Talk: Lore policy/Archive02

Template:Archives1

Dealing with WoW events

I think an addition to the lore policy on how to deal with WoW events would be helpful. Currently there are several approaches, including:

The Nefarian approach: describe the background lore revealed in WoW but do not include any player-driven events like Nefarian's death.
The Aliden Perenolde approach: integrate player-driven events into the storyline, describing the actions taken by the player in terms of "an agent of the Horde", etc.
The Eranikus approach: describe the actions taken by the player in explicit terms, e.g. "The player and his or her raid party are required to defend Keeper Remulos from Eranikus."

Approach (1) simply leaves out too much information in my opinion. We do want to capture not only the background lore revealed in the game, but the significant events which take place in it.

Approach (2) is, to my mind, somewhat confusing and a little presumptive. Confusing, in the sense that unless the reader knows that "agent of the Horde" is code for "a Horde player character", the article simply seems vague and unclear. Presumptive, in the sense that I don't think we can presume as to exactly how events in WoW will be integrated into the lore in future games. If we look at Warcraft I and II, there were similar contradictory potential storylines, and the next game described a history which didn't always match one or the other.

Approach (3) is my personal favourite, as it conveys exactly what we know and nothing more, and makes it clear to the reader the source of the information being described. It makes no assumptions as to how questline lore will or should be treated by future developments in the series. It also avoids conflicts between Horde and Alliance versions of quests, or between different quests where the same character dies, such as the [Corrupted Ashbringer] Scarlet Monastery event, and the Horde and Alliance quests there.

Any thoughts?--Aeleas 14:09, 17 September 2006 (EDT)

I agree. Approach (3) seems to be the most reasonable one. Concerning approach (2) it must also be considered that not every reader of WoWWiki has done all of the quests. So, if someone reads the article about Aliden Perenolde saying that he was killed by an "agent of the Horde" and then suddenly finds the NPC in the online game, he will probably be like "Wha..?! WoWWiki said he was dead. Guess the article was wrong." It is far to unclear that something like "was killed by an agent of the Horde" really means "there is a Horde quest in the game where you have to kill him". Why not just say it like it is? --Foogray 13:16, 25 October 2006 (EDT)

The infamous Appendix III

Continued from User talk:Baggins#Manual of Monsters Appendix III.

My preference for dealing with the dubious information in Appendix III (which I don't have access to, but understand to include Celestial, [60] Hope, Leprechaun, and some other D&D-based characters which are more or less grafted into the Warcraft universe, would be to:

keep the articles,
give them a new disclaimer banner separate from the regular RPG banner, and
make a policy against including any of the information in other articles, such as [Holy Light]. Incorporating it into speculation articles would be fine, e.g. Holy Light speculation.--Aeleas 12:01, 15 January 2007 (EST)

I strongly agree. There's a difference between information taken solely from the RPG books that says something about Azeroth (such as the population of Zul'Aman, or something like that), and information taken from Appendix III, which explicitly states that it combines elements of the Warcraft and D&D settings.

I don't see any harm in making a second template to straighten out this distinction.--Flamestrider 16:57, 15 January 2007 (EST)

I agree that they should be able to keep an entry, but that it needs to be different from the standard RPG one. And also the suggestion that they not be linked, or forcefully incorporated into other entries should be looked at. The actual disclaimer used in Appendix III is "Creatures from other d20 sources can add an exciting element to a Warcraft campaign. This appendix details monsters from the MM v3.5, Creature Collection Revised, Creature Collection II: Dark Menagerie, and The Tome of Horrors". As well as stating that they are from other d20 sources, they also list exactly where they are taken from. For example Daemons are listed as being taken from Dark Menagerie. Oahkoah 17:07, 15 January 2007 (EST)

That sounds fair to me, a modified RPG template sounds good for the Appendix III section, User:Kirkburn/Sig 17:12, 15 January 2007 (EST)

I do not agree with this, and through the discussion at SoL(read from [1] onwards), you might have a better understanding the position we should be taking on this.

