Proposed Addition to Mission Articles Naming Convention

[taosin]

Agge well-pointed out (http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Talk:Leo_Poggiani) that we now have (with the signature story arcs) Story Arcs with the same name from different contacts with different content (which is a new development).

So proposed is: "Story Arc Name (Contact Name) - Mission Name" . I think it works!

A possible amendment to the user guidelines http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Mission_articles might be as follows. Something like this make sense?

Current: All mission articles should go in the Mission namespace. Articles should be named as "Mission:SOURCE - NAME", where SOURCE is the source of mission (explained below) and NAME is the name of the mission (also explained below).

Add: The only exception to this is where a story arc is available from two contacts and has different content. In these cases the articles should be named "Mission:SOURCE (name of contact) - NAME". See below for an example.

...

Add all the rest:

=== Example: Same Story Arc, Different Contacts, Different Content ===

This is seen is the fifth [[Signature Story Arc]]. The arc is named "The Fate of All Men" and is available from Glacia (for heroes) and Leo Poggiani (for Villains). The content of each arc is different.

Missions are currently named as follows (for the villain-side version):
:<nowiki>{{Mission:The_Fate_of_All_Men_(Leo_Poggiani)_-_Part_1:_Investigation}}</nowiki>
:<nowiki>{{Mission:The_Fate_of_All_Men_(Leo_Poggiani)_-_Part_2:_Get_Into_Darrin_Wade's_Lair}}</nowiki>
:<nowiki>{{Mission:The_Fate_of_All_Men_(Leo_Poggiani)_-_Part_3:_Confront_Darrin_Wade}}</nowiki>

[eabrace]

I could agree to that.

Obviously, I hadn't really given that much thought when I entered Glacia's mission text.

[eabrace]

That being said, since you only visit Glacia once during the whole arc, all three parts should be one mission article.

 

[taosin]

That being said, since you only visit Glacia once during the whole arc, all three parts should be one mission article.     

*am laughing at myself*  Fair enough, too. Will munge later, to fix (if not already done...). And re-read the guides   s l o w l y     

The subheadings will be in the one article, yes?

I vaguely recall (maybe mis-recall) a discussion a long time ago that touched on when articles are too long, and should be split up. What's the page size where this starts to be a consideration, if any?

[taosin]

Okay, Glacia, for example, back in one piece.

Query: looking at http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Paragon_Wiki:Mission_articles, I am not sure it copes with the newfangled style of cascading missions with no check-in between each.

Glacia infers a Part One in her briefing (as it is titled 'Part 1: Investigation'), but the flow of the mission never explicitly lives up to that inference.

Looking at the Article Scope: "Each mission article should describe exactly one mission. For the purposes of a mission article, a mission starts when you accept a mission from a contact, continues while an entry for it remains in the Mission Window, and ends when there is no longer an entry for it in the Mission Window." then later 'However, all of those missions are continuations of the first, and the entry in the Mission Window is not removed until you've completed the entire chain. Thus, it is considered a single mission for purposes of mission articles." for example.

With Glacia and SSA6 Blue, we clearly see the primary objective shift three times, and they are no longer in the main window. To me the scope seems to be defining Glacia as three articles, here.
1. Investigate the Blackbeard Bar
2. Access Darrin Wade's Lair
3. Confront Darrin Wade

Since this type of thing never used to happen, reading the scope is telling me it is still a grey area and not explicitly defined (yet) by policy.

I'm not hung up on this, but is considering this to be three articles a closer match (three NAME) to the current Mission Article policy and more closely match the 'typical chunk' we see in a mission?

Oh yeah, quite prepapred to say I am massively off on this one...