Ghyll talk:Arbuckle Hill

Since I'm still not quite clear on the rules of in-game & out-of-game scholarly discussion, I'd like to post the following as notes to the page as an in-game scholarly debate:

A true scholar would have noted that the "Early Days" are mere mythology as the so-called Creator has no proof of existance and only Ghyllian word of mouth supports this "historical" recollection. Ghyllian scholars should refrain from imparting religious bias into their scholary texts. --Lisa B. Underhalh 14:13, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

Ultimately, the Talk: pages are for out-of-game discussions ("dude, your dates are all crazy", "yeah, well, you missed by Easter Egg!") and the bottom of the actual entries are used for scholarly debate (so, your comment above would get moved to beneath the real entry). There is no hard and fast rule for WHEN, however, it is permissable to add your scholarly comment to a page: generally speaking, if there are indications that the entry is "done", then that's as good a time as any. That means, at the latest, scholarly comments can always be legitimately placed once the next turn starts. But, if there are indications that the player is finished with his entry ("Copyedit please" as opposed to "First draft, more later."), then that's clear indication that they're ready for comments, both in- and out-. As for canonization: scholarly comments are not canon - that is, unless someone decides to make them canon by including their facts in the body of a future entry. --Morbus Iff 15:28, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

Thanks. When the author either mentions here that the article is done or the turn passes, I'll post the above and allow the talk page to be reverted to white space per obsolete discusion. --Lisa B. Underhalh 16:20, 19 May 2005 (EDT)

I didn't actually notice it until AFTER I commented, but I'd take the author's OWN scholarly comment as an indicator that he willing/ready to accept more. --Morbus Iff 16:31, 19 May 2005 (EDT)