1,131
edits
Difference between revisions of "Category talk:Vertan Denizens"
Category talk:Vertan Denizens (view source)
Revision as of 01:15, 21 February 2008
, 01:15, 21 February 2008no edit summary
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
::::"'''Historical Figures''' are past figures who were neither [[denizen]] nor [[adventurer]], or '''those denizens or [[:category:creatures|creatures]] lost to history'''." They are lost to history until they prove themselves otherwise; that may happen, but unless you know for sure they'll be making an appearance again, they are only known for their historical roles now. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 21:04, 20 February 2008 (GMT) | ::::"'''Historical Figures''' are past figures who were neither [[denizen]] nor [[adventurer]], or '''those denizens or [[:category:creatures|creatures]] lost to history'''." They are lost to history until they prove themselves otherwise; that may happen, but unless you know for sure they'll be making an appearance again, they are only known for their historical roles now. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 21:04, 20 February 2008 (GMT) | ||
:::::Hm. I am thinking the problem lies in the understanding of "historical" in which I think the appointment of denizens as a "historic character" should have established permanency in never coming back. In other words, I think the exact opposite of what you state: they are NOT lost to history until they prove themselves otherwise - if they are definitively lost to history and have absolutely no potential of coming back, only then should they be historical. This is why those who don't fit this distinction can still be placed in the world; for Kadran and Drafaris, they are Vertan Denizens (albeit wandering, although we do have a Wandering Denizens category). Now I know a lot of the current denizens moved in there may not fit this subjectivity, but that's because I don't have 24/7 to police every single article in there and I'm not the only Head Chronicler. If we want yet another huge overhaul re-categorisation, I'm willing to listen, but we're going to need to be very careful... [[User:Asara|Asara]] 00:49, 21 February 2008 (GMT) | :::::Hm. I am thinking the problem lies in the understanding of "historical" in which I think the appointment of denizens as a "historic character" should have established permanency in never coming back. In other words, I think the exact opposite of what you state: they are NOT lost to history until they prove themselves otherwise - if they are definitively lost to history and have absolutely no potential of coming back, only then should they be historical. This is why those who don't fit this distinction can still be placed in the world; for Kadran and Drafaris, they are Vertan Denizens (albeit wandering, although we do have a Wandering Denizens category). Now I know a lot of the current denizens moved in there may not fit this subjectivity, but that's because I don't have 24/7 to police every single article in there and I'm not the only Head Chronicler. If we want yet another huge overhaul re-categorisation, I'm willing to listen, but we're going to need to be very careful... [[User:Asara|Asara]] 00:49, 21 February 2008 (GMT) | ||
::::::Strictly speaking, that is a good plan, but frankly, it seems that very rarely is a denizen completely out of the running in terms of making a return. The three Ceylon denizens, for example, are a demonstration of this, and they don't even encompass the possibility for denizens who are confirmed "dead" to return as sentient "denizen" ghosts, etc. It is a lot easier to pull out seemingly (but not actually) historical denizens out of the "Historical Figures" category once they prove that the circulating rumours of their permanent departure have been exagerrated; compare that to figuring out right here and now for which denizens it would be -absolutely impossible- to return and then removing all others from the category, a hard task indeed. --[[User:Krypton|Krypton]] 01:15, 21 February 2008 (GMT) | |||