Talk:EverQuest/Commands

From StrategyWiki, the free strategy guide and walkthrough wiki

[edit] Wikipedia edit history

15:37, 14 July 2005 Kajolus (→Misc. - veteranrewards)
14:50, 14 July 2005 Kajolus m (→UI)
14:50, 14 July 2005 Kajolus (→UI - various)
14:44, 14 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Status - trader)
14:34, 14 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Combat - discipline command - HELP - wasn't part of the original EQ, right?)
15:03, 11 July 2005 Kajolus (→Communication - autojoin, gsay, ooc...)
14:53, 11 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Combat - whotarget)
12:40, 8 July 2005 Nahallac Silverwinds (Added Category:EverQuest)
09:14, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Misc.)
09:12, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Misc. - movelog)
08:53, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Group)
08:53, 8 July 2005 Kajolus (→Magic - spellset)
08:46, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Status - Charinfo)
08:38, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Group)
08:37, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Communication)
08:36, 8 July 2005 Kajolus (→Communication - reformatted)
08:33, 8 July 2005 Kajolus (→Status)
08:32, 8 July 2005 Kajolus (→Combat - reformatted combat - use as template?)
08:31, 8 July 2005 Kajolus (→Status)
08:28, 8 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Misc. - loot)
01:07, 8 July 2005 Harmil m (→Combat - cleaned up formatting. I've done this section as a suggestion as to how the rest could be re-formatted.)
19:45, 7 July 2005 Nahallac Silverwinds (→Communication)
12:41, 7 July 2005 Nahallac Silverwinds (→Communication - attempted definitions for the various /who commands)
12:20, 7 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Group)
12:19, 7 July 2005 Kajolus m (→Group)
12:07, 7 July 2005 Kajolus (→Status)
08:38, 7 July 2005 Kajolus (→Combat)
08:37, 7 July 2005 Kajolus m
20:57, 6 July 2005 Kajolus m
20:11, 6 July 2005 131.230.133.185 ({{vfd}})
20:06, 6 July 2005 Harmil (I've cleaned this page up, but it really needs to be VfDed (no, I don't mind at all))
16:55, 6 July 2005 Kajolus m (afk, autojoin)
14:58, 6 July 2005 Kajolus
14:50, 6 July 2005 Kajolus

[edit] Wikipedia discussion

Descriptions should be added to every command on this list, so people unfamiliar with the game can see what each command is for :) --Nahallac Silverwinds July 6, 2005 15:21 (UTC)

sure thing, all EQ users here should actually do that (teameffort, right). plus, there are many commands which are also useful and NOT noted here yet. --Kajolus 6 July 2005 20:58 (UTC)

Yes I will help expand it, given some time ..I have lots of things on my "wikidesk" to do :)--Nahallac Silverwinds July 6, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

[edit] VfD

I'm taking the discussion about how encyclopedic this page is or is not here, rather than conduct this conversation on the VfD page, which would make voting difficult.

In response to the question of why this is not encyclopedic, when SoW is... well, that's kind of hard. I guess it comes down to this: SoW is a sort of widely used neologism that refers to any in-game effect that makes one move faster. Because of this, and because "sow pls" is perhaps one of the most often-repeated phrases in EverQuest (well, it was before KEI), SoW is not just the name of an in-game spell, but a sub-cultural catch-phrase that has been widely used for over 5 years.

In contrast, most of the commands in this list are not elements of the culture of EverQuest or MMORPGs in general. A few do have some interesting history and have otherwise influenced the culture of chat in various forms. Those could be used as the starting point for a discussion of the evolution of command structures for MMOGs and chat programs. Examples could include /afk and /tell. But that would be very different from what you have here. -Harmil 6 July 2005 21:31 (UTC)

I fail to see how this article is not encyclopedic given the myriad of other lists that appear in the 'pedia. Its informational and helps to complete the "EverQuest" category. Properly organized and expanded, this could be a good article. --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 01:03 (UTC)

Nahallac, I think you're missing the point when it comes to what is and is not encyclopedic. Here's an easy test: can you do research on the culture, science or history of the topic (EverQuest) without knowing the details presented in the article (e.g. the /exit command)? Sure, the /exit command is a part of EQ, but the water cooler at my office is a part of my company. My company's entry on Wikipedia, however, does not require details on the water cooler.

