Should put this on the sidebar.
<- Over there, right underneath "Tales"
Edit: SPC articles listed under "Other" why?
GoI Formats / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» GoI Formats
This is the discussion related to the wiki page GoI Formats.
Mainly because the SPC isn't quite considered an "official" Group of Interest.
Making a hub for them should change this if you are so inclined.
I am just glad that my page isn't an orphan anymore.
I very strongly object (though it's a little late) to the idea of putting a separate option for GOI Documents in the sidebar. I know I'm like the only person who thinks GOI Documents are basically tales, but that's not entering into my logic here.
There are not nearly enough GOI documents to justify having their own separate link there. It belongs in the primary navigation node on the tales page. I could be convinced that the tales page with such a link (it already includes a link out to supplements after all) be renamed, but the idea that something with, what 60 or 70 entries? needs its own link is preposterous to me considering how many tales there are. At least canons are themselves hubs that link out to other stories.
Personally, I think it should be at the top under "SCP Library".
There are 82 GOI Format entries at this time, for the record.
Your logic here seems to be "GOI Formats are just tales" which they are very clearly not. They are not tagged as tales. They are not listed on the tale pages. They are not included in the feature category for tales. They are, in fact, not treated as tales in any significant way, and trying to claim that they are tales as a means of justifying not giving them equal exposure is misguided at best and disingenuous at worst. So long as GOI Formats are going to be treated as a separate category alongside SCP Articles and Tales, they should receive the same amount of exposure. Anything else would be unacceptable.
I accept that they're "considered a different category" even if I disagree with your premise. It's how they're classified and that's just how it is. But there's not nearly enough of them to justify equal billing with tales.
And yet the canon page, with all of 23 entries, is fine for equal billing? Sure, you say that because each of those entries is a hub for further content, it's okay, but this page could have been structured as merely links to the hubs of GOI with formats (and in fact, each heading is a link to the respective GOI hub). The fact that it wasn't is mainly due to the fact that not all gois with formats have hubs, and not all formats are listed on their respective hubs (and also because structuring it this way massively increases usability). So that argument doesn't seem to hold water.
Consider also that what you're proposing would continue the previous Catch-22, where GOI Formats didn't get equal billing because there weren't enough of them, but people didn't know they existed (and thus didn't write for them) because they didn't get equal billing.
There are also the precedents of the Explained and Archived SCP lists, which have fewer entries than this but warrant inclusion on the topbar.
I think our disagreement on the fundamental issue is going to make it impossible to bring about any constructive dialogue. In order to think that GOI Formats need special focus for writing over (or perhaps equal to?) tales, you need to think that GOI formats are somehow fundamentally different than tales.
I don't mind that there's a hub page for this. Like supplements, they deserve a hub. However, your default position is "GOI Formats are very special and deserve to be singled out". I have no truck with that position. Putting them in the sidebar is singling them out far more than they deserve to be singled out given their relative rarity.
I'll point out that goi-formats exist on the same level as scp articles and tales. They're considered a separate top level category of document, and have tagging rules in place to reflect that. Goi-format articles can't be tagged as such and also have an scp or tale tag.
So, regardless of what you believe, they are a separate category, and thus would merit inclusion in the sidebar to put them on equal footing. You're entitled to your opinion, not for it to affect anything.
It is belongs somewhere, and sure you could consider them a subset of tales. The prior situation where articles that belonged to groups not listed on the hub and not part of a contest being orphaned was not that, though.
I'm sorry, couldn't what? You just said that you could link this hub in the sidebar, which is what I am saying.
If there are going to be GOIs that aren't on the list (which is fine, it doesn't need to be exhaustive; although there are currently few enough that rate that it could be exhaustive) and GOI hubs that don't list their formats (this one is less sensible to me; I think this is an artifact of the contest and ought to be reexamined), then this hub should be linked somewhere. Otherwise we have orphans.
ETA: When I say that Doctor Cimmerian is correct in that they could be considered tales, I mean semantically as epistolary short stories they logically could be classified as such, as could SCP articles. It wouldn't make much sense to to do so from an organizational standpoint, and I prefer the current scheme, but it isn't logical to say they aren't tales either. Heck, reductio ad absurdum we could just have a list of "Pages" that includes everything, fiction or nonfiction, written on this site. It would be, of course, uselessly broad, but not incorrect.
