Talk:Elysium: Difference between revisions
imported>Sadelyrate |
imported>Lacrossedeamon |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
:''If'' the mythological place becomes more relevant, and/or the article grows too large, then the second suggestion would be more valid. As it is, I for one am not seeing the need for it, atm. [[User:Sadelyrate|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate|siniath]]) 12:06, April 25, 2019 (UTC) | :''If'' the mythological place becomes more relevant, and/or the article grows too large, then the second suggestion would be more valid. As it is, I for one am not seeing the need for it, atm. [[User:Sadelyrate|Sadelyrate]] ([[w:c:assassinscreed:User talk:Sadelyrate|siniath]]) 12:06, April 25, 2019 (UTC) | ||
:I say it depends on which is based off which. The common school of thought is that myth concepts are based off Isu counterparts but I feel in this case it might be different, that Aletheia instead based her simulation off .Greek mythology as it would already be somewhat familiar to Kass. [[User:Lacrossedeamon|Lacrossedeamon]] ([[User talk:Lacrossedeamon|talk]]) 12:19, April 25, 2019 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:19, 25 April 2019
Lede
Now that Fields of Elysium has been released we are, of course, seeing links to this article popping up in articles on a daily basis. Technically speaking, these articles are referring to a simulation of Elysium and not the "real" Elysium of Greek mythology; I feel it is important that a distinction be made.
To date, I have taken to inserting references to "a simulation of Elysium" in our articles, but I concede that this is not entirely practical (or even preferable), so I am now of the opinion that this article should be changed.
Currently, the lede of this article references the "real" Elysium before detailing the simulation - I believe that this should be changed. The way I see it, we have two options:
- Alter the lede to prioritise the simulation aspect over mythological representation
- Split the article into Elysium and Elysium (simulation), at which point we can decide which to give precedence too
Thoughts? --Jasca Ducato (talk | contributions) 09:48, April 25, 2019 (UTC)
- My vote's with the first. Similar to how we deal with deities and other mythical aspects who haven't been split into two already which turn out to be...something else in AC-franchise. So prioritize the simulation and mention the mythological further in the article. Sadelyrate (siniath) 10:23, April 25, 2019 (UTC)
- My vote is with the first, same as Sadel. XOdeyssusx (talk) 11:28, April 25, 2019 (UTC)
- If the mythological place becomes more relevant, and/or the article grows too large, then the second suggestion would be more valid. As it is, I for one am not seeing the need for it, atm. Sadelyrate (siniath) 12:06, April 25, 2019 (UTC)
- I say it depends on which is based off which. The common school of thought is that myth concepts are based off Isu counterparts but I feel in this case it might be different, that Aletheia instead based her simulation off .Greek mythology as it would already be somewhat familiar to Kass. Lacrossedeamon (talk) 12:19, April 25, 2019 (UTC)