Talk:Koda

Sorry I had to make it so short, but urgent matters have popped up and didn't want to waste the time I spent getting the formatting down. Eive 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's not that much which is relevant to the god itself, unfortunately, so it'll be remaining short. The rest in the section which mentions Koda should go on the kodan page (which I will do shortly). -- Konig/talk 06:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Gender

I read the article fairly closely, but may have missed it. But where is Koda referred to as a he? -- aspectacle  10:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparently when I had read the part about bear being the first to speak, I saw the repeated "he" and assumed Koda was male. I never looked over that, due to me having to leave for a bit. Anyways, do you have a better pronoun for us to use, or a way to keep the article gender-neutral? Eive 10:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Na - I've just seen the confirmation. First paragraph of the Voice section "The Voice is a spiritualist, chosen for their innate, deep connection to Koda and their understanding of his will." Talk about having to read every word three times over... -- aspectacle  10:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"He" is more than just a pronoun used for males. Like "guy" and "man," "he" is also a generic term used to denote a being who's gender is unknown - rather than "it" which sounds more like discussing an object. Though this is more of a cultural thing rather than a correct use of the terms. -- Konig/talk 13:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It would suit Koda better if he would be female IMO. The god reminds me of the traditional EarthMother goddess. Nohjo 22:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I too thought Koda was a female, as the Earthmother goddess. --98.23.52.110 14:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Voice is a spiritualist, chosen for their innate, deep connection to Koda and their understanding of his will." Koda has "his will" therefore male. "He" "man" and "guy" may be used as gender-ambiguous, but "his" typically is not. -- Konig/talk 21:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Quote

As I originally made the article, and apparently Konig agrees with me, I wanted this to look like the 6 God pages. The quote at the beginning of the article is extremely similar to the Scriptures of the God pages, as I meant for it to. Eive 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to shorten the quotes on the other god's pages if you like consistency. The shorter quote is also consistent with many of the other parts of the wiki which use the shorter quotes.

Aside from consistency I think the shorter quotes are a good idea because I can read them easily before getting to the part of the article I'm actually interested in. With the longer quotes I end up reading 900 words and I'm no closer to really knowing who or what Koda (for example) is. Also by using shorter quotes I hope we will be less reliant on lore quotes to provide information to readers and encourage contributors to write words which summarise and present all information on a topic in a more easily digested format. -- aspectacle  02:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the quotes are simply "decoration" for the articles. While, of course, you don't have to read the quote, as it doesn't provide much information, it is nice to have that little bit of "history" right there in front of you, and helps to characterize these gods. To shorten them would be to make them completely worthless, providing no information, and no insight. But oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for more people to comment before we get any consensus on this. Eive 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think the quotes, large or small, were ever intended to provide information to the reader but simply mimic/copy the main gw2 sites lead in quotes to provide a flavour to the article. I think the small quotes work well here because it breaks up the formality of how information is presented here.

Moreover, I'd simply rather not start an article with something which I skip over. -- aspectacle  02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I didn't think the quotes [..] were ever intended to provide information to the reader but simply mimic/copy the main gw2 sites lead in quotes to provide a flavour to the article."That's true... for the race, profession, and Destiny Edge member articles. That's not true for the god articles. The scriptures should not be cut down. They should remain as is. As should this, if we want to even keep it. IMO, the quotations that are used for flavor should be outright removed. They are pointless and the quotation template is, imo, too ugly for flavoring (it tastes bad too). -- Konig/talk 03:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Eive was right - more opinions are required to see if the distaste towards the quotes is widespread. I've pretty clearly stated that I like the short ones and think they should remain. You've not really provided any reasons for the long quotes over the short ones aside from your person assertion on that's how you think it should be. I'd like to see others thoughts before discussing further. -- aspectacle  05:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I was not clear: It is absolutely pointless to limit the information we know - even for spoilers, this is a fact (to all I know, at least - if you can prove where not limiting the information of what we know on this wiki does have a point, please do let me know). As such (enter my opinion), a larger quotation - so long as it isn't the entire article - is preferable. Quotations are preferred over paraphrases due to it showing an official source. Along with this, we then have the quotation template: It's ugly. Bloody ugly. It breaks up text and is just as bad as using one of the {{quote}} templates on a main page, in my completely honest opinion. However, it has its use. If I ever think of a better design than "indent like hell and add an oversized icon" then I shall present one, but that won't be here. Likewise, multiple quotation templates on a single page is likewise ugly (hence "Splitting the quotation text, and duplicating a single sentence of it, is completely pointless.").

tl;dr: I think that's how it should be because the quotation template is, as I said in my previous post, too ugly for flavor, which is the only point of small quotations. -- Konig/talk 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I kinda disagree that "the quotation template is too ugly for flavor" is a good argument - that kind of thing is way too subjective, IMO, and we have users who think otherwise (me and Aspectable). I'm also not fond of trying to keep things the same just for the sake of keeping things the same, or of trying to create an all encompassing rule instead of using a case-by-case analysis.

Still, I think we should try to find a way of compromising here. I like the small quotes - as Aspectable said, they provide flavor text and are a good way to mark the introduction of an article while avoiding awkward introduction texts. I'm not really worried about the GW1W mistakes regarding the use of the quote template - let them use it ten times in a single page if they want to, I couldn't care less unless someone tries to do so here, which isn't the case. In other hand, I agree with Konig in that we shouldn't break up the gods' scriptures, since they are one piece of text meant to be read as a whole, and that we shouldn't avoid having those pieces of text just for the sake of not having bit quotes.

