Talk:Sigzil

Sigzil may not be a Skybreaker

We do not know which other order Sigzil joined. And this page should not directly claim that he joined the skybreakers until we have confirmation of this outside of the artwork. It may be tempting to add this information, but it is currently only speculative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jamcdonald 02:35, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Chapter 28 directly calls Aux a Highspren. Does that not confirm Sigzil is a Skybreaker? Sorry if this is an inappropriate place for this. I was reading the wiki and wanted to help.

"I like change, Nomad. My kind were too static for too long, particularly we highspren. And sometimes the way you talk makes me think you believe, or can pretend, that you are an entirely different person now." - The Sunlit Man Chapter 28

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:WhateverComic07 04:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct, Aux calls himself a Highspren (as shown in the quote above, which I can confirm is correct, it is on page 255, second paragraph, second sentence), and we see a Skybreaker glyph form behind Sigzil, I feel that is enough to logically assume that he became a Skybreaker, unless the way that Knights Radiant changed and made it so that Highspren could give you any order and not just one. Which I feel we shouldn't assume to be the case without direct confirmation itself. My view is just a case of "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck", we have far more evidence of him joining the Skybreakers than for him being part of a different order. And I would need a lot of evidence against him being in it to be thoroughly convinced, as it would require evidence of Highspren making people into anything other than Skybreakers. When the definition of a Skybreaker, as we currently understand it, is a Knights Radiant bonded to a Highspren. While that, again, may change in the future, we don't have reason to believe such a change has occurred.

Skips are also definitely not just the Surge of Transportation, it is something special to the Dawnshard. With our current knowledge, we should only assume it is a power granted by the Dawnshard, and not by an unrelated Surge. As that fits the most with current evidence.

Your edit also does indeed have bad links, such as Knights_Radiant, which is a red link as the page isn't called that, it is called Knights Radiant without an underscore. Our system of links here does not use URLs, but page names, thus underscores are not included. I do understand that mistake, however. There were also several spelling and capitalization errors, also understandable.

I apologize if I come off as rude, I mean no rudeness or disrespect.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Firesong 15:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, so a lot happened here. First of all, I agree that the quote establishing Aux as a highspren and the Skybreaker glyph forming behind Sigzil is sufficient evidence that he was a Skybreaker through his bond to Aux; I'm pretty confident that the rest of the Keepers would agree with that as well. WhateverComic07, thank you for pulling that quote and for wanting to help the wiki more generally, we could always use more editors and you weren't in the wrong place at all! Also, as a general note to people, please remember to sign your comments with ~~~~ to automatically add your username and a timestamp.

Jamcdonald, if you want to dispute that conclusion further, you're welcome to do so, but I'm going to say that the page should still call Sigzil a Skybreaker unless and until an affirmative consensus that the citations don't support that develops (i.e., please don't change Skybreaker to something else just because you find new evidence that you think cuts against that position; wait to see what other people think of it first).

A large part of the reasoning behind that condition is that just going back and forth with reverts is generally not the best way to resolve disagreements; I can't say I'm impressed with either of you, Reinhartmax and Jamcdonald. Neither of you put any explanation at all in both of your first reverts, which is important so that the other editor can understand why you think their edit is wrong. Reinhartmax, I don't think your eventual comment that you were reverting because "Links are wrong and information is taken out for no reason" was really helpful either; while (as Firesong noted) there were some minor issues with the links, that's not something that you would need to revert the whole edit over and I'm not seeing anything that was "taken out" that didn't stem from Jamcdonald's challenges to the accuracy of the page, in which case the helpful thing to do in reverting would be to explain why you think those parts of the page were indeed accurate. If you both had given more justification for your reverts, we might have gotten to having an actual conversation on this talk page sooner, rather than going through several reverts.

Reinhartmax, I'd also caution both of you to make sure that you're not also accidentally reverting other changes in situations like this. Your reverts removed another editor's addition about why the Night Brigade is still chasing Sigzil even though he no longer has the Dawnshard, which I assume was unintentional.

In short, please be more thoughtful when reverting edits in the future, both of you; future edit wars like this would probably be likely to result in blocks, at least from the page in question. If you have any questions, please feel free to get in touch with me on my talk page.

--Stargazer (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, this was definitely an issue on multiple parts, not just on Jamcdonald. They were just doing what they believed was best for the page, and I cannot fault that. I even blame myself to a degree, as I also reverted the edit. Though I tried my best to give an explanation. Added information on why the Night Brigade was still chasing him was also removed by me, as I was, as you said, not aware of that addition, and it should not have been removed as that is vital information to understanding his history and current life. My apologize to all involved.

Firesong (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't really blame you; it probably would have been good to make sure a Keeper knew about the situation, but you at least clearly explained why you disagreed and the talk page had developed citations supporting the Skybreaker claim. --Stargazer (talk) 19:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

My apologies, Either I missed that chapter 28 refers to Aux as a Highspren, or that incorrectly thought Highspren referred to any of the higher spren that can form radiant bonds. In any case, I incorrectly thought the citation in chapter 28 was only confirming 2 radiant orders. With this line quote from Aux, I fully agree that Sig's second order is Skybreaker, but without it the evidence seemed too circumstantial. Jamcdonald (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Don't beat yourself up over it, totally understandable mistake. I often get Highspren and True Spren confused myself, so I can't exactly blame you. It is also easy to miss one passing line in a book if you aren't paying very close attention, and things often slip by even if you do pay very close attention. You are alright.

Firesong (talk) 12:29, 15 October 2023 (UTC)