PathfinderWiki talk:No crunch

Archives:

1 (2009)

2E

This policy needs adaptation to codify which 2E mechanics are exempted. For example, we seem to be all in on traits, to the point where even relative/subjective commonality traits left implicit in statblocks, like Category:Common creatures, are explicitly categorized. See also Talk:Races of Golarion; there is significant tension between 2E traits and ancestries vs. 1E creature types, creature subtypes, and races, particularly when 2E overrides or retcons a 1E classification. -Oznogon (talk) 06:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Eliminate policy (WITHDRAWN)

Changes Rejected This section contains a discussion about changes to this policy that have been rejected.

Proposal withdrawn

With two admins against and an even split in general, reaching consensus on removing No crunch is vanishingly unlikely. I withdraw this proposal per Fleanetha's suggestion, and I'll leave it to someone else to propose a compromise, because I personally don't see a viable one. -Oznogon (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Prior discussion below:

To reflect the focus of the wiki's most active editors, I propose eliminating this policy. There is no longer any apparent interest in applying or enforcing it, so eliminating it should result in few or no changes to administrators while providing freedom and clarity to editors to continue making the sweeping changes to content that are already in progress.

This will allow editors to expand the wiki's content and coverage to include edition-specific mechanical details; player options, such as archetypes that have little or no relevance to the Pathfinder campaign setting; mechanical definitions for canon terms like class, deity, and pantheon; and canon-irrelevant mechanical details of creatures, spells, rituals, magic items without concerns (few though they might be) of violating this policy.

Editors would also be able to maintain Open Game License accordingly as they include more and increasingly specific mechanical details from legacy sources in infoboxes and article text.

The Plagiarism policy already prohibits verbatim copying of text, which would still prevent verbatim copying of mechanics into the wiki, and Point of view would still require that mechanics be written from an in-universe point of view. -Oznogon (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

While I understand we're not voting on this until after discussion takes place, I will say that I have no interest in eliminating this policy. It has always been the pilar of the wiki's mission that prevents this from becoming a rules compendium, which I think we all agree is a service much better provided by other sites and software.

The Plagiarism policy doesn't really have anything to do with rules text, since there are free licenses (the OGL/ORC) that allow for free, verbatim copying of that content. It's not a safeguard against someone putting entire feats or spells up on the site. It is, however, a safeguard against people copying entire blocks of flavor text from sources that are not released under the OGL/ORC.

It sounds like there's a difference in opinion in the definition of "crunch," as I personally don't feel that listing or even describing character options, or categories of options constitutes crunch. I think it enables the wiki to be an index for people playing the game to see how the flavor of the world intersects with the rules of the game and vice-versa, so that someone playing a particular class can see what other setting (and rules) elements are mentioned along with that class in the canon of the world. This is something we can and should more clearly define, but I don't think the solution is to throw the entire policy out the window out of frustration.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the purpose of the policy; PathfinderWiki should not be a rules compendium. When the No crunch policy was last edited more than seven years ago, this policy thus made sense for that reason.

However, the relationship of mechanics and canon content has since changed, but the policy has not. This has turned it from a tool to an impediment, and the problems with it grow with each sweeping mechanical revision Paizo releases.

I propose removing this policy because when 2E was released in 2019, and again and more dramatically with this year's release of the Remaster, the changing nature of the source content has made mechanical "crunch" content itself canon content. "No crunch" is now a paradox since there are feats, abilities, spells, items, classes, archetypes, and other player-character options, creature mechanics, and other rules that are essential canon content.

This policy might warrant replacement rather than removal, but it seems clear in practice that No crunch as written makes clearly and consistently describing the evolution of canon subjects in the current state of the game much harder than it needs to be.

The Remaster in particular retroactively changes fundamental details about character options, spells, creatures, and other mechanics that in turn have sweeping ramifications to the wiki's past attempts to rationalize mechanics from an in-universe point of view, but this problem stretches back to at least Adventurer's Guide marking the end of the separation of mechanical and canon content in the main rulebook product line.

• 2E and the Remaster have redefined foundational terms like "ritual", "deity", "ancestry" and "heritage", and even weapon types like "bow" and creatures and creature types like "humanoid", "beast", and "dragon", both in what they mean and to whom and what they apply. Some of these changes can and have been rationalized by canon events, but others cannot. Many of these changes, especially those driven by the licensing controversy that necessitated the Remaster, cannot be rationalized from any in-universe point of view without describing their mechanical nature.

"Pantheon", for example, could once be used as a generic term. 2E specifically defined the term differently, so editors are understandably flagging previously accurate generic uses of the term as inaccurate. The No crunch policy makes describing what a pantheon is on PathfinderWiki, and how that differs from the dictionary definition, borderline impossible, as the only distinctions are that 2E pantheons have mechanical properties and generic pantheons do not.

Conversely, "paladin" was mechanically defined from before the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game was first released, but since the Remaster it is unclear whether it still has any mechanical definition, and if not it lacks any definition beyond a generic usage. The continued use of "paladin" in Remaster works creates conflicts with how the now multiple, edition-specific wiki articles about paladins define what they are.

