From Sanctum Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Some suggestions for the overall structure of a map (description (?)) article[edit source]

Basic/strategic information section split[edit source]

I would recommend to split the descriptive aspects (such as time limits, incoming enemies, resources at certain time, rewards, ...)and the prescriptive ones (such as build/combat strategies)of a map into two main sections. Build and combat strategies are no "hard" facts, but the result of the interpretation (game experience or analysis); Regardless of the legitimacy of such facts in this wiki (different discussion), I would prefer their position after the "hard facts" part for various reasons:

  • First of all the article(s) would look more tidied up (it's actually a mess right now, but still better than nothing) if the pure descriptions of the single waves were in first place and strategies of all kind in the second place. Also, anybody who is only interested in strategies or pure map information could get his specific information in a more compact way, instead of having to scroll through the entire article.
  • As said above, game strategies are the result of interpretation and we all know that interpretation may differ from person to person. To explain one's strategy might result in a wall of text in the one hand (in order to fully understand a strategy, it might be necessary not only to write about the "how", but the "why" as well). In the other hand, there might be more than only one strategy at a time which ultimately leads to success. Even if the strategy descriptions are short, the implementation of multiple strategy descriptions is almost impossible with the current article structure. (Might not be a big problem with the current strategy "concept", though).
  • In this article, there are not always build and combat description for every wave. Regardless of the lack of strategic information, the emptiness between the headline "build/combat strategy" and the next headline makes this article look even worse. Even if there is no strategic information given, at least the negative influence on the visual appearance of the article could be reduced, if these missing information was not bringing disorder into the (hopefully) clearly structured "hard facts" section. -- 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

General issues with the approach of a map (description (?)) article[edit source]

I'm not sure about the approach of such articles. The already edited map articles give some kind of general strategic recommendations for several waves. These recommendations aren't given for every wave, but the headlines exist for every wave. Is there any information missing, or is there just nothing more to say, as the author(s) don't want to point out a certain strategy, but the author(s) forgot to remove the unnecessary headlines? Is there room for specific, detailed strategies? (maybe as a kind of solution (?)) If this post is ever read, or even better, more map articles are written, can anyone set a clear direction. I'm not only asking this as a user of this wiki, but also as possible future author of some articles for this poorly equipped wiki. -- 16:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, anonymous user, and thank you for the suggestions. I will take them into consideration when I have the opportunity to fix up the map pages, and rest assured, they will be fixed. They most definitely are not finished. However, at the moment, the map articles are not my primary concern. I'd like to fix up the enemy and perk pages first. If you or anyone else would like to edit the map pages, please do not hesitate to make an account and edit to your heart's content. This wiki could always use more contributors. --Gongfuren (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2013 (UTC)