Forum:Relatives of NPCs

Forums: Village pump → Relatives of NPCs
(This topic is archived. Please do not edit this page!)

Many articles on NPCs include lines which make some guesses on the presumed genealogy of said NPC. The article of Broll Bearmantle has the following information: "Broll's name suggests that he may be related to Athridas Bearmantle, a level 11 quest giver in Dolanaar." Broll is not alone in this issue: there are many NPC articles out there in which WoWWikians have attempted to establish some family connection with another character sometimes on the other side of Azeroth. Clearly, all of this is pure speculation with few to zero chances of us ever finding out whether or not the humble Athridas is really the long lost brother of good ol' Broll.

Would it - perhaps - be a good idea to have policies around here include the rule that these kind of relatives speculation is not allowed. If my name were to be Obama, then that wouldn't necessarily mean I belong with the First Family in the White House.. now does it?AMBER^(RΘCK) 22:21, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

All the action figure turned comic book characters are named after an NPC, but it does seem to be pointless speculation if they are not in the same area, and have never said to be related.--SWM2448 23:05, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Still, that doesn't mean they're family. This happens with characters who don't have action figures all the same. See Master Sergeant Moonshadow and Fylerian Nightwing for evidence.AMBER^(RΘCK) 00:05, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I know that. The second part is not just about what I said in the first. It seems that I was unclear.--SWM2448 00:07, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if we need a policy. Using the {{fact}} tag on dubious relationships is a good start. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:20 AM PST 1 Nov 2009

Wouldn't that be a bit too much bureaucracy? It's clear for all to see that this speculation is completely baseless. Would outright removing these "x is related to y" statements be too bold? AMBER^(RΘCK) 12:56, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Removal is fine, as long as you think its obviously wrong and pure speculation. Just don't go crazy. Make sure to say something like "relationship removed as speculation" in the change summary when you remove stuff. --Beware the sneaky smile! Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:56 PM PST 1 Nov 2009

I think a better solution would be something like: "X-NPC shares the name with Y-NPC." or something like that. Benitoperezgaldos (talk) 18:13, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

There already is a policy about speculation in general - Project:LORE - no baseless speculation in main namespace. Benito's suggestion about them sharing names would work. --Pcj (TDrop me a line!•C207,729 contributions and counting) 18:44, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Benito made an interesting suggestion. Such a remark would be best placed in the "notes" section, don't you guys think? AMBER^(RΘCK) 08:41, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

That changes it from speculation to fact, so it fixes it a bit, but don't go crazy with it or it will be a pile of useless trivia.--SWM2448 21:18, November 2, 2009 (UTC)

Project:Lore policy#Speculation. We happy? AMBER^(RΘCK) 10:22, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Should this forum page be moved to the talk page of the policy?--SWM2448 22:36, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

What about something like "for other characters with the same surname, see <enter surname page here>.--Lon-ami (talk) 17:24, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

That could work as well: as some sort of disambiguation page, though that would seem like a superfluous hassle for surnames shared between only two characters. AMBER^(RΘCK) 13:17, November 7, 2009 (UTC)