Template talk:Lore discrepancy

New categories created

→ moved from User talk:Konig Des Todes

Ref. our discussions here I created 2 new templates and categories for lore "Template:Lore inconsistency" and "Template:Lore anomaly". Perhaps you could help change the articles, so we can present something to Bobby while it's still a hot topic? Titus The Third 22:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC) Edit: don't know if it was necessary with two different categories. I wanted to differ between "serious" and "minor/debatable" lore discrepancies, but now I find it hard to figure out where to place different things. Titus The Third 22:29, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd just have a single template and single category. Let ArenaNet decide which are major and minor, because we really can't tell - after all, to me, all inconsistencies are major. :P Konig 22:47, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Also, I'd only add the tags to the sources, so that ArenaNet can find the cause of the discrepancy with more direct ease. So for your recent change to Firstborn? That would go onto the first and last story step of every sylvari Chapter 1 storyline, at each of the four luminary lines with a note, on top of lines stating Trahearne as the eldest of all sylvari, until we know what cycle Trahearne was of, at least (where we'd just tag the relevant luminary and Trahearne eldest-of-the-cycle lines).

Though for such things like that, perhaps a forum thread would be better since there's so many statements. Konig 22:52, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to propose back to Bobby to have both for that exact reason. But at the same time, encourage him to ask for sources on the talk page in question if it's an issue. But I agree: we should try our best to tag the "source", then quote the conflicting source within the statement itself.

As for the name of the one category... Lore anomaly, Lore bug, Lore inconsistency, Lore discrepancy? Titus The Third 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency or discrepancy both work. Konig 23:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the source for the Luminaries being the first of each cycle. :S Also, could you perhaps formulate something regarding the issues we have with the Mouvelian Calendar? Titus The Third 00:37, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Not all of the luminary dialogue is up on the wiki, unfortunately. Called to Service Black Night, White Stag Mockery of Death The Knight's Duel Awakening Beneath a Cold Moon and The Heart of Nightmare is where the luminaries mention it. Again, only 1 or 2 are documented each time. So we need to get some dialogue completion (and reformatting, bleh to the double click-to-show!).

This said, I wouldn't place Mazdak as a lore discrepency. It's been confirmed since that a prince of Orr established Kryta during King Doric's reign with open hostilities. So while not explicitly stated, it's been clarified that he was, indeed, referring to the human race's time on the continent after arrival by ship in 205 BE. He - like Knut during The World Summit - was just a bit unclearly metaphorical. Poetic liches, who knew? Konig 01:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Allrighty. Busy all day today, but I'll start documenting the steps (playing with Malomedies first), because: are you really sure? Don't know where that edit comes from, or why it hasn't been changed back. As for Mazdak: I see and understand what you're saying, but - coming from Orr - isn't he supposed to be a learned man? Wouldn't the long humans legacy be something he was proud of, not something he joked away? GW2 Timeline says nothing about when humans first arrived, thus I think Mazdak's dialouge would easily fool new players to incorrect conclusions, no? Titus The Third 07:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

That Malomedies article line likely comes from someone thinking Trahearne was Night (he *is* a recluse after all), but we now have all three Nights so Malomedies is off the table for that (which I forgot when typing above... I blame my illness, which is why I'm not going around like crazy with these things atm...). It's the other three that have a liar amongst them.

As to Mazdak: Two things, 1) we don't know how learned Orrians were on average, let alone when the kingdom was young; 2) Risen are known for lying, psychological warfare, and demoralizing attempts, as well as being twisted forms of their former selves, so him joking it away (the line doesn't really feel like that to me, more of "I'm more ancient than you could imagine") would not be unusual - if you haven't read Sea of Sorrows, that gives excellent view of changed personalities upon becoming Risen. Konig 18:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So a thought on how you're setting these templates up. Rather than typing all that out, we could probably make it so that the parameter setup would be:

{{lore discrepency|[[source1]]|problem1|[[source2]]|problem2}}

and have it type out like:

<source1> states that <problem1>

This conflicts with <source2>, which states <problem2>

So for example with Statue of Ferro the Butcher would be typed as:

{{lore inconsistency|Statue of Ferro the Butcher|he dies in 1318, but {{quote|join[ed] the Sentinels defending the Brand}}|Timeline|{{quote|}1320 AE: Kralkatorrik, the Elder Crystal Dragon awakens. Creation of the Dragonbrand.}}}

But look like:

Statue of Ferro the Butcher states that he dies in 1318, but "join[ed] the Sentinels defending the Brand."

This conflicts with Timeline, which states "1320 AE: Kralkatorrik, the Elder Crystal Dragon awakens. Creation of the Dragonbrand."

So that we have a unified format for typing this out, whereas now it's how folks type it out that it ends up as. Konig 19:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Titus The Third 17:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a poor way to set up the template. This isn't a maintenance template; users need flexibility in explaining the discrepancies. The template description should provide guidelines on writing the description if anything.--Relyk ~ talk < 01:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

True, was trying to think of best means to get this to be most consistent in display. Above is result of that + brain bothered by continuous coughing fits. Guideline is much better alternative. Konig 05:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% :P Let's put this project temporarily on hold though, until we can agree on how/if to proceed. Titus The Third 19:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Anomaly vs Lore discrepancy

→ moved from User talk:Tennessee Ernie Ford

Hi TEF :)
The reason I put Gwen's Grave up as a lore inconsistency, is that we had a discussion with Bobby Stein regarding how to report lore inconsistency errors (and also "BobbyStein: Adjusting an existing conversation is easy and doesn’t require a ton of rework"). Certainly, if we have dates in lore that just doesn't add up (e.g. Statue of Ferro the Butcher, we call them lore inconsistencies. To me, Gwen's Grave is the same thing. Just do the math, it's impossible. "Close to" is added just because we can't 100% sure in a fantasy game. Isn't family relations and timeline lore? Titus The Third 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood my point. My concern has little to do whether Gwen is mathematically unable to be a great-grandmother (the bible has the case of Sarah having a kid at 90, making it "lorically" possible to have a great-grandkid at 270 — unlikely, sure). I'm concerned about the precedent reporting bugs through the wiki, of using an inflexible conventions to categorize, and of how we go about documenting anomalies generally.

