Skyrim talk:Torturer

Class and Race

The wiki community is currently engaged in a discussion (most recently active here I believe), about issues like "Introductory sentence on NPC pages"; How class information should be provided; multiple perspectives on what it means to chracterize an NPC according to this line in current policy: "The first sentence on the NPC's page should summarize all the key information about the character"; and narrower issues such as characterizing NPCs' race, age, etc. in cases where, some are arguing it is not "key information about the character".

I would recommend that any editor who intends, on a regular or frequent basis, to alter the way such information is placed on NPC pages should read that discussion and suspend "correcting" people frequently on criteria that are under consideration. There is substantial diversity of thought and opinion (that our fellow community members have been generous to think about and share about) about what "correct" is here. Frequent "corrections" to related matters, done repeatedly, seems to be disrespectful of others who are very reasonably operating under their own interpretations of what is correct. In this particular case, I chose not to include the NPC's class in the introductory sentence. This is in-line with how many people interpret the policy and with what they want. From one perfectly valid perspective—and not from other perfectly valid perspectives, I know—this NPC is not a Destruction Mage, he is ... is ... is ... a torturer. Also, some in our community have argued that labels like "race" and references to age, except where there is a particular reason for doing so, are problematic. Is it "key" that he is an elderly person? Why? Why identify him as an elderly person so prominently when it is clear from a glance at his photo that he's elderly. Does it even matter that he's elderly? Why aren't some young people identified as young?

I don't intend to make any changes to the last couple of edits, but if anyone tends to say things like, "That's how most of use have been doing it" and propound such in support of a particular position, that would look a bit sketchy in my eyes. I am now talking about a general issue, not addressing any person or another in particular.

A sort of moderation, slowing down on the "undos" and "let's change this to my way when we know the way is evolving toward consensus. just a suggestion of course. : I would not spend my time right now changing these same things to the way that I think they should be. When I ask myself why not, I come up with, "respect others for honest differences in interpretation of our policies," "don't do something that's likely to escalate conflict or negative feelings, especially when the consequences of awaiting a consensus can in no reasonable way be cast as dire. --JR (talk) 16:34, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

I think there are many cases where the race/class introduction is not appropriate. But to me it appears to be quite natural with this one. He is of course a torturer, hence his name. But he has also learned the ways of destruction magic and probably uses it for his trade. --Alfwyn (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

A couple of points, young people are identified as child along with their race if it is available, plus it has been standard practice since long ago for the information to be presented in this way. Why can a torturer not be a destruction mage, it is clear from his name what his trade is, and the class merely points to how he conducts his work. Also I have no memory of such a discussion where the NPCs race was proposed as extraneous details to add to the first sentence. Silence is Golden^{Break the Silence} 19:02, 28 December 2012 (GMT)

I hear your points, and I think my implication that it's been directly discussed recently was incorrectly worded. But it seems reasonable to say that questions surrounding the policy on first sentences of NPC articles are under discussion, and that there is a considerable diversity of opinions on the (general!) matter, even among active/experienced/widely-respected members of the community.

Not to want to argue, but there is more than one "standard practice" for dealing with "age" races. Thus, we have the longstanding page with a sentence reading: "Babette is a Breton assassin and member of the Dark Brotherhood." (Omitting her "technical" race.) Krusty changed a child's race field in an infobox from Child to Nord. And my question was more of a rhetorical one, "Why elderly if not also middle-aged, adolescent, young adult, etc." (I know, because those aren't their "races", but the point is that there's a complication in that race has two meanings.) But I didn't intend to make a particular argument here. I just wanted to suggest that we might refrain from deliberate, "concentrated" efforts to go through pages and enforce a standard around which there may be some differences in perspective or lack of consensus, and which which may likely soon be clarified or altered.

That's all I wanted to do here was to make a personal request or suggestion. I'm not proposing a policy. No one has to take my suggestion, of course.--JR (talk) 08:47, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

According to game data, Aventus Aretino is a Nord child, which is why Krusty changed the |race param to Nord, and which is why the |race_details param is there, to indicate he is a child. And Babette's technical race is Breton, and she is an assassin, and just like Aventus, her race_details is Child (other than being a Vampire).

We indicate someone is elderly (such as this Torturer) because the Old People Race is a separate race. And AFAIK, thousands of NPC pages always state the race of that NPC (including elders) in the opening sentence, with exceptions being Daedric Princes. And I don't get what you're saying about race having two meanings. ~ Psylocke 09:21, 29 December 2012 (GMT)

I've never presumed to know everything about the issues, nor do I have a final opinion on any of these issues. I guess I confused race and class in that I thought "Child" was a race. So thanks for educating me on that. There remains mixed opinion as to whether it's useful (or always useful) to use "child or elderly" in the first sentence. If someone can be an Elder and, say, a Nord, then there is more than one meaning of "race". If Avuntus' race is "Nord" and it is also "Nord (0x0002c65b)", and if the "EditorID" for his race is "NordRaceChild" and his "race_details" is "Child", then I suspect that all of us in the community may not always be referring to exactly the same thing when we're communicating. My point, things seem unsettled to me, keep the discussion alive, exchange information, listen to each other, and see what we can conclude. If someone feels sure that there's a right way, and thinks it's best to update everything to that right way, I guess that would be one way of me learning something, but I'd rather that all of us, with our varying levels and kinds of knowledge, and definitely with differing opinions on many things, can reach some conclusions together as a community. (Am I warm and fuzzy? I dunno.) — Unsigned comment by JR (talk • contribs) at 10:03 on 29 December 2012‎