The wiki has a need to remain neutral on the topic, brandishing a banner saying we don't think this is canon is not neutral. To the wiki, canon and cannon do not exist, as Blizzard has never said what is and isn't canon, and likely nor will they ever do so. Kirkburn has started to add mentions on the page that it is a controversial peice of lore to users and linking to Appendix 3, avoiding any stance other than neutral on the matter. If we could have a template for this, it would be fine. We do not however need a template the likes of the speculation to replace the RPG header on the page.

We can certainly not do point 3, as several of these things have later made it into other lore sources, and are also refrenced throughout the entirity of MoM. Doing so would undermine MoM as a source of lore, no longer be a neutral stance and suggest the lore, while easily having the possibility of existing in sources in the future, is not and will not ever be official. We don't have the right to make such claims, only Blizzard do, so until such an unlikely day takes place that they do make a statement on that, we should not be taking any active roles to discredit anything from that source. --User:Zeal/Sig 17:18, 15 January 2007 (EST)

It is not our job to say the articles as a whole or in part is canon or not canon to remain neutral POV, not until we have a valid and verified quotation from an official published source. But we can at least make an additional RPG heading marking it as "Appendix III" for anything that only shows up in Appendix III (and no refrences in other sources of lore in any form).

As well as before we will continue to point out that a controversy exists. Additionally holbeinheim is working on a brand new citation method which may include a disclaimer notice of some sort, where citation to information can be made if there is some relation within other articles. But the material will not be removed.Baggins 17:26, 15 January 2007 (EST)

But why should Appendix 3 have a new header? The implication we consider it a suspect source is then applied (This is exactly why those source headers existed before and were later changed to not be that as it was biased, we shouldn't be going back to bad practices). It should be no different in the eyes of the wiki, and i think Kirkburn's previous method is plenty. If anti-wiki critics have an issue with that, it is there fault for not understand what neutrality is and having biased opinions on sources. --User:Zeal/Sig 17:31, 15 January 2007 (EST)

It may not be our job to judge what is canon, but we should certainly provide the reader with the ability to make that distinction. If a reader wants to discount all Appendix III material as non-canon (and there is certainly a strong argument for doing so), he or she would need to be able to identify it. If it's interwoven throughout the wiki, as with

[Holy Light], we've made the decision for the reader.--Aeleas 17:45, 15 January 2007 (EST)

"it's interwoven throughout the wiki, as with Holy Light, we've made the decision for the reader."

Again this will hopefully be addressed in Holbenheim's new refrence policy. Where quotes from material that may be considered "controversial" will have a special citation style. Not sure how he'll implement as of yet though. The only difficulty is that we don't take it too far. The new refrence policy will also be affecting how we cite material from any source, to try to avoid confusion from people who don't have access to one or more sources of info, removing refrences. In the new system a refrence will refers to an entire paragraph or section if it comes from a specific source, and not appear to be a citation for just individual sentences. This way people don't question individual portions and delete them thinking they weren't fact checked or made up.Baggins 17:50, 15 January 2007 (EST)

No, existinace in an article does not make it canon just official. Yes it can be marked that Appendix 3 info is controversial, yes it can be marked where Appendix 3 info is used. But there should not be a header saying "this is Appendix 3 info it is controversial".

The secondary issue is Appendix 3 info is found throughout MoM, so infact, it should not be pointing at Appendix 3 at all, but MoM. It is MoM itself that is controversial, not Appendix 3.

You then have the next issue of future sources then taking Appendix3 info and expanding upon it, which then means the wiki has to decide, is this source also controversial or it's existance in another source making it less controversial. If you haven't picked up what's wrong about that straight away, then it's because the wiki is then disrediting MoM as a source and making it less canonlike compared to others. Only way around this is to make a heading for every single source to balance it, which is ridiculous, the existing ones are bad enough.

In summary, we can not do this for the sake of remaining neutral, simple. --User:Zeal/Sig 17:56, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Also want to add that MoM is no different to any other source in this. It's only controversial because of narrow sighted people. We don't say WoW is controversial for Night Elves using the Holy Light, we don't say novels are controversial because authors are allowed to make up their own events and characrters to certain extent. Both of these, mechanics and author elaboration exist in all RPG books, and according to Metzen, are to be all considered part of Warcraft lore (he's impled they are all canon, shock horror). Metzen himself is credited and works closely on all sources, he allows the authors to go wild in places, it's created much of the lore we know and love, aswell as lore we hate. There is no reason for the wiki to single out MoM Appendix 3 for this, otherwise we must do it for everything. --User:Zeal/Sig 18:08, 15 January 2007 (EST)

"This way people don't question individual portions and delete them thinking they weren't fact checked or made up." Why on earth would we want a reference policy that discourages people from checking individual facts?

