Talk:Decayed
Naming (Scorched/Decayed)
So, where is the list of proper biome names? I thought we were going by the text description when examining a planet via the Nav Console? This type of planet appears to say scorched, not decayed when examined. Blackwood (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2016 (EDT)
Indeed, this is what I was trying to reinforce here over the last few weeks, as it's more helpful to players to use the names they encounter for objects and features in gameplay rather than internal names. I presume Decayed is the internal code name for the biome but it's not used anywhere in gameplay and this could be really confusing for players, which is why I had been using the Scorched title for this biome everywhere it appeared.
Can we remember that not all players are going to be familiar with the console or the internal game code when producing page entries?
Velotican (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2016 (BST)
- Actually the internal name is scorchedcity. Blackwood (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (EDT)
- Then there actually is nowhere that the title Decayed is used in the current game at all so this makes even less sense. At least with the secondary/tertiary biomes they're never actually referred to by name in-game so using the internal names makes sense. I hope this isn't just a nostalgia change because that's even sillier than what I was originally assuming. Velotican (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2016 (BST)
- The only place the word decayed appears is in reference to the Decayed Chest which only appears in scorched biomes.
- Sorry about the confusion here. My referencing for this was internal Chucklefish documentation about biomes. I agree it's super confusing that it says 'scorched' in the nav console, 'scorched city' in the game files and the name is 'decayed' (which I don't believe is actually referenced anywhere outside Decayed Chest). Internally within the studio 'Decayed' was the decided upon name - there are going to be books and such over the next few months about Starbound which reference this biome as 'decayed' -- it's the official name the developers have chosen. I'm sorry I didn't communicate that better, you guys wouldn't have known this through looking at the game - this came straight from Chucklefish.
- The only place the word decayed appears is in reference to the Decayed Chest which only appears in scorched biomes.
- Then there actually is nowhere that the title Decayed is used in the current game at all so this makes even less sense. At least with the secondary/tertiary biomes they're never actually referred to by name in-game so using the internal names makes sense. I hope this isn't just a nostalgia change because that's even sillier than what I was originally assuming. Velotican (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2016 (BST)
- Actually the internal name is scorchedcity. Blackwood (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2016 (EDT)
- I do agree with everyone's points about how confusing it is for players. I setup redirects and am doing a pass to replace links for consistency. There are a couple other examples where names don't match (garden vs lush) but in all cases I'm making page names match the 'official name' as determined by the studio. Any suggestions on how we can make this easier to understand for players/wiki users? Katzeus (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- best thing to do is to make a table with a list of the biome names as given in the wiki combined with your table. Then place that table in the biome talk page. We can use that as the reference for biome names and identify what still needs to be corrected. Perhaps the bottom of the biome page should have the internal name of the biome just as items do. Blackwood (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- Ah, having the internal name at the bottom sounds like a great idea, I'll see about setting that up. Here's the table you were suggesting, we can just all work off this list. I started with just the primary biomes since that's what I'm working on now, feel free to make tables for secondary/underground. If not I can make them quick when I move on to cleaning up those pages after primary ones are done.Katzeus (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- best thing to do is to make a table with a list of the biome names as given in the wiki combined with your table. Then place that table in the biome talk page. We can use that as the reference for biome names and identify what still needs to be corrected. Perhaps the bottom of the biome page should have the internal name of the biome just as items do. Blackwood (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- Here's the full list of FINAL biome names as determined by the studio for reference - they're highlighted yellow. Most match up, but there are a few changes that still need to be put in place for underground mini biomes. I've made a new biome navbox, but haven't saved changes yet because I don't want it to link to a bunch of dead links. Katzeus (talk) 10:52, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- I do agree with everyone's points about how confusing it is for players. I setup redirects and am doing a pass to replace links for consistency. There are a couple other examples where names don't match (garden vs lush) but in all cases I'm making page names match the 'official name' as determined by the studio. Any suggestions on how we can make this easier to understand for players/wiki users? Katzeus (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
Style Guide
Alrighty then!
Generally, I've noticed that across the entire wiki, the styles between pages of the same type can be very inconsistent - before our recent attempt at clearing it up, biome pages were really bad for this.
