PathfinderWiki
Log in

User talk:Oznogon

From PathfinderWiki
← $1

Module order

Wasn't Heroes for Highdelve released before The Gauntlet and We Be 5uper Goblins? Or is there something else related to the order of modules outside of their release dates? - HTD (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Velstrac

As it turns out, this is actually the endonym of kytons as a whole (source provided in article), not just phylacators. - HTD (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Xiomorn CR

Right, I got what you're trying to say, but not why the xiomorns' CR 14 category was restored. I mean, the only CR 14 xiomorns are the Vault Keepers, and they already have an article in the CR 14 categiry. Shouldn't the xiomorn article also be put in the CR 20 category as well, because the CR 20 Vault Builders are as much 'xiomorns' as the Vault Keepers are? And, by that logic, shouldn't the qlippoth article be put in all CR categories from 2 to 14 plus 16, 18 and 20, because there's a qlippoth species for every CR in that group? - HTD (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I wanted an explanation for removing it, which is what this is, so I'll remove the category and note why on the Talk page. -Oznogon (talk) 23:34, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
And specifically to this point:
shouldn't the qlippoth article be put in all CR categories from 2 to 14 plus 16, 18 and 20, because there's a qlippoth species for every CR in that group
I'd consider doing that, yes. We do it for other creatures. We do it for creatures that are tiered in PFS scenarios (and for class levels of tiered NPCs).
I'd also consider delegating the CR categories to species articles like we do for qlippoth and now xiomorn.
We could feasibly do both. I don't think it is or should be a binary choice, and I still very strongly feel that we don't gain anything by aggressively pruning categories. If a category helps someone find a piece of content they might not have found otherwise, it works.
A xiomorn can be a CR 14 or a CR 20 creature. If the xiomorn article is categorized as CR 14 and CR 20, in my opinion that's not a false categorization.
While I think specificity can be good, I don't think pursuing it is or should be a reason to delete content, citations, or categories that aren't invalid or non-canon, and aren't redundant within a specific article, especially without discussion or explanation. Someone else likely put that category there, they probably did so for a reason, and they might have a valid opinion about why it's being removed. -Oznogon (talk) 00:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't really see the dragon thing as the same case as this one, seeing how these individual qlippoth species have their own articles and each is correctly categorised under its individual CR; while true dragon age categories and different versions of a creature/character on different Society subtiers do not have their own articles to categorise, so we should (and have to) put the same article in multiple CR categories. - HTD (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm not explaining myself well enough here. I think both categorization methods are valid, simultaneously. I think we could do either or both for xiomorns. And I think if we decided to change what's already on a page, we should note why. -Oznogon (talk) 01:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
All right, I got it. - HTD (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reference deletion

So what I'm understanding is this: if the information from an older source (which is already on the page) is entirely repeated and expanded in a newer source (which I'm integrating to the wiki), I still have to keep the references to the old source intact? - HTD (talk) 07:57, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please do this. -Oznogon (talk) 08:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Sources

All right (I somehow thought that the official confirmation in Runeplague made stuff simpler, but that doesn't seem to be the case). I have a little question: which 'unreleased high-tier works' and 'lower-tier sources' are you referring to? - HTD (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The AP isn't finished. Further volumes of the AP are newer Tier 1 sources and might make further changes, or even reverse course. Older Tier 1 sources, like Planar Adventures and Wrath of the Righteous, are considered to have lower authority than newer sources, but are also cited to support the timeline advancement.
This change creates numerous conflicts with older canon sources on the assumption that no further changes will be made in Return of the Runelords that PCs might influence. While the spoiler policy suggests that spoilers are inevitable, the scope of what's being spoiled by this change means it should be discussed first—a discussion that was already taking place on the Talk page, which your edits steamrolled over without participation.
I don't have any further time to devote to this discussion. Please don't take my silence as license to make further changes. Please consider my request to take a break from the wiki so we can catch up and make a more comprehensive and collaborative decision. -Oznogon (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)