Talk:Charr Trail Signs

Just to be clear.

I'd still rather see this page deleted and the ambiguous contents of the book left up for interpretation the same way as the book itself does untill it's been unambiguously confirmed what it is; if that ever happens. As it is right now the page is for the most part repeating what the book says but put under the name "Charr script" instead of the various names the book uses. And before we're fighting for what the actual name is (if it's even any of them and or all under the same name (I mean i only think it's most likely Charr Trail Signs because it's in the item title which sounds the most like a book title and as it's the only thing mentioned twice as it's repeated in the book and because that it are trail signs is the most prevalent.)) i figured the information in it would best be contained on the books page where it originates (although i could live with the books contents split and distributed to where they are likely to belong (as seems to be the case for everything but the numbers already)(Although technically even the cardinals could be different versions of the signs found in grothmar as the scratchings on the tree during the storry only match partially with the text that appears on interaction with it which for me draws the validity of the connection to the signs as used in grothmar into question as they might have only been used to not have to come up with new assets/variants.)) with this article then deleted and the decisions on the ambiguous parts left to the interpretation of readers of the books page untill made unambiguous by lore.

Either way i'd appreciate use of the talk page next time before removing a template that asks for counterpoints on the talkpage so i can elaborate. Nightsky (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

But does the arwork already appear anywhere in the game?

If yes then as already asked for in the edit summary please point me to it. If not then there's no guarantee that the artwork will remain the same untill it's inclusion into the game; if it will even ever be included in the first place. Even if they change one pixels value by a single step for one of the color values the artwork present now would still be inacurate and generally untill it's released something isn't particularily representative of what might be. Also, i don't see how the book mentioning that the charr use seven symbols to represent set values and implying their use as vertical roman numerals matches up with the ten symbols the page currently presents as if they already were a thing, which so far no one did prove. I don't think including something that isn't even in the game yet should be presented as if it were correct how it is found in some "game file". Even if it were correct how would we know without it actually appearing in the game? So please leave the verify's in or remove the artworks alltogether untill they appear in-game and we can safely determine that they look how they look. Nightsky (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)