Creative
 

N/Community

Fiction Wikia, the place where you can write fiction.

< N
The free constructed world that you can edit
Portal | 364 articles | Changes

The main page is for news, discussion on the discussion page.

Contents

[edit] March 21, 2006

  • Some new lists have been added on the List Page. One for creatures and one for deities. Check them out and add to this part of our world.--Olsdude 15:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] March 19, 2006

  • I have added The Map Room as a place to store and catalogue maps.--Olsdude 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have also added a category!. Its just a general category for now but sub categories could of course be added. --Olsdude 05:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for a list

Perhaps there should be a list of legends/myths and other stories of certain periods and the what not. Perhaps even fictional non-fiction. (There could also be a 'other' list so that stuff that doesn't fit goes there, and then if there is a large enough trend, another list could be made and the stuff could get imported to the new list...)

I'm not entilrly sure what you're describing. Do you mean a list of 'our world' myths and legends or 'NeW' myths and legends? just a few examples will probably help me out.--Olsdude 15:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Though the latter could be interesting, it is the former. By having an area for less broad things and more like individual events, a small library may come into being after a long time of a few writers... Like fictional non-fiction of some people surviving during the great winter and all.

Oh, do you mean having stories of individual people? that is totaly fine. You could write about individual peasants or anything if you like. Go for it. after a long time we could develope a list of everyone living in certain villages at certain times. and follow family lines for thousands of years.--Olsdude 13:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Idea for World Name

Well, due to the existence of the Underworld, you could just use the Overworld. Sure, the term is used a lot but for evident reason. By keeping the plane names simple, it allows for organization of all the other details to go much smoother. So,what I'm saying is,if you have an underworld, you need an overworld. If you want a place for all the light gods,give them the overworld and call the planet the midworld or something.

Hmmm. Simple enough. I'll look up some etymology for "middle" and "centre" try and get some interesting name that means mid-world.--Olsdude 14:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
I'll start a list of potential names here, add what you want. We'll wait about a month and decide on one. Nothing is ever written in stone.
  • Mattoveil/Mattovail (middle earth)
  • Okumen/Okumenentar (norse mythology)
  • Vayblian (made it up - vayrian)
  • Phainesthia/Phaos (fantasy)
  • Cantarus (roots)
  • Aikus (Tree)
  • Moltanus (earth)
  • Prathati (spreads out)
  • Pelto (feild)
  • Saeda/Saedis (seed)
  • TeraNova (NewWorld)
  • Vayria (spin on Vayblian/Vayrian)
  • Yalc (Clay)
  • O
  • Nevermore (Neverending Wiki-Nevermore?)

Ok, just a start for now please add, pick your favorites ect.--Olsdude 15:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the one Prathati.- The Wiki lover.

Also, in form of the alingments of planes...

Abyss-The Underworld-The Midworld-The Overworld-Aether

QUESTION:How will a consensus be reached with this?(Though, from the looks, it may only be 3 people working on this concept...)

NOTE:So to make conversion simple, I will be naming all the mentions of the world as midworld for a temporary standby, so that the Midworld can be searched and quickly replaced.

[edit] Votes

Ok, so I've been trying to add this for a few days. My top 3 choices are:

  1. 1 Prathati
  2. 2 Phaos
  3. 3 O

It seems like another person liked Prathati aswell. If there are no objections we could just make this the name. Since there seem to be, as was said above, only three people who may really care.

Out of the three, I find O to be most simple. The Midworld fits to the whole naming convention of The Planes, but this naming thing is nothing to fiddle over.Just tell me the name straight out, no wishy washy stuff, and I'll mod all the midworlds to the new term.

[edit] September 10, 2006

Added a category for Stubs, please add and subtract articles as needed. use your imagination and expand these articles. Make our World grow--Olsdude 14:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QUERY=Unmade Pages List/Category

On the note of stubs, I've got an idea for another list which will help focus completion of articles. there can be the unwritten list/category. In the case of a list, the false link simply must be put down. In the case of a category, the article must simply have the [Category:The Neverending Wiki Incompletes] inserted. After a suggestion of which should be made, I will begin a search for red text.

I have made the decision that a category is best, please insert [Category:The Neverending Wiki Incompletes].

[edit] Destruction Rules

I think its time we got some more stricter guidelines on destruction and things, mainly to avoid more adjustment like what we had to do with The Five Kingdoms when the baelith and ego thing was added. We had to redo the timeline, add many sections to histories and it didn't seem to me that the person who had wrote that had read through carefully (Although these articles had been only roughly sketched and were hard to understand at the time). My suggestions:

  • Destruction of characters, kings and villages are fine
  • The creation of wars, turning a normally prosperous kingdom into an unpopulous wasteland, or any event that might change the face of the kingdom is up to the author's discretion at the time of the creation of the article (or if the article has been majorly adjusted in some form the author(s) of the adjustments and the original one).
  • Destruction of Kingdoms, provinces, important families (kings, generals, or otherwise) are banned without the authors written permisson for the changes.