• Clearly describing Remaster-related mechanical changes with canon ramifications has led some editors to invoke whether the mechanics' sources use the OGL or ORC License as footnoted context in canon articles to attempt to contextualize why something has changed. This is clearly in violation of the spirit of this policy as much as, if not more than, the usage of mechanics in body content; if the essential difference in an assertion within canon content is whether its source is OGL or ORC licensed, that difference arguably should not be documented in a canon wiki.

As a result of the above issues, we now have articles about canon subjects on the wiki that can exist only in a canon universe that uses the Pathfinder First Edition rules, only in one that uses Pathfinder Second Edition rules, or only in one that uses rules since the Remaster. Because the rationale is purely mechanical, "No crunch" forces context out of the article content and into more obscure workaround spaces.

There is no way to rationalize these changes from an in-universe point of view, and it is increasingly unclear what an "in-universe point of view" means—is the point of view of an inhabitant under 1E rules, where resurrection is a spell and not a ritual, valid? Is the point of view of an inhabitant under 1E and pre-Remaster 2E rules, where conjuration is a school of magic used by summoners and can be applied to spells and items, valid? The consensus, in action and discussion, so far has been that they are not, but we also can't describe why they aren't in content. Editors can't plainly state in canon, non-mechanical terms how something worked in Pathfinder First Edition, Pathfinder Second Edition, and after the Remaster in body content because acknowledging mechanical editions and revisions is a "game-rule element" that by and large cannot be "described as an in-universe character would".

Editors work around the No crunch policy by obscuring, minimizing, or linking offsite to mechanical details important to the nature of these changes in footnotes, sidebars, Talk pages, Meta pages, and off-wiki discussions. We leave articles about subjects where their mechanics differ between editions and revisions—especially spells, creature abilities, items, and some characters—in inconsistent states where a mechanical description in the body of the article, not beholden to an in-universe point of view and in violation of the current No crunch policy, could provide clarity to readers who don't know about or understand the policy.

Obfuscating these mechanics for policy's sake does not serve readers. Linking to other pages or sites that have no compunctions about describing the mechanics alongside canon, as the source material itself does, only highlights how this policy impedes PathfinderWiki's ability to clearly describe canon subjects.

I would also be more sympathetic to keeping this policy if it was enforceable. As it stands, content and categorization changes that rationalize edition- and revision-specific mechanics as changes to the campaign setting end up debated ad hoc as if this policy didn't exist. Nothing in this policy serves those discussions, nor can it, because it was created and exists from a point in time when none of these discussions were possible.

Also, regarding this:

The Plagiarism policy doesn't really have anything to do with rules text, since there are free licenses (the OGL/ORC) that allow for free, verbatim copying of that content. It's not a safeguard against someone putting entire feats or spells up on the site. It is, however, a safeguard against people copying entire blocks of flavor text from sources that are not released under the OGL/ORC.

I strongly disagree. The Plagiarism policy already prohibits the verbatim copying of source text regardless of whether it is mechanical in nature, and regardless of whether the CUP, OGL, or ORC License legally allows that content to be copied. The Plagiarism policy makes no exceptions for mechanical content or open-licensed content, even when considering the final three sentences concerning the No crunch policy that are in its first paragraph.

If anything, the No crunch policy defines which mechanical elements are allowed rather than what is prohibited. If it ceased to exist, it would still be against the Plagiarism policy to copy crunch verbatim, and editors would still be allowed (and for years have been allowed) to include it as paraphrased content from an in-universe point of view.

This is something we can and should more clearly define, but I don't think the solution is to throw the entire policy out the window out of frustration.

I don't suggest removing this policy out of frustration; this has been a years-long deliberation on my part. As we've discussed several times over the years, I've traditionally been much more opposed than you to the amount of mechanical information the wiki already documents. I would prefer literally "no crunch" and have been vocal about it.

However, the game has changed. There is no longer any policy value remaining in a policy that attempts to exclude crunch from canon documentation of a game that has intentionally moved toward making mechanics inextricable from canon.

This policy contains two sentences that are guidelines at best, and arguably either are redundant with or belong instead in the Point of view policy:

Try to remove any game-rule elements and describe the benefits or mechanics as an in-world character would.

and the Plagiarism policy:

There are plenty of sources on the Internet that transcribe crunch, so it is not necessary to duplicate crunch from system reference documents or any source material (potentially infringing copyright), but rather links can be provided to such content instead.

Neither would materially change the enforceable content of those policies. Removing the rest of this policy would have no enforceable effect on any of the edits made over at least the last year, but would have saved considerable time in discussions over whether content related to edition- and revision-specific mechanics were appropriate for inclusion or removal.

If the concern is that removing this policy would lead to editors attempting to transform it into a resource more like Archives of Nethys or an SRD, Scope of the project is already an appropriate policy to reinforce that. I also do not believe this is a present danger to the wiki.

