FANDOM


Related books

Why were the related books removed? I thought it would be handy to leave pointers to the sources of the information on the page. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 08:03, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


All of them discuss the same thing from a slightly different angle every time. It seemed as if they were simply included because they mention Sea Serpents, not because of a piece of information on the page can only be found in a particular book. There was no point to it, really. Including such pointers in the text seems like the wiser plan. -- Wouterboy (talk) 08:27, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


There's no reason to include a list of sources...? This information came from somewhere, that list showed us where it came from. I don't see why not include that list. -- Sixorish (talk) 15:09, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


Yeah, but all of that information can be gleaned from every one book, so there's no reason to list them all. Like I said, it seemed they were simply listed because all of them mentioned Sea Serpents, not because they all contain a bit of unique information which added together create the whole story or something. Moreover, NPCs also tell this story, so who knows what the actual sources of the page's creator were. -- Wouterboy (talk) 19:20, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


It is true they were all listed because they mentioned sea serpents and not because their info was unique. But for me that was kind of the point of this page: a list of all references to the years of serpents by NPCs and books, so if somebody would be interested in the topic he/she would know where to look.

I like what Knightmare said in an interview about this:

People tend to think what they read in (real life) history books is the one and only, true and definite history of the world. Well it isn't. What we read in books was pictured out by historians from several source texts that they took as reference. Those texts are often biased and sometimes forged, sometimes based on misconceptions or hearsay. Instead of providing a definite history without doubts of blind spots, I try to give the players source material. In most cases they have to picture out the course of events on their own. It's their choice which text or NPC they believe. It's up to them to cross reference texts to figure out what truly happened.
(source)

This wiki can be a list or sources and people can draw their own conclusions from it. If multiple books say the same thing, this could be a hint the story they tell is correct.

So I would be very much in favor of keeping the list of related books. -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 19:41, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


But isn't it then a much better idea to point to the 'New Documents' section of Updates/8.0? I mean, the list is already there... Also, I don't think any conclusions can/need be drawn from texts concerned with the Years of Serpents; it's presented rather straightforwardly after all: some Sea Serpents showed up in the northern seas for unknown reasons, they wrecked some Carlin ships, and they left again. Not much ambiguity there. -- Wouterboy (talk) 20:50, August 21, 2015 (UTC)


Besides Mining Operations (Book) I don't see any reason not to include at least a small passage (maybe not a section) listing these books. The "years of serpents" are the years that the sea serpents were actively threatening the ships between the mainland and Svargrond. The documentation of sea serpent sightings is of course relevant. But, most importantly, how do we convince the players that what we say is true in-game? If we don't include references to the books they are sourced from they simply won't know. -- Sixorish (talk) 01:46, August 22, 2015 (UTC)


In my opinion we shouldn't need to provide sources for knowledge that is so easily accessible in-game. Also, if you feel that this page requires a list of sources any similar pages do as well, which is not the standard, right? -- Wouterboy (talk) 10:59, August 22, 2015 (UTC)


I think in general we should provide sources for things related to the "lore" of Tibia - which we can't verify ourselves. Often I have stumbled upon "lore" that I couldn't find any note of elsewhere, and it would have been nice to have a reference at those times. -- Sixorish (talk) 13:09, August 22, 2015 (UTC)


Alright, I see what you mean, but I would still prefer some links inside the text rather than a list at the bottom of the page. The latter makes the books seem so detached from the page's info. -- Wouterboy (talk) 20:40, August 22, 2015 (UTC)


Yes, we should use <ref> and {{reflist}} more often in pages explaining history or such. Maybe we should add Category:Lore or something to all those pages, so it's easier to review them? -- Bennie (talk ~ fellows) 10:23, August 23, 2015 (UTC)


Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.