8,856
editsMore actions
→Substantiated Claims
m (unindent, oops. last edit i swear) |
|||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
::: I don't feel like it's correct to leave that fact under "past sins" at all... the other two past sins have very solid evidence while the only evidence for hot slimy tentacle sex is a vague insinuation by a non-diegetic source ( the quest journal isn't written ''by'' anyone). It seems like the ''actual'' interactions with the Elder Brain suggest no tentacle sex occurred. I would suggest nixing it from "past sins" entirely and maaaybe adding it to the elder brain section, but again I also disagree that anything happened at all. | ::: I don't feel like it's correct to leave that fact under "past sins" at all... the other two past sins have very solid evidence while the only evidence for hot slimy tentacle sex is a vague insinuation by a non-diegetic source ( the quest journal isn't written ''by'' anyone). It seems like the ''actual'' interactions with the Elder Brain suggest no tentacle sex occurred. I would suggest nixing it from "past sins" entirely and maaaybe adding it to the elder brain section, but again I also disagree that anything happened at all. | ||
::: I also disagree with the "discussion before removing information" when the information in question was reasonably thought to have been inaccurate. I think remove-plus-talk-page is a good combo. "Discuss before remove" is more of a policy for protected/controversial pages rather than the norm. Ofc, the dark urge page might in the future be controversial enough to protect, but at the moment that doesn't see to be the case! - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (CEST) | ::: I also disagree with the "discussion before removing information" when the information in question was reasonably thought to have been inaccurate. I think remove-plus-talk-page is a good combo. "Discuss before remove" is more of a policy for protected/controversial pages rather than the norm. Ofc, the dark urge page might in the future be controversial enough to protect, but at the moment that doesn't see to be the case! - [[User:Sky|Sky]] ([[User talk:Sky|talk]]) 19:26, 5 October 2023 (CEST) | ||
:::: I don't see how the wording is claiming there was any actual copulation involved – it's a journal entry playfully invoking a common trope. I agree it should not be in the past sins section, though. It's more relevant for the article of the quest itself, than the Durge page. Discussing edits that have been in place on the wiki for some time before removing them has been the convention for some time. It's not simply for protected pages, of which we only have one (the Style Guide), I believe. In this case, the entries in question were added early in the article's lifespan at the request of another user, and have been around for over a month through several revisions. It is absolutely the policy to discuss (here or on the discord) before removing the entries, then, since they were sourced, and the disagreement was with the interpretation of said source. There has already been previous discussions elsewhere where it was decided the edits should stay. Therefore they should not be removed without further discussion, regardless of our personal opinions. [[User:Willowisp|Willowisp]] ([[User talk:Willowisp|talk]]) 20:28, 5 October 2023 (CEST) | |||