Talk:Constructed world

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Merge with Worldbuilding

Whoever put the proposal in didn't start a talk section on it. I support the change-- though since noone including the proposer have talked about it since august, maybe the point is moot anyway.

Wellspring 19:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Suppoerting merge also. Both articles are completely OR and uncited, but this one is far more extensive, so worldbiulding should be a redirect to here.Yobmod (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a merge as well. --Brandon (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I also support the merge. However, since "constructed world" is the less used term, this should be merged to Worldbuilding. I never heard the term "constructed world" used for worldbuilding outside Wikipedia, and a glance at the Google results shows that it is not commonly used for worldbuilding. Goldfritha (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Where "constructed world" is used outside wikipedia, it is more often in the sense of constructivism. It's use for fictional world building almost seems like a neologism, whereas "world building" (in this sense) has been around since at least the 1970s.—RJH (talk) 14:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citation?

Can I point out that this article has absolutely no citation. Neither is there anything in the text to explain the source of the terminology it describes and uses. In short, there is absolutely nothing on this page to demonstrate that the terminology which is the subject of the article, is anything except the personal contrivance of the author or authors - and therefore in any way valid. I'm not discrediting the validity of the information, only pointing out taht it does absolutely nothing to verify itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.217.231.252 (talk • contribs)

There used to be external links to several amateur conworlds. Those links have been removed, and now there are dead internal links to non-existent Wikipedia articles about those amateur conworlds.

I don't think any of these amateur conworlds deserve Wikipedia articles, but why remove the external links? Was it done by accident?

If no one objects, I'll remove the nonexistent article links and add back the external links. --Jim Henry 22:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you, that sounds reasonable (I am on the way to translate this article to the german wikipedia and will do this in the same way there) -- Gomeck 18:35, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've restored the lost links and added one more (the Ferochromon -- it has some seriously weird physics, the best amateur attempt I've seen at a world with different basic physics than ours). There's more detail about the physics in this list mail message than on the web page, but I'm not sure I should add two external links for one conworld. --Jim Henry | Talk 16:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with fictional universe?

already the intro says it, "a constructed world is a fictional world". "world" and "universe" in this context are synonyms, and there is no intrinsic difference. dab (ᛏ) 10:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure it is a good idea to merge them. The focuses of the articles and their topics are slightly different. In fictional universe the term "fictional" means "used in narrative fiction"; in this article the term "fictional" means "made up, imaginary". One article is about worlds that are made up as background for stories; the other article is about the process of making up worlds for any purpose, not just as background for stories. The material from this article about map making and professional vs. amateur constructed worlds would be out of place in the other article without some major rework. --Jim Henry | Talk 15:55, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Agreed; oppose merge. — JEREMY 10:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The difference: in this article "world" has a fairly narrow meaning (a planet, its ecology, and its cultures), while fictional universe uses a much broader meaning. A fictional universe may be built around a large number of constructed worlds. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
If I understand this right (unlikely), fictional universes are ad hoc creations for use in books, comics, what have you, whereas conworlds can be ends in themselves. --Kizor 08:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
Do not merge, these things are different. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I also oppose a merge. Conworlds are often created as ends in and of themselves; fictional universes tend to be created as a backdrop for a story. (In other words, I agree with Kizor.) Jiawen 21:45, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
I am with you - I oppose the merge. And sorry my name doesn't show up - wiki wont let me login. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.198.77 (talk) 20:25, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Professional Created Worlds

On the first sentence, is mentioning Ethshar really appropriate since it is mentioned in the next paragraph? The first paragraph seems to only be about Middle-Earth and J.R.R. Tolkien, so the mention of this world throws everything off, unless that world is to be compared to Middle-Earth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.42.155.5 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Conreligion

Needs to be included.Jeff503 00:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what does THIS mean?

"Authors typically revise constructed worlds to complete a single work in a series."—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.204.87 (talk • contribs)

[edit] map making

Shouldn't it be sapient(wise or trying to appear wise) settlements rather than sentient (ability to feel)?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.23.56.68 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Tolkien

There are little or no scholarly works concerning conworlding. It sounds to me like most of the references about Tolkien and Sub Creation come from his essay, "On Fairy-Stories" which may be found online.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Rewrite

There is enough good content here that I'd like to propose a total rewrite. I've already subdivided and expanded the article into sections, but a front-to-back rewrite would help alot if it's planned in advance.

