[highwayman]

I know the Wiki lists a bunch of these and groups them by era (FS1, reconstruction, FS2, post-Cappella), but I was wondering if anyone out there has made an actual chronological list of the user-made campaigns? Just curious.

Thanks.

[Jeff Vader]

I do remember someone compiling such a list. Try to search the forums, I'm sure the thread is here somewhere.

Edit: Here's some relevant ****.

[highwayman]

I do remember someone compiling such a list. Try to search the forums, I'm sure the thread is here somewhere.

Edit: Here's some relevant ****.

Cool, that's what I was looking for. I realize that a lot of the campaigns don't have much to do with each other, but I like trying to do things in order anyway, even if it's arbitrary.

[Narwhal]

Tried to to this on the wiki : http://www.hard-light.net/wiki/index.php/Campaign_Continuities

Actually, by the end of it it proved useless for Reconstruction and post Capella era. As for GW II, I only tried to separate 2366 (first battles against NTF) and 2367.

[Vidmaster]

remember that (for FS2) most fredders made their own thing, so many campaigns contradict others.

[NGTM-1R]

remember that (for FS2) most fredders made their own thing, so many campaigns contradict others.

*pats on the head*

You're about two weeks late to the discussion.

[Goober5000]

*pats on the head*

You're about two weeks late to the discussion.

Don't be so condescending.  Not everybody wants, or has time, to keep track of every aspect of HLP all the time.

Heck, I was jumped on for being only two days late to the discussion.

[NGTM-1R]

Don't be so condescending.  Not everybody wants, or has time, to keep track of every aspect of HLP all the time.

Heck, I was jumped on for being only two days late to the discussion.

I'm sorry, but I think that if you actually, y'know, gave someone credit for a modicium of intelligence, you might realize that they would have anticipated that. Instead of thinking they're a total friggin' moron.

Merely posting such a basic dilemma with this issue, when work on it was already clearly at an advanced stage, was either condescending or you didn't at all bother to look at what was done. In case one, I am replying in kind. In case two, tell me why the hell I shouldn't be condescending to someone who clearly hasn't even bothered to look at what's being done and thinks they have some kind of earth-shattering revelation about it?

[Goober5000]

The amount of work somebody has done on a wiki page should never dictate whether it's worthwhile to include.  Pages must be judged on merit, not on quantity of information.  When ITA Master started adding his ideas and campaign concepts, we didn't let them remain based on the amount of thought and effort put into them; we reverted them.  We don't declare the Shivan Manifesto to be canon based on the fact that it's long, comprehensive, and well-written; we include a prominent disclaimer.  And we don't declare a controversial subject settled simply because somebody created a submarine page on the wiki that only surfaced on the forum nine days later.

I voiced my objection on the forum the same day (not two days later as I mistakenly stated above) that Narwhal posted his thread.  That's certainly within the realm of timely debate, especially given that we don't consider a thread "necro'd" until one month after the last post.  As for the wiki, Snail voiced his own objections on the Discussion page the same day that Narwhal created his list, and you told him that it was "a bit late" to object to them.

So in both venues you declared the matter "settled" almost immediately after it was proposed.  And now you're doing it again to Vidmaster.  I noticed you displayed the same kind of condescension when Zarathud showed up to defend his Battle of Endor Syndrome article.  At least WMCoolmon -- even though he and I strongly disagree on this -- had the integrity to acknowledge that it was a controversial subject, and defended his position very capably.  You on the other hand seem to favor shouting down the opposing viewpoint.

[NGTM-1R]

The amount of work somebody has done on a wiki page should never dictate whether it's worthwhile to include.  Pages must be judged on merit, not on quantity of information.  When ITA Master started adding his ideas and campaign concepts, we didn't let them remain based on the amount of thought and effort put into them; we reverted them.  We don't declare the Shivan Manifesto to be canon based on the fact that it's long, comprehensive, and well-written; we include a prominent disclaimer.  And we don't declare a controversial subject settled simply because somebody created a submarine page on the wiki that only surfaced on the forum nine days later.

That's funny. It's not at all what I'm arguing here. Perhaps I wasn't clearly communicating, so I'll try again. But before we get to that, I'd like to point out the non sequitor cropping up twice, as those situations are hardly comparable.

If one bothers to consider that work on it is clearly at an advanced stage, actually looked at the page and noted that some campaigns have been seperated out into their own continuities, and finally and most importantly noted that the various regular editors of the wiki (including yourself) have either been involved in its creation or tactly allowed it to continue, it might occur to you that such a simple, fundemental objection has probably already been dealt with. Rather than assuming that all of those people involved in it so far are morons and that something so simple hasn't occurred to them. A simple glance at the talk page ought to have been enough to let you know that this was being actively monitored rather than allowed to slip through the cracks.

(For that matter, has the wiki group ever had something slip through the cracks? It's not a big wiki.)

I voiced my objection on the forum the same day (not two days later as I mistakenly stated above) that Narwhal posted his thread.  That's certainly within the realm of timely debate, especially given that we don't consider a thread "necro'd" until one month after the last post.  As for the wiki, Snail voiced his own objections on the Discussion page the same day that Narwhal created his list, and you told him that it was "a bit late" to object to them.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,55605.0.html Sorry, you missed the first time through.