An alternative to removing or replacing this policy would be to enforce it as it exists, which seems like it should result in the removal of 1E- and legacy 2E-derived mainspace articles and article body content concerning spells, rituals, items, systems of magic, and character options such as classes, archetypes, and prestige classes; 1E and 2E legacy-content creatures and character options that have been replaced by new definitions in Remaster works; all remaining creatures from 1E Bestiary volumes and content citing only 1E pre-Adventurer's Guide rulebooks that were never used in a canon work; and other article body content that is purely and solely derived from edition- or revision-specific mechanical definitions rather than content that has been consistent across editions.

The only appropriate places for game mechanics, per this policy, are "almost exclusively within an infobox or a category designation, not within the main body of an in-universe article". Without the ability to reference mechanics, content that relies exclusively on edition- and revision-specific mechanics otherwise cannot be reconciled.

As I noted, there has been no indication that this policy would be enforced in that manner either. That leaves me without any understanding of the purpose it is meant to serve the wiki as it exists today, or any path toward revising it in a manner that would. -Oznogon (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Marking one month without further comment and no consensus. -Oznogon (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Two months without comment or consensus. -Oznogon (talk) 05:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Three months; I assume this proposal will not be discussed or acted upon, but I decline any opportunity to withdraw it because I still feel as passionately now about the need to remove the policy and reform guidance to ensure that editors can continue to document necessary canon details inextricably tied to mechanical terms and concepts, still restrained to an in-universe perspective and without copying verbatim rules content as already enforced by other policies.

If anything, the lack of movement here but new editors pushing back on outdated policies suggests that an even broader review and modernization of this policy, Project:Spoilers, and Project:Scope of the project would be beneficial. -Oznogon (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Approve. Many great points, but most importantly, the Plagiarism and Point of view policies already seem to address the main concerns of the "No crunch" policy. --Rexert (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Approve. Maintain important enforcement within Scope of the Project as Oznogon states. Removing this policy feels important for the wiki to remain useful for people using or exploring the history of Pathfinder through its editions. --Emky (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

This policy continues to impede the accuracy and value of many articles. The most recent example I bumped into is the iconic character Seltyiel, who used to be an eldritch knight at one point, and some Paizo products referring to him as such continue to be sold on their store page. However, Seltyiel's article is not, and cannot be categorized under Category:Eldritch knights because of this policy, as prestige classes are mechanical details and his class switch to magus cannot be described from an in-universe point of view. The same applies to the class parameter of his infobox.

Personally, I think an encyclopedic article should mention the former class of a character, and as a reader, I would certainly expect it to. If I was the GM of an older adventure that exclusively describes Seltyiel as an eldritch knight, yet found no mention of eldritch knights on his PathfinderWiki page, I would simply write off the website as misinformation and an invalid source. It seems like the goal of maintaining a crunch-free and up-to-date in-universe description of canon content has resulted in completely valid and factual information being discarded, damaging the credibility of the PathfinderWiki.

I believe Seltyiel's article should contain a purely mechanical and not-in-universe paragraph describing the character's class change, and, if possible, when and why it was changed. With the recent addition of the OSRS Semantic data cheatsheet, there is another example from the OSRS wiki that I would like to see implemented here—the changes table, or a similar adaptation. This would allow canon changes to be publicly documented on their relevant articles, providing clarity and accuracy on matters outside the in-universe point of view, rather than expecting readers to dig through discussion and meta pages to figure out why Seltyiel doesn't have the eldritch knight class among countless other retcon examples.

I strongly urge further consideration on this topic from User:Yoda8myhead and other editors who haven't weighed in yet. --Rexert (talk) 12:12, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

A point of order on Seltyiel: No crunch already provides exceptions for categorization. There's no reason he can't be categorized as an eldritch knight, nor any reason why his infobox can't mention it. -Oznogon (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

That's fair, however, an explanation and date of the change should still be included to clarify where in the released product timeline Seltyiel's class changes. If an in-universe explanation was available, this information could be easily presented to readers within the main article. But without it, the No Crunch policy limits this information to footnotes, references, discussion pages and meta pages, none of which are an optimal solution. Especially if these venues become bloated with several other changes, irrelevant discussions and footnotes. The OSRS Wiki changes table continues to be the best solution I've seen for this issue. --Rexert (talk) 18:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

With User:Rexert revisting prestige classes for categorization, and many of the setting-relevant ones fully redundant with other canon content and organizations except for their mechanics, I raised on Talk:Prestige class how Project:No crunch essentially requires them (and setting-notable 2E archetypes that fill the same mechanical purposes) to exist without useful content.

If No crunch remains, we should delete all PrC and most 2E archetype articles as redundant with related canon content, because they otherwise add nothing except crunch—especially 2E archetypes that replicate 1E PrCs, which are distinctly limited to player characters. -Oznogon (talk) 23:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I much prefer the idea of removing the No Cruch policy over removing articles that describe prestige classes used and linked to by many canon characters. I care less for the 2E archetypes, as they don't apply to canon characters, although they certainly should be documented somewhere. --Rexert (talk) 23:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Another Discord discussion: User:Rexert proposes a main-article table documenting mechanical changes, which since the release of 2E have canon relevance. This is prohibited by the letter of No crunch. Rexert suggested that the alternatives of using Meta or Talk page, or infobox footnotes, were unacceptible:

The main issue is readers are unlikely to dig through Discussion or Meta pages to find such information, so yes, it should be documented somewhere in the main article. Though depending on the number of changes, footnotes can become too bloated too quickly. A changes paragraph or template for mechanical and out-of-universe point-of-view adjustments would be great.

