8,097
edits
Difference between revisions of "Talk:Darkness"
no edit summary
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
* A few points: 1) articles about ideals should ''summarize'' those ideals. 2) This one lacks a neutral tone which is likely due to 3) it's 90% c/p'd from an IG work. I get that it's illuminating work which may or may not be central to the religion, but if you're just dropping in whole blocks of text then title the article that, like [[Holy Codex]] or [[Shadow Codex]] and stick it in the [[:category: documents|documents]] category. Look at [[Evil]]. It's super succinct with its core tenets. It accurately summarizes the IG doctrine's basic principles. Look at [[Good]]. Short. No one dropped entire paragraphs from the Apocrypha or Holy Codex. -[[User:Halos|Halos]] ([[User talk:Halos|talk]]) | * A few points: 1) articles about ideals should ''summarize'' those ideals. 2) This one lacks a neutral tone which is likely due to 3) it's 90% c/p'd from an IG work. I get that it's illuminating work which may or may not be central to the religion, but if you're just dropping in whole blocks of text then title the article that, like [[Holy Codex]] or [[Shadow Codex]] and stick it in the [[:category: documents|documents]] category. Look at [[Evil]]. It's super succinct with its core tenets. It accurately summarizes the IG doctrine's basic principles. Look at [[Good]]. Short. No one dropped entire paragraphs from the Apocrypha or Holy Codex. -[[User:Halos|Halos]] ([[User talk:Halos|talk]]) | ||
**It could also be argued that 'Modern Darkness' (which I thought was written by Telaan? I could be wrong) isn't even a core work to Darkness (you could even argue that Darkness, as a system, lacks a 'bible' of any kind). I'm not here to make that argument. But citations are the way to go. Alternatively if Darkness is "difficult to ACTUALLY define", maybe just include that in the wiki article and leave the details as properly FOIG! -[[User:Halos|Halos]] ([[User talk:Halos|talk]]) | |||