Imagine having to learn a totally different set of jargon for every item you came across in a game - you'd quickly stop playing. A Style Guide should be linked to from the main index page to make sure all contributors are strongly encouraged to follow the model you outline.
We need a master style guide that users should be following for pages of each type, as this will allow players to more easily navigate and understand the content if the information is always using similar terms and formatting for each page. For example, with the new Unique Weapon page I built, I made sure to use the same terminology on every weapon page it linked to, but I had to compromise almost immediately on the actual descriptive text to stop the paragraphs looking unnatural. I think the only weapon description page that actually looks any good is the Asuterosaberu DX and ideally I'd like everything to be at least as good at this - even that page needs more images and demo GIFs.
On that note, we should also probably be making an effort to make subpages coherent with respect to their index page. I've been working on the Biome page quite a bit recently and whilst I think it's a lot better than before there's still a jarring disconnect between it and the individual biome subpages, including even the terminology used.
Without some sort of style guide to follow, pages will be inconsistent and ultimately unhelpful simply because they have different authors. It's already happening and it needs to be addressed.
Velotican (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2016 (BST)
- Makes sense. We need two pages: Project/Biome Maintenance which will keep track of all efforts to make things consistent and Help:Biome Style Guide which describes how to build a biome page. Any objections User:Velotican or User:Katzeus Blackwood (talk)? 14:54, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- Projects:Biome Maintenance has been created. Basically just a super-long checklist.
- All sounds good to me - though I'd recommend Projects:Biome Maintenance instead - that's the dedicated namespace for projects.
- Makes sense. We need two pages: Project/Biome Maintenance which will keep track of all efforts to make things consistent and Help:Biome Style Guide which describes how to build a biome page. Any objections User:Velotican or User:Katzeus Blackwood (talk)? 14:54, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- I'm not sure a style guide for new biome pages is necessary - we've got a very limited number and after those are cleaned up there won't be any new ones for some time, I think there isn't a ton of value making a guide for people making new pages. My plan with biomes this week was to make/move everything over to the new names and try to finish/uniform the style for the main/planet biomes. Then once that's done I was going to make that section of the main biome page updated and do the same for sub-biomes and finally underground biomes. There's a lot more we can do with biome pages, I just want to get the pages we have looking less crappy and named correctly first. Katzeus (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
- To clarify, a style guide would be as much for maintaining existing pages as it would be for creating new ones. Already 1.1 is looking to reinstate a lot of content cut from 1.0 so there's likely to be a lot of deprecated pages that suddenly become relevant again with that update - if a guide is in place they can be brought up to code quickly without waiting for that one wiki user that knows how to do it from memory realising the page is obsolete and getting the work done. I realise that the Decayed page has gotten the most recent attention because it was the farthest behind in terms of accurate content of all the pages, for example, but it stayed that way for ages after release until the specific biome page expert user came back and put the work in. Velotican (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2016 (BST)
- I'm not sure a style guide for new biome pages is necessary - we've got a very limited number and after those are cleaned up there won't be any new ones for some time, I think there isn't a ton of value making a guide for people making new pages. My plan with biomes this week was to make/move everything over to the new names and try to finish/uniform the style for the main/planet biomes. Then once that's done I was going to make that section of the main biome page updated and do the same for sub-biomes and finally underground biomes. There's a lot more we can do with biome pages, I just want to get the pages we have looking less crappy and named correctly first. Katzeus (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2016 (EDT)
Weather
The Weather page says that Junkstorms were removed. If so, can the weather section on this page be updated to reflect that? --Cadex (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I believe what is now referred to as a "junkstorm" is the wind and occasional garbage that blows almost constantly on the surface of scorched planets. Rl.starbound (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- Right, that makes sense. I was aware of the visual effect, but I didn't know if that is still treated as actual "weather" by the game or not. In any case, I think it would be helpful to note that junkstorms still exist as a visual effect (at least on the Weather page, if not here too). As a new player, I found it a bit confusing when I tried to look up what a Junkstorm involved (after seeing it listed here) only to see that it had been "removed". --Cadex (talk) 10:50, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
