Proceedings of both discussions

Greetings anew.

For those who missed the discussion, I decided to write a compilation of the subjects touched upon in the discussions in the forum and the latest blogpost. There were over 48 forum posts and 103 dA comments. It's only 151; gotta catch 'em all!

I've checked with everyone in here to be sure that their position hasn't been misrepresented by yours truly. Some people could not be reached for comment: their points of view are still in the discussion itself, but they are not represented in the abridged version.

======

DarkOne at the forums got the ball rolling by pointing out that Felarya started out as camp and carnivalesque. Then people started making more serious material, completely contrary in tone to the source material. While it had its weaknesses, people at least knew what they were doing.

DarkOne: "You end up with a setting that in someways too silly to be taken seriously and too serious to be taken light heartily [...] This is an issue that can’t be fixed by burying it under the whims of the contributors, piling on new races, cities, magic systems and weapons and so on would do nothing but dress up the already schizophrenic setting with even more trifles and window dressing."

He made two suggestions: either giving it a sense of purpose and direction, or restructuring it so it had a mythology rather than a canon. We'll touch upon them later. Karbo said he agreed.

Karbo: "yes there is no denying that there is schizophrenia in Felarya and what it is and what it's trying to be. And you are also right when you point at me trying to have it both way..
Because the thing is I like both of those aspects.
I like the light-hearted, fetishy, wacky premise of Felarya. Without them i feel the world would lose a lot of its identity and appeal and become too generic.
But on the other hand I really love the more realistic world-building aspect of it. it adds hugely to the identity of Felarya and without it, Felarya would lose a lot of its identity as well and becomes too shallow. But I have to agree that the more it goes, the more this double identity disparity is growing and is becoming quite problematic. it makes its development feels like a jigsaw puzzle or a tightrope walker act at times.  There is some thinking to do on what exactly Felarya is and where we go from there. And perhaps some retcons could be in order as well."
P.S: "on second thought, I owuld [would] have perhaps insisted less on the dual identity of Felarya being a problem and more on how to make things clearer"

jedi-explorer: "This [Karbo's position on tone] I agree with heavily! I try to balance the horror and suspense with light heartedness and comedy. I'd hate to see either dissapear froom Felarya entirely."


And then it started.

======

The themes that were discussed individually were vore and realism.

Archmage Bael: "I think realism is important and should be included where we can. Though the problem I think is that most people try for earthly realism inclusions, and Felarya's realism will be a lot different, as long as we keep that in mind, 'realism' should be fine. (once again reiterating that 'realism' for felarya is different than 'realism' for earth)"

DarkOne: "The realistic world building of Felarya has always been in reaction to the fetish premise and try to make it realistic simply for the sake of making it realistic, and not making it realistic because there's an idea behind it that requires that realism. The humour likewise is generally for the sake of humour. There's not many moments in Felarya where the lighter moments and the serious moments work together towards a higher purpose."

Krisexy26: "the other thing i saw was people arguing about the vore fetish aspect. just take away an inch of it, and you lose all the purpose of felarya. felarya is vore world and should stay vore world, because it is the best vore world ever created. without vore, felarya just become boring ecchi sexiness boring world like any other fetish-fantasy based world. felarya is great because it is the only good vore world availble on the entire planet and it needs to stay that way."

Claire: "I don't understand why people keep saying Felarya is "more" then a fetish world. There is nothing wrong with a fetish world and it can still be successful with the fan service [...] we can still enjoy Felarya for what it is, the noms and there is nothing wrong with that. Trying to make it into something it is not is like comparing apples to oranges."

Amaroq (P.S): "I do think realism needs to be tackled, and it is safe to assume that, unless stated otherwise, for convenience earthern standards should be able to be applied as a general note, where noteworthy exceptions such as the square cube law or the previously mostly unexplained desire to eat stuff and especially people whole and alive should be mentioned and pointed out. It doesnt HAVE to be explained for its reasons, but AT LEAST for the presence of such exceptions, because I often see arguments coming up about exactly those things, especially when newer people join the community and arent familiar with those unspoken traits. This way it will be much easier for new people to find into the world setting.
As for vore: I admit I came to felarya for vore and it kept me because of the vore for a great part. I am not the only one thinking like that, so I believe felarya should remember its roots and stay with the fetish aspect making up a great part of it to prevent it from becoming Jurassic Parc Giantess edition as said before. "

======

Here's what has been said regarding the solution of picking a direction, a tone, a purpose, or a theme.