This will save people's efforts, time and these rules shouldn't be too hard to follow. This also prevents borders from changing every few days and the new need for a map arising. Thoughts?--Scythed 05:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be incorporated to the main page...It makes sense to me, don't giga nuke dynasties or any large-factor things unless you are willing to fully integrate it...or more, discuss the matters in the super awsome talk page tabs which aren't used enough in this set of articles...

Hello everyone, yes I'm the "person" who did the "ego and baelith thing" all those year...well actually I think it was last spring if I recall. Anyway, I can see how yes as I may have done, saying some force from outside the map comes in, conquers 75% of the map changing it, and then continuing on I mean isn't that what happened back when the first Five Kingdoms were destroyed. Then Karabala came along, so that was added to the map oh and Netopyrus the land of Witches, that was destroyed in the Grey Crusade. So in short...

  • Lucida: Never Mentioned in the Timeline
  • Netopyrus: Destroyed in the Grey Crusade
  • Geugaw (Yeah that little speck in the bottom left corner) Not even mentioned.
  • Ebue Eguae- Not mentioned either.

So all I'm saying is that if this world is to be at our disposal, than every 400 years or so, Empires fall. Republics are formed, they become Empires 400 years they fall again. We don't need to worry about recording it in an irrelevent map that hasn't been updated worth squat.

Now even to me that may have sounded a bit harsh, and I can see where the MAP might confuse some people who think the Synath Republic was still around, but as I recall it, for the longest time before the Ego/Baelith thing came along, History had stopped with the Death of the "Healed Muka'Mador".

I think we're doing great now, tons of new story ideas about the Ego and such are coming along, and I mean yeah eventually we'll get to destroy them too! That's the joy of the repetition of history and what we can do with this wiki.

In closing, I'll try and ask before causing the end of the Synath's, BUT I also hope to be asked as well before someone else destroys them, since yes it should be at the Author's consent, and I am that author.

Thank you.

Julius Masters16 15:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

A few counter-points here
  • Lucida is spelled wrong on that map and is never mentioned on the timeline mainly because its not even a kingdom, just a buffer zone between Arkanros and Serdia.
  • Vampire Land's population was mostly destroyed according to the original article not the kingdom, and the genocide was done by the original IP author.
  • The other two were provinces of Karabala, I have no idea why they're on the map.
  • The first five kingdoms were started and ended by me in the same edits before the start of the wiki (7657 or something) and were never actually a real kingdom, although the poor quality of my edits would lead you to believe otherwise.
  • Karabala was one of the original two articles in this wiki, along with Unicorn Island which has no spot on the map.

The map is not my main concern, its keeping all the articles in check with their own canons. The Synath Republic adding brought up many minor flaws in editing and it took a bit to get that in check again across all the articles. Of course things like that are going to happen in a wiki like this, but just look at the Synath Republic, someone changed a few words around from Muka'mador to Izeldor (I have no idea who that was since they weren't logged in) and now, in addition to adding three articles I have to edit The Five Kingdoms, (probably) History of Arkanros, and remove things from the serdian articles and most likely stuff about the baeliths. Thats two hours worth of editing simply because four major words were changed. If this wiki had four hundred active editors like this these edits would occur every few hours or so under the current format like this, you'd just finish adjusting something and have to redo it again because of a minor contribution. --Scythed 09:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I've gone from trying to defend myself to completely agreeing. This argument is completely ruining the purpose of the enjoyment of the wiki.

  • 1 I was the one who came up with the Izeldor thing (just forgot to log in) because Mukamador couldn't have destroyed the Synath Republic because according to canon law (which I completely respect) he was destroyed before it even came into being! What did he come back again?! I already created Phalyx to solve the Muka'Mador problem!
  • 2 Now I really just have one proposition. Despite the fact that it might take a bit of work. Why don't I just change the timeline back to the way it was during the Egon Wars. No Synath Republic, no Novas, no Anything. I will take most of the responsibility of this as long as everyone agrees to the change.
  • 3 Either that, or we continue to attempt to merge the end of the war into continuity as best we can. I didn't mean to throw everything out of whack as much as I probably did. Anyway, what I would prefer was that we try and work that the Egon Wars ended, the Synath Republic was established, and that's where our history is.

