On creating a Crimson Dark Wiki David posted in the forum:

'Re: CD Wiki by David on Tue Jan 25, 2011 10:08 pm'
Okay, I've decided to give this a try:
There desn't seem to be any way to edit permissions, so go nuts.

But, how detailed should we be? Spartan, Factual, Detailed, Descriptive, Flamboyant, Speculative ... or ... ???

Its good to have a brief of the webcomic so you can go directly to the pages and read the words/pictures directly. I think some of the fandom wiki docs for SF/Webcomics have too much detail. For example: at the Goblins webcomic forum, I compiled a quick reference forum post, and some suggested this reference be put into the Goblins webcomic wiki - having a deeper look in that Wiki it seemed that there are a bunch of people who have done a lot of work there. Some pages have a lot of effort put into them as though the wiki writers were re-writing the story of the story in the webcomic, and other pages are a bit like a dictionary, here something happened, here something else happened. Much more brief, almost spartan in approach. I would like people to kinda agree on a style.

Hmm - perhaps some specific examples might help.

Goblins : life through their eyes Spartan - My spartan post in Goblins Forum. Detailed - Perhaps too detailed description of [urlhttp://goblinscomic.wikia.com/wiki/The_Goblin_Slayer]Goblin Slayer[/url] in Goblins.

Blakes 7 Concise - "Blakes Seven" in Wikipedia : quite detailed but clean. Detailed - "Roj Blake" entry within Blakes 7 : again quite detailed but speculation is modest, it depicts the facts in the series.

Girl Genius Too detailed IMO - Klaus Wulfenbach

Are there any opinions - do we have opinions? Is there a style of Wiki work which we should work towards? What do we want?

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.