DarkOne: "What Felarya really needs is a sense of purpose and direction that makes it easier for contributors to blend their ideas with the setting with minimal chaf."

Amaroq: "What the setting needs first and foremost is a rough Guideline about what the setting should feature at its very core. Not examples like "there are Laser rifles but no nuclear devices" as that makes little sense, but roughly what SPIRIT and THEME the world should have. [...] Felarya needs more precise guidelines, an agenda of expectations so to speak, where people might be clear about what can be found on Felarya innately, and what could only possibly be brought from other worlds in very rare instances, as the world at this point is WAAY too big (pun intended) to be grasped by anyone trying to portray it and make a clear line between canon or not."

Stabs: "Once upon a time, I would've protested against Felarya getting a sense, a purpose in its design philosophy, but over time I've realized we had one all along. There are things you [Karbo] explicitly never wanted in Felarya- people beating up giant nagas with their bare hands, all-encompassing empires, and resurrection. Nobody would resent you for tightening the design [themes] a bit more."

Karbo: "But this idea of let's say a page describing in detail what Felarya is, with its fundamental aspects, a recap of its foundations to paint a more coherent and clearer picture.... yes I think it's a very good idea and something I'm willing to work on."

Nyaha: "As for the direction of Felarya as a whole...well, that's always been Karbo's domain...but maybe that's kind of the problem? I think the idea of a page on the wiki like he described a few posts ago will help Felarya fans as a whole have a better grasp on how he sees Felarya, and I think that will help us contribute better to the overarching idea for it."

Stabs: "could you think of a few bullet points [...] so we can do a group discussion [to develop an idea]? That way [...] you can at least originate the ideas [...] if you aren't the one coming up with the stuff in the first place, you will have limited control over its tone and mood."

TheAssassinGuy: "the "what can you expect" is a great way to do so. Not just that readers know what it is about what they read, but It also gives the author the responsibility to explain what differs from the setting that they build their story on."

SenecaHyde: "This kind of focused discussion or contest can't hurt, but it still leaves a lot of pressure on the decision maker"

Karbo: "you [Stabs] made the same suggestion as Jedi-explorer a little while ago, of picking a particular topic and really have people of the forum tackling it and coming up with ideas to develop it. And I think it's a very good one [...] I could perhaps help as well with some drawings to go with it.  But yes let's take a go with this one"

======

The idea of switching over to a mythology had its share of the discussion.

DarkOne: "Or, if failing the grand design purpose idea. Felarya perhaps should abandon the concept of an ‘canon’ and opt for a mythology structure, where contributions are not necessary set in the same world as Karbo’s but their own worlds that share many themes and certain rules, but are otherwise allowed to reinterpret Felarya’s depiction."

Bluehorizon: "I'm kind of with what Darkone and [Aethernavale] are saying. Separating the canon from the fanon makes things less confusing but it gives more variety of reader or creator preference of what type of felarya you are wanting to look at with out totally abolishing the core of the universe. But what questions me most is that both need a cleaning up to make a bit more sense."

Karbo: "To be honest, the canon / fanon route looks rather intimidating to me. This would create a huge variety of problems and headaches.. and I'm not really convinced it's required at this point"

Krisexy26: " so my first recommendation would be chaotic but its my humble opinion: make the wiki both canon and fanon (a simple banner at top of page saying if its canon or fanon would be so easy to make), double pages and contents, triple people who can have access to it, make it participative, and why not all just try to expand that wonderful world. im pretty sure there are enough places for all our crazy ideas."