Eliminating No crunch would enable Rexert's proposal, which in turn would also effectively kill the Meta namespace, the primary function of which is to serve the proposed purpose but is apparently unsuitable for the task. -Oznogon (talk) 18:21, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The Meta namespace could still serve a few purposes like extended descriptions of changes, or lists of unincorporated sources. However, I do not think readers should be expected to use Meta pages to learn about canonical changes. It is bold to assume readers are aware Meta pages exist, let alone bother opening them and searching them for an explanation. Pointers sending readers to the Meta page are disruptive, forcing readers to jump back and forth between two pages to follow along the canonical history of the topic.

I've been using the PathfinderWiki daily, and even I don't know where to look for an explanation if something about an article seems off. Is it in the footnotes? Maybe it's in the references this time? Perhaps I'll check the Meta page, after I read the Discussion page to see if it contains what I'm looking for. One consistent and reliable table, within the main article of any topic with canon changes, would help a great deal. --Rexert (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

While stating up front that I am not a terribly active editor and that there is something to be said for accommodating those who are, I strongly disagree with this proposal. The Wiki has a purpose and principles upon which it was founded or whose importance became obvious early on. Times change, and perhaps so has the relationship between crunch and lore, but that should mean adjusting the line between the two, not blowing it up. I agree with Yoda that there are ways in which classes and archetypes are not simply mechanical but have real-world analogues and acting like there's no relationship between the two is just being obtuse, but that's no reason to extend the concession to writing up whole articles about archetypes. It just means you don't need to tiptoe around the fact that a particular character is an example of an archetype. Put it in the info box where it belongs and call it a day.

I'm intermittently engaged in a project to merge the existing deity info box data with the new data from the Divine Mysteries web supplement. This could potentially be a huge influx of crunch, but my intent is only to add it to the semantic data. What gets shown in the info box is another matter entirely. I think there's room for a lot of the details. Divine colors, animals, even weapons. These are all minutiae of Golarion lore, but lore nonetheless. Edicts and Anathema, while crunchy, are downright important to include. Moreover, I would argue that they are important to include verbatim because once you start paraphrasing such things you introduce ambiguities and inconsistencies. But it's still important for understanding the gestalt of the deity, as is whether you must or can choose holy or unholy, and what their domains are. However, once you start straying into which spells those domains confer and at which levels, that has no place in the Wiki. That is AoN's domain. You come here to get the feel of a thing. You go to AoN to know how to use them. That seems to have been the purpose of the wiki since its inception and I see no compelling reason to change it, especially if that means the immediate inclusion of things like (no offense intended, Rexert) tables of mechanical changes between editions right in the middle of the article.

Now, I'm not opposed to the idea of creating a new namespace for purely mechanical information, but I think it's important to respect what the wiki is and what people expect from it. But trying to cross those streams? "It would be bad." --Volfied (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Whoa... hold up. Meta is supposed to be more mechanical stuff? The problem there, then, is that it's named wrong. "Meta" makes me think, essentially, "talk page". If we want people to include mechanics or crunch, we should name it that. --Volfied (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

While the policy certainly has a purpose, that purpose is already covered by the Plagiarism and Point of view policies. It also hasn't stopped entire articles about archetypes, or their 1E equivalent at least, from existing: Umbral Court agent, Spherewalker, Mortal usher. You seem to plan adding crunchy information yourself, so what is the point of supporting a policy nobody follows? When I see that a policy is old, I see all the more reason to change it or remove it, rather than an additional reason to maintain it in its outdated state.

Tables of mechanical changes, however, would be at the bottom of articles rather than the middle. They would be no more intrusive than the navboxes or categories already being used, nor would every article have one. Such tables would provide a convenient place to view canon changes that have no canon explanation, although I'm open to other adaptations instead of table formatting. Considering many pages only have a single canon change, like Chelaxian ethnicity to Taldan, a simple paragraph may suffice. Tables just seem more readable and suitable for future expansion, if needed. --Rexert (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding another venue, like the proposed changelog table, won't move contextual content into it automatically, which is why you can come up with examples of why the Meta namespace doesn't work as the venue for real-world context that policies otherwise prohibit from being in article text outside of footnotes. There are still things like uncategorized unincorporated sources lists in Talk namespaces because the only way to find them is to stumble upon them.