Regarding MoM, count me among the narrow-sighted. Whatever effort has gone into making it mesh with the overall lore, in my view, it simply does not. The novels do, and even the previous games, aside from some rather clear retcons. But Celestial, Leprechaun, and Centaur (Eastern Kingdoms) simply do not.

My interest in the wiki is as a reliable and useful resource for World of Warcraft, which is I suspect what the vast majority of our potential audience would be interested in. I have no objection to RPG information having a place here, but when it becomes inextricably interwoven through all of our articles, the wiki ceases to be a reliable source for information on WoW. When that happens, the pool of interested readers and potential editors is reduced to a small fraction of what it would be for a WoW-focussed site.--Aeleas 18:35, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Well a refrence to centaur in the eastern kingdoms made it into the Horde Player's Guide, btw. Oddly the concept existed in one of the Warcraft 3 multiplayer maps as well for the Blasted Lands. I'm sure no one is going to weave leprechauns across all the articles... No reason for it. As for your wow-only outlook its not this wiki's policy.Baggins 18:40, 15 January 2007 (EST)

The refrence dicussion doesn't have much place here, but i know Baggins is generally speaking from a result of what i've discussed with Kirkburn about citations and refrences. From what you've said Aeleas i think you misunderstood Baggins.

Anyways, i suggest you read the newer mission statement. WoWWiki is not a WoW resource. Also you view of the lore does not make it so, the wiki must remain neutral unless Blizz discredit a source themselves. People seem to have trouble understanding this is practically the number one rule for a wiki, NPoV, and we should not stray from it, ever. --User:Zeal/Sig 18:44, 15 January 2007 (EST)

The mission statement specifies a focus, though not priority, on WoW. To me, that does not conflict with the current lore policy, which specifies, "While this wiki serves as a repository for all Warcraft lore, there is an emphasis on the World of Warcraft game. Information which focuses on aspects of lore which do not match the version presented by the game should be clearly labeled."

Being NPoV certainly doesn't prohibit providing context for information, just the opposite. As I suggested above, include the information, but let readers know where it is coming from so that they can judge for themselves, and ignore it if they choose to.--Aeleas 18:54, 15 January 2007 (EST)

The lore policy gravelly needs a rewrite, but here and now is not when to talk about it :p

The thing is Aeleas, providing a disclaimer is not the way to go about it, simply refrencing and citing it as a source is more than enough. The controversy is user issue, and is available for people to read when looking at that source. We should not be running around throwing that disclaimer on everything from the source, as that would be bias. It's not an issue the wiki should be even recognising in it's policy on writting lore, it's simply an issue to list as criticims of the source by lore fans. --User:Zeal/Sig 18:59, 15 January 2007 (EST)

"The lore policy gravelly needs a rewrite, but here and now is not when to talk about it" We're on the lore policy talk page for a reason. If you think the disclaimers on non-WoW lore are biased, please propose a vote to change the policy. It would be easier to debate with a more concrete proposal for change.--Aeleas 19:08, 15 January 2007 (EST)

I know what page we're on.. ¬_¬ My point is it needs a seperate discussion, not in this one. The changes i wish to propose will appear soon enough, i have far too many policy proposals to write as it is. --User:Zeal/Sig 19:15, 15 January 2007 (EST)

Proposal

The following is a proposed addendum for the Lore policy, based on the above discussion. There wasn't a consensus, but there seemed to be support for this from the majority. This would be appended at the end of the current policy.

The Policy

As stated above, WoWWiki considers all official sources of lore to be valid and worthy of inclusion. However, when there is a valid question as to whether a source would reasonably be considered canon by the reader, WoWWiki will endeavor to present the information in such a way as to permit the reader to properly evaluate the information from that source.