TheAssassinGuy: "I would suggest that you distinguish between the art that is more true to the roots, all light heartedly and vorish, and the more serious art, which has also a right to exist in my opinion. If you have to distinguish between canon and fanon, i honestly dont know."

Amaroq (P.S): "Adding more lore and mythology such as rumors would fit greatly to the aforementioned idea of having themes and possibilities rather than hard facts and differentiations between canon, majorly accepted fanon and nonaccepted fanon."

======

That's not to say the current model found no traction or support. Some people believed that continuing to flesh out things was at least part of the best course of action.

Shady_Knight: "Well, Karbo, the first suggestion I would make is to actually put down concrete information. That is the biggest flaw with Felarya and the wiki in general, too many areas have important details that are conspicuously absent and are only added when someone prods you to or brings them into question. Take Negav, [...] It's this kind of lack of attention that keeps leading me to say that the wiki isn't so much updated as it is patched. [...] We can't read your mind, Karbo, if there are quirks to the setting that we should know, then it should be written down."

Nyaha: "Something I've noticed [...] is that, of the already established things in the wiki missing detail [...] it's very difficult to get confirmation on these details or new details one comes up with to fill them in from the original contributors [...] we'll need to figure out a way to fill in these holes where nice ideas exist and are popular but need more detail. [...] As Stabs and Shady have been saying, a lot of areas of the wiki need more love. I think that having Karbo himself discuss them one at a time among us fans and contributors as a group and taking everyone's input would be a great way to get them fleshed out."

Krisexy26: "first of all, the wiki, a beautiful and useful one, lacks depth, details, and new canon. I mean, it's as if felarya is running on old canon from the past and, for the present, prefers to rely on what has been done in the past."

TheAssassinGuy: "In my opinion, the talk about how to make the wiki more elaborate isn't leading us to our goal: to make felarya easier accessable while staying true to is roots. Thats not a problem with the wiki, but the stories written. Sure, it should clarify the most important things and could use some work but that is not the point. Sometimes the wiki hinders the artistic freedom of the stories while not providing a solution for what to write. But that is it, there is no ultimate solution for what to write and then the wiki becomes more of a guideline what to write, not a source of inspiration. So I think, rather then forcing more strict guidelines on the authors of this community, you should give the authors themselves the responsibility how they interpret Felarya."

Shady_Knight (To TheAssassinGuy, in response): "No, it does not. Creativity comes in the form of making your ideas work within the restrictions."

Karbo: "you are all right that's it's about time to expand and solidify things out."

Amaroq (P.S): "I do not think major changes are required to happen, slight adjustments are welcomed though, especially rgarding the guideline principle I mentioned above, to make it easier to add content to the world, be it stories, pictures, games or wiki articles, so a better consent can be achieved. There are a few things that would be nice to have a rework of, but those are more exceptions rather than the norm"

======

The number of wiki editors was also brought into question.

Nyaha: "I'm sure the wiki would get a lot more love if more people were able to work on it like a regular wiki. I think we have a good pool of trustworthy people that we can pick to carry out a wiki edit checklist written by Karbo every month or so."

SenecaHyde: "Something like that could work well as long as the team is well managed, and therein lies the difficulty. But if the decision makers want to give it a try, it could be a worthwhile experiment. [...] A small recommendation in this regard, in case this option is exercised, is to establish term lengths for editors to avoid fatigue or awkwardness around termination of status. And regarding my comment about the difficulty of managing it, that's because outsourcing the ability to edit will only make the problem of small contradictions worse."

Krisexy26: " so my first recommendation would be chaotic but its my humble opinion: make the wiki both canon and fanon (a simple banner at top of page saying if its canon or fanon would be so easy to make), double pages and contents, triple people who can have access to it, make it participative, and why not all just try to expand that wonderful world. im pretty sure there are enough places for all our crazy ideas."

Amaroq (P.S): "I do believe that more editors would lead to more content, but before we can add more editors, we need to be clear that there is a consent about what felarya is, should be and will turn into, should it not stay the same. Before we tackle this issue, we should solve our current problems." (Emphasis his')

======

Regarding retcons, removals, rescinding:

Claire: "Adding new entries to the wiki will not improve Felarya's plot, I think its not salvageable because of all the people that left. If the plot was to improve major changes would have to take place."