The hub is linked from every page via the top bar.
Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you!
Yay! That wasn't the case when I last checked, so I posted with outdated information.
So, as some of you may know, I'm the individual responsible for the creation of this hub (both in the sense that I've been perhaps the most vocal advocate for its existence and the fact that I was the one who ended up volunteering to put it together when it became apparent that no one else was going to do so any time soon.) Needless to say, I am infinitely pleased that this is finally on the main site. Thus ends the ignoble era of GOI Format getting ignored. Huzzah.
Thanks to Aiden Eldritch for creating a thread about this on O5, ARD for pushing it through, and Conwell for posting it.
In case it wasn't implicitly understood, this page is under staff purview to edit and maintain as they see fit.
Edit: For those curious about the logic behind the other category, see my answer here.
Its a simple and efficient hub. Gets the job done and should ideally help shed light on an often overlooked chunk of the wiki. Thanks for putting in the work GW.
Other/Unknown
UM EXCUSE YOU, WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS, THANKS >:V
If I remember correctly, there was a discussion on this. If it just said "Shark Punching Center" then that would be that. But if it says "Other/Unknown" it can encourage people to make GOI formats for other non-tagged groups of interest, like the Chicago Spirit.
Maybe the Centre has recovered documents from the Foundation listed under Other/Unknown.
"But, I don't get it. How is this being used to pummel selachian entities?"
Will we be getting MC& D formats as well as chaos insuguency formats? I mean I don't see it as a bad idea just saying be inclusive. Include all the subjects. Serpents hand, are we cool yet, other sects,… If this is done for goi then why not for the others… I wouldn't mind a quick reference for all the sub sects.
The MC&D formats are listed here (http://www.scp-wiki.net/goi-formats#mcd). I don't really understand what you are asking for at all.
Do The Parables of Pseudo-Nadox and Excerpts Regarding St. Sophia merit their own section?
No signature defined.
Looks like both of those are for the Horizon Initiative, so I'd say… probably? I'll nudge some staff about this.
ETA: Those are tagged as tales, so they're technically not GoI formats, so they wouldn't be listed here. Should the Horizon Initiative get a standardized GoI format template, then they'd be added to the list. Thanks GreenWolf for telling me.
Out of curiosity is anyone currently in the process of making a hub for the Shark Punching Center?
This was already tackled at the beginning. They aren't an official GoI, so they don't get their own hub.
(account deleted)This was already tackled at the beginning. They aren't an official GoI, so they don't get their own hub.
That argument holds less water than a bucket with the bottom cut out at this point. No disrespect to the people behind it, but IJAMEA doesn't have an entry on the GOI page, and it has its own hub, backstory, and place in various headcanons. The only reason the SPC doesn't have a hub is because people parrot the argument of 'it's not an official GOI, so it doesn't get a hub'. It's circular logic at its finest.
I agree, honestly. I know the SPC has the wildly-wacky comedic interpretation that was the original impetus and the more grounded and serious yet still absurdist humor interpretation, but I think the SPC are ready for a hub.
Speaking of IJAMEA, it should have a place on the main hub now since it has well more than 5 articles and 3 authors have written for it.
Just making a note that I went through and added the handful of new goi-format articles that were posted but not added to this hub (Sounds of Silver by Taffeta and 'The Dark Web' (DKE79/O2RG5/4JLW6) by DrChandra). I also took the time to go ahead and fix a handful of alphabetization errors that have cropped up.
If you're writing a goi-format, please please please remember to add it to this page (and properly alphabetized too).
With approval from Taffeta, I've updated this page to automate the listings of GOI Formats. Any format with the proper goi-format tag (_prometheus for PL formats, _unusual-incidents-unit for UIU formats, etc…) will now appear here automatically and properly sorted. There's a slight hit to page load time as a result, but nothing intolerable. If it gets to a point where there's enough formats that it's slowing down the page significantly, the modules can be replaced with a bot-updated listing, as is currently done with the tales pages.
/forum/t-2127456/goi-formats#post-
page revision: 2, last edited: 15 Jan 2023 15:06
