Forum:Excessive lore

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Excessive lore
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 29 March 2013 by Cåm.

I'm not entirely sure where to post something like this so guide me if I'm misplaced.

With the incoming of new lore due to Lore Q&A's and quests I've noticed an increase in the amount of lore being added to many pages. In some cases this lore seems unnecessary. Azzanadra is my primary example. Many of the sections could be condensed into a paragraph or two rather than three to five. The details of the historical event should be removed, links to the proper pages added or left in, and only the information directly involving the character or item the page is designated for should remain. This is quickly happening to multiple other pages and trivia and history sections are building up more than they need to.

If the entirety of the lore is going to be added to the page of every character, creature and item involved, why would I ever bother looking at the page specifically made for the historical event?

Law rune.png Samberen Nature rune.png 13:38, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


Oppose - If you're not going to a characters page to read about them and their history, then why the hell would you visit the page? Adventurer's log Wahisietel (Talk) Quest map icon.png 13:45, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Why would you visit any other non-lore page, by that logic? ʞooɔ 13:52, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

J'oppose - I don't think "we have that on other pages" is a good reason to remove lore information on characters. On all kinds of different fronts, we have the same information on multiple pages, and it's never been a problem. ʞooɔ 13:52, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Edit conflicts....
Oppose - I'm probably biased here, considering this is my baby, but I don't see the issue with having extensive amounts of the character's story on the respective page. The wiki outstrips every other fansite I know of in terms of content, a page for every item, every npc, every quest; you name it, we have it. Article writing is something I feel has been neglected over the years, with featured articles not really being anything close to a focus of the wiki compared to other large wikis like Wookieepedia. Fortunately, this seems to be changing in recent weeks, although even votes on FAs are hard to come by. Perhaps no one comes to the wiki to read about the history? The lores project is there to help source the wiki's content by documenting everything available. I remember before I became involved here the wiki's lore was taken with a pinch of salt, for instance [[myriad]] was never a race and for a long time there was a guessed translation of the gnomish ancient page. I'm not sure if that's still a commonly held opinion among the lore community, but hopefully it's starting to turn that around.

But lets imagine we removed the history of a npc, we'll take Azzanadra for the sake of argument. Remove the history section and we have.... a few paragraphs and trivia. I don't know about you, but I'm not really a fan of an article that just documents what an item is and what it's used for, not expanding on it in any real way. It becomes about as exciting as iron hatchet. But then the history gets put on a separate page, so for TWW it goes... where? Quest pages are primarily guides, some with transcripts to be used as sources. Are you proposing we create a separate page to describe the quest? But then what happens if the character in a quest is found somewhere else, in a quest no related to that particular quest? What happens if the page becomes forgotten, as many of our umbrella articles have become now? It seems simpler to me to have all the information about the focus of the article on the same page not distributed between 10 or so more. If a section becomes worthy of it's own article you can add a Main article found here link.

But hey, I'm probably biased. cqm 14:04, 22 Mar 2013 (UTC) (UTC)

I don't agree with this 'Quest pages are primarily guides' attitude. If there is information directly about the quest it should be on the article for it. Simple as that. You biased noob --Henneyj 18:32, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
If you want something that is primarily a guide, use the quick guides. MolMan 18:38, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Not sure if this is trolling or not. It seems not, so let me put it this way; we are a wiki on RuneScape. RuneScape has lore. Thus, our pages document that lore. The more detailed, the better. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 16:36, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Per above. Is this actually a problem? Blaze_fire.png12.png 16:43, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Since we're an encyclopaedia, all information should be included, imagine if Wikipedia deleted half the history section in its article (THIS IS A VALID COMPARISON BECAUSE THIS IS TOTALLY WIKIPEDIA). For users allergic to more than 3 lines of text at once, there are Quick Guides for quests. feel free to make /Strategies pages on monsters if you want, but leave the lores alone, some of them are actually pretty good. Real Nub 18:23, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

We're not Wikipedia...
We're Wiktionary.
MolMan 18:59, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
accualy is wikiquotes Real Nub 19:11, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
You're all wrong. Were WikiLeaks®. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 20:11, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Whilst it would be ridiculous to remove lore from pages the proposal does raise a point. I have noticed a trend with some pages such as Azzanadra where pretty much everything we have on the subject is put into a lore-style history section (Another example of this would be Kharshai).

There is no real distinction for how the character relates to the player in-game, in fact it's written almost as if player involvement didn't exist. Whilst this makes for a nice read and all, it's not particularly useful if you are looking for information relating to roles in quests, player involvement etc. You arrive at the article and all you have is a history section with a bunch of meaningless subheaders. There should be much more useful presentation of this sort of information, so that you can arrive at the article and understand exactly "THIS IS HOW THE ENTITY APPEARS IN GAME WHEN YOU PLAY", without any sifting through paragraphs of lore. In essence, keep the lovely lore, but don't remove the more direct information relating to someone as they play through the game. --Henneyj 18:32, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that what contents boxes are for? Usually there's a header for "During Quest X" or "In Combat" somewhere, if the NPC/monster/bukkit is involved with something besides wandering aimlessly. Real Nub 23:56, March 22, 2013 (UTC)
To keep using Azzanadra as example, there is player involvement on his page. We are mentioned as of Desert Treasure. User_talk:Fswe1 Fswe1 Brassica Prime symbol.png 07:34, March 23, 2013 (UTC)
But only woven into a long history section. If you go to the page looking for that information you have to spend more time than you'd wish to find it. And it's presented in a way that is completely detached from the fact that you play through that part of story. There is one short sentence mentioning the quest and that's all. You should be able to go to the article and see 'The character was involved in this quest. This is how you interact with the character. This is what happens'. Not just lore but also functional use within the game. --Henneyj 16:22, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - We're not a game guide, but an encyclopedia. These ideas are my own. Any similarities between mine and others are pure coincidence. MolMan 18:59, March 22, 2013 (UTC)

Partial support - I don't care for the length of a history section, as long as the information is relevant and useful. And for the purpose of relevance and its importance, I agree with Samba on "and only the information directly involving the character or item the page is designated for should remain".

Although I have no problems with the Azzanadra page, there are a few character articles where the editors have gotten carried away. An example of this is Amascut, which I proofread for Fswe1. The page definitely has all the important stuff, but alot of the otherwise too. The elaborations of the quest parts are really needless, in my opinion. Alchez 11:43, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - The only concerns here would be inconsistencies between the same lore on two separate pages, as well as failing to apply updates to the storyline of one page, but updating the other. However, the latter is probably offset by the fact that we're a wiki. 222 talk 11:45, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Contre - Per above, so long as the content is useful and compliments the other information on the article. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:41, March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - There is no consensus to reduce the history sections of articles at this time. cqm 02:05, 29 Mar 2013 (UTC) (UTC)