This is in no way a judgement against the motivation and spirit of contribution that you're showing, just a desire to make sure that Wikipedia, which is already difficult to maintain, does not become cluttered with things that are best covered in a user manual. See w:WP:NOT for more details, and especially, w:WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. -Harmil 7 July 2005 02:56 (UTC)

*frown* ..but, you are right. Perhaps I can later figure out a way to incorporate this into the main EQ article ..or not. I don't know yet. On another note, I see an article on your userpage that I'd like to help save from VfD, I'll comment on your talk page :) --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 03:06 (UTC)

Harmil, yes, you are right. btw, no, I am not insulted at all. I even considered to change my vote to "abtain" too. but hey, let's fight for it :-P seriously, it is trying to call that list encyclopaedic... however, your idea with setting up a project about evolution of command structures is quite intriguing. in the meantime I will continue (as time/mana permits) to provide more detailed infos in regards to the commands, explaining them. PS: thanking you two for the effort and time you spent so far :) --Kajolus 7 July 2005 08:01 (UTC)

Comment: when looking at the commands, I see that they and their use evolved and changed a lot since the release (examples are LFG, invite, makeleader). Harmil, I think your point in regards to evolton is very well put...How do you think we should do that? change the layout/format, or simply add it in the description (as I am currently doing)?--Kajolus 7 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)

[edit] Text Wrap Problem

Ok the definition for some of the commands is so long that instead of wrapping to the next line it just keeps going on straight out to the right. I know there is a way to resolve this but I don't know what it is :) HELP! --Nahallac Silverwinds July 7, 2005 12:44 (UTC)

Harmil, thank you for giving the example. will reformat asap. Nahallac, thank you for posting the help message - I didn't even think about such a thing...--Kajolus 8 July 2005 08:12 (UTC)

[edit] The Nature of An Encyclopedia

It is worth noting that the nature of Encyclopedias has undergone a profound change since the Second World War. I began noticing this as my love of books led me to collect a series of old encyclopedias, more or less complete from variuos used book stores. I ended up with at least one for every decade from 1912 to modern CD format encyclopedias. Looking at these encyclopedias I discovered that the earlier you went the more practical or hands on the information was in one sense. I.E. an encyclopedia was meant to be a practical guide with practical recipes for homemade medicines, homemade explosives, homemade tools, etc. They were meant to be of value to practical farmers living away from the city who had to do everything themselves. After WWII, probably congruent with the shift from a largely rural population to a largely urban population, the practicality of information in encyclopedias diminished remarkably. Instead of telling you how to do things which were obviously someone elses job, they gave general predigested information about the history of things.

Another major difference in the nature of encyclopedias that occurred around WWII, was the change in the emphasis on information. In the 'impractical' section of pre-WWII encyclopedias the major emphasis was on 'Classical' knowledge. They would contain entries for virtually every known major figure in Greece and Rome, major figures in the plays of greek playwrights, etc. In addition there were large numbers of entries for various nobility of Europe, etc. Attention in encyclopedias shifted to more 'modern' affairs.

All in all, post WWII encyclopedias tend to be more pre-digested, more opinionated, and less valuable as research tools than pre WWII encyclopedias. The general impression is that they are written for a public who want to know a little but not to have to think, do, or form their own opinions.

Encyclopedias date back three or four centuries. The oldest that I have been able to obtain a copy of is 'L'Encyclopedie Diderot and D'Alembert'. It is old enough, historically important enough and 'Encyclopedic' enough to plausibly be considered the true forerunner of what we call encyclopedias today. Adam Smith used it as a research tool when researching specialization in the workforce for his book "The Wealth of Nations". It is available in a reproduction at prices between 200 and 300 dollars. I have the reproduction, of course.

It is one of the best illustrated encyclopedias ever produced. Even though it is written in 18th Century French, the illustrations are so good that you can generally tell what is being described in the more practical articles without reading the articles themselves. Any 21st century survivalist should consider it an essential element of his library because it contains such detailed illustration of hunting, farming, mining, fishing, etc. in a barely pre-industrial sociaty. So, it is practical in the way that pre WWII encyclopedias were practical.

On the other hand, are the detailed patterns for the fancy dresses worn by aristocratic French Ladies in the period of Voltaire really practical information? Well that depends on whether you are a modern farmer or a modern movie producer making a costume drama set in the France of Voltaire.

What is practical and impractical depends on the practice being contemplated. If you are practicing law, then articles on law are practical, articles on dressmaking are not. If you are practicing medicine then articles on medicine are practical, articles on dressmaking are not. On the other hand, if you are practicing theater, drama, movies, social history, sociology, class structure studies, etc. articles on dressmaking contain information of great use.

The ostentation shows a measure of the distribution of wealth, the labor intensity of production reflects the cheapness of labor, etc. A sociologist might well be able to write a book based on the article on dressmaking in 'L'Encyclopedie', having nothing to do with dressmaking but dealing with the economic problems which led to the French Revolution.

What is practical and useful information depends on what is being practiced and how that practice is being done. I find it difficult to understand how anyone can say that an article is not encyclopedic.

