Wowpedia talk:Lore policy

Lore sources revisited
In the middle of the previous vote, it became clear that we could use additional language to ensure references used are independently verifiable, in an effort to reduce the possibility of endorsing groundless speculation based on questionable evidence (such as a photo-manipulated screenshot of a conversation). To that end, I propose to add the following in a new paragraph after "Any such comments which are contradicted by more reliable sources of lore should be removed entirely." in the section Sources of lore:
 * References used must be independently verifiable:
 * If the content is already on the wiki - such as in the text of a quest - you may link directly to that page as your source. If it is not on the wiki but is available in-game, you should add the content to the wiki first and link to that.
 * Such content added to the wiki must be able to be experienced (now or in the past) by another player. This includes content being added to the wiki after being removed from the game.
 * Content retrieved by exploits (including datamining of otherwise inaccessible content) is not allowed on the wiki per the DNP policy.
 * If the content is currently on a Blizzard website, you may link directly to their site, but should also ensure the content is otherwise archived, ideally through a public web archive, as Blizzard tends to update their site and remove content regularly.
 * Such content must be publicly accessible - whether through the website or a public archive of the website.
 * Content from Blizzard-licensed books and other media may simply reference the source using standard references.
 * Content from the Warcraft movie follows a separate canon and should be tagged with Film
 * Content from the Trading Card Game bears questionable canonicity and should be tagged with TCG
 * Content from the RPG is non-canon (see below) and should be tagged with RPG
 * If the content is found on third-party sites (not operated by Blizzard or a direct archive of a Blizzard website), it is not reliable and should not be used - unless it can be found independently from Blizzard sources.
 * Interviews with Blizzard developers (who have direct input on Warcraft lore) conducted by reputable press may be used as references. Such interviews must be performed "on the record" and should be publicly accessible.

I may make tweaks to this proposal based on comments made in the discussion below, but please let me know your thoughts on the overall changes being made by this policy amendment by voting below. -- (•) 18:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Votes

 * Yes :


 * No :

Comments
Can you give examples of where this is not already the case, excluding the recent discussion about GMs?-- 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly GM conversations are a problem which hopefully has been adequately addressed. But a more aspiring Photoshop user might try to pass off more intricate stuff as Blizzard content, which is harder to specifically control without an "independently verifiable" clause. And with Blizzard certainly willing to change the old world (at least you can still visit the past version of Silithus with 7.3.2) I think it is important to make sure content that is being added is verifiable when it is added so we don't have to try to speculate in the future.
 * This also hopefully addresses the need to better archive Blizzard website content. Blizzard has upgraded their forums a couple of times and we have lost valuable source data because it was not archived. Hopefully we can avoid that in the future.
 * The need to specifically address the separate TCG, RPG, and film canons is obvious, I think.
 * Finally, with this change links to DB sites would not be in themselves suitable sources of lore, unless the subject can also be found in-game. As you may know we have run into issues in the past where DB sites would show data from private servers - or otherwise would be just plain wrong with respect to especially older stuff, re. what patch certain changes were made. -- (•) 18:52, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So we're clear, inaccessible content in DB sites like wowhead can't be used as sources of lore, but it doesn't stop us to add the information in trivia notes, right? Not canon content can be interesting either way. Xporc (talk) 19:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as it's not DNP. Which won't affect much I expect. -- (•) 19:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Bringing this page more in line with Lore would be good, but we already have a policy about lying in the DNP policy and the citation guidelines. Is this about the pile of hearsay that is the World of Warcraft evolution guide?-- 19:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The evolution guide isn't a lore article, it's mostly about game mechanics. -- (•) 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So where has the problem arisen? Silithus?-- 19:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would assume, that the purpose of this policy is, to have something to refer to, if a debate about the mention subjects should arise. PeterWind (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides the updates about what is and is not canonical, lying is already not allowed, and things removed from the game are already just trivia notes. Having a policy will not make verifying anything and easier or more thorough.-- 20:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it was just a matter of stopping the flamewar about GM screenshots. Xporc (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This policy is more about what types of references may be used to support a claim, rather than whether or not the claim itself is valid. Hopefully it will serve to reinforce Lore as an outline of what is considered to be canon information. -- (•) 12:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Blizzard Forums being updated, I've noticed that Blizzard is also removing patch notes during the update road toward StarCraft: Remastered and the past patch notes before 1.28.6 for Warcraft III. I have managed to archive some but other times the archive machine itself threw errors which made it impossible to archive some patch notes. Other than that, the whole idea of this sounds completely okay, in my opinion, but it must always be a verifiable reference and not a screenshot that is just uploaded to Wowpedia. Whether it is just photoshop kids or webmaster kids; screenshots are never the answer to be used for these such references or any references. 13:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving a note with that of my comment above, the High Botanist Freywinn page applies regarding the character class reference. 16:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Images as a source
Regarding the talk above about screenshots and such, I found another file on this article that is classified as such and shouldn't be used. Although it was confirmed by another source, images like this shouldn't be consider as a valid type of source to confirm information (although this one is unrelated to Lore, just a voice). 05:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

List of the current files:
 * File:Private interview.jpg, regard Barbara Goodson (this one can be deleted and is confirmed with a reliable source)
 * File:GM lore ticket.jpg, regard High Botanist Freywinn
 * File:Bluemoon.jpg, regarding moons
 * File:Shartuul bug gm source.png

-- 05:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


 * File:GM lore ticket 2.jpg -- 19:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Blizzard Gear
What do you guys think about the descriptions on Blizzard Gear? For an example, we don't know whether Snowfang is a female or not (at the least for now, not sure if it has already been found in-game). But on Blizzard Gear, it says "Snowfang is the daughter of Thrall's frostwolf, Snowsong!". Should we consider Blizzard Gear or maybe get confirmation? 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a she according to her description as well . Since Gear uses the same pronoun as the in-game description, I'd say it's reliable enough. --Mordecay (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with using Blizzard Gear lore as long as its properly sourced. Xporc (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This worked out well! 09:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)