Lexicon talk:Outbreak

Before signing up

Ok I haven't realy done/been in a lexicon thing before so thats why I'm asking. Say two people write something on say Zombies, who gets to have their writing up, or are the topics selected before the round begins to avoid this kind of thing? - Jedaz 11:51, 14 April 2006 (BST)

Well, when you start writing your article on whatever, the article will be there. There will be a page with that name. Therefore, if anyone else wants to write that article and goes to that page to do so, they'll see what you've already written, go "oh, poot," and have to find some other article to write. If no one's started writing an article about something yet, it's first-come, first-served, I believe. I expect people will get up at midnight to have first crack at the articles for, say, "Necrotech" or "Zombie" or "Virus." Though I seriously hope whoever gets Necrotech will just write some intereting hint-type stuff and try to preserve its mystery. The fact that we don't even know whether it's good or bad, or whether this is their fault or not, add some serious mystique--and I'd like this Lexicon to become canon, at least the good parts of it.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:27, 14 April 2006 (BST)

A fantastic example of a lexicon game done well is "The toothpaste disaster", based on the PARANOIA roleplaying game. You can find it here - http://paranoia.allenvarney.com/index.cgi/WikiRandomLexiconPage.

The point it to MAKE a story out of something that isn't there. What was happening in the rest of the world when the outbreak happens? Just how big IS Necrotech? We don't know. That's up to the players. -- Tamashii - 13:32, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Question: I know we are only supposed to have two phantom links in all but the last two rounds of entries. But if an item is linked in one article, is it okay to make that same link in another article without counting that towards the two-link requirement? Example: I used NecroTec as one of my first phantom links. In another of the articles, "NecroTec" was mentioned, so I went ahead and linked that but did not count is towards my limit. Okay or not? Camo Hog 03:13, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, good question. Can we have extra citations? It will make later rounds fill up--remember that there can't be more citations to a given round than there will be articles there--but does that mean we shouldn't do it?--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:47, 18 April 2006 (BST)

• In the games I've watched, it's generally been discouraged, but there's no rule against creating more than the prerequisite number of citations. (referencing more is fine (so if it's already there, go nuts), but you should try and create just the amount asked for)
• If someone has already cited it, no, it doesn't count towards your citations, at least during this round. In later rounds, more than one person can cite someone else's entry (so long as they aren't citing themselves!)
• Also remember that you can't make two citations in the same block - they do have to be different blocks...
• If it helps, put down your official citations at the bottom, under a "See Also" line or something - it'll mean that we can see who's dibbed which citations.

-- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 15:30, 18 April 2006 (BST)

Another question: May we write from the point of view of a couple of characters, as opposed to one? I only have civilians-living-in-Malton, as opposed to people in the know or reporters. I feel that being about to glom their collective knowledge is probably my best bet to get much anything useful down. (Curse you, CamoHog! Getting me interested in this in all my extreme n00bdom! XD) Dray 03:53, 17 April 2006 (BST)

I don't see why not. A single character makes it easier to build a "voice", but if you want multiple perspectives as your entries, go right ahead. I'm not entirely sure a character is compulsory, as a note... -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 15:30, 18 April 2006 (BST)

I realize that no new players are permitted to sign up but I would be very interested in being put on a shortlist in case any player leaves for whatever reason. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 06:23, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Also, I'm wondering if any characters are off-limits, such as employees of NecroTech or British Governmental Staff. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 06:32, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I don't believe we've stated anything of the sort - if they could conceivably gain access to a government enquiry (and we've deliberately cast a wide net), they're perfectly allowable. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 11:12, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Maybe a middle-rank government agent vacationing while doing work in Malton with their laptop/cellphone connection which eventually goes dead? Oh, and with regards to the NT character, I would think there would be a great potential for abuse there, so if I choose to write as an employee, I'll not go too 'in-depth' into what I believe the company is doing. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 11:21, 27 April 2006 (BST)