As for Snail, I was pointing out that we already had them arranged by era, which is rough chronological order anyways; objecting to chronological order at all isn't a sustainable posistion from that viewpoint. If you don't want them in chronological order at all you might as well alphabetize them all and present them that way, if you don't like them being presented as in the same continuity then you should abolish campaign list pages altogether or something equally radical. I wasn't telling Snail it was settled, I was telling him if he was going to object to it he needed a different argument. You should know this, and in fact I suspect you do know this, you merely found it convenient to twist my words for an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you were just seeing what you wanted to see instead, but that's not exactly an improvement.

So in both venues you declared the matter "settled" almost immediately after it was proposed.  And now you're doing it again to Vidmaster.  I noticed you displayed the same kind of condescension when Zarathud showed up to defend his Battle of Endor Syndrome article.  At least WMCoolmon -- even though he and I strongly disagree on this -- had the integrity to acknowledge that it was a controversial subject, and defended his position very capably.  You on the other hand seem to favor shouting down the opposing viewpoint.

I expected better of you, Goober. A cheap ad hominem isn't really the kind of behavior one likes to see out of an admin. Am I telling Vidmaster it's settled? No, I'm telling him he shouldn't be wandering in here like he's got some dramatic revelation when it's actually very simplistic and a cursory glance at what's going on ought to reveal that the combined brainpower at work is more than sufficent to anticipate such a problem.

If Vid had come in here with "You have considered most post-FS2 campaigns don't really tie into each other, right?" that would have drawn a much more charitible response. But he made a blanket pronouncement that in effect called into question the intelligence of everyone who edits the wiki, so I'm not inclined to be charitible at all.

[Snail]

*phew*

I got some flak my way but no AAA. That's cool...

[Goober5000]

[...]

Well, y'know, your entire argument is countered by one simple fact:

Grouping the campaigns by era is not the same thing as arranging them by date.

The former is a valid grouping because every single campaign broadly falls into those five categories.  They pretty much have to, if they're FreeSpace campaigns.  The latter is a completely different concept.  As I've said before, a campaign ordering does not make sense because no such ordering exists.  The vast majority of campaigns cannot take place "before" or "after" an arbitrary non-canon campaign because they don't take place within the same continuity.

http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,55605.0.html Sorry, you missed the first time through.

Actually, no, I didn't.  Because in that thread, he was talking about merging the pages.  Not arranging every single campaign by date.  (He even said "I am not trying to give a chronological order".)

[Al Tarket]

arguments aside, can or will they be grouped by date of creation and/or in game year set?

simple yes or no will do. after reading your bashing one another over a trivial matter which isn't worth the time or effort, i got confused along the way anyhow.

i always wondered about such a thing, user made campaigns on this site.

[Narwhal]

As a matter of fact, Goober, I gave up the idea of grouping them chronologically with the exception of GW Era. I tried to group by continuity some post-Capella era when possible. I tried to divide GW II between '66 and '67, but I am not satisfied with the result, and I tried to divide immediate post Capella and other post Capella, and I am not satisfied either with the result as of now.

But you know all this.

[Goober5000]

Well, I hadn't looked at the campaign list in a few days, but I like it better now.

Would it be okay if we created a separate page dedicated strictly toward maintaining a Great War timeline?  That way, we could alphabetize the Great War section on your page and designate it as the official Campaign List.

[Narwhal]

It would be ok that way. But there is also the campaign continuity thing. I'd like to keep campaign that are together... well... together.

So we could have an alphabetical order there, except for the "continuities" which are put together at the end of the relevant era, between themselves in chronological. In this case I would put the Orpheus GW campaigns together in the GW as a continuity, and alphabetical for all the other.

Then I ll get a chronological order on another page for GW1
For the "Total conversion", the order is by completion. I put the completed on the top of it.

The way the list is presented has not changed since you tried to alphabetise it and then reverted. I only added about 8 campaigns since then.

[TrashMan]

What's wrong with the current campaing order?
Every campaign set in the FS universe HAS to take place either before or after some established canon events.

Thus the pre-GW, GW, reconstruction, NTF rebellion, second GW, Capella, post-Capella all sounbd fine as categories. Do we even need more categories?

[WMCoolmon]

Rather than keep continuities together, you could delineate them with a project icon:

Either that or have a column that's basically a colored square, and use different colors for different continuities.

[Narwhal]

It's a great idea, but that would mean we would need these icons for all the different continuities, and there are a lot of "two campaigns continuities". So we would have to make them ourselves.

Moreover, I think there is a clear order in the continuities (take Blueplanet, for instance, or Orpheus GW campaigns - Inferno might be an exception) and this would not enable to have a "continuity order"

Still well thought, and could be used on the "alphabetical list" if there were to be two lists.

[WMCoolmon]

For an instance like Inferno, it's confusing to have Sol: A History separate, but it's also confusing to have it a part of the continuity section because it comes after most or all of the rest of the stuff there. That's chiefly why I'm trying to find an alternate solution.