"WORD HISTORY The word encyclopedia, which to us usually means a large set of books, descends from a phrase that involved coming to grips with the contents of such books. The Greek phrase is enkuklios paideia, made up of enkuklios, “cyclical, periodic, ordinary,” and paideia, “education,” and meaning “general education.” Copyists of Latin manuscripts took this phrase to be a single Greek word, enkuklopaedia, with the same meaning, and this spurious Greek word became the New Latin word encyclopaedia, coming into English with the sense “general course of instruction,” first recorded in 1531. In New Latin the word was chosen as the title of a reference work covering all knowledge. The first such use in English is recorded in 1644." http://www.answers.com/topic/encyclopedia

The above suggests that the word encyclopedic should be historically synonymous with what was once considered an education in the 'Liberal Arts'. I.E. being knowledgable in Literature, History, etc. The kind of an education which was supposed to prepare a member of the upper classes to assume his proper role as a leader in society. As opposed to an education in the practical arts which prepared members of the lower classes to earn a living making things for the members of the upper classes.

An encyclopedia is supposed to contain both practical how to do it information and information of a general nature whose exact practical use is unclear, but which is supposed to increase the maturity and wisdom of the person learning them. Thus history and literature belong in an encyclopedia alongside information on how to mine iron or set up a fishing net.

'L'Encyclopedie' was meant to emphasize the practical, showcase the developing idea of practical, empirical science as proposed by Sir Francis Bacon and developed by Newton in rebellion to some degree against Scholasticism.

Everquest is a secretive game. The idea of a quest is to discover a secret. At least to the makers of EQ. This secretiveness permeates the entire game. There is no game guide that comes with the game which shows what all the commands are or how they work. The list of commands ingame is quite impractical. There are too many of them, not all are listed, they are not self-explanatory. An article which is created by knowledgable EQ players which provides a readily accessible reerence on these commands becomes a useful reference.

Now in a world where games like Everquest are important, and the plays of Euripides are not as important, which information is more practical? An article on the commands in Everquest, or an artical on the plays of Euripides. What is being practiced for more hours by more people? Euripides or Everquest?

In the Encyclopedic tradition where encyclopedias included equal amounts of 'practical' information informing farmers how to blow up tree stumps, lay stone walls, as well as 'impractical' information on Classical plays written by Euripides, the article on Everquest commands falls into the category of timely practical information.

Like the detailed patterns for aristocratic Ladies dresses in 'L'Encyclopedie'. Like those patterns they may well have great value for researchers in the future. Value which we cannot completely predict today. While useful today for EQ gamers who come to this encyclopedia believing it will have information of value to them, it may well be useful in the future to sociologists tracing the early evolution of Virtual Reality. To authors seeking authentic detail for historical novels placed in this period. To movie makers or their future equivalent developing a story about this period.

We cannot know the future with exact detail, and so we cannot say with perfect accuracy what information will be useful then. Is the storage capacity for Wikipedia so small that a factual article describing in detail a certain part of our world today should be excluded?

Paper encyclopedias have to be edited with exactly that in mind? Does Wikipedia?

If not, then I must vote to keep the article on EQ commands.

So, if I read that correctly, it boils down to: trivia can be useful in the right hands.

Ok, I'll buy that, but ultimately, you have to make a choice and decide where to stop. WP needs to be maintainable, and beyond some level of detail, that's impossible. In your comparison between an ancient play and EQ, I would say that an article describing an expansion or a zone in EQ would compare with an ancient play. I could understand an article about, say, the many quests in the Plane of Knowledge, and how they ultimately lead a raiding guild through the Planes of Power expansion and into the Plane of Time. There are people who spent a year of their life figuring that out, and many more who followed in their footsteps. It's useful to understand why they would bother.

However, there's just no reason to need to know the difference between /exit, /quit, and /camp. You simply don't need to know those details. /afk, sure. That's something that has evolved into a neologism from its first use in online chat, and EQs use of it is a notable stage in the growth of its accpetance. You see, there are degrees here, and some commands are notable. But when you select just those 2-5 commands that have some impact, you could just list them in a section of EverQuest, and you're done.

As I've said before, the ultimate test is whether or not you'd find this information useful in a decade or two when writing about the game in terms of culture, science or history. -Harmil 8 July 2005 10:19 (UTC)

You see, there are degrees here, and some commands are notable. But when you select just those 2-5 commands that have some impact, you could just list them in a section of EverQuest, and you're done.

- Yes, thats what I was thinking about doing, then linking a page like EQ Stratics Came Commands at the bottom, or something. In the EverQuest article, this section should follow the section on "List of common EQ abbreviations," although I'd like to be able to link to a parent article =/ --Nahallac Silverwinds July 8, 2005 12:38 (UTC)

hm.., linking to a page like EQ stratics I find questionable. reasons being, (1) not really up to date infos (2) those pages die like flies. one day it's there, next day it's gone and you get a 404 not found. Also, I think that listing all commands ensures, that they are captured. if they change (meaning-use) then we can reflect that here. --Kajolus 15:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)