Talk:Sanctification

2E disambiguation

Using the 2E disambiguation template doesn't seem to make sense, because sanctification is a legacy->remaster change, not a 1E->2E change; and links to the AoE spells consecrate and desecrate don't make sense, because the legacy equivalent of legacy concept that's most related to sanctification is alignment. --Descriptivist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Yoda, Remastered content is inherently Second Edition content, especially when it retroactively exists. Sanctification as described in the Remaster didn't exist as a First Edition concept, where it was at most a specialized ritual to remove corruption from a monument or location; as described, it is solely a Second Edition concept. We do not need and should not have banners to designate current canon concepts because all articles should cover current canon concepts unless otherwise noted.

Holiness and unholiness and Edicts and anathema already cover the two alignment axes from a canon perspective; alignment didn't use or require a separate mechanical concept like sanctification to be implemented. The retroactive change is already sufficiently described in a footnote.

I've re-ambiguated the disambiguation notice to remove edition-specific mechanical concerns. -Oznogon (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! The footnote is nice to have, but I really feel like it's oddly easy for readers to not notice it. Sanctification and alignment's interrelation is very close, so I would recommend replacing {{See also|Consecrate}} with {{See also|Alignment|consecrate}} to increase the visibility of information, given that the introduction of sanctification does involve some level of [partial] retroactive changes. It's helpful that Holiness and unholiness currently says "For the similar concepts mechanically applied in legacy Second Edition and First Edition content, see alignment."; similarly, I think adding here {{See also|Alignment|consecrate}} seems like a good level of signposting to point uninitiated readers in the right direction; I would hate for someone unversed in the timeline of Pathfinder's license issues and retroactive continuity to go unaware that there's so much history and lore about alignment available for them to read more about. --Descriptivist (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

For additional as-yet unincorporated sources about this subject, see the Meta page.

Among clerics (RESOLVED)

The article's subsection used to be titled "Among clerics", but the rules of anathema and atonement apply to any number of classes and archetypes such as champions, vindicators, and cultivators. I tried renaming the section as "Among worshipers"; is there a better title for it? --Descriptivist (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

AoN link

Currently, this page's external links direct users to specifically refer to automatically-generated information on AoN that is not sourced from the text of Paizo books. I felt that if we direct users to canonically questionable information, we should try to include a little label informing them that the information is canonically questionable. I see that PFWiki articles like this shouldn't make statements that would be "unmaintainable" due to, for example, the need to continually re-edit the article to revise our "warning label". I assumed that the implementation I wrote wouldn't require future edits; was there a concern with my label's wording? --Descriptivist (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

If you have issues with the quality of information on Archives of Nethys, I suggest raising it with the maintainers of Archives of Nethys. External links sections are not canon information here any more or less than they are when we link to Lovecraft's works on Elder Mythos creatures or Wikipedia links on animals. They're resources that can benefit visitors; that's why they're linked in this section and not as citations in the article text.

If you feel strongly that the information there is not useful, feel free to remove it or replace it in favor of a better source, but understand that it is largely beyond the scope of the project to be a repository of mechanical information, especially when there are officially recognized sources like Archives of Nethys. But we absolutely should not pass judgment on the quality of the officially recognized sources we rely on in the content of our articles.

If you absolutely need to use PFW as a venue to voice your concerns about the quality of Archives of Nethys, do it on your User page. Adding notes like that to an article is not only unmaintainable, it's also inappropriate. -Oznogon (talk) 21:40, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I definitely apologize for the offense; you're right that we have a responsibility to not give readers any impression that might make them think lesser of the value provided by resources like the volunteer work of AoN! I have absolutely no complaints about the quality of AoN's sanctification information; I love how AoN practices the utmost responsibility in how on every deity's page, AoN themselves explicitly print a signpost reading: "[Nethys Note: Generated]]", given that AoN wants users to be aware of the unusually high likelihood that remaster books will retcon this specific information. Naturally, this article's external links lead not to such a signposted deity page but to the Search.aspx results page which doesn't display that label and shouldn't display that label, since lore canonicity isn't AoN's job. My implementation's thought process was that my advisory label meant to clarify exactly that canonicity isn't AoN's job and mechanics aren't PFWiki's job (and thus our articles don't rely on AoN as a source of information on legacy deities' sanctification, since AoN tells users that it's not a source on legacy deities' sanctification). --Descriptivist (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing any opposition and ending discussion. -Oznogon (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

"Sanctify followers' acts" verbiage

Based on the sanctification details that I've been able to find in the Pathfinder books, my assumption has been to interpret it to be more precise to use wording such as "Pharasma does not sanctify her followers as holy or unholy," rather than the wording "Pharasma does not sanctify her followers' acts as holy or unholy." For one example, if a character has the unholy trait, then holy creatures like the quetz coatl can afflict the character with special curse magic that only curses unholy creatures. This is unrelated to the character performing any unholy acts; the character themself is metaphysically unholy. If this understanding doesn't raise any questions, I'd like to use such follower-sanctifying, instead of act-sanctifying, wording in this article and other articles, such as Champion. --Descriptivist (talk) 07:52, 20 September 2024 (UTC)