| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the War against the Elder One article. |
|---|
|
The title[]
This title is so bad Corypheus seems like an angel in comparison. C'mon, son. Also, spoilers. 
henioo (da talk page) 19:36, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I know there was no official name for the conflict when I started the article. Since it was a war mainly against one individual, I followed examples on Wikipedia, like the war against Sigismund. Also, pretty sure that "spoilers" are allowed in titles if they can't be avoided otherwise. Look at Mage-Templar War and Orlesian Civil War and Fifth Blight, all are arguably spoiler titles.184.57.236.69 (talk) 19:46, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- What about War against the Elder One or Elder One War?Andrzej.lewinski.351 (talk) 19:48, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- The spoiler here is that Corypheus's involvement isn't even revealed until 1/3 of the game, and as far as the players know, Hawke killed him. Using "Elder One" is much less spoilery.
henioo (da talk page) 19:53, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone stops calling Corypheus "the Elder One" after Haven. Why would history continue to do so? Needless obfuscation. And from what I see none of these conflict articles have any spoiler tags, so wikia policies about spoilers probably don't apply here.184.57.236.69 (talk) 19:57, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe get some name candidates and have a vote? Many historical wars have different names, like World War I is also known as First World War or Great War but the wikipedia article chooses World War I. Possible candidates: (1) War against Corypheus (2) War against the Elder One (3) Elder One War, and my suggestion: (4) Inquisition War. Ibentmywookiee (talk) 22:18, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe "War against the Elder One" if we must, but if we have no choice but to use a conjectural name, then why not the most direct one? It's not like switching out Corypheus with Elder One in this title is going to hide much since Elder One already links straight to Corypheus. Anyway I asked an admin, User:Kelcat, for advice on what to do.184.57.236.69 (talk) 22:25, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Just to add, Amaranthine Conflict (9:31 Dragon) used to be called Darkspawn Civil War and there was discussion back then over its name. Ibentmywookiee (talk) 22:40, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe "War against the Elder One" if we must, but if we have no choice but to use a conjectural name, then why not the most direct one? It's not like switching out Corypheus with Elder One in this title is going to hide much since Elder One already links straight to Corypheus. Anyway I asked an admin, User:Kelcat, for advice on what to do.184.57.236.69 (talk) 22:25, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe get some name candidates and have a vote? Many historical wars have different names, like World War I is also known as First World War or Great War but the wikipedia article chooses World War I. Possible candidates: (1) War against Corypheus (2) War against the Elder One (3) Elder One War, and my suggestion: (4) Inquisition War. Ibentmywookiee (talk) 22:18, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- Everyone stops calling Corypheus "the Elder One" after Haven. Why would history continue to do so? Needless obfuscation. And from what I see none of these conflict articles have any spoiler tags, so wikia policies about spoilers probably don't apply here.184.57.236.69 (talk) 19:57, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, but the dispute there looks like it was over the fact that "Darkspawn Civil War" didn't accurately portray the nature of the war and the factions involved in it. The dispute here is that having "Corypheus" in the title is a spoiler because DAI's story doesn't reveal Corypheus is the Elder One until after the first act. I don't think that's a compelling enough reason to rename it. If an admin disagrees with me for policy reasons then I have no problem backing down, but otherwise I think the idea that we should determine how to name articles based on whether or not they are spoilers is foolish. Everything is a spoiler at some point.
Besides, how would anyone who hasn't played DAI know that "war against Corypheus" covers DAI's story by seeing the title alone? They would have to either read the page or play the game, and both ways mean they are knowingly assuming the risk of being spoiled. In fact, going to this wiki at any time means you're willing to be spoiled, no amount of spoiler tags or careful wording can possibly protect you from every potential spoiler. I don't want to hurt people with spoilers if I can avoid it, I'm happy to follow the rules and put spoilers under tags, but at the same time the whole point of a wiki is to share information and protecting people from spoilers should never hinder utility and transparency.
That's my rant. While we're waiting for some admin advice, I might as well suggest my own alternative titles in case I am in the wrong. How about "War of the Breach" or the "Breach War" or "Breach Conflict"? Most likely the last one if other conflict articles are anything to go by. I had originally considered using those titles to begin with, but since the Breach isn't open during the whole war I didn't think it was as accurate as saying the conflict was to stop Corypheus's world-takeover scheme, which I think "War against Corypheus" spells out perfectly.184.57.236.69 (talk) 23:14, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with your arguments. War against the Elder One is not so bad name tho. The names with Breach in it are also quite good, but I'd have to agree that it would shift the focus from Corypheus to Breach. Kewpies (talk) 23:31, December 24, 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my opinion since it was asked, but I'll stress that by no means does an admin have final say on this--I think the community can come to a consensus that will work. As a general rule, we allow spoilers on conflict pages without adding spoiler tags, but I don't think that should apply to article titles as well. While a title such as Mage-Templar War could be possibly considered somewhat spoilery, I think these types of titles are benign enough to not be an issue. And none of these subjects has ever been presented as a spoiler by the creators. War Against Corypheus is in my opinion, way too spoilery. We're being really careful to keep any mentions of Corypheus being the Elder One behind spoiler tags, because it is one of the biggest spoilers of Inquisition. Yes, spoilers are inevitable on a wiki, but I think we can present all information in a way that doesn't smack people in the face with huge spoilers without warning. Keep in mind that this is an article that will likely be linked on many other major articles to do with Inquisition, and will be in the conflict template that appears on other conflict articles. That being said, people will indeed see this spoilery title, even if they don't seek out this article particularly.
In regards to the title of the Elder One, while people in the game don't refer to Corypheus as such after he is revealed, it is possible that in a historical context he may still be referred to as such, even far into the future. So I think "War Against the Elder One" would be the best solution. It provides a good description of the contents of the article, while also keeping a major spoiler out of the title. --♫ Kelcat Talk 00:02, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
- All right, fair point. Who else would prefer "War against the Elder One"? I can agree to using that as the title.184.57.236.69 (talk) 00:18, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
I add my voice to those for a less spoilery title, and "War Against the Elder One" works well, unless someone comes up with something better. AbsolutGrndZer0 (talk) 01:59, December 25, 2014 (UTC)
I added a proper move proposal to War Against the Elder One. --♫ Kelcat Talk 00:50, December 28, 2014 (UTC)
I will add my official support to the move. Also, not to be a grammar Nazi, but "against" in the title should stay lowercase as it is a preposition. I don't like it that way either, but it is correct grammar.184.57.236.69 (talk) 03:26, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, whoops, I overlooked that! I corrected the capitalization in the proposal.
--♫ Kelcat Talk 03:34, December 29, 2014 (UTC)
All possible participants[]
On the Inquisition side can be enermously many groups. Hessarian's blades, Bull's chargers, the sect in Hinterlands, some nobles, some chantry sisters, the qunari fleet, Dalish clan from exalted plains, etc. But are they all really worth mentioning? They can be also described in separate heading as potential allies or something. I don't have better ideas for what to do with them. Does anyone have any suggestions?Andrzej.lewinski.351 (talk) 18:27, March 18, 2015 (UTC)