• "Lore inconsistency" isn't a consistent name with the rest of the wiki. It's a subset of anomalies.
• If we are going to distinguish anomalies from one another for the benefit of ANet staff, then let's do that consistently: let's also identify mechanical, text, and graphical anomalies separated.
• Bobby didn't actually volunteer an opinion about what to call the category nor say that he was necessarily going to follow-up on doing anything about the anomalies. Further, he's just one person at ANet; he can't really promise that anyone at ANet is going to be reviewing this six months from now — ANet (like any group of well-meaning humans) is good at wanting to communicate/follow-through, but doesn't necessarily have the staff to make it happen consistently.
• Similarly, we can't guarantee that you or I are going to be here in a year or three to ensure that lore anomalies are being properly documented or that ANet is reading them.

Accordingly, I think that there should be a larger community discussion that takes place first. (And I'd love it if Misters Lo Presti and Stein would join that.) It shouldn't be on people's talk pages and we should take our time deciding on the best route for if and how we go about changing the way we document anomalies and perhaps bugs and/or other issues. If we hope or expect that ANet will act on what the wiki covers, then we should also plan to review how that is going after a few months and make changes as necessary.

Put another way, I think it's great that Mr. Stein wants to address inconsistencies in lore. Let's take the time to do that right and not rush into it. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 03:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Isn't there a bug report forum for stuff like this? Anet staff (supposedly) reads that regularly, if they just made subsections for each anomaly (including lore stuff) it would be much easier to streamline that into a feasible report -> fix model than any hackneyed wiki category project, even disregarding TEF's (legitimate) concerns about longevity. If there's a system already in place to report issues and have them read and relayed to the proper channels, why not use that for all manner of issues? -Auron 04:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Although I agree with Auron, the wiki has a desire to document or point out discrepancies in lore. I'm not going to discount the merits of having the template: We already mention narrative conflicts on relevant lore articles (usually courtesy of Konig). Whether ArenaNet can use it as a resource seems like a secondary goal for the wiki. ArenaNet is not interested in using the wiki for feedback because they want take a hands-off approach. You guys might be looking too much into a singe exploratory comment from Bobby.--Relyk ~ talk < 06:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. In retrospect, I see that I did rush into this project (the many edits back and forth is a good reflection of that fact). But...

"Auron: If there's a system already in place to report issues and have them read and relayed to the proper channels, why not use that for all manner of issues"
In principle, I fully agree. For the most part, neither I think the wiki would be the best place for report systems. But in spite of all the good arguments posted above, I still think the wiki has something necessary to offer that neither the in-game system or the forums cover.

Lore discrepancies is far less black and white than the typical bug. Typing errors, stuck in terrain, disconnects: there's not much doubt. A lore discrepancy on the other hand may not be equally easy to define.

Bobby made several good points about how a lore discrepancy should be reported: with sources and (if possible) the exact quote/text that causes the conflict. Up until now, I've used the in-game report system, but I realise it falls short to this demand. And without references (preferably linked), the report loses all value.
Complexity is another issue: you may solve one problem, only to create another. Konig sees Mazdak's dialouge as a poetic figure of speech. I see it as a total insult. Date of the previous Dragonrise is another star example of how lore inconsistencies may have different answers depending on who you ask. It's quite evident to me that such issues shouldn't be reported by us as individuals.

The official forums is the right place then? Yes perhaps, initially. But after we get as close as possible to a general consensus, I think the discrepancy should make its way over to the wiki. And this is why: "BobbyStein: Burying the facts inside a longer post is the surest way for it to get lost.". ANet don't need to see Konig and I discuss whether or not Mazdak is a poet. When we (+ obviously a third party who can tip the vote either way :P) find an agreement, that agreement is what they need to see and further evaluate. As for the previous Dragonrise, a solution may be to list the discrepancy in an orderly fashion, plus perhaps a reference to the two-three most plausible theories.
I think ANet needs help if they're going to solve these things. It's not a one man job, and I think no one is better suited for it than the community as a whole. That job may initially be done on the official forums, but without a place to structure the conclusions tidy and concise in the end, I don't think we'll ever be able to do something about it. TL;DR Sorry, don't know how to say it with fewer words. Titus The Third 19:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that the wiki could be used as a tool but should not be the method of reporting. Should the inconsistencies be documented on the wiki? Yes I think they should. For reporting inconsistencies I think that should be done via the preferred methods via in-game or forums bug section. Anzenketh (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we'll keep documenting them in this fashion for now. ANet has to decide themselves on what tools (if any) they want to utilize. Can't hurt if we let them know that there is a tool here though. There were raised arguments against this idea, but as Plato said: "Your silence gives consent." Titus The Third 21:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)