Please keep editorial comments out of the article. Your personal opinion about which moment in the game was funniest should go in a forum post, not in a wiki entry.
Recent additions by anon user
Since we don't have an official village pump, I guess I should bring these concerns up here. Recently an anon user, User:126.96.36.199, has been adding sections like "Impact on plot", "Sources of information", etc. to various articles. Not to sound petty or territorial, but while I do think some of this information is important, most of it would sound better incorporated into the existing body of the article, such as the sections on sources of information (sometimes it's already in the article and the added section is redundant). Imho the "Impact on plot" sections could be kept, but these would need to be written to avoid the 'you' reference to the reader to make it more encyclopedic. Anyone else have thoughts/suggestions on the matter? --Fyzixfighter 01:12, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
- I actually think that seperate sections are nice. It helps one to use the Ultronomicon as a reference work, by making it easier to lookup things when you're not interested in the entire article.
- I do agree that the articles should not mention "you".
- And to the new user: your work is appreciated. (Yours too, Fyzixfighter, but you already knew that)
- — SvdB 03:05, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
- I can understand that reasoning. It might be nice organizationally then to create an overall section in the article for these things (something like "Gameplay information"), and make subsections for "Sources" and "Impact" et al. And I apologize to the anon user if I came off abrupt or cold. I really am glad to see a new face...um...user name...um...IP address joining our ranks. Please continue to contribute. --Fyzixfighter 18:24, 29 August 2006 (CEST)
My main problem with including this speculation is just that, it is speculation. We've tried to keep a majority of the fan speculation out of the articles (see the talk pages for HyperSpace, QuasiSpace, Ur-Quan, Juffo-Wup and others). I'm all for speculation on the forums. Granted there are some articles like the Orz where speculation is included (sometimes a little too much), but I believe that we've tried to limit those speculations to those that are significant and widespread in the fan community. Certainly none of us is perfect in keeping out some of our minor personal speculations, but we do try to be exact and correct it when it is pointed out. Even the popular ones we've tried to trim down to the bare minimum. This particular item is a much more recent speculation, and appears to only be limited to one or two people. Another thing about this speculation which rubs me the wrong way is that it requires several leaps of logic. I'd much rather mention the similarity in names (as multiple people have brought this up) in the "Notes and Refs", and maybe give a link to a forum thread, especially since the clues ZEX gives are sufficient to find this place without such mental acrobats as Nas=nose=triangle=delta, especially with the original map (which I realize not everyone will have access to). I'd be more willing to include it if there were more evidences of other people arriving at this same logic on their own. Thoughts? --Fyzixfighter 02:31, 2 April 2007 (CEST)
- Wow this is old.
- > Thoughts?
- 1) One may shy away from seemingly making runaway thoughts & connections, but in this case it is literally a conspiracy; e.g. you play the boardgame Clue expecting that there really is something going on to solve. Therefore we may take at face value that 'Linch-Nas-Ploh' is not necessarily random gibberish but may have hid something. Being too rigid and robotic a cleric with your editing, fixated on issues of style rather than substance, does you and the articles no credit.
- 2) Given that 'Linch-Nas-Ploh' may hold a clue, and may not be just random gibberish, what might we glean?
- - Well, there doesn't seem to be any fancy mathematical analysis to be done here. Therefore we will work plainly on the literal words themselves.
- - If based on a real language, not useful to base it on something other than English, as no guarantee that enough people would know it.
- 3) If English, well then we're getting somewhere. Out of the conglomeration 'Linch-Nas-Ploh' there is something that sticks out in resemblance: the Lyncis star cluster.
- - Testing this hypothesis: If 'Linch-Nas' = Lyncis, what could 'Ploh' signify? Is it just random gibberish, meant to be incomprehensible?
- 4) Perhaps. But this is the name of a star system. If it is one of the Lyncis stars, 'Ploh' may determine which one. So 'Ploh' means Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, etc
- - But which??? Aye, there's the rub. 'Ploh' doesn't seem to have mathematical significance, and additionally, doesn't sound like any of those Greek letters.
- 5) Being linguistically talented however, I detect a clue: Many languages transpose 'l' & 'r' sound; as well, many languages transpose 'p' and 'f' sound. Among others of course. In ancient times few people were literate, travel and transportation were limited, and so vulgar spoken language became a big game of Chinese whispers. Running through the likely permutations and accounting for other possible transpositions, we do find that 'ploh' resembles an English word which may be of use here; the word 'four'.