Just want to get everything back on track. So like I said, once again I apologize, I just figured NO DESTRUCTION meant NO ATOMIC BOMB APOCALYPSE WORLD-BLOWS-UP Scenario,

and I guess the one good thing that came out of all of this is that now the description of NO DESTRUCTION has been refined thanks to my bending of the rule.

Anyway, later'

Julius Masters16 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats more a problem with my editing more than yours, what I meant was that since the Synath Republic was formed in the exact same spot as The Five Kingdoms they would be composed of the same land, which were destroyed thousands of years ago in the Emergence of the Serdians and restored hundreds of years ago after Muka'mador was killed by the necromancer, around the same time the Baeliths set out. There's no need to reverse your edits, everything has been fixed and adjusted by now to make up for it, and really you didn't destory The Five Kingdoms, you brought them back from the dead to destroy them again. I can see quite easily how you would make this mistake because there was alot of information in one obscure article that wasn't in the other more important ones and most of those events weren't on the timeline. However my main reason for this rule is to help prevent rapidly changing landscapes and the need for rapid editing of articles to make up for it, your edits were just the only example I could think of.--Scythed 00:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


Well then that does make me feel a bit better about the "I'll easily admit" major edits that I had made. As you can probably tell by now I just fleshed out the Synath Republic a bit more, and yes hopefully the revision and discussion to the NO DESTRUCTION rule will aid in the prevention of future random and continuity destroying edits.

Julius Masters16 01:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] New Neverending Wiki World Map

Hello! I'm new here, and I don't even know if this project is active, but I have contributed a map, and it's on the front page for the Neverending Wiki. Do you like it?

Image:Neverending_wiki_world_map.jpg

Pointers:

  1. Licida/Lucida-grr, can't we say that two languages use these two disparate names?
  2. Someone will have to make Netopyrus declare independence or something
  3. I generally combed through all the pages I could easily get to, studied the map already laid out, and created this map according to the last map that was around here.
  4. I introduced "Great Sea" and "Frozen Sea" because "Diamond Sea" was moved to the bottom right corner, so we needed some other name for the sea on the left side.
  5. I added rivers, just because it seems to be lacking in the previous map.

--Yunzhong Hou 19:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Great map, I only have 1 suggestion...though I must say, its great... Anyways,the suggestion is to make the tone of The Mouth of Lamoth a bit darker...(EDIT:To make it more clear, I mean the area around the text,though the name should likely be toned brighter for contrast and all but ya...)

[edit] Integration

I've already integrated all of the 5-page "Once Upon A Time" WikiStory into the Neverending Wiki. It was only possible because of the immense work that we've put into the Neverending Wiki that this addition barely made a bump in the category's page count. I am planning to integrate more stories that fit the theme of the Neverending Wiki, with the ultimate intention that every high-fantasy story in this wiki be part of the N. --Yunzhong Hou 17:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What We Have So Far

  • All map regions are set, and I personally discourage adding major regions (anything that would show up on a map) because redrawing the map takes a long time.
  • Rulers of human kingdoms and allies are already listed at N/History/Rulers. Please avoid introducing more; instead, add your stories to some of the existing ones (you can change the names of some of them).
  • Technologies are listed at N/History/Technology. You can introduce others and add to this list provided they make sense where they are chronologically.
  • Articles still need to be written, especially the bestiary for Geugaw/Gallorum, and later history (after 700 AD).


[edit] No New Regions?

Ok, I certainly don't want to tamper with what seems to be a good system but a rule preventing the creation of new regions seems to be a harsh restriction. I don't see how having a well structured and eye pleasing map means that we can't expand ever again. Anyone who wants to take reponsibility for updating the map can. The map has been out of date before its only a temporary thing.

We have to think on the long term. In 3 years a lot of contributors may not want to put in effort on canstant maintenance for this wiki. Will new edits be restricted because it "takes a long time" to maintain the wiki just as new regions aren't allowed because it "takes a long time" to update the map? of course not. I entirly understand feeling uneasy about having the world expand but I think that, unless it is fleetingly temporary, this rule goes against the very idea of this wiki. In particular the whole Neverending expansion thing. There may b some element of this issue that I'm missing so I am totally open to disscussion.--Olsdude 19:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is that we still need to finish what we have, like Shadowood. Its just temporary, it'll be done once everything is integrated fully.Serprex 20:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