Karbo: "Some trimming could be useful as well. [...] If there are indeed retcons to be made, they are going to be discussed thoroughly first"

Stabs: "A retcon, discarding stuff by order of importance, might make it a lot easier for Karbo to get the world making sense just the way he wants it. There's aplenty, maybe it's best to trim some fat. A full-on redo from scratch would fix almost everything, methinks. Any dead ends, clutter and dead weight will simply be lost in the transition, unless it's judged important enough to redo. As for the bits someone owns, I expect most of them not to be carried over, unless they're important enough to keep."

Amaroq: "Seeing how i myself reworked content that has been kind of abandoned I am obviously biased, and say that it should be possible to do so with underdeveloped content or where content just isnt up to date anymore. Ideally with the consent of the original creator of course, should they still be around. "

======

There's been a post-scriptum discussion regarding the canon and the wiki.

Frenchsnack: "I'm tentatively of the view that the wiki should remain a repository of canon. It's useful for contributors who want to work within the canon, and to draw inspiration from it. There should continue to be a distinction between stuff which is canon; stuff which isn't canon but which fits with the canon; and stuff which doesn't fit with the canon. (So as to avoid confusing new contributors.)

Shady_Knight: "I need to ask: what exactly IS canon in Felarya? I think before we resolve this issue of canon and fanon, if that's the solution that's going to get pick, we need to pinpoint what exactly is considered canon in Felarya."

SenecaHyde: "I'm concerned that the wiki isn't a very accessible source for new enthusiasts. That doesn't mean the wiki is the flaw here; it just might be that we need some other kind of resource to get people started. The issue is pronounced by how over time, as more material gets added to the wiki, it becomes, almost by definition, harder for new enthusiasts to learn all the material. That means that as anyone drops out of developing the universe, they're less likely to be replaced, and much more likely that the replacement has a looser grasp on the material."

======

And then, in dA...

======

There were some people suing for greater depth in the wiki.

Ember219: "Really, I just want more information."

Turboman500: "I think what we should do first is what [Shady] has been suggesting for years. Simply put, fill in all the extraneous information in the wiki entries [...] Now that all the information is there, look for redundancy and stop gaps, ie fauna/species made to deal with problems that aren't actually problems in concept, but execution."

======

The mythology idea found great traction in the dA blog discussion.


Turboman500: "I think we should simply Star Wars it. I feel like Felarya represents so much to so many people, that simply trying to create a one size fits all solution like nuking everything, is more harmful than good. You'd have an entry under Legends which had the name of what he wanted to call his story in general, his name beside it - done the end. Clicking on the Story would then take you to a brief entry on the wiki which served as a synopsis for his story as a whole or by season... we're talking 3-5 sentences here, nothing huge! On that same page, you're given a link to his gallery where you'd find all the bios for whoever you wanted to know more about, and all the chapters of his story."

TyrantFang55 (to Turboman500): "I'd agree except for the fact that the author themselves sometimes are the ones pushing it as being "cannon with the manga" in some instances as opposed to trying to AU or "legend" it. That said, I do agree with the concept - a section of "legends" that fill most of what we have, and a "cannon" section where the hard-set timeline stuff goes. I'd prefer this method to simply nuking it all entirely."

david-dent-jedai: "I love this idea where the wiki gives back to the author as much as they gave to the community. That's just uncanny like a fox. Also I agree it's time for Separate Genres so we can sort out the mess the group has become."

Jarl-of-the-North: "it would be impossible to streamline everything into canon and non canon without setting someone off. I find myself drawn to the idea presented by turboman500 and TyrantFang55 - presenting a timeline of what we know happened, and what might have happened."

======

There was some discussion regarding the vore here as well.

BulletBader: "I see vore as an added story development. [...] Sure, its a silly setup for dicking around all over, topped with fetish stuff that can get a little over the top sometimes, but there truly is potential for growth. [...] I believe that we can still stick to the roots of what Felarya was founded on, but expand it and make it more appealing not just to us, but also to the public if this got big enough."

