First, a minor point of administrivia that shall be clarified now, as it came up today.
Entry titles that begin with minor articles such as "A", "An", "The" and the like shall have said minor articles disregarded for purposes of alphabetical classification. This means "The Alabaster Fountain" is filed as if it were "Alabaster Fountain, The", making it an "A" article, not a "T" article. This was probably obvious to everyone, but now it's in writing.
Less obvious is that "Falkensburg" shall also be ignored when alphabetizing articles. This is because we are writing about the town, so a large number of things will start with that name. Thus "The Falkensburg Museum of Art" counts as being an "M" article.
Having established that, two questions have come to my attention in the last day, and I'm bringing them here for open discussion.
Item The First: The nature of Lexicon gameplay has players NAMING (but not writing) articles that do not yet exist in the game. Each article you write must link to two other articles (featuring later letters) as references.
Once these articles have been named, they MUST be written before any unnamed articles can be started. This is all fine and well. However, we do have the possible situation of two (or more) players wanting to write the same article. How shall we determine who actually gets to write the article, and who must choose another?
The current thought is that whoever wants an article can simply start the page for it in advance, and simply note that they are calling dibs. First come, first serve. Wikidot's timestamping and edit locks will ensure that we can always tell who go there first.
Is this fine by everyone? Does anyone have a different idea? Also, should there be any kind of limit on how far in advance you can call dibs on an article? Or is any predefined article fair game?
Item the First, Second Verse: Because pre-named articles must be written before new articles can be created, how can we resolve conflicts where nobody is willing to write a predefined article, instead preferring to make one up? Because these articles must be written, we need some way of assigning them to players, even if they would rather not. Any ideas on how to handle this situation?
Item the Second: Shall players be permitted to write more than one article for any given letter? Currently there is no provision for a player writing more than one article per letter. However, some busybodies have expressed interest in doing so.
I'm of the opinion that if a player has completed their articles for the week already, and is caught up on any past stubs, that they may then write ONE new article per week, using a previously completed letter. This means that during the GH turn, said busybody could write an extra article, but only for A through F.
The question is... should we have this? Yes/no?
If yes, how should it be regulated? As above? You have a better idea?
Would "extra credit" articles be subject to the same linking rules (one past, two future?) or some variant on this (no linking requirements... or may only link to existing or named articles, past and future, or something else?)
DISCUSS! Otherwise Boris
will be forced to spank you.