Wowpedia talk:Lore policy/Archivevote

Policy ratification vote

 * Yes :


 * No :

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? 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 for exaample ; . 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; 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.. >_< -- Zeal  talk   contr  web 21:48, 30 January 2007 (EST)