Gorger: "I am aware the vore/fetish aspect is a big part of the setting, but the way it was presented to me there was also room for more than that, and I really wanted to explore that other side while respecting the others. Felarya can work perfectly well with those two aspects balanced, but the problem is that people don't care for anything that isn't the fetish wagon."

Turboman500: "[the vore/fetish- centric stuff] Is kinda the original purpose of the setting. Yes there are other aspects, and over arching stories - but it's still all centered around at least 2 fetishes at all times."

Blazbaros: "Honestly, 90% of the "contributors" just need to be nuked (or set aside). [...] The core of the setting would also need to be changed, vore would need to be made secondary so that it doesn't seem so inclusive.  As it stands, its rather off putting even now to someone like me and its kind of sad to see really, genuinely good ideas just get drowned out by members who specifically want their fetish to the forefront. [...] [people] who try to contribute something of note, get buried in messages of why their characters aren't eating everyone [...] The focus needs to be removed from the giants eating tiny things. [...] the pinpoint focus on just that one thing all the time makes the setting itself boring [...] having something else there could draw other users." (Emphasis his') "Having a niche is great, [but] there could be just so much more."

(P.S: from Blazbaros: "I'm someone who has been detached from the community for a while and has only come back recently, just so readers can contextually understand why I'm being so harsh.")

TyrantFang55 (to Blazbaros): "The goal is [...] not [to] alienate 90% of the entire community [...] the adage of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" seems to hold strong in terms to the core of the setting - if anything, that's possibly the last thing that needs to be changed. [...] the vore-core is so important because (A) it's what the setting was founded off of, and what it would inevitably return to only being if everything was dumped and reset to square one, and (B) it's been used as a very compelling story-mechanic before to illustrate not just vore for the fetish-holders, but horror and heartache for the drama-lovers. stories have more then once shown vore used as anything but a fetish in how the people eaten are so rightly terrified."

======

There was some discussion about a complete overhaul.

Blazbaros: "the entire setting [needs to] get an total overhaul from the ground up.  There needs to be some clear cut rules about the setting so it doesn't get flooded in things that don't necessarily belong there. A small group of people would need to sit down and plan out all of this, evaluate ideas and veto them as needed. [...] As it stands, Felarya comes across as "anything goes", which can lead to a lot of confusion and idiocy.  There's got to be some order and structure to the world, some clear cut rules, which its sadly missing."

TyrantFang55 (to Blazbaros): "if "one can easily find what doesn't work and needs to be tossed," it would have been already done. [...] if it was "anything goes," a heck of a lot more would be acceptable. I've seen stuff get shot down for addition here because it was too over-the-top/cannon breaking"

======

There were other suggestions, that while not immediately relevant to a restructuring, might merit some attention.

Jarl-of-the-North: "This might not be entirely relevant, but if you were to ask me, I'd say we need to make the Writing and Ideas sections SIGNIFICANTLY more user friendly."

Well Stabs, this is all well and good, but I'm still concerned about how things will be handled. I already expressed the dire need for Wiki Updates, but some things are still up in the air.

I have a question about all of this, some of this issues are very old and were debated years ago. They are still brought. Does this discussion will really change something or the same issues will be brought in future similar topic?

That depends, Gwada.

If they are real and they are changed, this is the last we'll see of them.
If they are real but they do not change, they will come up in the future.
If they are merely perceived, they will appear again unless they appear to be dealt with.
Until imagined again.

Stabs, any chance we can also get a short list of what the individual action items are that people are asking for? I can try compiling that myself based on your summary here when I find some extra time (which is not now), but I think this would be valuable. Some of the items in the list will contradict each other, but it'll be good to have a reference not just of the discussion but of the potential changes that were suggested.