We could do the way the MMORPG Runescape is making its map. Runescape has a long history of making its maps expand outward, and it's basically done by not having the edge blurs on the map and by adding "pieces" to the map as they are being invented, while the rest is black. Our needs are, however, different, and our map probably won't be able to have the details the the Runescape map can have (they are doing this on a tile-by-tile basis). However, that's what I'm aiming for, at least partially: a very detailed map, not one that is huge but is empty. My point is that we should work on the regions we've got now. Keep in the mind the following general notes about making this world:

  • For each large region we introduce, we'd need several (around 5) medium-sized regions and even more (around 10) small-sized regions/cities/towns.
  • For each large region we introduce, we'd need at least a few dozen new/unique species from Bestiary to populate that place, to create a plausible, interesting region.
  • For each large region we introduce, we'd need at least 10 articles on its history.
  • For each of those history pages, we'd need around 3 articles on important people.
  • For each of those people, it'll do good to introduce another article or two on their characteristic magical spells.
  • For each small region we create, we'd need several articles explaining in detail the parts of each small region.
  • This is just for a rudimentary sketch of the world.
  • It adds up to around 140 articles, just for this new large region. That would take a few months right there. And we're doing all this because of the tiny new article you added, which spans about 140 words.
  • And we have to go into all this detail if we want the Neverending Wiki World to arrive at the tactical level. Why is that so important? Because an immense world without detail can't be used to base stories off of (ie. a shared universe), which is what (at least most) constructed worlds are aiming for.

As you can see, this quickly amounts to a lot of work. That's why I'm in favor of keeping the Neverending Wiki small. --YZHchat/2000+ edits

Ok, uh.... What is a MMORPG? what is a runescape? what is a shared universe? what is "tactical level"? I don't understand what these things are (though I assume it has something to do with something like Dungeons and dragons) so I think that might be one of the problems. This wiki is intended to serve as a fantasy encyclopedia for a fantasy world. The expansion should take place in a loose gradual fashion where in any passer by could, with little knowledge of existing articles, add articles which, supposing they adhere to rules and canon, could be further developed infinitely. The scope of this project includes the possiblility that its own development could continue beyond any of the original contributors lifetimes. This wiki was not specifically created for use in, and should avoid modifying its contents for conveniance of, Role playing games.
That being said I do very much enjoy the improvements you've all made to this wiki. And I wouldn't want to do anything to discourage anyone from continuing, or starting, to contribute. So I should say that I think that this level of expectation could potentially limit the growth of this wiki. Look at the great body of work we have right now that started from a bunch of underdeveloped articles. Would further detail improve these works? absolutly. But that doesn't mean that adding a new region is somehow a detraction. It takes a tenured editor, with a large body of knowledge, to add detail. And from what I've seen the editors handling this task right now are perfect for it and doing a great job. But where does that leave a less tenured or new editor? Eager to make an edit it could be easier to forge new territory rather than spend hours educating youself about someone elses well established realms. Current policies do little to encourage potential editors. I know that if I had been told not to add regions after my first edit and was told instead to try and bring current articles to a "tactical level" I would probably never come back (I don't know if it's better or worse to be unwelcome on your own wiki). discouraging or deleting edits because their existance could necessetate further edits in the future seems to be working backwards. If you want to dedicate yourself to exanding articles dealing with a set area of land do it. More power to you and thank you for being so dedicated. there are many areas people could work in: Geneologies, languages, culture, magic, history of a certain region, and expansion. I myself was planning to spend time over christmas fleshing out deadlinks in the Netopyrus article and familiarizing myself with all the new info on this wiki.
Saying that we need to have 140 articles about any region because it is now important to have something called a "tactical level" is getting a little to short sighted to me. The goals of one or two or even 20 editors is not paramount. Will any region come into existance with 140 articles attached to it? No. Is any one editor responsible for developing these 140 articles? no. So don't get upset. Don't worry too much about what we "need". It can be easy to confuse wants with needs. Wanting to have every article completly detailed and have a definitive map is virtually impossible in a world that theoretically expands and changes forever. Is the solution to eliminate the constnt expansion?
The one thing that occurs to me is that this rule prevents nothing. from what I understand the thinking is like this "We want to take our body of articles and "fully intigrate" them all. After this we will start adding new regions. so in the end we will have a group of intigrated articles and, after some time, a few fledgling regions" seems very sound. intigration and detail are important but what is being prevented? what alternative are we avoiding? without this rule we may see events unfold in a slighty differant but not unacceptable way. Many editors take steps towards fully intigrating our body of articles. other editors create new regions. In the end we would have a body of intigrated articles and a body of fledgling articles awaiting intigration. we may also have attracted new editors in the process.
Anyways I don't want to go on too long. Please keep in mind that I just want to have a dialogue about this for the best of the wiki. I know how easy it can be to miscommunicate over the internet. You're all doing great and the last thing I want is to start screwing your stuff up. Vargulf is not the most important thing in the world to me so if it has to go no problem. I just want to make sure we do the best thing. I'm sure we'll come a concensus. Maybe we could start dividing things up into continents? Everything that exists now would be in one continent and we could make it a wikiproject to develop a detailed history for it while we develop a vague history for our next continent. Actually we could start holding discussions about this seperatly.
My main points are:
1)People who want to concentrate on intigrating articles are free too but their personal goals should not affect the direction others take with their editing.
2)Discouraging or deleting edits because their existance could necessetate further edits in the future is a.... weird way of thinking
3)Discouraging otherwise constructive edits based on arguable criteria could discourage good potential editors (who could have lightened the work load for goal oriented editors)
Thanks everyone again.--Olsdude 19:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


