Talk:VUX Beast

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:82.193.103.219, 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)

Linch-Nas-Ploh

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)

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)

And how many other systems did you try before finding it this way? — SvdB 23:21, 2 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)

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)

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)