Talk:Astarion/Romance: Difference between revisions

From bg3.wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Tags: Reply Source
(Cleared Talk-Page of impractical/unfitting discussions)
Tag: Blanking
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== Latest edits ==


What was the need to pool all the descriptions into one heap back as it was before?? The article was meant to be structured. There's no need to write how many bites A. does to turn Tav into a spawn, but it's much more important to show how he really treats them. If wanted to make it 'more neutral', please just delete only **adjectives** one doesn't like [[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]])
If anyone wants to make a mess of another's work, use <!- --> comments tags on what they do not like and discuss it here. '''Prove your point''' instead of one-click spoiling other's long hours of painstaking work 17:46, 17 July 2024 (CEST)
== The wiki isn't intended to be your personal diary.  ==
You are editing this to have a TON of information with language that is personal to you. A wiki is intended to be neutral. Player dialogue options are a choice. Your personal feelings are not relevant to the information that goes onto a wiki page.
How you feel as though your character is treated by the companion is PERSONAL to YOU. That is not what a wiki is for. That is what your therapist is for. [[User:LoreBard|LoreBard]] ([[User talk:LoreBard|talk]]) 22:11, 17 July 2024 (CEST)
:That's all not about how I (or anyone else) feel(s) about what's happening within the game.
:The point is that in-game decisions are made by the player. Saying that some of them are good or bad IS personal, indeed. BUT the ways one in-game character treat another in-game character AFTER the player's done their choice are defined by the gamecode and are the same no matter who is tapping the buttons, therefore, they are NOT personal and definitely worth describing.
:As it goes, providing the player with maximum info about all possible outcomes, which in the same circumstances would be the same regardless of who is playing (and writing about) is the very point of creating an encyclopaedia. Small details of characters' behaviour are crucial to mention, too, because they help to describe thoroughly the image of a certain companion. Making it all structured and providing proofs like quotes, screenshots, etc. is a demand of wiki style editing.
:On the contrary, clogging the text with unnecessary details that impact nothing in the gameplay and cannot change further player's decisions (like telling the precise amount of bites or inserting links to FRwiki article stub which was derived from this very wiki) makes the article messy, same as deleting the article structure only to make it "compact". Shakespeare's 'brevity is the soul of wit' cannot be applied to the detriment of readers.
:A responsible author should refer to other long-read articles (not only those they contribute to) as an example if they doubt the necessity of extra detailing, especially if certain part of an article seems to be their one and only contribution to a giant and complex wiki, or create a personal Sandbox page.
:Summarising, trying to evade any evaluative and conjecture statements is not the reason to delete 'TONS' of useful (fact-checked and verified by different sources) info and ruin the consistent article, returning it to the state of a stub it once had been
:If you do not agree with any statement within the article, please do honours to correct the language and typos, pick better words to tell it down, but do not delete on a whim a whole passages of verified facts that persist in the game plot regardless of anyone's opinion on them. [[User:Arikel|Arikel]] ([[User talk:Arikel|talk]]) 06:15, 18 July 2024 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 01:22, 24 July 2024