Talk:Ijo/Conflicts
Ethnicity
There is some contradiction in canon regarding the ethnicity of the Ijo, specifically whether they are Zenj or Bonuwat. While they are listed as Bonuwat in Sargava, The Lost Colony, Pathfinder Adventure Path #38: Racing to Ruin cites them in several instances (page 20, 46) as being Zenj. (This post by User: Infinifold Please sign posts with ~~~~)
- They are also mentioned as Bonuwat on page 168 of the The Inner Sea World Guide. According to PathfinderWiki:Canon policy they are both Tier 1 resources. This means we should ask on the boards to get a tier 0 "Errata created by Paizo editorial staff" that we can reference. I Copied this to the page's Conflicts page -- Cpt kirstov (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Removing the cross symbol. Canifis (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Restored the conflict symbol, as the conflict still exists in canon; we note the resolution here. See PathfinderWiki:Canon policy. -Oznogon (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Confirmed. Removing the cross symbol. Canifis (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Per Canifis's link to the messageboards, James Jacobs says the Ijo are Bonuwat, further confirming the article's content. Relevant to the older discussion, "world clarification from a citable source such as permanent message board post, chat transcript, or podcast by a member of the Paizo editorial staff on any topic" is a tier 3 source, not tier 0; in this case, tier 0 errata would most likely mean a new printing or official errata document prepared by the editorial staff for Racing to Ruin. -Oznogon (talk) 02:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay; is there actually precedent for getting something like that? I thought errata were only released for the RPG line. Canifis (talk) 21:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Not that I recall off the top of my head. Even if we did, I don't think we'd remove the conflict tag. One point of it is to help someone who only has the conflicting source learn the conflict's resolution and find its correct sources. It's not an inherently negative tag, just an observation that there's an otherwise irreconcilable (but often resolved) conflict. -Oznogon (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Using staff clarification to resolve continuity errors has been a practice since the wiki's earliest days, so perhaps we should bump that up to a higher canon tier. This is not the place for that discussion. I will say, however, that you are correct in the intention of the conflict dagger, and it should not be removed from an article, as it's the only thing pointing people to this talk/conflicts page. —
Yoda8myhead (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
- Opened discussion re: bumping staff clarifications on the Canon Policy project talk page. -Oznogon (talk) 15:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
- Using staff clarification to resolve continuity errors has been a practice since the wiki's earliest days, so perhaps we should bump that up to a higher canon tier. This is not the place for that discussion. I will say, however, that you are correct in the intention of the conflict dagger, and it should not be removed from an article, as it's the only thing pointing people to this talk/conflicts page. —
- Not that I recall off the top of my head. Even if we did, I don't think we'd remove the conflict tag. One point of it is to help someone who only has the conflicting source learn the conflict's resolution and find its correct sources. It's not an inherently negative tag, just an observation that there's an otherwise irreconcilable (but often resolved) conflict. -Oznogon (talk) 21:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