That's a very good essay right there, and I've got to say that I'm convinced by your logic. Now I'm thinking that we don't need to limit our work to just what we've got, and that we should of course think about expanding farther into the unexplored regions of the Midworld, etc. Meanwhile, the more practised editors who've read most of the articles here (probably me and Serprex right now) can proceed to writing articles in more detail.

Okay, my reference to Runescape is a bit off because it's very tactical. But consider this: we want to create a detailed world, not an empty one. Each region ought to be filled with creatures, peoples, and their history. And by "tactical" I mean a world you could imagine to be filled with life, a veritable high-fantasy mirror of the real world. The opposite, "strategic", involves getting the general idea (the kingdoms, the ages, and cataclysms in brief) which then allows us to work on the tactical stuff. The strategic stuff is mostly laid down now, but adding more strategic-level stuff like introducing new regions (that is, regions with civilizations already in them, as opposed to deserted places) would significantly alter the tactical stuff, and may result in our having to throw out multiple tactical-level articles.

I think the most important problem we've run into is that, for every additional article or section that any of us adds, that's another body of information for everyone--editor or potential editor--to digest. Soon, and I'd say already, the sheer size of the database we have now is going to discourage future edits. We MUST come up with a way of simplifying the information. Here's my ideas:

  1. Have some parts of the world be deliberately easy.
    1. I've shrunk the history, and now it spans from 80 BD to 1606 AD. Roughly the first half of this requires little prior knowledge.
    2. The closer to the real world we stick, the easier it will be to understand it all and make contributions that work well with what we've got. But that's also what we don't want--it to be just the real world.
  2. Make the material more organized.
    1. That's why my first contribution was a map--it's easier to write articles involving movements (war, invasions, trade, journeys, etc) when there's a reliable map. And that's also why I don't want to have too many new things introduced that would ruin the map--then it loses its reliability.
    2. The portal pages.
  3. The legends section is separate from histories because the former can take a huge database of text that has little or no effect on the history, so that contributors can write their 'legends' and 1) not disrupt the history and 2) not need to know the history.
  4. We need summaries.
  5. We need timelines.
  6. We need category trees.
  7. Other regions we could start up, like literature, culture, and the arts, don't matter much "in the great scheme of things" but spice things up, so we could benefit from some of that.
  8. There are some "touchy topics":
    1. Histories: regions, realms, the timeline, wars, technological advancements (and no, that isn't attuned just to role-playing), genealogies, etc.
    2. These are touchy topics because any changes to them could potentially throw several other article's contents out of order.

"People who want to concentrate on intigrating articles are free too but their personal goals should not affect the direction others take with their editing."

Imagine the following situation: I draft a timeline that has something in it all the way from 0 AD to 1600 AD (which I have done) and then proceed to add an article for around 30% of those items mentioned in the timeline (which I have done). Then a new editor comes and adds his own article, which comes into conflict with my timeline. I don't have any room for such changes at that point, and taking a middle path may/may-not-be possible. Then what do we do?

"Discouraging or deleting edits because their existance could necessetate further edits in the future is a.... weird way of thinking"

Yeah, there's no way we can discourage edits that could necessitate further edits. We just can't.

Another point: when we get to 1,000 articles, how is a new editor going to write about a quest that a character made which involved going from Geugaw to the Wastelands to Netopyrus and Abyss? Would they have to read even the 20 articles that are most crucial?

This leads to the following point: we can't have elaboration. Contradictory, isn't it? But any elaboration just means that contributors have to do more work on it.

Another point: as you said, maybe the long-time editors should work on a particular place (like Arkanros), but its history does depend on that of other regions, and its present does depend on its past.

As you can see, we have gotten to the point where we have to solve all these problems, or our project is going to fall apart sooner or later.

Any ideas? --YZHchat/2000+ edits 21:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/N/Community"