Forum:We need a consistent depiction of world history

<<< Back to Logical Sector • <<< Back to Forum

The problem with a randomness wiki is that when people make articles on stuff, the un-factuality of it makes all the articles contradict each other. That's why we need our separate history articles to be consistent with each other. I'd like to use this forum to plan it all out. Let's call it the first IllogiProject. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 22:52, 26 Farbleum 2009 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying... ~ ♥ ♠ ♦ ♣ 22:55, 26 Farbleum 2009 (UTC)

I think contradiction genrally adds to the Randomness and Humour of the wiki.

I think the opposite, that consistency adds to the humor. Nonsense is better if it's easy to follow, and contradictions make it confusing. This is why EPICs are held in such high regard; it is because they form a narrative and are therefore easier to picture in the mind. In a contradictory way, that type of nonsense needs to make sense, so that the nonsense is easy to grasp.

Also, maybe we should discuss this on IRC. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 23:20, 26 Farbleum 2009 (UTC)

YAY :D This is gonna be another one of /those/ topics, that drags on for ages, we make some decisions and gets limp-wristed execution. I think what is more important is making articles more accessible, and worthy of reading, rather than faffing about with continuity, but that's just where I stand. :P --Silent Penguin 23:44, 26 Farbleum 2009 (UTC)

SOME WHAT is talking about a nonsensical history that remains consistent across many articles. That wouldn't be a bad thing, except that I don't want to make it against the rules to create articles that contradict our history. But a voluntary "History of the Flat Earth" project that tries to get a general feeling that these articles kind of ought to go together more closely in a vauge, non-limiting sort of way might be in order (or disorder as the case may be) --Nerd42 16:13, 27 Farbleum 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just think that the articles should, for the most part, fit together. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 21:44, 2 Arche 2009 (UTC)

The "facts" in the articles directly contradicting each other isn't a bad thing, but they ought to do so consistently and all should have a standard look and use the same templates. --Nerd42 14:46, 3 Arche 2009 (UTC)

Meh, I don't think it's that big a deal. It would be cool if all our articles described the same "illogiverse" with a consistent history. BUT many articles are stand-alone pieces anyway. It would be a LOT of effort to exert on something that, like I said, doesn't seem like that big an issue. --THE 18:07, 3 Arche 2009 (UTC)

Being me, the nifty T3canolis (did I really use the word nifty?), I propose a solution. "Propose" meaning I'm going to act out on it and pray that people like the idea (which Some WHAT!? will). I am going to make an IllogiBook entitled "The Illogicopedia Book of the History of Space and Time". Great name; huh? Anyhow. When it is made it will be broken into organized chapters and sections everything meticulously fashioned by me. So what do you say? No! --T3

Here ya go: IllogiBooks:The Illogia Book of History and Time and Such. Ahh... Don't you love me? --T3

Compiling it all into one big book doesn't make sense to me. Firstly, if this book is considered the standard for the articles to be consistent with, then the people who edit it will get the most say in how the wiki goes. Secondly, content is more important than consistency. If someone comes up with something brilliant, it shouldn't be undone because it clashes with everything else -- if anything, the other content should be changed to match it. This was brought up on Wikipedia once, and then when certain people started removing new and referenced content because it was inconsistent with what was already there, people made some good points about how bad it was.

The only reason I brought this up was because of one specific problem: I would go in an article and find something awesome that I wanted to know more about, then click the link and find a horrible crappy article describing it as something else. Some WHAT!? (talk) (contribs) (edit count) 19:16, 9 Arche 2009 (UTC)

Well, if a crap article is at the other end, thats fine to change, its just keeping everything consistent in a wiki that is already more fucked up than the fruitcake itself is just rocket surgery. so seriously, if something is bad at the other end, use the wicked idea to make it better. Hell, i think id rather read two different interps of the same thing though that are both awesome, than one that sucks.--Silent PenguinLeave Me Alone 14:48, 10 Arche 2009 (UTC)

I think we should have a more consistent STYLE for history articles. But I don't think we need to have all the articles conform to any specific history as such. --Nerd42 21:35, 15 Arply 2009 (UTC)