There's no reason to have two formally recognized venues designed for metatextual context like mechanical changes, regardless of the namespace. Unincorporated sources and explanations for retcons and canon changes would go in the table too. The Meta namespace would then be as redundant as our mechanical infoboxes for creatures and deities already are to AoN. -Oznogon (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

(And yes, I'm well aware that canon conflicts are not just in Talk pages but subpages of Talk pages, and I hate that too, and I wish they were in Meta. Lost that argument too. Don't want to engage in it again.) -Oznogon (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps my proposal wasn't worded clearly enough, however, I do not support filling such a changelog table with entire paragraphs worth of context like the Meta:Drow page, for example. A changelog table should only describe canon changes in a sentence or two, rather than rival the size of the article itself. There is an argument to be made about unincorporated sources, as many character articles already have a "(Character Name) is mentioned in the following works:" table. However, more detailed context and Paizo staff quotes should likely remain within Meta pages, though I do understand the desire to minimize the number of namespaces.

Your other comment, emphasizing the Facts namespace as a perfect venue for mechanical information, might provide a more elegant solution. Perhaps the Meta namespace could be replaced with the Facts namespace on all PathfinderWiki articles and automatically generate the changelog table I proposed, or a similar adaptation, without the need for additional templates. This would truly remove the need for the Meta namespace and provide a venue for documenting extended context or Paizo staff quotes, while also generating a shortened, public canon explanation on the article page derived from that extended context without bloating footnotes, references and Talk pages. --Rexert (talk) 09:57, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

--

Meta is supposed to contain metatextual content that supports and contextualizes editorial decisions in articles. In practice, it's the dumping ground for all of the information that's relevant context for why an article's content is the way that it is—like known but unincorporated sources, canon changes, retcons—that can't be included in the article due to policies like No crunch, Point of view, and Scope of the project. This can include mechanical context for canon changes to fundamentally mechanical concepts, like Meta:Champion and Meta:Alignment and Meta:Schools of magic, that No crunch otherwise prohibits outside of footnotes.

Meta also allows us to cite and expand on the often complex reasons why something is, isn't, or never should have been canon without needing to dump paragraphs of information and nested references into footnotes that are woefully difficult to read and intentionally aren't designed to contain more than a citation.

I'm strongly against namespace creep. The semantic Facts namespace for structured data—which is perfect for mechanics—and the Meta namespace for unstructured context are already way more than enough. Yet another namespace would only deepen the labor issue of needing volunteers to populate it—and focusing volunteer work on that work instead of updating woefully outdated non-mechanical canon content or filling holes in canon coverage is IMO not a useful outcome.

Also, I desperately wish we could rip every mechanical piece of content and categorization out and move it to semantic data. I'd pay thousands of dollars to buy the right to rip every mechanical detail out of mainspace, put it in the trash, set it on fire, and never talk about it again for the rest of my life. That still won't change the fact that Yivali, the crew of the Zoetrope, and attendees of the Six Schools' Convocation can describe Pathfinder RPG mechanics using real-world mechanical terminology from an ostensibly in-universe PoV in the main inline text of a sourcebook, but we can't do it in an article about that same subject because of No crunch. -Oznogon (talk) 03:05, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean hell, if we paid any actual attention to this policy we'd never reference the name of a spell in main namespace article text. Does anyone seriously follow that? Should we? If this discussion ends with keeping No crunch as is, I guess I'm gonna go rip all those spell name references out of the wiki? -Oznogon (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Cripes. There's a lot here, some of which I don't understand or can't see how it relates to the near-twenty-year-old fundamental principle of this wiki or why it's generating such heat and passion. As it stands, I don't really know what I am asked to vote upon apart from the initial request for deletion of the policy page, which is there inter alia to stop phrases like 'gives a +2 bonus to AC' appearing in the body text. I don't want that. As it stands, then, I disagree with such a deletion. There is now a 3:3 split, so whichever way is decided for this particular policy change request is, unfortunately, going to be frustrating for some.

I propose instead that we kill this nuclear option and then request editors to bring forward some smaller, more focused, useful improvements that address the problems people are experiencing that can garner greater consent. For instance, maybe better signposting might be a start to the Meta pages? Personally, I really admire and appreciate the work that has been done, primarily by Oznogon, to clearly explain changes to elements of the game over two major upheavals. If that treasure trove is not being found, then can we find a way to better flag it to users? --Fleanetha (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Does an in-universe character know what a "+2 bonus to AC" is? If not, then such phrases cannot appear within an article regardless if this policy exists or not. --Rexert (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Some crunch for main body of articles

Changes Proposed This section contains suggested changes to this policy. Please discuss the suggested changes here. For further information please see the policy revision process.

One of the many good points brought up in the previous discussion was how certain kinds of crunch that the current policy prohibits from being in the main body of articles are nonetheless consistently referred to both in recent publications and within the main body of articles on this wiki. I propose moving the following forms of crunch (in descending order of clarity) to a separate list that is permitted to be in the main body of articles, as they are understood concepts in-universe and frequently referred to by in-universe characters such as the scholars in Rival Academies and Secrets of Magic:

• Spell names
• Character class (I have heard secondhand we have confirmation that classes are canon concepts, correct me if I'm wrong)
• Creature types (though it should be noted that the boundaries in canon do not seem to be as strict as the mechanical traits and types, see Talk:Spirit for an example.)

