Talk:Forgotten

Strictly speaking, the name of this article should be "Forgotten One" (singular) --Tetris L 02:16, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Na, "ones" is used like "individuals" Skuld &Dagger; 02:32, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Yes, but this is the article about the species Forgotten Ones. And all our other species articles are in singular (for example it's Skale, not Skales). Only categories are plural. And using the singular form sounds perfectly okay to me: "Vassa Ssiss is a Forgotten One" Nothing wrong with that. --Tetris L 03:15, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I agree with Tetris L here. This should be Forgotten One.  --Rainith 03:17, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Also, I just noticed that the category is called Forgotten, not Forgoten Ones. Another inconsistency that we might want to fix. --Tetris L 03:27, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * How about we call the species "Forgotten" and categorize it under Bestiary. The species article Forgotten would then focus on the species, like any other species article: What they look like, how they behave in combat, their professions and skills, where they can be found, etc. The article The Forgotten Ones would focus on the historic role of the Serpents. It would file under Lore. The two would be linked. --Tetris L 03:29, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I like that idea. --Rainith 03:37, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I will go ahead and do it later tonight (unless somebody objects or beats me to it in the meantime). Do we already have a screenshot of the big Serpent mural? I've always wanted to add that to the Forgotten Ones article. --Tetris L 03:46, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I agree with the move to Forgotten and I'll do it now, but I adisagree with separating the article about them into two articles. Why is that? Please explain here before setting a precedent. I see them just like the Mursaat. There is a basic description of what they are in the game, and then a bigger exposition of what they are in the story. Same thing for these guys. --Karlos 14:30, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I did explain, and I waited for 2 days for objections before making the actual edit. >:[ --Tetris L 19:58, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * Where? In this talk page or in another page? You are setting a very bad precedent. Two articles about the same topic, one in lore and one in bestiary. This is an obvious change from what we are doing. There is nothing to differentiate the Forgotten (species) from the Forgotten (lore), it's not like they were the "Remembered" then became the "Forgotten." :) As usual, I am looking down the line, Charr (Lore) and Charr (Bestirary), Stone Summit (Lore) and (Bestiary), Mursaat, ... I mean there are a lot of groups with a lot of lore about them as well as monster info. Have you considered this? If so, should you not consult with others before making this shift?
 * I reverted mainly because I could find no explanation here where I thought it would be. Please elaborate. --Karlos 20:16, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)
 * I explained in this talk (granted, only briefly). And I didn't set a precedent. The precedent is already there: We split all the mission articles into a (Location) and a (Mission) article. For the Great Northern Wall we even have a (Building) article on top. And in this talk you seemed to suggest to split the mission article yet again, and to have a separate article about the explorable area that the mission takes place in. In my book all these could be covered in one article.


 * Anyway ... I'm all for keeping information together. Split up only if absolutely necesary. So what I did was against my own personal policy. Re-merge the two articles, fine by me. But I'd ask you to keep this precedent in mind for the next time we split up small articles into even smaller articles when it makes little sense. The articles about chests and keys spring to my mind, as well as the articles about dyes. --Tetris L 21:30, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Hmmm. I really wish you'd stop interpreting that discussion against my meaning. I will say it again: I did not say we OUGHT TO break up the mission article. I said IF it were to be done, it would be done that way. I never advocated that this be done and in that same talk I corrected you when you said that is what I mean.
 * Now, citing mission and location to argue the Forgotten is apples and oranges. A mission is different than a mission location. They are two different PLACES to begin with. The splitting you did to Forgotten is nothing like that.
 * Finally, I already stated that Dyes should be merged. Keys merged or not merged is not a big deal as long as the content is connected. That is not the same as this. The Keys are separate items. The Forgotten do not come in two sepatrate types. --Karlos 21:45, 10 Oct 2005 (EST)