- - And now we have our answer: Lyncis Four. Four Lyncis. But stars aren't labelled in that way? Well then, the fourth letter. Delta Lyncis
- These last steps may seem like the developers were a bit arbitrary, but rest assured, that is how real people behave. This is not a system of logic for you to analyze: these are people hiding a secret; people to people interactions, to make a fun game. And so they did hide their answer in the name of the star system.
- I, for one, have found the VUX Beast based only on this thingy with Linch=Lyncis and Nas=nose=triangle=Delta. Valaggar 19:50, 2 April 2007 (CEST)
The "theory" that I posted regarding 'ploh' = 'four' that I see is now deleted is in fact the first and only one I tried and quite plausible. Do not presume to delete content merely because of your own prejudice as to supposed conspiracy theories. It is an insulting matter and debasing to the quality of the article. Great General 14:24, 21 April 2007 (CEST)
- And after all, the QuasiSpace speculation was still kept at the bottom of the page as a note. Valaggar 20:01, 2 April 2007 (CEST)
- QuasiSpace speculation deleted in its entirety. — SvdB 23:21, 2 April 2007 (CEST)
- Wouldn't it be nice to have a "speculation" page for all these things not accepted in the main articles? Valaggar 14:28, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
- For what purpose? Because some people feel the need to share their theories? Or do you really think there are people interested in theories like "Zoq and frog both have an o, the q looks a bit like a g, and with some juggling, you can find some mathematical relationship between the f and r, and the z, only not quite.", except for a cheap laugh? We've got the forum for that, if they really can't keep these things to themselves. — SvdB 16:16, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
Everyone can have a theory, but some are better than others, frankly speaking. Better in this case in the plausibility of intent of the game designers, in the conforming with the workings of reality. Great General 14:24, 21 April 2007 (CEST)
- Heh heh, looks like I really unnerved you. I just said that some people may be interested to LAUGH at these theories - I'm not talking about the Zoq<-Frog thingy, nope. About all those things that were brought on the forum, but are harder to find there than in a "central repository".
- Of course you must always be right. ;) Valaggar 16:46, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
- The problem with such a speculation page is what criteria would be used for inclusion of someone's speculation. The page would soon become bloated and meaningless as everyone would feel the need to add their own ideas. The forums are the ideal and already established place for proposing and discussing speculations. The Ultronomicon should be a reference, and not a place for original research. Granted, there are a few places where this is bent, such as the Influences and References and Orz. IMO, the Orz article is an example of the headache of what happens when everyone wants to add in their own theory and honestly I'd like to viciously trim that theories section (I just haven't come up with a good criteria for such a pruning). Likewise the Influences page tends to get bloated (particularly with happy coincidences on captain names), but personal speculations are usually avoided since we do have some criteria and other editors check any additions to see if they are reasonable/make sense as can be seen on its talk page. --Fyzixfighter 17:50, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
Of course, many people are lacking in this department which accounts for the varied opinions wild imaginings and potential bloatings in the first place. Not everyone is fit to be an editor. The fatal flaw of the wikiGreat General 14:24, 21 April 2007 (CEST)
- Ah, I didn't think about this part. Valaggar 18:34, 3 April 2007 (CEST)
The reason I first added the first few Orz theories to that page was because people tended to accept one particular theory as the thruth, usually "The Orz killed the Androsynth.". By listing the major alternative theories, and clearly marking them as theories, I hoped to offset this a bit. I still think this reason is valid, even though I agree the list could be trimmed down a bit. — SvdB 05:24, 4 April 2007 (CEST)
- Don't worry about it. I understand the reason for it, and I've done my fair share of contributing to the bloating. The article makes it clear that they are theories, and I agree that certain speculations on this topic are so widespread in the fan community, and the mystery is so integrated into the SC universe that it does make sense to include something on it. The bigger and more annoying headache really comes when someone adds another theory - sometimes the added theories are so off the wall (like the Orz are the Taalo) that we can reject them immediately, but others I just can't seem to justify removing in light of what's already up there. So meh, as long as we keep it somewhat in check. --Fyzixfighter 05:39, 4 April 2007 (CEST)