If the other players are amenable, we may consider letting players in the replace any players that have signed up but "not produced the goods" so to speak. You'd have to play fast though - we'd already be two rounds in front... -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 11:12, 27 April 2006 (BST)

If given the chance, and a little bit of time to catch up, I'm confident I could with ease. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 11:19, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Conflicts

reports of conflicting entries go here. please watch this space to ensure that if you conflict, it can be corrected as soon as possible. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Blackmore Building, The / Incipient Infection / Genomic Resequencing

• The Blackmore Building entry establishes that genomic resequencing was "a project aimed to extend the human lifespan". The Genomic Resequencing page alters that into "modify[ing] human genes in order to make the human body heal damage faster". This probably came from Delta Alpha Omega, but it is technically not correct; unless we're living in some freak world where we've discarded all knowledge of modern medicine, becoming Wolverine isn't going to allow us to live to be 150 years old. In fact, it will actually shorten your lifespan, as the body's resources would be used quicker to repair damage. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (BST)

• Genomic Resequencing makes the claim that Delta Alpha Omega was originally subcontracted to NecroTech. The earlier-written Incipient Infection establishes that Abigail Batey was working on genomic resequencing before it was ever taken up by NecroTech. This is internally inconsistent; see below point. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I removed the Genomic Resequencing link in Incipient infection and it seems to "fix" the conflicts..Sorry folks! I linked to the Genomic Resequencing page before it had been written. My Mistake. - Nicks 04:23, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Don't worry about it. I have a plan to fix it. Part of the game is for me to work my story around the ones that you have already created. My edits will be up soon-ish.

Darth Sensitive ^{talk | W!} 04:41, 4 May 2006 (BST)

• In addition, Genomic Resequencing and Incipient Infection somehow link Genomic Resequencing and Abigail Batey; this conflicts internally as it was already established that Dr. Batey was working on Delta Alpha Omega, not Genomic Resequencing. Furthermore, the two projects cannot be the same thing, as Delta Alpha Omega and the first description of genomic resequencing are not mutually inclusive; Delta Alpha Omega is explicitly military, whereas Genomic Resequencing is used "to extend the human lifespan". -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:21, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Dang it. That's my bad. I'll work on it. It seemed to me that the genomic researching and the DAO thing were close enough that they could be offshoots of each other. I like my idea, any ideas on how I can fix it?

Darth Sensitive 01:37, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I feel bad for 'being greedy', but the simplest way to tie in with the whole 'zombie' thing would be to lower the body's nutrient requirement - that would lead to a longer lifespan, and would allow larger-scale regeneration. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:42, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Erm. That doesn't address the "with retroviruses" bit. In a book trilogy detailing the colonization of Mars, DNA is reinjected into them and it allows a longer lifespan somehow - presumeably by reversing the effect of oxidation of the DNA. A retrovirus delivery of the original subject's DNA would presumeably have the same effect, but if the retrovirus delivered a different string of DNA, major problems could occur. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:46, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I'd make a brief note that conflicts aren't that big a deal this early in the game - We can either leave the conflict in there, since clearly some bits of evidence aren't going to fit with other bits of evidence, or we can introduce stuff in later which clarifies the conflict.

My opinion is that people should just relax and, if you find a conflict, think of ways to resolve it nicely, then insert that in later into the game. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 04:48, 4 May 2006 (BST)

• Oh, I'm not being uptight, I'm being very relaxed, Odd. Although this stuff is really in the eye of the beholder. I just put it up there to notify the people involved that it is a bit of an issue, if we're following the rules of the game. We're working through it as I type this. -Wyn ^(talk!) 04:54, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Well, I think I've fixed it. It's now an attempt to extend lifespans in 3rd world countries by reducing the need for food and water. It reveals that Project Sunrise was a humanitarian aid attempt gone wrong, then subsequently covered up.

Darth Sensitive ^{talk | W!} 00:10, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Wow, that's great, and it doesn't conflict with any of the articles linking to Project Sunrise! -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:11, 5 May 2006 (BST)

general tweaks

I've put red links for all the citations made so far in their appropriate round pages--this will help stop us from accidentally making more citations to a round than there can be articles in it. It'll be helpful if you add that yourself when you make a citation from now on. Also, I added the template to the pages made so far.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:07, 18 April 2006 (BST)

GAH!

