Talk:Church of the Holy Light/@comment-74.12.36.252-20150902190311/@comment-23180510-20150902194141

I am concerned with this line of thinking. Okay

I think the purpose of this Wiki is to showcase what we have on Moon Guard - the different guilds and organizations and stories we have, is that correct? '''And they should be, but on pages about lore organization it should be done with care and observation of allowing the ability to create more content that doesn't coincide with one particular fanon. That is done by simply giving the foundation for the fanon in a manner with no claimants, or claimants not determined through RP. I would also refer you to the Canon Heirarchy page that I posted below which explicitly states that canon comes before fanon, as it should. '''

With the creation of this page that is virtually a copypasta from wowpedia (It is, and is credited as such) and the changing of all links that led to the player organization to this very standard and generic page that doesn't tell us anything out of what can already be found on wowpedia, it has effectively marginalized a player-driven RP group on Moon Guard''' What is marginializing groups on this wikia is assuming ownership over a lore group. The Church of the Holy Light is a lore group and should be properly cited as such'''

...which sort of defeats the purpose of the wiki - showcase what there is on Moon Guard. '''On contraire it embellishes the RP even more so by giving it a lore foundation. Other pages execute this in a manner that simply is in the format that canon is above fanon.'''

On top of that, it sets a dangerous precedent (There literally is nothing dangerous about this)

that anyone can effectively copy-paste a wowpedia article, drop it into this wiki, then proceed to severe all links to other player groups and guilds whose RP is intricately related to the page's subject under the whole "I'm just offering an alternative!" argument, effectively shoving those groups into a corner as well and offering them no 'linktime' or 'facetime'. First of all w'''hether or not 'facetime' or 'link-time' is offered doesn't change the fact that this is a canon lore organization that displays fanon that is too tightly interwoven into its fabric doesn't offer any room for anyone else to RP any alternatives. Does this organization have any current alternatives? Not that I am aware, yet the principle of allowing others to see both the lore and the fanon is still one that this community should allow for. This one page isn't detrimental to the fanon Church's operation, but it's imperative to the operation of other fanon churches in the future.'''

Right now I can make a  copypasta :Order of the Silver Hand" page, and any link linking to any Silver Hand related guilds (Hate to break it to you, the Order of the Silver Hand page has a quite unbiased preamble which doesn't include "Tenevus Stromheart" as supreme head. The Silver Hand Chapter is quite literally under it's own fanon subsect within the article, which is literally what I'm suggesting here.

 whether it is Silver Hand Chapter (Fanon) who RPs as 'THE Arch-Chapter, (Fanon) THE Authoritative body of THE Silver Hand" Which is entirely fanon. This arguement is about making claims on lore positions. Nobody is arguing that there can't be a fanon "Archbishop". What is being argued is that it shouldn't be mish-mashed into a "Church of the Holy Light" page unless its under its own subsect. 

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:15.75pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">or Lordaeron Silver Hand who RPs as 'the Lordaeron chapter of the Silver Hand' -   can be rerouted to the copypasta page with absolutely no mention of them, whose current 'canon' lore is contradictory to their own (because we all know what Tirion did), '''This comes down quite literally to the name of the page. "Church of the Holy Light" Is not owned by this line of fanon, therefore it should reflect that the claimants in this RP scenario respect the fact that this is fanon. Unless they don't respect that fact.'''

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:15.75pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">under the exact same "I'm just stating there are alternatives!" argument. This can go the same for any Argent Crusade guilds, any Scarlet guilds ("They're destroyed!"), '''If somebody wants to RP that they're destroyed they can. Who are you, the leading authority on people's imaginations?'''

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:15.75pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">any area-based guilds (we have a fanon land in Elwynn, oh wait wowpedia Elwynn article makes no mention of it) or any player/Moon Guard RP group with any sort of lore-related theme - just plop in a wowpedia article and reroute all links to it. '''Now you're trying to make an entirely different point. People don't have to accept fanon. I mean, there is literally no simpler way of putting it. You can't force someone's RP down other people's throats and all I'm asking is that this article be more conciencious of that.'''

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:26px;"><span style="font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;line-height:15.75pt;">When it comes to that, MG wiki would have effectively destroyed itself. And we can all move on to use wowpedia instead. ''' You're really missing the mark here. You're insisting that this is some sort of lore elitism going on when in reality it's just doing this: Creating seperation between lore and fanon as it is:'''

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:15.75pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">1) Appropriate for proper acrediting. Albeit RPers are creative they still should do the right thing and accredit the non-contrived headcanon.

<p style="font-size:16px;line-height:15.75pt;"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Helvetica,sans-serif;">2) It's respectful to other RPers. Yes, the Church has done a fine job in creating fanon, none can deny, yet in this scenario where this the community as a whole shares a wikia, and whereas not everyone sees one person as the Archbishop that should be respected.

<p style="line-height:15.75pt;"> 3) There needs to be a proper following of the rules aforementioned in regards to the hierarchy of canon. It's quite simple, although I suppose in the case of those arguing due to selective observation.