Forum:Decisions regarding Vaporstory
From Vaporstory
There are some things that I think need to be decided regarding where we're going with Vaporstory and Minerva. I say we take a vote. --Wehpudicabok 23:49, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Hi Has found some interesting clauses on http://forum.spamsoft.bz/ in occasion of a raising of a rating the Internet of projects. Whether wished to learn from you really dispatches on e-mail and to forums to lift a rating of the site...
Web Site <a href=http://forum.spamsoft.bz/>http://forum.spamsoft.bz/</a>
Contents |
Time period
We need to decide: in what time period is this encyclopedia being written? Pick a rough region and we'll go with something more precise from that. Sign your name in the year range where you want it to be.
500-1000
1000-2000
2000-3000
3000-5000
5000-10000
- --Wehpudicabok 23:50, 23 February 2007 (EST)
- --Coolaaron88 23:55, 23 February 2007 (EST)
- --Spriekachu 17:19, 24 February 2007 (EST)
This topic has been decided. Voting on it is therefore locked. We would've let it go longer, but Josue didn't even vote.
"yeah i did." ~ Josue
Okay, fine.
The current year is 5507.
Other (specify in your vote)
Details on language
The Vaporstory encyclopedia should be written in one of the languages in its story: that is, we claim that the English we use to write is the same as the spoken language within Minerva. How exactly do we go about doing this? I had thought of saying that English was the "Esperanto" of Minerva, and that as the language was gaining popularity around the world as the project was started, it was unanimously decided that it should be written in the new language, English.
English as Esperanto
- --Wehpudicabok--talk-- 17:31, 25 February 2007 (EST)
- --Coolaaron88 18:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)
- --Spriekachu 17:19, 24 February 2007 (EST)
- For this amazing thing. Oh wait, this is not Uncyclopedia VFH? Who cares!?! Uncyclopedian 21:29, 19 May 2007 (EDT)
How To Go About This
The Problem with (re)creating a world as a whole is that it is impossible for a modern man to think archaically efficiently, So I suggest we do this in a backronym fashion that instead of just randomly creating the past we establish the present and then go back and make a past that could possibly explain it. One reference at a time...and do it by link of the page..."Drawing his plan from the great :WarLink: General :NameLink: and his use of :Weapon/Spell/TacticLink:" --Jaymee 23:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)
- Hmm... I see your point, but I think what we've got going so far can work too, mainly because we haven't put in a tremendous level of detail just yet. I think we'll find ways to sychronize as we go, but I do agree that we should stay a little close to the present for now. That's why we've only been doing general outlines of the past so far. --Wehpudicabok--talk-- 19:02, 2 March 2007 (EST)
