gogoblender 3,072 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hey guys A bit unsure on this. I'm putting in some links and content, and am wanting to link to good reference info outside of the SacredWiki dbase...if it's a movie I want to link to..where do you think it should go... IMDB or Wikipedia? gogo Link to comment
mr.ioes 0 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 my vote goes for imdb. it has a more interesting layout and presents the cool stuff better. wikipedia is more for in depth info, something I usually don't need. my 2 cents on this! Link to comment
masteff 64 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 And IMDB is (as far as I know) a professional website, where wikipedia is user edited content.... so IMDB is more definitive/reliable. Link to comment
mr.ioes 0 Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 And IMDB is (as far as I know) a professional website, where wikipedia is user edited content.... so IMDB is more definitive/reliable. you won't find wrong movie info on wikipedia, that's for sure. both sites have different content though, I'd say wikipedia has more trivia and things about the movie itself, whereas imdb offers user's opinions, similar movies and a rating. it's a question of informative vs interesting in my opinion. and again: both sites are professional and you won't find wrong information on neither. just saying Link to comment
Ysne58 236 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Can you got with both Gogo? Link to comment
gogoblender 3,072 Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Hey guys I really appreciate all your input on this. Well, I was looking at both the sites. IMDB is mostly pic driven...flashy, punchy, and is easy to digest quickly. Wikipedia is almost pure written content, a huge amount of data that someone can spend a lot of time digesting and informing themselves with..kinda like our own Wiki. Here I'll give you an example of how this journey progresses if we were to use Gold Fingers an ancient James Bond movie as a point of investigation. Gold Finger with IMDB gets us here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058150/ Lots of pix, the aah, of recognition comes quickly...but maybe a little skimpy on details? If we were to link to Wikipedia for Goldfinger... we would then get to this: http://en.wikipedia....nger_%28film%29 Yeah.. oodles of info, lots to digest, and, when you're done reading, probably an amazing find for the reader, and perhaps even something serendipitous that they would not have expected... a pleasant knowledge injection. Our Wiki has so much info, it's the world's largest resource for Sacred. It would be amazing if any site that we choose to recognize as well as embrace by linking to it is perhaps on the same road as we are regarding great documentation and ultimate info sharing? gogo Link to comment
Dragon Brother 619 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Imdb has a lot of info too, it's just not on the first page. It links to reviews, gives rating and warnings about various adult themes and contents. If I'm looking up a movie I use imdb, wiki is just too fact driven I feel. Link to comment
chattius 2,534 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) Being a non english speaker - both have there advantages and disadvantages: Big plus at wiki: Multi-lingual for most movies. Often a movie has a name which is not just a translation in another country: mainly because of a name already in use. For some movies I do not know the english title at all, so at wiki I can just swap to the german page. Add that some movies flopped in europe but were great success in america or the other way around. IMDB has often just reviews from one point of the world. Several american movies are syncronized with a german speech over. To avoid nasty mouth movements: often a not one2one translation is used to fit the word lengths for the different languages. This can be so diffrent that a action movie is synchronized as a comedy in germany: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Persuaders! Read the wiki part about dubbing for germany and why the series was a success in germany while failing in america. Big plus at IMDB: The reviews, as to be exspected: There is never a totally good or totally bad. Edited April 13, 2011 by chattius Link to comment
Silver_fox 397 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 My vote here is for wikipedia. Because when we link a movie, we don't want to advertise for it nor give a reader opinions about how good or bad it is - we want to give our reader some info that can possibly give a reason why this movie was referenced in Sacred. IMDB is a good place to go when you want to choose a movie to watch this evening. But when we link an Easter Egg, we are more interested in giving info than an advice. Also, I agree with chattius - IMDB isn't the best resource for non english speakers. As far as I know, almost nobody from my country visit IMDB, because the reviews almost never tell about the russian version of the movie, and it may be very different from the original, since it has translated texts and different voicing (sometimes it's enough to change the opinion drastically). Link to comment
gogoblender 3,072 Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 . IMDB has often just reviews from one point of the world. Profound. Especially as the Sacred community is hugely international. My vote here is for wikipedia. Because when we link a movie, we don't want to advertise for it nor give a reader opinions about how good or bad it is - we want to give our reader some info that can possibly give a reason why this movie was referenced in Sacred. That and the language reason is almost completely swerving the decision now to stick to Wikipedia. Let's just drag Schot here and we can have a guideline in place for SacredWiki. gogo Link to comment
Silver_fox 397 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Also, I wanted to ask about linking other wikis. For example, Star Wars franchise has a big wiki, which is maintained by fans and contains significantly more info about characters and events than Wikipedia. So maybe it would be more informative to link Star Wars page to the respective wiki instead of Wikipedia. This idea came into my mind when I was writing a page about Warcraft. Wikipedia has only a short general article about the game and gives no clue about the things that were referenced in Sacred, while the respective wiki has a special article for each character and event. Link to comment
gogoblender 3,072 Posted April 13, 2011 Author Share Posted April 13, 2011 Good question How about linking to Wikipedia in our own sacredwiki artricle itself...and then link to additional outside sources like Star Wars Wiki in notes? gogo Link to comment
Ysne58 236 Posted April 16, 2011 Share Posted April 16, 2011 Linking to general wiki and then other wikis in notes sounds like a good plan. The Oblivion wiki even has some articles on some of the mods. On a side note: I'm doing some very active mod testing in Oblivion right now, and therefore not spending much time in Sacred. I will be back though. Link to comment
gogoblender 3,072 Posted April 16, 2011 Author Share Posted April 16, 2011 Good luck with the testing Cathy, and when you figger you need a vacation from that game, don't forget Sacred! The Oblivion Wiki is one of the hottest wiki's around IMO. They were a huge source of inspiration for us when we were starting out and still are. It's definitely got to be one of the largest independent wikis in the world. gogo Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now