Sources which fall under this policy include:

Sections of the RPG books which incorporate beings from the Dungeons and Dragons universe (including, among others, hopes, celestials, leprechauns, demodands, devils, and the D&D variants of wyverns).
On-line strategy guides not written from an in-universe perspective, such as Mojo Stormstout's Warcraft III guide.
Holiday-themed content, such as the Warcraft III Bunny map.
Other sources, as agreed upon through discussion and general consensus of editors.

The following shall apply to all articles dealing with information from the sources identified above:

The information will be limited to separate articles, and speculation articles. Do not integrate it with information from other sources.
Such articles will clearly identify, in the text of the lead sentence, the specific source of the material (e.g. "Manual of Monsters Appendix III," "a Warcraft III holiday map," etc.). In addition, they should be tagged with the general disclaimer banner for non-World of Warcarft sources, as described above.

Reasoning

The above discussion pretty much covers it. Inclusion is fine, but there are some things which the reader should be able to choose to disregard as dubious canon. The above policy aims to give the reader that choice.--Aeleas 12:08, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Policy ratification vote

Yes

Yes Aeleas 12:10, 16 January 2007 (EST) - (Proposed)
Yes Flamestrider 22:44, 18 January 2007 (EST) - (for reasons stated above)
Yes Varghedin 13:10, 20 January 2007 (CET) - (This is warcraft, not D&D. Blink dogs and leprechauns and other creatures are blatantly taken directly from outside sources and will most probably never be used in the way presented. This was done simply to get enough output to put into an RPG book, and has been done in exactly the same way in many other fantasy-worlds-turned-RPG-books. It does not belong together with real warcraft content.)
Yes Foogray 18:38, 29 January 2007 (EST) - ()
Yes Kakwakas 21:11, 30 January 2007 (EST) - ()
Yes Doomsday 21:42, 30 January 2007 (EST) - ()
Yes --Xlandhenry 02:19, 31 January 2007 (EST) - (Current headings are confusing.)
Yes --Timolas 10:40, 31 January 2007 (EST) - (If leprechauns exist in Warcraft then monkeys fly..)
Yes User:Mephator/Sig - (no comment)

No

No Zeal 01:24, 17 January 2007 (EST) - (Should be applied to all sources, should not be in seperate articles, should not have any headings for the source on the page.)
No Baggins 01:04, 19 January 2007 (EST) - (No, reasons said below.)

Comments

I would vote for this, but for point 3. Separate categories takes it too far in my opinion. It would mean not being neutral, as it would cause a separation of 'controversial' material - which is not something for the wiki to decide. By all means have it in the text of the article, of course. Instead, how about an additional category of some sort? User:Kirkburn/Sig 16:03, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I've removed the third point about separate categories. I was thinking there of pages like Mojo Stormstout, which I wouldn't say belongs in Category:Lore, but perhaps that is better handled on a case-by-case basis when dealing with the categories.--Aeleas

Not to sound untrusting, but how do we know you're the real one, Aeleas2? I'll refrain from voting, lest I be seen as partisan, but I will support the policy if adopted.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 18:36, 16 January 2007 (EST)

If this is to undermine the concept of neutrality and try to project fan opinions of canon on material that blizzard hasn't officially stated either way, I say nay to the idea.

If material has actual quoteable connections in more than one source then all means the material needs to be linked. However if there isn't a direct connetion sure that should be moved to a speculation section of the article.

Otherwise if there are citeable connections, the material will be cited, and it will appear in other articles where that material is related. However there will need to be an improved citation method one following MLA or equivalent methods, perhaps something along the lines of Template:Book, Chapter, Page for exaample ;Template:Cite. Such a citation method will be added to all forms of material, in order to point out specific chapters and where to look. Our job is not ot make people believe things or disbelieve things, only present information to remain neutral. We don't cater to overall fan beliefs, as fan interpretation of material as canon or non-canon is just as much speculation as any form of speculation. Beyond that people can have their own fanon interpretations on the issue outside of the articles or within discussion pages, but not in the articles themselves.