Example would be something like:

-Add more content to the Wiki to fill in gaps
-Add more moderators to the Wiki to audit the material
-Remove defunct author content from the Wiki to clear out dead material
-Turn the wiki background yellow
-Launch a bottle rocket to the moon

etc. It would be most valuable if we had some kind of index allowing us to gauge how much interest there is in each item, but I'm not sure how I'd do that. But I can work on this a bit later.

what does the P.S. stand for next to each of my names? <.<

The P.S. stands for Post Scriptum, Amaroq, as they were added after the discussion itself and in response to the compilation. Karbo and Blazbaros have had quotes marked P.S. as well, because they had things to point out in response to the compilation as well.

I'll... look into that, Hyde.

Besides more mods on the wiki, I'd also say more mods on the dA group. I know it's a different issue, but it's still annoying when one guy takes a break and all activity has to come to a complete halt.

XD I was about to ask "Who suggested "turn the wiki background yellow"?" but then I saw the next one and got the joke.


If you're going to make a list of suggestions like that, be sure to remember these:

-change how the DA gallery is organized, ie. different story genres, idea categories, etc.
-Put a section in the wiki that lists different stories by different authors with brief synopses and links to the authors' galleries.

Yes, I made the examples progressively stranger to make it clear I wasn't trying to make an exhaustive list, but just a quick sample.

I'd also like to add the following metrics to each suggested action: Impact, Risk, Administrator Effort, Community Effort. I'll try putting this together in the next few days. My estimates might not be exactly right, but they'll be in the ballpark.

Let's get it on, Hyde.

Your suggestion to put all suggestions in one place, I mean. It should shave precious hours off your ordeal.
This is what I've spotted as concrete suggestions. A few were implied, though.

Re: Realism
 -Add realism wherever possible, noting the exceptions specifically.
 -Restrain the realism to where it's necessary for effect.
Re: Tone/Purpose/Theme/Mood
 -Create a rough guideline about what the setting is supposed to feature, and the point of it.
 -Pick a purpose or direction so that ideas can be blended with the setting better
 -Karbo should actively start discussion on every idea
Re: Mythology
 -Assume explicitly no fan stories happen in the primary canon, all happen in reinterpreted canon
 -Separate stories that fit from stories that don't
 -Add story synopsis and links to the wiki
 -Present a timeline of hard facts and a timeline of potential ones
Re: Wiki, Fanon, Canon
 -Allow fanon content in the wiki, but mark it as such
 -Increase number of wiki editors
 -(Pick term length for wiki editors)
 -Create alternate source to learn about canon
Re: Continue development of the wiki
 -Add more concrete information
Re: Retcon 5
 -Discard all material, then redo by sorting importance
 -Allow for edition of material that belongs to another author
Re: Vore themes
 -De-emphasize vore in the wiki, enhance other themes
Re: Other
 -Modify dA group for ease of access
 -Free pizza for Mac

Whoooooooa! Good job keeping abreast of Thema latissime, Stabs! Only one addition I'd put on the list. Vore being defocussed on BUT NOT tossed out. Other than that? You deserve of frackin medal of Honor for all this work! 8O Seriously!

I was about to say jedi, that was a pretty big topic so lets not forget that xD

Stabs, you're amazing. Thanks a billion for putting that list together.

Yer welcome, everyone. I jus' hope it does help.

As promised, I did a quick sort through and classified these to see if we could spot any low hanging fruit. In retrospect, I should have broken "Benefit" into "Impact" and "Controversy", since a lot of my "Low" benefit choices are called such because they have a positive impact to some but a great negative impact to many others.

By doing this, it becomes clear what a few different types of recommendations are, i.e. easy changes that are not worthwhile or controversial, or changes that are universally beneficial but would take a lot of work.

And this isn't quite rocket science. My estimates include loose aggregations of the wishes of all possible stakeholders, so if something seems off, that's probably why.

Stabs wrote:

Let's get it on, Hyde.

Your suggestion to put all suggestions in one place, I mean. It should shave precious hours off your ordeal.
This is what I've spotted as concrete suggestions. A few were implied, though.

