Talk:Demos (Bloodname)

Status Section

We need to reconsider the Status sections that mark a Bloodname as being dormant or minor. Multiple concerns:

• It appears to be specific to a particular era, and the Wiki covers all eras.
• It is not based on evidence, but rather lack of evidence. That puts it in the area of "speculation", which we strongly discourage.
• I chose this particular one because it leads off by implying that the name is not used, yet we have two properly-cited Bloodnamed holders, in two different Clans, well after the timeframe of the cited sources.

I seek consensus on removing these Status sections except where there is explicit evidence that a particular Bloodname was taken out of use at a particular time--Annihilation, a cited instance of Reaving, etc.--Talvin (talk) 19:01, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

I've been undertaking a project to add the missing Bloodnamed to the relevant pages, and in so doing I've come across numerous examples of exactly the issues Talvin is referring to -- Clan Cloud Cobra's Bloodname pages in particular seem to have this issue, but it's quite widespread. There are also numerous examples where the Bloodnames are claimed to be dormant when further research would have uncovered active lineages. -Hugo Bossk (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

I agree with all these points. As said, the lack of evidence is not evidence in and of itself. Since we don't have an inventory of every single Clan warrior by Bloodname, it's impossible to determine if a Bloodname is active, inactive, minor use or whatever else unless it is explicitly stated. The "Bloodname status" section of this page (and many other Bloodname pages) have been pure speculation. Furthermore, in this case, as well as many others, there have been clear examples of the Bloodname in use, even when the Status section claimed that it was inactive.

I do feel that a Status section is appropriate, but it needs to be used only in those cases where the status of a Bloodname (Reaved, Annihilated, dormant) as no longer in usage is known. -Deadborder (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

I support the removal of this section, I have always felt it was mostly speculation.--Dmon (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

Looks like four votes for removal in quick succession, none against. I will give it until the weekend, and then unless there has been a change in consensus, I'll start pruning.--Talvin (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (EDT)

It is now Friday evening, and the weekend as many account it. I have just surveyed all 806 existing Bloodname pages, and I have identified 90 that have "Status" sections. Before embarking on such a wide-ranging edit of the Wiki, it feels proper to explain clearly my intentions, both so as to satisfy you all that I am acting within our Consensus and so that I have it clear in my own mind:

• Some of these are what I call "Source-Negative" statements: statements that, as no citable source was found in A or B, we must infer C. The consensus is that this is speculation, and these Status sections I shall remove.
• Some of these are what I call "Source-Positive" statements: statements that certain facts appeared in source works, with references to same. These I will retain, however:
  • I will change "Status" to "History" to avoid the appearance of something that is necessarily current or ongoing.
  • I will edit the language to be past tense, as they are typically in present tense, which goes against the standards of the Wiki.

I will post here again when I am done.--Talvin (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2022 (EDT)

It is done.--Talvin (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2022 (EDT)