My proposed suggestions would then be: I actually don't think the quote on this article is long. But if people think otherwise and would like to remove the big quotation template from this article and from the gods articles, we could keep the text but format it differently - instead of using it under the quotation template and using it as the introduction of an article (which is what we do with small quotes), we could take GW1W as an example (we can ignore their mistakes, but we may copy the good things from there as well) and keep the scriptures in the middle of the articles, using a different kind of formatting (something like the inscription template, only modified to be more subtle). Erasculio 07:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I never said that me saying that the quotation template is not subjective. I in fact stated that it would be my opinion - and that's what was asked for, that is, the reason for my stance. Regarding the over-use of the quotation template: it was attempted and I brought those up as for something not to do, so we're in agreement on that. I am not opposed to changing how these quotes are done, though. But with what little we got, I don't think we can put them anywhere but the intro until the articles get expanded. Personally, I'd like to see the removal of those small "flavor" quotes - or at least redesign the quotation template for them. They don't provide much to the articles imo and are not necessary to keep the articles interesting. -- Konig/talk 09:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How did this become about quotes within the article? :P I've got no objections to keeping the lore primary source somewhere on the wiki or within the article - I just object to being asked to read primary sources and piece together what's new and what's interesting before I can understand the topic. Not everyone enjoys those parts Konig. :)

To spin the topic even further off track. Thinking about wiki structure and page content, the (6 human god's) scriptures could perhaps be grouped and put on their own page as a pure in-world lore primary source? I can think of a few advantage of that sort of organisation. -- aspectacle  23:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

not a god?

i say hes more of a diety instead of a god 86.154.107.174 16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think only a god could change mere bear into Kodan. - Infinite - talk 16:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ya'know, god isn't the only "almighty" --Neil • 16:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If that was directed at me, my comment reads "a god". - Infinite - talk 16:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue with the term "god" in the modern world is that so many people have been brainwashed into thinking that "god" is "God" and that to be anything less than "God" would mean that it couldn't be a "god" - truth is, in most cases, a deity is a god. They're rather interchangable in the polytheistic faith. Of course, other cases would be mere idols, like what the grawl worship. -- Konig/talk 23:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The grawl, or half of the US. 24.34.216.50 23:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd say he's a god. Humans have gods, and Kodans have one god. Please make die/dead/kill/anihilate the religion discussion, so not interesting anymore. (Xu Davella 09:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

Revere me, dammit! :P Koda 16:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Coming in with the Charr standpoint: He's just a powerful being, not a god =D 136.159.72.4 16:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Nah, the Charr believe that gods exist, they just want to kill them. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, they see them more as beings of power and gods. I guess the best comparison is that they see them sort of how we saw the Lich Lord in Prophecies: very powerful but still able to be brought down. 136.159.72.4 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Movie reference

I think this is a movie reference to the Disney movie Brother Bear where the young bear is named Koda, [1] see here.--Sid 18:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I would assume common influence, rather than one bear named Koda in an obscure (not even geeky-obscure) movie being expanded into a race of bear-people, complete with culture which has no similar references to the movie. --ஸ Kyoshi 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

well yeah probably but still a main character in a movie with the same name, and it isn't like we haven't seen more ridiculous references and speculations--Sid 18:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous to an extent that they stand out and are things that people would draw references from, yes. But first off, even if you think that's the reference, you shouldn't say "it is" in an article unless it's something completely outlandish that couldn't possibly be a reference to anything else, or it's been confirmed. I still don't see the similarity besides a bear with the name Koda, which translates from Native American to English as "the allies". --ஸ Kyoshi 18:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ok, but i didn't knew that Koda translates to the allies, any lets just drop the matter--Sid 18:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) The film Brother Bear features the Spirits of the world, with their collected duty to watch over the world and judge those who need be judged. The time of trial sounds strongly like the "becoming a man" of the film. Only a few people can interpret the will of the Spirits in the film as well. Also, the main protagonist Kenai turns into a bear, to repent for his sins. SPOILER: At the end of the film, Kenai chooses to remain a bear, to protect his new best friend Koda, the bear cub whose mother was killed by Kenai's brother, when Kenai was still a human.

If you haven't seen the film, I strongly recommend it. The reference to Brother Bear's story found here is in fact strong, though instead of humans turned into bears, it's bears turned into Kodan. I think it's a shame that this is a reference. Feel free in what you wish to do with it. - Infinite - talk 18:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Google search on "Koda" Let's list them all! Or at least let's list all from "Koda bear" which is more than the movie. Koda isn't exempt from bears and it's not excluded for Koda from Brother Bear. One thing that should be noted: A VAST majority of Disney's works are adaptations of older works - Snow White, Cinderella, Aladin, Hercules, Princess and the Frog (or w/e that recent movie's called) and so forth. Very few of their stuff are original, so I wouldn't doubt Brother Bear to be inspired/reference from something.

Also: Kodan. Take away the n, you get? Koda! Infinite's argument is a bit stronger, however, from his summary of the movie it seems like an adaptation of Native American folklore which is just an animistic religion and both kodans and norn appear to be inspired from animistic faiths. Native Americans being the most well known to the Western culture. -- Konig/talk 19:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is that I can not find as much of a reference in the background information used for the film, though it is there without a doubt. If we can find that, it might be the actual reference (or a stronger one). - Infinite - talk 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably just stronger. I don't think either kodans or norn are based off of Native Americans. -- Konig/talk 19:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I hate when I hit enter instead of ' when typing the summary. This edit of mine on this talk page was done so that the conversation still makes sense. -- Konig/talk 20:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you feel it should be added to the article, then just make sure it isn't stated as definite. That's the real irk I had with the addition. Also I think I saw the movie, but I was young when it came out so I don't remember much if I did. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"Koda" can mean "little bear", "ally" or "friend" in the Dakota language. Mith🌟Talk 23:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)