(10-01-2014, 03:14 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Side note,
What are the thoughts of making a 1.0 vs 2.0 page as well for this lore wiki? like a page to show interesting differences between the two [maybe a comparison of terrain/maps/monsters and the like?]

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: I definitely think that 1.0 lore needs to be filtered out somehow, or at the very least be sectioned so that it's very apparent that it is dated lore. Some of it might still be valid (or even fill in voids), but I imagine there is a lot of changes to - and this IS 2.0 we are playing, so naturally that should be the focus. 

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: In terms of spoilers, I think a big fat disclaimer on the "front page" of the wiki should be all there is on it. Because at the end of the day, there's a lot of things that could be spoiled, but in order to explain something or involve somethings history (ie. garleans) you kind of have to spoil it. I think it would be a waste of time if we have to sit and hide individual things that are spoilers, might as well just let people know what to expect and be done with it. 

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: As for validation, I would say having two people sign off on it would be a-okay, but perhaps lower it to just one if there are screenshots in the sources? That way you essentially just need to have one person validate that the screenshots are valid and not of someones cat. 

(10-01-2014, 03:59 PM)Sastra Wrote: One thing came to mind, how about proofreading and such? Despite being pretty fluent in English, I still make some grammatical errors. Is it something to think about when validating something or should we just let people fix the errors as they get discovered?

(10-01-2014, 04:10 PM)Jariana Wrote: Please do this?  Pretty please?! *bounces up and down in glee*

*ahem* So yeah, I'm a bit of a lore fan (addict) in any game I get associated with, just because I really like teasing out those little tidbits that story writers sometimes tuck away here and there.  I would be more than happy to help contribute to something like this, however, since I've only been playing here for a couple of months, my experience with the world at large isn't near as broad as others.  But I will say, one of the big things that has always fascinated me was the differences between the 1.0 and 2.0 versions.  Especially since I obviously wasn't involved in the history of 1.0 myself, but since my character is older bit older than five, she was (even if she wasn't a Carteneau survivor.)

So I'd be more than happy to help out anyway I can, even with just the little snippets here and there I've run into and collected.

(10-01-2014, 04:16 PM)Erik Mynhier Wrote: I am against segregation of 1.0 lore unless it can be proven to have been retconed. To segregate the lore by version number will open a can of worms that will be dumped on us every time there is an expansion. By separating 1.0 from 2.0, do we follow suit in a few months when we hit 3.0? Just throw it out all together. We are only playing 2.0 now because we are, we will be in 3.0 before you know it, and 4.0 in a little over a year.

I think the problem with 1.0 lore is it is hard to come by and in many cases is second hand from players who were in 1.0. That does not invalidate the data, on the contrary, lore from 1.0 could enhance a wiki. I know one of the mods on the SE lore board in passing. Let me get with him and the others and see if they would mind compiling the lore from 1.0. That way we can have a central official source.

(10-01-2014, 04:54 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: I'm with Erik in regards to 1.0. I think by creating a separation between 1.0 lore and 2.0 lore we will be promoting a lore source that dismisses 1.0 facts. We already have enough people challenging 1.0 lore by saying "yeah well this is 2.0, it's not the same game!" When, it is, in fact, the same game from a lore perspective. The game itself references 1.0 lore all the time and (most importantly) refers to how something from 1.0 may have changed in 2.0 because of the Calamity.

From a purely roleplaying perspective, everyone here roleplays a character over 5 years old. So pre-Calamity (1.0) lore facts are pertinent to everyone here and they should (IMO) be treated as canon until proven otherwise. A good example is the Central Thanalan S-rank, Brontes. If you talk to the Hunter-scholar about Brontes, she'll tell you that he belonged to a pair of cyclopes that were captured on Vylbrand and sold to an Ul'dahn circus. Welllllllll in 1.0, players participated in a levequest called "Operation Crosseye" in which we brought those two cyclopes down.

From my own research, I've only found one case in which lore was actually retconned by SE. This, of course, was when Conjurers were stripped of Fire, Thunder, and Ice elemental spells to accommodate the introduction of Black Mage and War of the Magi lore stating that early Magi used fire to survive the Age of Endless Frost. However, this was a retcon that happened in 1.0. I have found no other hard retcons between 1.0 and 2.0 lore. There is a whole lot of missing lore (lore that was expressed in 1.0 but has not yet been expressed in 2.0), but not retconned lore (lore from 2.0 that states 1.0 lore to not be true).

(10-01-2014, 05:30 PM)Sounsyy Wrote: So my only worry about employing a tab system wherein 1.0 lore is not readily visible in the main article, is that new players or players who are just skimming may just bypass the 1.0 section completely and needlessly miss out on a wealth of lore.

(10-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Do you think if they're skimming they're going to take note of that information if its hidden in a spoiler tag anyways?

EDIT: I suppose I should express that my fear is people will click on a lore link, see a scroll bar, my name on the "last edited" part and go "Oh god he just rambles on about how much he loved 1.0 all the time" and close the window.

(10-01-2014, 05:47 PM)Sounsyy Wrote:

(10-01-2014, 05:35 PM)Olofantur Wrote: Do you think if they're skimming they're going to take note of that information if its hidden in a spoiler tag anyways?

EDIT: I suppose I should express that my fear is people will click on a lore link, see a scroll bar, my name on the "last edited" part and go "Oh god he just rambles on about how much he loved 1.0 all the time" and close the window.

I guess I'm just advocating no separation, merely citation. No spoiler, no tabs, etc.

But you do bring up a valid point on length... Will having a super lengthy article turn people away? Maybe... hmm... It may turn away the skimmers and the people who aren't really looking in depth, but it may excite those who are really into the lore. So I guess it's six and one-half-dozen of the other.

arrrrgh lol.

I do like the psuedo timeline idea though. A massive Eorzean timeline with dates leading to events which are linked to the article of that event's pertinence.

|
|
|
1468-1469 6AE ------ The Autumn War
|
|
etc...

/furiously scribbles notes.