Anything else undermines the concept of neutrality that we are trying to maintain. We are not trying to force views of any material on anyone, only present it as neutral as possible. Beyond that if a controversy exists that will be noted in specific articles the the controversy exists in. People can link back to the article for more information. Plus an asterix * perhaps a red asterix, next to a citation could be used to denote where controversial material exists. For example; Template:Cite Like professional published material, the asterix will link to a warning that material may be controversial.Baggins 18:47, 16 January 2007 (EST)

I disagree with the term "considered canon by the reader", because unless the reader is a member of Blizzard's lore department or a novelist, it doesn't matter in the slightest what they want to be canon or not. What we're trying to do it to get readers to to realize that we are aware of the inconsistencies, and the extraordinary resemblence of certain RPG information to D&D. Also, the term "controversial" should not be used, as that sounds like we are caving to user demands (sound familiar, Zeal?).

However this goes back to my opinion of WoW: it doesn't exist to please the veteran players, it's there to make money- this D&D connection is essentially an attempt to attract breakaway D&Ders, hence the inconsistencies, and hence the "controversy."--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (EST)

You make many good points. Although what a "freelance" author says outside of their books is not necessarily official, or within the views of Blizzard themselves. Freelance meaning an author who is not actually an employee of Blizzard Entertainment,

This is speaking of authors of licensed products such as novels, mangas, or otherwise. Baggins 19:38, 16 January 2007 (EST)Baggins 19:13, 16 January 2007 (EST)

By "novelist" I mean one of Blizzard's authors, such as Golden (a thousand blessings upon her), Knaak, Grubb, Odom, etc.--Ragestorm (talk · contr) 19:51, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Oh believe me when I say this I respect her wonderful books. She did a very good job. However what she or authors like her state outside of their novels is not necessarily official, unless they are Blizzard employees. Most of the authors are actually freelance, and not on standard Blizzard payroll but hired for "freelance work". This doesn't mean that her outside opinions aren't worth reading though.Baggins 19:56, 16 January 2007 (EST)

Blah, blah, blah... vote already! ;-) --Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:46 PM PST 18 Jan 2007

How about also adding the Warcraft TCG to the sources which would fall under this policy? I mean to my knowledge so far noone has tried to add the characters that appear on the cards of the TCG or some of the tiny lore bits that could be taken from the flavor text on some of the cards to the wiki but I guess it could happen. --Foogray 11:38, 23 January 2007 (EST)

How about we just don't use this method period, add the controversy to the relevent source's page and refrence the source in all cases just like any other article from any source.. >_< --User:Zeal/Sig 21:48, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I rolled back the archiving of this as I think we actually need more agreement on this (plus it's an admin's job to do this stuff). Are there any further comments on this topic? User:Kirkburn/Sig 20:35, 4 February 2007 (EST)

Whoops, didn't mean to step on admin toes, was just following the instructions in the proposal/vote box. Figured that since this policy has already been adopted, evidenced by the top of the page and the fact that this is actually considered policy now, didn't see why it was still a proposal. Did I miss something? User:Mephator/Sig

The silly idea of many policy proposals on the same page as an existing policy.. No it's not adopted, that's a different policy. Honestly, i don't understand why Kirkburn reverted it, as by all rights, it should now be adopted. If it's going to be left to admins, may as well remove the instructions.

Anyways, i'm not happy with the fact some votes have nothing to do with the issue, They are only biased anti-A3 related votes or people who have no understanding of the issue. So i was glad to see it reverted. Meant i didn't have to recall it.

All i have left to add is, this was a bad idea, always was, and the current system is too. We should not be aiming to match the existing system and pervert it further and it should not be put in place because of MoM. Manual of Monsters, Talk->Summary --User:Zeal/Sig 13:10, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Woops, i see i skipped a step (as did you obviously), cos i didn't reread the instructions. It should be ratified, not adopted. --User:Zeal/Sig 17:18, 5 February 2007 (EST)

So...what's the deal now? Are we waiting for more people to vote, or has some decisive action been taken by the admins? Sorry, I'm kinda new here, and I don't really know what's up.--Flamestrider 20:38, 5 February 2007 (EST)

Still open for voting and discussion atm. --User:Zeal/Sig 21:11, 5 February 2007 (EST)

How much longer will it remain open? Because everybody seems to have said what they want to say by now.--Flamestrider 01:11, 12 February 2007 (EST)

Wowpedia