Things such as CR/Level and most feat and ability names can remain limited to infoboxes as they do not seem to have the same level of immersion in the setting as the above categories. An exception should be earned when the rules elements have clearly presented in-universe context or are referenced by an in-universe description somewhere. This is a far cry from fully fixing the outdated policy, but I hope it could be a reasonable and meaningful step forward. -Ravenstone (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Update (05:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)): User:Oznogon suggested additional candidates for inclusion (see response below), which should be additionally considered in this proposed policy change:

• Mechanical details described in-universe by canon characters
• 2E archetypes
• Ancestry feats that describe aspects of canon
• Mechanical glossary definitions with canon relevance

-Ravenstone (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Spell names seem reasonable to mention in the course of an article if they are used prominently in settled canon. Unless there is a great deal of attention paid in lore to a particular spell, I would see no reason to give them their own article (not saying you were suggesting this, just saying). I think it should be possible, though, to come up with a more generalized definition of canonicity (and, thus, eligibility for wiki inclusion). If we're interested in spitballing such a thing, perhaps we can brainstorm a list of "types of crunch", so that we can try to extrapolate a rule from how we'd handle them. Does this seem like a worthwhile approach? Volfied (talk) 21:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Do the spell articles from Rival Academies that User:Sonatasapphire has been adding, such as beseech the sphinx, pass muster as having "a great deal of attention paid in lore"? They often appear only in one page of one work. If not, we should begin flagging them for deletion and deter Sonatasapphire from contributing to them. -Oznogon (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the spells' association with specific schools makes them notable enough to warrant inclusion. There's never going to be a ton of lore about any given spell, but the thematic presentation of this book justifies what's there to be included, I think. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I approve of User:Ravenstone's proposed exceptions.

Additional mechanical concerns not allowed by these exceptions include:

• Any mechanical details presented as in-character writings from an in-universe PoV.

Rage of Elements, Secrets of Magic, Howl of the Wild, Divine Mysteries, and Rival Academies all prominently employ this.

For example, 2E spell levels/ranks became canon in-universe information on Secrets of Magic 9, by being written in a page from an in-universe textbook by a canon character. As primarily mechanical details, however, the No crunch policy makes it unclear whether spell ranks can be mentioned in the body of an article about spells, or specific spells or rituals where their ranks are known.

• 2E archetypes, which are not classes.

Archetypes became a canon-relevant mechanical issue in Dark Archive, Tian Xia Character Guide, Howl of the Wild, War of Immortals, and Rival Academies.

• The names of ancestry- and heritage-related feats that define canon details of that ancestry or heritage, but are not otherwise referenced outside of a mechanical context.

For example, the Tian Xia Character Guide samsaran feats All This Has Happened Before, All This Will Happen Again, and And Will Do So Once More define a purposefully designed chain of abilities whose names, flavor, and mechanics describe an aspect of samsaran ancestral philosophy and practice. None are referenced outside of their mechanical feats and therefore seem to be prohibited from being mentioned in articles by No crunch.

TXCG is a rich source of examples for this; every ancestry has at least one purely mechanical feat that becomes difficult or impossible to refer to from an in-universe PoV without referring to its purely mechanical name.

• 2E glossary definitions of mechanical terms, which often include canon-relevant details in their definitions.

-Oznogon (talk) 22:23, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I approve this proposal. Another mechanical detail ... (moved to separate proposal) --Rexert (talk) 23:51, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

More and more, I think we need to revisit the Point of view policy to define a line below which content is permitted to use a real-world POV. We've always said that infoboxes permitted it, but if we're going to start listing character appearances in tables, putting canon changelogs on in-world topics, and more, we might as well just say that such content can exist "below the line" so we're not constantly butting the exceptions to No Crunch against POV and other policies.— Yoda8myhead (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Proposed at Project talk:Point of view. -Oznogon (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I approve of the proposed exceptions and also ask that we consider the list Oznogon made above for potential inclusion as well. Wherever we draw the line, there will be corner cases that are excluded, but most of these seem like useful content for users. As long as such exceptions are listed in a crunchy section rather than in the in-world POV main section, I don't think there's any real downside to including it. — Yoda8myhead (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

First, thanks everyone for having another go and I'm pleased to see less of a split now that we look at smaller bounded areas for change.

I'd suggest rather than bloat this section, though, different suggestions from the discussion of a list of 'crunchy' elements that could be included should get pulled out to a separate change policy below please, as it's already becoming a little difficult to see to what people are agreeing. Rexert, for instance, I think your statements constitute another potential policy change: Another mechanical detail....

On Ravenstone's Oz-enhanced list above, I am minded to agree myself. I am just uncertain on one element, Oz, and would appreciate an example of Mechanical glossary definitions with canon relevance / 2E glossary definitions of mechanical terms, which often include canon-relevant details in their definitions. please, as I don't want to guess/assume I know what that means? Many thanks again all. --Fleanetha (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Look in the back of any 2E book and read the glossary, which concisely defines subjects referenced in that book. Some of these define mechanical subjects of canon relevance, such as what a spirit is, in purely mechanical terms.

spirit (trait) Effects with this trait can affect creatures with spiritual essence and might deal spirit damage. A creature with this trait is defined by its spiritual essence. Spirit creatures often lack a material form.

