

The alphabetical is nice, so I've changed the template over to it. I'm worried, however, that we're adding another "oops, I forgot" step for maintenance. Not only will people have to define their phantom, they'll also have to remove it from the Category. Similarly, someone who is creating a new entry now has the onus of "not yet dib"bing their created phantoms, which can easily be forgotten. Wantedpages, at least, handle all this stuff automatically. As for the "what links here" page, it looks like the order is, indeed, when the link was created - reference, for instance, the "what links here" page on (Folktown Records). The first link was Quez, then my Agony, then this page. So I'm not sure why you're questioning the "which was the first one?" --Morbus Iff 20:33, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I'm also worried people will forget the "what links here", thinking that the manually "cited from..." entry is the ONLY thing to worry about. Although I like the alphabetical page, I'm a little worried that this is gonna cause more work in the long run - at least from Wantedpages, there's an immediate and visual "closeness" to the red links and the (# references). I wonder if it'd just be easier for me to custom code Wantedpages into an alpha, not popularity. --Morbus Iff 20:39, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

AlllLLrighty. In a fit of "undo all your hard work", I've undid all your hard work. I modified MediaWiki's includes/SpecialWantedpages.php to sort the Wantedpages screen alphabetically, regardless of the number of links to a post (in a game of Lexicon, popularity is secondary to turn order, as you've demonstrated). As for the "when the link was created", I finally understood what you meant. Yes, I think that can be a potential downside, but gamewise, the scholar has to create an entry based on ALL incoming links to the phantom, not just the first, or "canonical." So, yes, knowing what is first could be important, but I don't think it's vitally important to gameplay. Like you mentioned, the phantom category wasn't "much of an improvement", but the breaking of Wantedpages, I think, was its biggest disadvantage - I'd rather break "order of citation" as opposed to "default page in the wiki that I can't delete." --Morbus Iff 21:06, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Well, the first/canonical link is also very important if we're disallowing forward self-citations. For example, (Folktown Records) is a term that I coined, but I'm not sure whether I can dib it or not since I'm not sure where it was cited first. Looking carefully reveals that it was you that first cited it, so apparently I can, but it's confusing. Of course, in the process of researching all of the inbound links, one should also discover which is the original citation--but if you're choosing between lots of phantoms for a particular letter, you want to be able to know which ones are yours and which ones aren't, without a lot of research for each of the terms. I think that's something that needs to be answered before I can fully except your undoing of all my hard work, as you put it (grin), but I otherwise accept that it was a bit of a stretch. --Sean B. Palmer 21:21, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

You and your damn forward self-citations! The only time a "coined term" is "claimed" is when you use it in your per-turn citations. Since you coined it, but didn't cite it in your per-turn on Quez, it's not your phantom. Since I cited it as part of my phantoms on (Agony uncle), I can't ever define it, but you can, even though you coined it (but not cited it). AaahHh, the joys of terminology. Ultimately, if you know you "coined" a term, but you've never, in your entries, cited it, you can define it's entry when the relevant turn is played. --Morbus Iff 21:28, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

Right, but you've missed my point. Think about what happens further on in the game when there are fifty phantoms for the letter Q: each of those fifty phantoms may have been coined by someone different to the citer, or they may not. By then, we mightn't be able to remember which terms we've cited and which we haven't, because anybody could've coined them. I already forgot whether it was me that had cited (Folktown Records) from (Quezlarian Numerals), or you from (Agony uncle)! So the player is confronted by a huge list of terms, all of which are in the game already somewhere, but who knows who was the first to cite them? The only way to find out is by researching each of the inbound links until you find out whether it was you who originally cited it or someone else. If there's a huge list of terms, that's a significant disadvantage for someone who wants to choose, fairly quickly, a phantom that they can dib. Even the phantom category page isn't perfect for that, since it'd be better if you could see the original citer right next to each of the phantom entry names in the index, but it's better having it on the phantom entry than somewhere out lost in the wiki. --Sean B. Palmer 21:40, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

I understand your "oops, I forgot" step for maintenance issue, but I don't think it's really an issue: once we're practiced at it, it should become very much a routine knowing that you have to have a citation to a current entry and two new citations with boilerplate phantoms. Whilst it's another "thing that you have to do", it's also another "thing that makes you pay attention properly". I have a feeling that neither of our approaches are really optimal, and I wonder if we can come up with the proper technical solution, since I think we're both very much agreed on what we'd ideally have. --Sean B. Palmer 21:40, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

The easiest may be to have the user keep note of phantoms they've cited on their user page. --Morbus Iff 22:13, 27 Aug 2004 (EDT)

We resolved this issue with the creation of the Ghyll Index and reverted Wantedpages. --Morbus Iff 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)

---

Hello people. This looks like a nice game- but I think I got the rules a little wrong in my enthusiasm to get started, entry: anabiscot) by putting more "phantoms" into my entry than were asked for, and by fleshing one or two of them out. I find it impossible to backtrack on the fleshing out, and so a) don't know what to do about them, as I don't want to upeset anyone by not having strictly observed the rules for the first turn and b) wonder whether clearer guidance to newcomers is needed if this isn't to be a closed shop just for oldophytes --Ginestre 05:28, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Ginestre: we're open to newcomers, definitely. As for the rules, check out #1: "Scholars ... write one entry per turn" and then #2: "Entries shall cite two phantom entries". I've deleted all your out of turn entries, so there's no worries there (to return an entry to a phantom, just click the "delete" button as opposed to "edit", and give a reason for the deletion). Let me know which part of the rules initially confused you. We'll be adding an "Example of a Turn" to the main page shortly. --Morbus Iff 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)

Finally, and sadly, I've deleted your Anabiscot entry for being too much of an "Earth-parody". It, ultimately, looked like a school term paper that was revised to include "made up" words as opposed to their Earthen counterparts (as seen in your revising of "England" to "Ghyll", and the inclusion of Christian, Protestant, University of Helsinki, etc., etc.). Based on your timpstamps, I can appreciate how this deletion must look compared to your two hours of editing. But, it's really not the sort of material we're looking for. Think "when we crossed the threshold, I hit my new bride's head on the door jamb, and in her ensuing mental insanity, she described something that'd sounds just like Ghyll's [NameOfEntry]" as opposed to "What have I written already that I can modify for the game?" --Morbus Iff 09:41, 1 Sep 2004 (EDT)