I swear I was watching the main Lexicon Page for the start of this. I must have missed it, and now I'm too late. Can someone leave a note on my user page in time for the next one?

Thanks, Darth Sensitive 04:20, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Odd Starter said I could probably get in. If I can't, that's fine. I am adding an article though. Let me know if it needs to go.

Thanks, Darth Sensitive 01:32, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Round 2

There's only three red entries for this round. Is that really all we're going to use? - CthulhuFhtagn 20:11, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Just like Round 1, you can make up entirely new topics for an article if you like. But those three phantoms do have to be used, since otherwise some Round 1 articles will have citations that don't lead anywhere. So if a bunch of people make new ones then the last few players will be stuck with writing Exmortis and Fort Whatever-it-was. But act fast and you won't have to.--'STER-Talk-Mod 22:13, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I have noticed that there are 11 people playing however in the first round there are only 9 entrys, I was just wondering what happens with that? Do the two players who didn't make the entrys get kicked or they alowed to continue playing? - Jedaz 10:34, 26 April 2006 (BST)

We'll give them a round's grace. If they've not done their first entry by the end of the round, we'll quietly drop them. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 12:28, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Sounds fair enough to me. - Jedaz 14:25, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Well, it looks like the phantoms have been used, so other people just need to make up their own.

Darth Sensitive 22:57, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Running out of Slots

Unless our two phantom members show up, we are nearly out of slots for certain groups. We are completely out on MNO and we have one remaining on PQRS. Be very careful in adding phantom articles so as not to push these categories over the limit. We can link to already created phantom articles, can't we?

Darth Sensitive 04:31, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, that's allowed.--'STER-Talk-Mod 05:10, 27 April 2006 (BST)

How should I write my articles?

Since I have absolutely no idea how this works, I'm asking you guys. It would seem that these articles need to be written as "guys investigating reports from tattered journals, mysterious text messages and rumors," and not "guy witnessing early days of outbreak, newspaper luckily flew over concrete barricade and was read," yet that's how I'm writing mine, at least the bit about my "Authorities" article. My viewpoint is just that: an unlucky guy who writing for the papers before they completely run out after June, and the articles are the lucky few able to make it over the barricade. That work, or should I change my style? Agent Heroic 06:29, 27 April 2006 (BST)

People are gone!

Okay, the DEF round only got half its submissions. WTF? Where'd everybody go?--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:07, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I made a community announcement. Hopefully that'll help.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:46, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Like I said, 'Ster, give me a day or two to catch up and I'll be more than willing to join. -Wyn ^(talk!) 21:02, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Oh, I thought you already had. Sure, jump right in. You can write three articles in a week, right?--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)

... *raises an eyebrow* If I had the motivation, I could write all of the required articles in a week. And they'd be good quality, too. *grins* -Wyn ^(talk!) 21:18, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I honestly couldn't think of anything for that round. I'm willing to write one as soon as I think of one if you let me. - CthulhuFhtagn 21:20, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but if we let this stagnate I'm fairly sure it'll die. I'd say if you write it before 4 new people sign up you're fine, otherwise...--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:29, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Saw the community announcement, but I'm not exactly sure what you need...the main page seems to state that you don't need/require new members. What's up? --MorthBabid 21:17, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well, we didn't, except half the people who signed up didn't show up. If you join now, there will unfortunately be no ABC slots left, but you can write a DEF and a GHI in place of one of the people who defaulted on their spots.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:23, 1 May 2006 (BST)

With regards to that, 'Ster, which ones do you want me to start working on? All but ABC, I would assume. -Wyn ^(talk!) 21:37, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Weeel, it depends. We had eleven players at the end of round one but only ten articles. we could go with either number, though ten is nice and round. the number of slots I said were open on the main page for this lexicon assumes eleven articles, so feel free to write an abc article if you like. that'd mean we have one more free mno slot too.