My todo list is to make a new structure, convert the existing material to that strucuture, and then add source citations. I agree with —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.238.73.35 (talk • contribs) that there is little scholarly material available; however, there is some good material on the web that can be cited. Winchell Chung has some credentials on the cosmology side and is extremely well-regarded. Geoff Eddyis an amateur but his site is widely linked and well-received. While I'd support academic links in preference to amateur or commercial links, when such are unavailable we have to use what is available just like any other article as long as it is reliable.

  • Purpose (RPG vs conventional fiction vs world-building for its own sake)
  • Approaches
    • Top-down vs bottom-up. Emergent worlds (worlds designed retroactively as part of a shared creative universe or in response to accretion of sequels). RPG worlds
  • Methodology
    • Cosmology
    • Magic / Natural Law
    • Physical Geography
    • Climate
    • Ecology
    • Human Geography
    • Language and Culture
    • Names
  • Constructed Worlds in fiction
    • Fantasy
    • Science Fiction
    • Roleplaying Games
    • Conworlds as Art
  • Criticism (there are some good critiques of conworlding we can reference)
  • Resources
    • Conworlds in fiction
    • Sample Conworlds
    • World Construction Techniques

This is alot to do in one sitting and I'd rather have buy-in before I proceed. Any objections? Or suggestions?

Wellspring 14:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest changing "Human geography" to something like "Social geography" or "Political grography" as the native population may not necessarily be human.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novelas

Hello, Wikipedia's contributors. I am Mighty Erick, a conworlder from Wikia. Just to inform the section division of conworlding in Novelas is not working anymore. You can ask to the administrators there to confirm it. At this moment only ConWorlds Wiki and Imagination Wiki (fantasy conworlds only) are working on worldbuilding, so I will update that info at this page.

Any question you can talk us at:

Serpex, current admin of Novelas: http://fiction.wikia.com/wiki/User:Serprex/Miscellaneous

Yanus, admin of ConWorlds Wiki: http://conworld.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Yanus

Mighty Erick (me), current admin of Imagination: http://conmyth.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Mightyerick

I hope this info would be useful. Thanks for your collaboration.Mightyerick (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Links Section?

It seems to me that there is a lot of "advertising," and not very much in the way of resourceful links in this section, other than a few. Perhaps we should discuss these links and trim down a bit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishmayl (talk • contribs) 01:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The links section should not just be an advertisement for your favorite (or personal) sites. There are several links in this section that lead to new pages, or pages that really don't have to do with ConWorlding so much as they do generic role playing. I see probably 3 on the list that should really stay. --70.63.69.116 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Edited to remove superfluous links. Please make sure you look at links to be avoided before adding tons of links. Personal sites, wikia sites with little or no content, pages specifically catering to gaming and not conworlding, are against wikipedia's rules for external links. Several of the sites removed were nothing more than advertisements for personal sites, and several links led to dead sites, or spam sites. --WormShade (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
We could probably remove any of the external links with the work "community", "discussion" or "forum". Conversely, we could add the DMoz World Building link as I think that site has at least a modicum of editorial control. Here's a few more suggestions:
Thanks.—RJH (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't know why "community," "discussion," or "forum" would be criteria for deleting links? --Brandon (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:External links: Links normally to be avoided, #10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace or Fan sites), discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.—RJH (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No content?

The links to Wikia Conworlding Communities were wrongly deleted. Those wikias are not personal nor wikia sites with no content, they are big communities, you can look at them and you will find over 60 persons working right there, Conworld has 1900 articles, Pegasus has 800 articles and Basilicus has over 400 articles, it is one of the bigger conworlding communities and one of the biggest collections of conworlds on the web. Please look out before deleting stuff!!! Those wikis are the center of a loooot of conworlding. Furthermore, I did not add tons of links, I just correct the Novelas one (Novelas is not conworlding anymore, that link was since a lot of time ago) replacing it with its current replacements Conmyth and Conworld. Look at them, they are not about generic role playing, they are about pure conworlding.

But I know it may be wrong that I, being involved on that giant project, added it by myself. If any external person wants to add those three links back, thanks a lot!!! Please look them out!! They are big!!!! Mightyerick (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's possible some of those edits were removed without due consideration. Mightyerick, which links are you referring to, I'll look at them and add them back if they look to be content-worthy. In actuality, I doubt anyone will mind you just adding them yourself, but some people do get a bit up in arms about that. --Brandon (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, I do see that an extremely large majority of your edits are links to your own personal sites - I don't believe this is generally considered acceptable procedure for adding links... --Brandon (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The size of the community is irrelevant. Discussion forums just aren't appropriate for external links. See Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided.—RJH (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)