Talk:Lore Character Template

Changes to the template

Removal of {{Intro}} - Since these are lore articles, the introduction and associated links do not make sense. Instead, important dates should be listed in the dates section of the character summary template, and can be mentioned in the character information area as well. Related quests will instead be listed in the related pages > quests section. Links to patches should instead be links to dates - see the third column on the Patches page for all associated date articles. Removal of Character and Background section - This section header is redundant as the first section. The focus of the page is about the character and background, so this is not needed. Removal of Lore and Dialog section - Lore and Dialog is a section used on quests and NPCs to list just that - lore behind the quest/npc and associated dialog. Since the page is about the lore, that part of the section title is redundant. And the lore page is not the ideal place to list dialog. This is why there are links to the NPC/Creature versions of the character and the related quests - so a person interested in what an in-game version of that character has said can do so on the correct pages. It is also better to view dialog in context with the rest of the dialog from the associated quest. For example, Asheron has appeared in countless live events and quests. Listing everything he has ever uttered on this article would make for a really long section, with a lot of it seeming odd without the rest of the dialog. Removal of Other Lore and Trivia section - Trivia sections are discouraged. Information here should be worked into the main area for lore or the the related pages sections. A trivia, miscellaneous, or OOC section should only be added if that information cannot be worked into the other sections. Restructure of Related Pages - This is just some simple reformatting to better structure the article. All the previous sections of related information should fit into one of these sections. By creating them all under the section of related pages, it helps distinguish it from the main lore, which should be the focus of the article. --An Adventurer 02:02, 31 October 2010 (EST)

Thx a bunch, sure helped to restructure the pages better (and more logical...), was struggling with it myself (now I just have to rework the entries of the past week :) ). Just a few remarks: Is it possible to add a "Faction" to the Character Lore Summary? For some characters, a direct link to "where they belong" might prove helpful I have not used the "Dates" entry a lot. One of the reasons is that the entry for major characters would become quite long, another that it is sometimes (for historical characters) hard to find out when it happened. Also, for historical characters, the timeline is ambiguous: use the -3,000 years or the "Alaidain" denomination (which might be hard to figure out for people not that into lore) Would it be an idea to add a "top menu", like the ones we have for quests and such instead of a ToC? Categories and minor/major. It is sometimes hard to determine how much influence a character has on the story.. And, this role could change. I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the Dericost characters pop up in the next story arc, if this will evolve around Geraine IV. I also kinda miss a category "Historical Character" (like the one for the locations): i. e. Lore Characters who are, a. deceased (and definitively...), b. only appear in "historical" texts. They are usually somewhere between minor and major, since they might have had a huge impact on the storyline, but are long gone and have not be seen since the start of AC "Other references" to the character. I would like to have this option to add links to "canon" which (at the moment...) might not seem important, but for example indicates links between characters. Also, this might be a place to put entries to the CoD Database and other links which might be useful for research in the future --Sanddh 07:47, 31 October 2010 (EST)

Factions - yes, that'd be possible. I'd have to build it in such a way though that if no variable is listed the faction doesn't show up. And really, the rest of the variables should be the same way. I'm just not skilled with making wiki templates, so it'll take a bit of testing, or pestering Tlosk to do it ;) Dates - I agree, it is often hard to use this field. But I thought it was important enough for some characters to include - for example - the reigns of rulers, the births/deaths of important characters. If I can make it so that if the field is left blank the "Important dates:" does not display, that will help. I also have long term plans to go back and do a lot of clean up to both timelines, which would help us at least have estimates for some events. Top Menu - good idea. It can certainly be done, I'll just need to poke around in the code for the quest summary wiki template to see how it is done. But I assume it should be very easy to modify for this template. Major/Minor - Yes, it can be hard to determine. That's why in the decriptions of both categories (see: Category:Major Character & Category:Minor Character), it says "Determined on a case by case basis." If anyone is ever unsure they can always start a discussion on the talk page for that character and others can weigh in on what they think. And thankfully, since I merged the old Minor Character Summary template into the Character Summary template, changing a character from major to minor is as simple as changing that one word in the category listing. Historical Character - One thing I try to avoid is making lore articles from an Isparian perspective. While the game began with just humans, we now have shadows, gear knights, undead dericostians, and will soon have yalaini, tumerok, and lugian player races. Since it was revealed that we'd have non-human playable races, I've tried to avoid using Isparian specific dates as benchmarks for lore. So for example PY -15, when Aluvians first began arriving on Osteth, is no more or less significant than PY -29, when tumeroks began arriving on Marae Lassel. With that in mind, it could be hard to determine what is historical and what is recent enough to not be. There is also the very real possibility that characters which have only been mentioned in lore will begin making appearances. With Yalaini soon returning, its is very possible that the Emperor, the Nali, or other important Yalaini could return and have some major role in the story. That said, I understand the idea. I created a category, Category:Lore Text, specifically for texts which are only mentioned in lore and do not exist as readable text items in the game. I can see having a similar category for characters. If they have never appeared as an NPC, creature, or dev controlled character in the game, they could have the additional category of Lore Character, Unseen Character, or something similar. The problem I see with this however is that this category would encompass such a wide array of characters that I don't see it being particularly useful. For example, Elous VIII, a king of Viamont mentioned in The Reign of Alfrega which we know nothing about, and Geraine IV would both be in this category, since neither has been seen in game. It could work, but it could use some possible refining. I'm always open to more categorizing though. The information gathered on the wiki is only useful if people can find it. Some ideas for possible additional character categories are: Unseen Character (or similar name) - described above. Deceased Character Living Character Pre-Sundering Character - The Sundering is a significant enough event that it could be used as a benchmark for characters. This would be similar to the historical character category you've suggested. Other References - Regardless of if we keep this section or not, it should not be at the bottom. the References should always be last. Now, on the section itself. I don't really understand what purpose it serves. Looking at the entry for Maila Realaidain, for example. The items listed under Other References seem like they could easily be used as an actual reference (with the ref tag) and worked into the body of the article. Could you explain your reasons for having it? --An Adventurer 03:11, 1 November 2010 (EST)