Ya know, you could give me a round's grace. I am intending to continue forth, but last week was a murder week with assignments, and simply didn't have the time or effort to write for this. That said, I fully intend to catch up. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:27, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Oh, I expected some people to come back once the announcement reminded them. I didn't mean this to necessarily kick the people out, just to motivate them to come back before someone else snatched up the slots...sorry if I was too forward...--'STER-Talk-Mod 03:22, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I only really know about items that are listed under the "MNO" page, myself. Some of the other listed items don't ring any bells. --MorthBabid 01:25, 3 May 2006 (BST)

You can always make something up. That's kind of the point, in fact.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:34, 3 May 2006 (BST)

There's three articles for Round Three, due in under fourteen hours, just as a reminder to whomever hasn't written their entries yet. -Wyn ^(talk!) 10:02, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Room for one more?

Seems you've got some people who have dropped out. If they don't show up, I want in. If you need to see writing samples, check out Journal:Natick. Just one question: do I need to play as the character of one of the people who have dropped out, or can I make my own? X1M43 03:13, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I also got a message on my talk page from Nicks. I think we should let them in. Do we just tell them to get cracking on an article? On a side note, should we wait a week to get everything caught up? I would be willing to do an extra DEF article if need be, and the week could let everyone get back into it.

Darth Sensitive 03:32, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I've already started on Infection Vectors. - Nicks 03:34, 2 May 2006 (BST)

If you can, I would advise that you do one for DEF. Infection vectors seems like it should be a pretty good topic though.

Darth Sensitive 03:38, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Much obliged. I'm new to this Lexicon thing, and I'm not clear about certain aspects. For instance, it looks like all the "phantom articles" (unwritten articles referred to in prior articles, I presume) were already fleshed out. Should I write a new article in the DEF section, or move to the next phantom article? X1M43 03:59, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Since all the phantom articles in DEF have been fleshed out, you have the freedom to do whatever you like in that section, as long as you citw one previous article and two phantom ones. Go wild!

Darth Sensitive 04:27, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Bob8194

Also - Bob8194 jumped in, though his page needs a bit of work. But if he can fill it out and add links to the lexicon, that would be great.

I think Bob8194 needs to get to know the rules a little better as he has alredy filled in entries for the up coming weeks. - Jedaz 07:45, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I might have screwed up then too...I understood that you had to do a minimum number of phantom links...Am I misunderstanding the rules? - Nicks 21:40, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah, but just phantoms, you don't actually write the article until that round.--'STER-Talk-Mod 21:45, 2 May 2006 (BST)

I would, however, take out a few of the red links. I would go with only 2 or 3 phantoms per article. It just makes everything go smoother. There's also the problem that we have too many phantoms in PQRS.

Darth Sensitive 22:48, 2 May 2006 (BST)

'STER took care of the links in PQRS (thanks). Before I screw this up any more, can someone explain the phantom links creation policy with regards to sections that are already finished (like DEF). I've read the explanation, but for one reason for another, it's just not clicking with me. - Nicks 23:45, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Well, every article (except for ABC, but you aren't doing one of those so we can ignore it here) has to cite at least 2 forward and one back--two phantom links to later rounds, and one to an article already written. You can cite more if you like, but you need at least that many. If you're writing your DEF article, you have to link to at least one of the already-made ABC articles and at least two not-made-yet articles in GHI or JKL or MNO or so on. In round GHI, you have to link to at least one article in ABC or DEF, and at least two in JKL or MNO or PQRS or so on. The problem is, everybody writes exactly one article in each given round. We have eleven players, so once eleven phantom citations are made to a given round, we can't make any more--otherwise when we got to that round, we'd have more articles to write than we'd have people. So we can't afford any more PQRS citations (or actually, I think we may have just one fre slot, but not 3 anyway.)--'STER-Talk-Mod 00:43, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Dropped?

