User talk:Alt Melis

Problems with Antarctic Superposition

Per our discussion on hard limits to linking in the Discussion Group, please choose two of the 4 phantom links you chose and restructure your article to suit. You may have as many external links to other references as you like, however. Thanks! -Otter Jenkins 08:32, 30 August 2012 (PDT)

Aren't the limits on creation of new phantom links? That's what the question that started that discussion thread was actually asking. The two beneath the dividing line are both ones created by other authors in other articles from the round. (I could delete the secondary references in the 'Phantom Links' subsection if that section is meant to only be the ones created by the article, to match Asynchronous co-terminiality, the first other article I could find that included references to other players' phantoms.

I mean, I could take out the older-articles links entirely, leaving the text unchanged, and that would seem to fit the rule as you're applying it without problem, but I don't see any sense in which that would improve the quality of the final document. Alt Melis 09:19, 30 August 2012 (PDT)

You know what? I'm don't really have a horse in the race except that I want to make a decision everyone can live with, so we're all playing with the same rules.

There's been a fair bit of discussion about it in the Google Discussion Group, so I urge you to go and contribute to the discussion (no matter how final I make the decision sound - I know I have a tendency to do that). I am okay with either method: either linking to just two phantoms no matter what (not making a distinction between pre-existing or not) or being limited to linking to two new phantoms and being allowed to link to as many pre-existing, already-linked phantoms as you want. Or heck, even being able to back-link to as many existing already-written articles as you want.

The only difference I think you'll see is that being allowed to link to as many pre-existing phantoms as you want and/or as many existing articles as you want is likely to bring us to convergence into one narrative faster than if we were limited strictly to the most conservative interpretation as possible. That and the more links there are to track, check and verify, the more complicated the job is for the GM(s).

But I want youse guys, the players, to figure out what you want to do and all play by the same rules. I'm going to copy this to the discussion list too. It bothers me that there's no clear answer and I can't figure out how important this is to youse guys. -Otter Jenkins 16:06, 5 September 2012 (PDT)

OK, mind changed. Please see the new rules and notes either on the Main Page or in the Discussion Group. -Otter Jenkins 07:06, 6 September 2012 (PDT)