User talk:Dudecon

From Erfwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I read TBFGK 148 as just Parson referring to the "Ruthlessness" feature of the sword (as listed on the back of his Luckamancy Charms), and not the sword being named "Ruthlessness". Is there something I'm missing here? Menlo Marseilles 21:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruthlessness is the trait that is being conveyed upon Parson. Xewleer 23:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think either is possible, which is why I put it under "speculation". Personally, I think the sentence structure indicates that the sword is named Ruthlessness, but I could be wrong. Dudecon 23:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, look at what he saysErf-b1-p106Same-site.PNG here, sword, three in one! Combat! Leadership! Ruthlessness! Also, he's referring to 'Ruthlessness' in that panel likes it an idea or ability. He knows that it comes with the sword, but it is not the name of the sword.Xewleer 00:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Parson's sword

Dudecon, I removed your statements about Parson's Leadership in the Prop Canon section on his Sword page. Proposed Canon is not a section for debate. If you want to debate issues, then take it to the discussion page for that issue, or if you expect large debate the forums. That Parson has Leadership without the sword is irrelevant to the fact the Sword is described as including Leadership. No one had said that Parson's sole leadership came from the sword: the line only stated a known fact, that the sword conveyed leadership: anything further is speculative and that's why it appears in the Spec section. If you want to make note of Parson having Leadership without the sword, that goes on Parson's page, but I expect it's there already.

Also, the Erfwiki page is not a good place to disrupt statements: we're trying to keep a positive spin and keep debate away from factual statements. I'm still debating what to do about your statement in the Spec section. If you disagree with something, point it out on the forums if it's a major issue, since debating on the discussion page generally gets annoying if it runs long, and some people might not notice the debate (discussion is fine if it runs short). On a few pages we have competing theories on issues, but those are always in Speculation because there is no certainty, but for the most part we are keeping only the most commonly believed theory for any one issue. If there is significant disagreement on an issue, then the speculation runs too deep to make note of, and it cannot be maintained in any reasonable form on a page that anyone can edit -- we wind up with two people going back and forth undoing the other's work. We have generally removed contentious issues entirely, and started the debates on the forums, which are better designed for that format of discussion. --Kreistor 00:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we make it right?

I agree, the name of the sword is speculative, and the grammar analysis on the talk page is a good retort. However, I don't see how speculation (however tenuously founded) sets the entire wiki on the slippery slope to widespread flame brawls. I love Erfworld a great deal. Probably not as much as you do, but I'm trying to be helpful. I kind of feel hurt that my contribution was so rapidly and dismissively brushed aside. I'm not going to fight you on it, that would be dumb. However, please reference the official Useful_Information page, specifically. "Completely irrelevant information isn't useful. But there will be a lot less of this than you think! If it has even a tangential use to fans of Erfworld, leave it in! Deletionism is Naughtymancy."

However, parson's abilities are not speculative. I'm sorry the wording I chose came off as "disruptive". It was merely intended to be helpful and clarifying. A casual reader (unlike yourself or myself) might come into the false understanding that Parson's sword gives him the leadership ability. My addition was intended to be useful. Just because the information may be duplicated on the Parson page is a poor reason to erase it everywhere else.

Here's what I propose. Neither of us dispute the fact that the "leadership" imparted is not an actual ability, but something else. Since you have a better grasp of the atmosphere of the wiki, could you come up with a way to say this on the page without being disruptive?

Thanks so much. I hope we can work together to make this a great wiki!

Sincerely, Paul Spooner

Dudecon 01:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course we can make it right. The problem is that it was standing all alone. There was a factual statement about the abilities of the sword, and then a jump straight to Parson. That's why it came across as disruptive... it didn't flow. Conversation is like a river. If two consecutive statements have limited relationship, it's like encountering white water. It's not smooth. Now, I'm not going to write this for oyu. But what I'd suggest is that you create a separate paragraph about the issue in Speculation. List the three or four possibilities of how "Leadership" on the sword may relate to Parson's Leadership stat. (Replace, augment, direct effect on units, mental suggestions about how to lead, and so on.) I don't want you to stop contributing. And I doubt I love Erfworld more than you. So don't let me scare you off. --Kreistor 17:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)