I was pretty sure that I created the Crucifix page, but if you say that it doesn't count, then thats fine with me. --Karlsbad 04:39, 2 May 2006 (BST)

The Replacements

Hey you lot. If you still need replacements for the round after this, I can fill in. - Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear

Seems you've got it covered. Good, I'll shoot for a spot in the next one, and until then entertain me!-Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 04:51, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I guess I'll fill in too. AllStarZ 04:42, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I'm very sketchy on the rules, but I'm a good writer so I'd like to put my hand up to replace the few who left. I'm sure I can more than adequately pick up the idea of it all. --DogSoldier ^JI 11:21, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Outbreak has one slot left, barring any more dropouts. Whoever puts there name in the list first gets the place. We need one more DEF article from this last person, and a few GHI, and then all eleven will be able to write for for all the following rounds.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:49, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Then did someone write two DEF articles? I haven't finished mine yet. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:23, 3 May 2006 (BST)

See this is why I advocated a free form one. This is getting pretty messy. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:24, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Ah, someone now in the game wrote an article. There's also several articles missing references. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:27, 3 May 2006 (BST)

/Me looks self satisfied and smug. --Zaruthustra-Mod 20:28, 3 May 2006 (BST)

As, the problem is x1m43 wrote an article and didn't add himself to the list. i'll put him on. looking at the articles, though, bob obviously didn't bother to read the rules, so i'll get rid of it and take himOFF the list. which still leaves one open spot. zar, shut up </jocular>. free-form would just mean chaos and ever trenchcoater making their own character the hero of the whole business. we can make this work.--'STER-Talk-Mod 20:49, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Speaking of not following the rules, someone has been making articles in rounds that haven't begun yet. Zulu Lab is the one I can remember. - CthulhuFhtagn 20:52, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Even worse, it was a non-player. Should we put in a delete request, or can one of you guys take care of it? -Wyn ^(talk!) 00:12, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Also, Malton (Lexicon) was created, as well. I wish there was some way to protect entries so that only a specific list of people could alter them. -Wyn ^(talk!) 00:28, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I removed the content in Zulu Lab and Malton (Lexicon). If anyone feels that I was in error, I'll put it back. - CthulhuFhtagn 01:48, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Shy of actually deleting the page, that's as good as we're gonna get - I feel it was entirely appropriate and I was contemplating doing the same thing. If someone tries to bring you up on vandalism charges, I'll toss in my two cents worth. -Wyn ^(talk!) 01:50, 4 May 2006 (BST)

(indent reset) I've taken care of them...no one will mind.--'STER-Talk-Mod 04:26, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I also found NecroTech (Lexicon) and blanked it. -Wyn ^(talk!) 04:45, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Caz grabbed the last Lexicon spot, as you can see. -Wyn ^(talk!) 08:06, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Do you guys still need replacements? if so, I'm in, if not you'd best remove the notice on top of the main page.--Vista ^W! 18:41, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry dudes, I'm gonna have to pull out at this point. Suddenly a whole bunch of stuff just became urgent, and I'm not going to have time to keep playing. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 00:47, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Hm...I'm willing to join. Sounds fun. A question though, what does one do in order to sign up to replace a character?--ShadowScope 22:26, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Community Announcement

This is the first I've heard of such a thing, but the idea is intriguing. I am interested in being a replacement if there a space is still available, however I'm still a little hazy as to the rules. From what I gather each competitor writes some backstory for part of the game and they submit it each round. Is this correct and if it is why are there already articles created in rounds yet to come? Kripcat 08:47, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Because some folks are hazy on the rules..  :) - Nicks 19:24, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Userbox

I've created a userbox for all of you who are into that. You can add it with {{OutbreakWriter}}. Tell me what you think.

	CSI
	This user is a Corpse Sentience Investigator.

Darth Sensitive ^{talk | W!} 23:38, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Very nice. X1M43 01:29, 5 May 2006 (BST)

Good work - Jedaz 09:46, 7 May 2006 (BST)

I approve! --William Raker 14:22, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Article-Writing

From the Lexicon rules:

It's an academic sin to cite yourself, you can never cite an entry you've written. Incidentally, once you run out of empty slots, obviously you can only cite the phantom slots.