This mechanical description of a mechanical trait also defines fundamental canon properties of what a spirit is. Per No crunch, it constitutes "game mechanics" that "should be left out in favor of descriptive text to the same effect", but 2E's mechanical language is already largely indistinguishable from plain language. "Spiritual essence", "material form", and "spirit damage" are all precise terms with known definitions. 2E's design intentionally merges their mechanical functions with their canon meanings to the point where they are inextricable.

Alternatively, trying "to remove any game-rule elements and describe the benefits or mechanics as an in-world character would" is not feasible because the mechanical language is also the in-world description. The glossary entry is concise enough to leave little room for replacing meaningful mechanical terms without reducing the entry's accuracy and precision.

No crunch's 2009-era language doesn't align with the intent of 2E content that it couldn't have anticipated. Since No crunch isn't going anywhere, 2E glossary entries are caught in ambiguity and should be exempted. -Oznogon (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Oz for the clarification. I'll join the approve party at this point for the original three and Oz's additional four list items. --Fleanetha (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Allow and implement a change log

I propose amending the No Crunch policy to allow mechanical changes, retcons, canon conflicts and similar not-in-universe adjustments to be documented beneath the external links or references of any mainspace articles that need it, as well as implementing a change log that utilizes this permission. Such changes are being documented within articles already, as they provide important context for differences between canon sources regarding the same subject matter. However, at the moment, editors are forced to awkwardly work around the No Crunch policy by pushing this information into footnotes, references and navboxes, bloating these sections with information that doesn't really belong there.

• The footnotes of the Absalom infobox explain that "Population and demographics are updated from Absalom, City of Lost Omens. Absalom's population in The Inner Sea World Guide and World Guide was 303,900. Older maps of Absalom differ from more recent maps in geography and district borders; see Talk;Absalom/Conflicts."

• The first reference for Abrogail Thrune II explains that "Paizo described Chelaxians as a separate human ethnicity until Pathfinder Second Edition, when they were retroactively redesignated as being of Taldan descent. See Meta:Chelaxian (human ethnicity)."

• The "Legacy, unclear, or outdated ancestries" section of the ancestries navbox explains that it contains "Canon races or lineages whose canon or mechanical roles were changed, removed, or made unclear by Pathfinder Second Edition or the Pathfinder Remaster"

Despite being relegated to such positions, where canon changes are easier to miss and harder to read with their small font, these solutions are still preferable over posting them in the Talk and Meta namespaces. These namespaces are often bloated with irrelevant discussions, unincorporated sources, or highly verbose explanations complete with entire Paizo staff quotes, which can make the desired information difficult to find. That's assuming the reader is aware of the Talk and Meta pages in the first place, which immediately scroll out of sight while reading an article, and is willing to switch back and forth between the article and the additional page to cross-check any inconsistencies.

My proposal is to establish a reliable and standardized table called a change log, similar to the OSRS wiki changes table, which would be excluded from the No Crunch policy. This table would appear between the external links or references and the navboxes of mainspace articles containing canon changes, documenting them as concisely as possible, and providing the book and/or date when each change occurred. Relevant changes to the point of view policy have already been proposed by User:Yoda8myhead and User:Oznogon, which would prevent the in-universe requirement from applying to mainspace articles beginning with the external links or references section.

There are two possible methods for implementing such a table. Either as a new template that editors would manually insert and edit within the article, or by using the Facts namespace to automatically generate the table within the article. I would argue that the first method requires the Meta namespace to provide a venue for long and detailed explanations including Paizo staff quotes and unincorporated sources, which should arguably not appear within change logs. The latter method, however, would allow the Facts namespace to replace the Meta namespace entirely and contain both detailed explanations and concise versions of them, which would then be used to generate the change log table automatically.

I lean toward the latter method, as minimizing the number of namespaces is desirable, manually edited templates are prone to errors, and because Facts and Meta already compete for the same purpose. If you support this proposal, please mention your preferred method. --Rexert (talk) 03:59, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Disapprove; wrong venue. There are good points here about better surfacing major canon changes in the Main namespace (and also a weirdly public dragging of the work I've done and compromises editors have previously agreed to in order to document canon changes at all, which is depressing).

However, regardless of its merits and issues, this proposal is in the wrong venue. The venue to allow content like this in articles is the existing proposal that you already linked to (PoV), and the venue to define where something like this would go in an article and what it would contain is MoS. -Oznogon (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

My apologies, this proposal is by no means intended to downplay the value of existing documentation of canon changes. Regardless where and how they are listed, it is an invaluable and time-consuming part of maintaining accuracy and context of the Pathfinder setting. Verbose explanations and Paizo staff quotes have their place on the PathfinderWiki too, I just don't think the table I proposed is that place. The fact any canon changes are documented at all, considering the existence of multiple policies that interfere with this goal, is commendable.

This proposal is intended to highlight the trouble editors have to go through to document canon changes, and compile the information from several venues into one consistent location that would be more convenient for readers and editors alike.