Re: Realism
 -Add realism wherever possible, noting the exceptions specifically.
Benefit: Low
Risk: High
Difficulty: Medium

 -Restrain the realism to where it's necessary for effect.
Benefit: Low
Risk: High
Difficulty: Medium

The above two actions move the universe in opposite directions. The problem is that any gains in immersion would be achieved at the cost of alienating those who prefer the other option.

Re: Tone/Purpose/Theme/Mood
 -Create a rough guideline about what the setting is supposed to feature, and the point of it.
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Low/Medium

 -Pick a purpose or direction so that ideas can be blended with the setting better
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Medium/High
Difficulty: High

 -Karbo should actively start discussion on every idea
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Medium

The second option risks alienating some fans of the universe, but the other two have little downside excepting the amount of effort it would take to get them running.

Re: Mythology
 -Assume explicitly no fan stories happen in the primary canon, all happen in reinterpreted canon
Benefit: Low
Risk: Medium
Difficulty: Low

 -Separate stories that fit from stories that don't
Benefit: Low/Medium
Risk: Medium
Difficulty: High

 -Add story synopsis and links to the wiki
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Medium

 -Present a timeline of hard facts and a timeline of potential ones
Benefit: High
Risk: Low
Difficulty: High

Re: Wiki, Fanon, Canon
 -Allow fanon content in the wiki, but mark it as such
Benefit: Low
Risk: Medium
Difficulty: Medium

 -Increase number of wiki editors
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Low/Medium

 -(Pick term length for wiki editors)

 -Create alternate source to learn about canon
Benefit: High
Risk: Low
Difficulty: High

Re: Continue development of the wiki
 -Add more concrete information
Benefit: High
Risk: Low
Difficulty: High

Re: Retcon 5
 -Discard all material, then redo by sorting importance
Benefit: Medium/High
Risk: High
Difficulty: High

 -Allow for edition of material that belongs to another author
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Medium
Difficulty: Medium

Re: Vore themes
 -De-emphasize vore in the wiki, enhance other themes
Benefit: Low/Medium
Risk: Medium
Difficulty: Medium/High

Re: Other
 -Modify dA group for ease of access
Benefit: High
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Low/Medium

 -Free pizza for Mac
Benefit: Very High
Risk: Low
Difficulty: ???

To be clear, I'm not suggesting any actions based on this. I'm fine if the topic dies right here; these are just valuable notes to have in case the topic comes up again, so we can look back and contrast any request with other requests that were also asked for in the past.

Sorry I'm late to this thread. I see Stabs pretty much summed up everything here. Wish I could contribute more, but I'm torn on whether the realm works better as a realistic land, or one more based on mythology. It's a tough call.

Quote :

-Add story synopsis and links to the wiki
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Medium

I actually started on something like that once, several years ago. I thought it would be neat if wiki articles about places, species (animal or sapient) and characters included links to stories, and perhaps also to pictures. It would help readers know more about those places, characters, etc…, and would also be a handy point of reference.

The difficulty, or tediousness, is in systematically contacting the authors of the story for permission to include a link, and the creator of the location or character to ask whether they feel that story reflects their creation. Also, there's a difficulty in deciding which stories to select, bearing in mind that they should be of good quality.

Trust me, it's not everything, Pendragon, whether in the discussion or outside of it. I'll try to start another bit of talk later, the other discussion seems to already have ran its course.

French snack wrote:

Quote :

-Add story synopsis and links to the wiki
Benefit: Medium
Risk: Low
Difficulty: Medium

I actually started on something like that once, several years ago. I thought it would be neat if wiki articles about places, species (animal or sapient) and characters included links to stories, and perhaps also to pictures. It would help readers know more about those places, characters, etc…, and would also be a handy point of reference.

The difficulty, or tediousness, is in systematically contacting the authors of the story for permission to include a link, and the creator of the location or character to ask whether they feel that story reflects their creation. Also, there's a difficulty in deciding which stories to select, bearing in mind that they should be of good quality.

,

I think this is a different suggestion, wherein there would be a page on the wiki dedicated solely to referring readers to noteworthy stories and their authors' galleries, with brief notes on why they're noteworthy. Which would be a lot less tedious, I think.