This means that we're not allowed citing ourselves backwards, but what about forwards? For example, say I write an article. Soandso writes another article, creating a phantom that is directly applicable to an article that I've already written, and I make a quick edit to my article to include it. Is it inappropriate to write an article for that phantom, so long as I don't cite any article that I've written previously? Just curious, because I'm already getting ideas for an article, but it might be unusable.

-Wyn ^(talk!) 12:00, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I'm pretty sure you just aren't allowed to write an article that you've cited, or cite an article you've written, anywhere, ever. We may make an exception, I dunno, but in the original version those're the rules. Going back and removing a citation from an earlier article of yours to make writing that phantom legal might be okay, just so long as you weren't the first person to cite it.--'STER-Talk-Mod 19:36, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I believe the most common interpretation of the rules is that you're not allowed to write an entry you've cited, either. The point of the rule is to ensure that players have to start working on other people's citations and wrap each other's text around each other. This is also a good reason to only have the requisite three citations... -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 02:00, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Earlier rounds

Seems we need more articles for earlier rounds, particularly for the phantoms which have yet to be written. I guess some more people are dropping out without saying anything--or maybe they're just lazy. Do we let those articles go, let new people in, or allow current players to fill in the gaps? X1M43 22:38, 23 May 2006 (BST)

I'd be more than willing to step up and write them.. -Nicks 00:44, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Well, what I did pretty much without asking anyone (sorry) earlier was to move people who hadn't finished their article for a round at the end of the following round to the dropped out seciotn, and put up a community annoucnement for more members. I think we should probably just do that again.--'STER-Talk-Mod 01:43, 24 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry, I haven't had time. I should get mine done tonight. - CthulhuFhtagn 22:18, 24 May 2006 (BST)

After complaining about others falling behind, I seem to be doing the same. The reason: I just moved, and I still haven't got full internet connectivity. Nonetheless, I'm going to try to catch up in the next couple of days. Please don't bump me off the list. X1M43 22:53, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Room for one more? (Again)

I know you guys are on the last legs of Outbreak Lexicon, and I saw that there was one more open slot, so I guess I'm trying to ask if I could join your fun? --ThunderJoe 02:58, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Joining In

To join in on the lexicon in a dropout slot: Write one article in all non-full rounds up to and including the current one, then just continue like a normal player. Once all dropout slots are full again and all the people who fill them have done this, all rounds before the current one ought to be full, in theory.--'STER-Talk-Mod 04:25, 25 May 2006 (BST)

Room for one?

I saw the communiy message, and I have followed this for a while. I think I could make a contribution. If I can't join this one, can I be in on the (yet hypothetical) next Lexicon game? Fora a sample of my writing, see Journal:William Raker --William Raker 09:29, 25 May 2006 (BST)

uhh, wait, I need to write three/four articles to PQRS today?And some for earlier ones later, or what?--William Raker 17:51, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Ok, first entry, Lex Scientific Freedom finished, with refrences to existing, and phantom articles. Am I doing it right?--William Raker 13:02, 28 May 2006 (BST)

New Arkham finished.--William Raker 14:20, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Police Barricades, messed up the title (lexicons)--William Raker 18:57, 28 May 2006 (BST)

Tunnels dug, this round ready, on my part.--William Raker 11:14, 1 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry

I've been a bit swamped with relatives, but I should be able to catch up in a few days and get my next one in. After that, I should be OK until I go on vacation, but I will finish my committments here.

Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 04:30, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Official "I'm finished!" section

My last entry from me; Weapons Division is now officially finished. glory and jubilation. Good game, look forward for more.--William Raker 17:34, 6 June 2006 (BST)

Done. Last entry Underground Labs (Wrong round I know, I'm sorry) If the other articles aren't finished by the end of the week, can we go back and fill them in? juicebarjoseph 00:43, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Providing you don't cite yourself, I don't suppose there's any real reason why not.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 03:46, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I'm ok for most of the unfinished ones except MalTel and Project Sunrise. I think I'll do the last JKL entry myself though. Now for a subject... juicebarjoseph 22:07, 8 June 2006 (BST)

I'm done as well. I've done Warehouses so now I can relax. But it was a bit of a shame for so many people to drop out... - Jedaz 12:47, 8 June 2006 (BST)

Finally done with the Lexicon, specifically Willum's entry. I was thinking of a last hurrah, where I basically roleplay a person on the Committie making a summary of the rpeort and drawing his own conclusions on what really happened, like the Toothpaste Disaster Lexicon. Is that okay?--ShadowScope 15:45, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I was thinking that we should do something similar, but only after the entire thing is done. I also think that we should go back through and edit the earlier articles for clarity and spelling (no content changes). Also make sure that red links which were never finished go away. But the executive summary is what we coul link off the main page and give to Kevan. On another note, would it be possible to protect the articles when they're done?

Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 16:16, 9 June 2006 (BST)

I can handle that last. I think the review thing is a pretty cool idea, and yeah, definitely we want to get Kev to check this stuff out. Maybe it will give him some ideas.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 22:15, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Finished yesterday. Just noticed this section now. The review is a good idea. I look forward to reading it... X1M43 09:16, 11 June 2006 (BST) And I am done! That was enjoyable. I too look forward to reading the review.

Darth Sensitive ^{talk • W!} 10:54, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Looking back, it might be a pretty good idea to do a recheck. I dropped the ball and included links that I shouldn't have...but thankfully, I can remove them and still have my minimum number of links...It's going to take me another day to finish up Yves Koch..I'm going dark with this one..I'm still a little behind because of my recent move, but I hope to have it wrapped up on Tuesday.. Looking - Nicks

Nothing cites Walter Kasey. Why is it there? I checked history, Wyndallin put the link in WXYZ but so far as I can tell he didn't put it in any of his pages...--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 03:21, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Here is the link that had Walter Kasey. Helicopter Crash. I didn't write the article, but I searched the name using the search function and found only this article.--ShadowScope 14:23, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Problem solved. The helicopter crash link was missing the space, which meant it linked to a technically different page.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 21:08, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Are slots still open?

If they are... Zen444 12:16, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Since no one else has responded, the answer is yes—we have room for at least one additional player. Are you familiar with the concept and rules of Lexicon? X1M43 03:16, 14 June 2006 (BST)

Best article?

Might as well put this here to commend people for the Lexicon work. I commend the "General Aaron" article, as that provided inspiration to everyone. Almost everyone hated this mysterious guy that techincally does not exist, and he is claimed to be responsible for everything. He is the one who might lead Ex Mortis, the one who works for NecroTech, the one who closed down the area, the one who suspened the rule...Aaron is a very important figure, more important than even the CEO of NecroTech himself. Hence, thank you whoever wrote General Aaron.--ShadowScope 16:51, 16 June 2006 (BST)

Yeah, everyone just latched on to that. It was a nifty idea. I think Cater Building was clever too, though, in that it kind of set the tone that incident of 3 july and helicopter crash and other important articles followed--of everything happening very quickly, no one knowing quite what was going on, communications shutting down, confusion...--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 20:29, 16 June 2006 (BST)

James November. Love the way it's written, reminds me of survival horror games and films. juicebarjoseph 20:18, 21 June 2006 (BST)

It's hard to pick. Lot's of styles and a range of content. No one is pointing a gun at anyones head for a vote are they? Because I'm in trouble!  :) -Nicks 23:24, 21 June 2006 (BST)

Blanks

What are we going to do about these blank articles? X1M43 22:32, 22 June 2006 (BST)

Well, i think the consensus was we should just go back and fill in any we feel like that don't break the citation rules. i didn't write a WXYZ b/c when i got around to starting, the only unwritten ones had both been cited by me already.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 23:43, 22 June 2006 (BST)

