Talk:Aon

Merge with list?

Is there a reason why this page and the List of Aons page are separate? It seems to me they should be combined.--WeiryWriter (talk) 23:19, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think this page is supposed to talk about the science of Aon's where as the list discusses particulars. It might be better if they get merged though. Any opinions? --Joe ST (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean about the "science of Aons"? I move that we delete this list. There's not really a huge amount of usefulness in putting the Aons in order of appearance, in my opinion. A comprehensive alphabetical list is better overall. However, there might be something useful in an Aon article, discussing the symbols themselves and their origin, rather than listing them, so I don't think we should do away with this article completely, simply rework it into a more useful form. --Windrunner (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really mean science, more what you said; history, general stuff, etc.. not really describing it well but heh --Joe ST (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I fully support merging List of Aons with this article. I think "Aon" should be the article we go with on that one. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a mock-up of a new Aon page at the moment, will post on my user page when I get a little farther.--WeiryWriter (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay I've finished with the mock-up of the new article (User:WeiryWriter/Aon) If anyone can think of anything else to add it would be helpful. Or I can go ahead and shift it to here.--WeiryWriter (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

His/Her vs. Their

So, Joe made a couple alterations to the article, namely changing "his or her" to "their." Now I have always learned that this is incorrect, their is not singular. I discussed it with him over chat but he suggested that we get some outside input because neither one of us is going to agree the other. I think we should stick with more formal language for the wiki and as such use correct grammar.--WeiryWriter (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Where as I am taking wikipedia's stance as 'their' fits both and is just better reading. --Joe ST (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Grammar Girl recommends using "they," and I trust her judgment. Her rationalization is very good and she takes into account many style guides. I do not think we should use overly formal speech on the wiki. Since style guides cannot agree on a solution, I suggest we go with their. It is easier to write and easier to read. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay I read the Grammar Girl article and she mentions it is better to have a convention that people disagree with than to have no convention which I can agree with. I still totally disagree on using they/their but if that is the convention that is decided then so be it.--WeiryWriter (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Deleted Scenes

So I finally got around to reading the Elantris deleted scenes and found a couple facts that could be added to this article.

"A triangle with wing-like protrusions from the side: Aon Eto." from [1]

and

"An Ate Seon can make a room completely silent for a short time, an Iam Seon age an object or person by a few years." from [2]

I'm wondering how to handle the latter because Aon Iam is listed as meaning "Age" in the glossary on Brandon's Website but in the back of the book Glossary (and the article) Aon Ire has age as one of its meanings. How should this be handled?

Also, the coppermind stance on this sort of stuff is "use it unless it is contradicted by published canon" correct?--WeiryWriter (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

You could probably get away with adding it, as long as you make a footnote explaining that the material is from a deleted scene, and not necessarily canon. --Windrunner (talk) 05:16, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I've added the information on Aon Eto and Aon Ate. I'm wary about Aon Iam because it does have the same meaning as a published Aon.--WeiryWriter (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Split into aon pages

So, we already have pages for each of the metals, and we have loads of single-line character pages. I was thinking we should split these up onto `Aon X` pages, like the `Seon X` pages we've started making, and then make AonDor into a similar page as the Allomancy and Feruchemy pages which have a table of metals which link to the actual articles. This would make this article into a disambiguation page? Anyone with opinions? I know you seem to like long pages for text-search reasons, Eric, and I don't really know what to say about that. --Joe ST (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for that personally. Most of these would just end up as really short articles, we don't have in depth info on more than like three or four of them. It just seems like a waste to me, currently. But then again, we have an article for every spren xD --Windrunner (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

That is my point, consistency XD --Joe ST (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I personally feel that Characters and Places are notable in and of themselves as special terms. If someone searched for a random place on Roshar, I want that place known and clearly in the search results. Especially since many places could ostensibly be expanded. There are some places that are not notable enough to have their own article, such as individual Ashmounts. I would reserve judgment that in Stormlight Archive, properties of individual spren could be expanded upon.

So, you talk of consistency. Well, what be our policy? I would say that this question should be deferred, as it will be very difficult to make a totally consistent policy on that. This is part of our problem in determining whether those random pieces of literature in Way of Kings should warrant their own article. That is a discussion we should have, but do not simplify it as you are both doing. It is very much not that easy. Largely it will come down to how we decide which pages are not notable enough for their article, and instead should be listed in an index. That's... tough. As I said, right now Characters and Places almost always have their own article, without exception (the only exception I can think of are the literature writers, for characters, and the Ashmounts for Places). I see no reason why we could not make this future policy dependent on which high level content category we are in.

With that out of the way, on the matter of this specific circumstance, I would say that each individual Aon is not noteworthy of an article in of themselves. You cannot possibly equate the two sentences of an Aon to the wealth of information we have on every metal. You wouldn't make an article on each Command, would you? You would, however, probably write articles for each metal, and possibly when we more of Stormlight, for each Surge or each Order of Radiant.

Anyway, can you tell I've had to listen lawyers all freaking week? XD The question of indices is an important one, and hey, I'll be the first to admit that we wanted character and place articles to boost the article count. But I kind of like having, say, the Rosharan category, and the Roshar category to be a complete description of characters and places there. We should probably have this conversation, because we kind of haphazardly did things in the wiki's early years. But, I largely feel we should defer this matter until we see Words of Radiance. A new book of that scale will test if our structure of the wiki has the proper expandability and adaptability we will require six books down the line. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 06:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)