I don't necessarily agree that this is the wrong venue, however, considering that the change log would certainly contain crunchy elements forbidden by this policy, like the differences between former and present infobox parameters that were changed based on retcons or errata lists published by Paizo. There is a case to be made for this proposal to be posted in any of these three locations, I think this policy has a larger impact on the proposal than the two you suggested, and splitting it into multiple policy talk pages would remove much of the context. --Rexert (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm realizing that I'm caring too much about things that simply do not matter. When even procedural suggestions become multi-point arguments, it stops being beneficial to anyone. Go for it. Approved. -Oznogon (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Rexert, for breaking this out as a separate policy change request. Before approval, this needs to be worded please such that the text can be transferred to the policy page and at the moment there is no such text, though your first sentence is a good starting point. I also think we have two separate ideas at play, too, that might be better individually considered:

1. where can crunch be placed on a page?
2. how to simplify and consolidate real-world changes related to a particular page's subject?

Re the first, I think it is a good idea and would be valuable to state where crunch is allowed on a page here, even if the defining policy is elsewhere - we'd just need to summarize here and link to that main definition (likely at Project talk:Point of view) from here, rather than duplicating it. That would avoid the need for double change requests whenever future changes are required.

The second point again is a reasonable request - it's related to the better signposting concept I referenced in the original conversation, I think. Like Oz's original thought, I am unsure that policy belongs here, though, and would be better raised against Project talk:Point of view, so would be pointed to from here if the first bullet is agreeable. The bigger question for the second point is how to solve the issue of collating all the changes in one place and where. Your table idea located on the main page is fine. That would not remove the use of a quick footnote (as that has contextual relevance too within the text, as does an ib footnote) and the Meta page does seem appropriate for those longer explanations of a point, that Oz has pioneered, to avoid bloating a table. I am also reluctant to have more namespaces and would like to solve this without resorting to another one. Could the change log act as a 'nexus point' to indicate a. all the changes in a chronological list; b. point to where each change is discussed (ib, footnote, Talk, or Meta page, or just in the table itself where appropriate) - a third column in the table? It could even pull in conflicts too? Maybe an example of your table would help? --Fleanetha (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

It's an awkward time to make this proposal due to the PoV already having a similar unresolved proposal that aims to incorporate part of what I suggested. I doubled up on some of the language because otherwise, this proposal hinges entirely on the other proposal passing, and it's hard to know what will be approved or rejected first.

Personally, I care more about the existence of a change table than its specifics, so I'm open to a variety of implementations. There are a few logical points that likely should be incorporated, like the ability to sort changes by chronological order, and keep change descriptions concise to prevent the table from reaching the size of the article itself, maintaining readability. If the Meta namespace is kept, then each concise change in the table could link to an extensive and detailed description there or, alternatively, in the Talk page. If the Meta namespace is replaced with the Facts namespace, it could contain both long and concise explanations, automatically generating the table with the concise change descriptions exclusively.

Regardless which method is used, canonical changes logged in footnotes and other venues should be minimized and consolidated into the changes table where possible, as that is the main purpose of such a table to begin with. Although, if a footnote is necessary for immediate context regarding the infobox information, without requiring the reader to scroll below references for the change table, then the footnote could link to the change table similarly to the way references are used. --Rexert (talk) 09:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have created a basic example of such a change log table: User:Rexert/Change log. Feel free to edit and experiment with the table until a suitable variation for broader application across PathfinderWiki is found. --Rexert (talk) 10:58, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I think there's some value to such a proposal, but I would steer away from making it a table with dated entries and I would keep it strictly related to the article subject. In your example, for instance, I would not include the note about the Chelaxian race/ethnicity. The bit about the character specifically, though, that's useful. I would be inclined to title such a section "Retcons and [Conflicts or Inconsistencies]" and just make it a bulleted list. Volfied (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The ethnicity change is very related to the character, as books released before the Chelaxian retcon refer to the character as Chelaxian. If this change isn't documented on the character's page and it's simply set to Taldan instead, another editor reading such an older source will come along and change it to Chelaxian. While regular users who see their 1E book information not align with the wiki infobox would simply view the wiki as an unreliable source and stop using it due to, from their perspective, getting basic character information wrong.

You may want to view User:Oznogon's alternative version if a regular list is more your speed. --Rexert (talk) 14:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose if it's already included as a reference on every single Chelaxian's page, then moving it around a bit does no harm. Still seems like overkill to me. If I were starting from scratch, I'd probably advocate for an asterisk with a tooltip explanation. Volfied (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

"an asterisk with a tooltip explanation" would just be the existing built-in MediaWiki footnotes from my example, plus the Reference Tooltips gadget (image) that User:Virenerus would have to install. -Oznogon (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

I've created a separate proposal at Project talk:Manual of style to redefine the References section and include this information there, without removing contextual footnote links and including unincorporated sources. It also formalizes our descriptions of major references.

This separate proposal does not rely on changes to No crunch or changes to PoV, and changes to those policies would not require further changes to the MoS proposal to be implemented. Example implementation mirroring User:Rexert's at User:Oznogon/Canon changes and conflicts. -Oznogon (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2025 (UTC)