So no one would oppose to me writing a few extra as long as I don't cite myself? Just making sure; I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes. X1M43 01:24, 23 June 2006 (BST)

yeah, that's the idea, i believe. also, i took yves koch.--'STER-Talk-Mod^P! 02:13, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Also, I've found a few rogue articles: Authorities Struggle links to Citizen's Blockade (Lexicon, Defense Research Corp (Lexicon) links to Soldier Survivability System (Lexicon), Fort Creedy (Lexicon) links to Penny Heights (Lexicon) and Miltown (Lexicon), Havercroft (Lexicon) links to Suburb Classification (Lexicon) and Looting (Lexicon), and Hotshot concert (Lexicon) and Lex Scientific Freedom (Lexicon) link to Unethical practices (Lexicon). These articles don't exist and aren't noted on the lists for their respective rounds. I'd also like to note that Yves Koch (Lexicon) has not yet been written, but a former placeholder on the page has turned its link blue.

X1M43 01:57, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry about that..I was starting on Yves Koch (Lexicon) but ended up doing Walter Kasey. I also fixed the DRC link to SSS. When I wrote DRC I figured I would use the Soldier Survivability System..but was a little too slow on the <ENTER> key. - Nicks 21:55, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Since there is a blank in the JLK section, and since there's a rogue article called "Looting," I'm going to make Looting the final phantom in the JLK section. Hope no one objects. I'm not going to write it though; since I'm playing a doctor, I'm trying (with limited success) to stick to topics related to the science of the situation. X1M43 22:08, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Sounds like a good idea. I was gonna fill it in myself, but couldn't think of anything good enough for it. *EDIT* Just realised the looting and suburb classification links came from one of my articles. Sorry, juicebarjoseph 23:03, 23 June 2006 (BST)

Pages used for navigation deleted?

The pages used for navigation are not there anymore. What happened to them? How can I access the articles now? --Abi79 ^AB 18:15, 25 June 2006 (BST) Edit: I found how to access them, but I'm still curious what happened to the ABC DEF etc. pages.

Fixed the main lexicon page. The problem was caused by moving of The Urban Dead Wiki namespace to UDWiki namespace. Or in other words, all the links broke. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 18:20, 25 June 2006 (BST)

Final Analysis

I've taken the liberty of compiling all of what we've written so far into as close a coherent whole as I can make it. I jump to a lot of conclusions, but I honestly think most of them are justified. If you still want to write an article and don't want these "spoilers" to influence you, you don't have to read this. Just write your articles and I'll (grudgingly) try to incorporate them into this analysis.

In fact, I hope this inspires some of you slackers to finish up the remaining articles.

Also, I encourage/welcome/crave comments on my Talk page about all this. Think I missed something? Think I got something wrong? Think I got something right? For the love of pie, let me know. X1M43 09:45, 31 July 2006 (BST)

You did a fantastic job of pulling the whole thing together!! Great work!! - Nicks 15:07, 31 July 2006 (BST)

*Tear*

It's *still* not done hey? Maybe I should get off my bum and do it... but it's just such a pain to keep going. Hmm... well it looks like only the Zombie plague article is left to do, and apparently there is one in progress... I might get onto it, but it's a bit of a shame that we never really finished this... - Jedaz - 01:46/22/12/2024 05:38, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah - my try about a month ago got some done, but not enough. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:47, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah, well I wish that people had stuck with it throughout the whole thing, I got all of my articles done so I was happy. - Jedaz - 01:46/22/12/2024 05:49, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Same here - I might have gotten a slight bit behind, but I got them done. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 05:50, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Terminal phase (Lexicon) still needs to be done as well. And not only did I do all of my pages, I did some others, and then I put the whole thing together as well, so I'm kinda disappointed that it's taking so long too.

Ok...I've finished mine...but I just can't get around to bopping off some of the left-overs, but I'll knock one off this week. - Nicks 03:56, 21 October 2006 (BST)

Status?

What's the status on this? Are we continuing with the Lexicons? Curious, here. Daniel Hicken 01:53, 21 October 2006 (BST)