Forum:Dealing with Lazarus
I was just wondering about how the Wikia should deal with U5:Lazarus. For instance, the main page still mentions that the Ultima Wikia was originally created for U5 Lazarus, but these days the Wikia is 95% non-Lazarus. Should there still be any mention of Lazarus in the introduction or is there a better way of doing this?
``Hail, traveller, and welcome to The Codex of Editable Wisdom, the Wikia that deals with the Ultima series of computer games by Origin Systems, Inc. and Electronic Arts. It was originally created as a wiki focusing on Ultima V: Lazarus fan-remake, but now covers all parts of the series, as well as Ultima Online.``
Also, how should the Wikia deal with Ultima V related articles in general? Should there be a separate article for Lazarus and the original U5� Or should those be entirely merged together? Should Lazarus be considered a core part of the series or should it relegated entirely to remake status? For NPC pages, would the character portrain from Lazarus be appropriate or not? I was just curious how this will be done when we get around to tackling that beast. (Dungy 01:17, March 19, 2010 (UTC))
- My .02 cents -- I am personally *all* for portraits where there are otherwise none... obviously, any canonical stuff should supercede fan stuff. If there isn't even a U5 NES version portrait, though, I would say put in the Lazarus version, BUT make sure it says "(Ultima V: Lazarus)" under the portrait.
- I'm leaning towards merging articles like Lord British's Amulet and Amulet to have a subsection with UV:L specific differences. Otherwise we're going to end up with a lot of nearly identical articles. In this case 'Lord British's Amulet' has the more desirable title but 'Amulet' has all the good contents. Things would end up more like the Fogsbane article (although I think it needs some cleanup too).
- For NPC Lists I dunno. Maybe something like this? Although the way it is now doesn't bother me too much. -- Fenyx4 23:27, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe if you separate out the Lazarus stuff in the list with a horizontal line? --Polygoncount 04:52, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe something along these lines?--Sega381 05:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Anyway, I support the idea of using Lazarus sections inside the same articles, when possible. And to be consistent with other articles that list information from separate games (such as this one), I'd just name that section "Ultima V: Lazarus". I don't think it's necessary to repeat the article's title in the section ("Fogsbane in Lazarus"), and I think it's too informal just to say "Lazarus" or "In Lazarus"... the proper name is "Ultima V: Lazarus", and it cleary conveys that it has something to do with Ultima V to the reader, so why not just use that? Like this article.--Sega381 05:27, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- I agree "Ultima V: Lazarus" sounds best to me as well. I feel like this should totally be added to a style guide... If only we had one. :) -- Fenyx4 16:22, June 12, 2010 (UTC)
- Yay! I put it in the style guide. Gonna start cleaning these up when I see 'em.
- Would there be any problem with having the banners automatically add the articles to the remake's category? -- Fenyx4 14:28, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Great! What is exactly the remake category? Do you refer, for example, to the "Ultima V: Lazarus" category in the case of that remake? If so, having the banners add the article to such category seems perfect.--Sega381 16:13, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Yup, that's exactly what I mean. :) I'll go ahead and do it. -- Fenyx4 16:20, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- Hrm, what should be the standard for articles that contain information on multiple remakes? Something like Charlotte (U5) or Landon (conjoined sections or separate sections respectively). -- Fenyx4 16:37, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
- On a first thought, I would say that they should be separate. They only reason for having them together would be because there is little information and at looks nicer in one section. But people looking for information may get confused if they only want to know about one remake, or if they want to avoid spoilers on info from other remakes, so I still think having them separate seems to be better.--Sega381 17:22, June 16, 2010 (UTC)