Talk:Survival Shard

Shard is the Recipient?

this shard is probably the one to whom the epigraphs' letter in TWoK is addressed to since it's said in them that he has a policy of non-intervention...

The Letter recipient is confirmed to be a Dragon, and his Response seems to indicate he is not a Shard.--WeiryWriter (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

When I first read this, I was thinking that it was Cultivation that he was speaking of. I know we have kind of heard a fair amount about her but she seems to have avoided Odium's attention where Honor did not or even possibly survived the same attack.--nervousnerd (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of quote on page

Following a conversation with Stargazer on my talk page it was suggested to create a talk page here so editors can discuss the quote I had added from The Last Metal onto the page.

In my opinion the quote seems appropriate since it clearly alludes towards the Survival Shard, later on in the conversation a similar analogy is used to explain the goals of Odium and Ambition. It would seem unusual for the suggestion to not apply to any other shard then, and from all the shards we know it best matches that of the Survival Shard.

As well as that I do not think the fact that the quote is somewhat meta should really impact upon its inclusion, the entirety of the page is meta since there exists currently no direct references towards this shard in the text. Therefore it is in line with everything else on the page.

If anyone has any other thoughts please feel free to share.--Debarra (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Dropping my two general thoughts here, for the record. One, Marasi doesn't really know anything about the Shards, so I'm a bit uncomfortable assuming that she did manage to accurately describe one of the Shards here—notably, it's Shai, who is cosmere-aware, who then extends the analogy to Odium and Autonomy (I assume that's who you meant, not Ambition?). Two, I don't think we don't know enough about the Survival Shard's motivations and actions to say that if this quote is intended to apply to a Shard, it's definitely the Survival Shard; there are several other Shards we barely know anything about.

Also noting that I'm going to drop a note about this conversation in the staff chat, which may result in opinions that aren't expressed here

--Stargazer (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I meant Ambition, if memory recalls there is a wob out there that mentions Ambition's goal at some stage was to try and gather the Shards for themselves. In regards to the quote potentially applying to another Shard I am unsure as to which ones you are suggesting as no other Shard's match the actions that Marsai mentions. The only candidate is the Survival Shard who matches it to a T.

As for the staff chat may I enquire why they won't post their opinions here? This is the whole purpose of the talk page for their to be a public record, this seems highly unusual as I have never heard of another wiki keeping some sort of private chat separate from the talk pages made for that express purpose.

--Debarra (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

We have a very active Discord server (which you can join), and our staff chat is extremely important to our decision-making. Yes, I understand this is not usual for wikis to have a very central power structure, but it has been what we have used since 2010 and has worked quite well in keeping the wiki extremely accurate and high quality. Since we created our Discord server, it has led to a great deal of efficiencies, such as if a staff member asks, "Hey should I revert this?" and get quick responses nearly instantly. Talk pages are inherently slower. So we typically discuss issues and have a few staff members (in this case, Stargazer and I) to discuss here. Someone needs to make a final call, and it is our staff chat. A great many discussions can happen on our forum and Discord as well as talk pages. We need to check all of these avenues. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's that clear-cut that the Survival Shard is a perfect match for this quote, since there's no indication their goal is to become "the most valuable" or "improve [their] stock" by hiding as opposed to just... not wanting to be killed by Odium. As for other Shards, we know very little about the motivations of Invention, Mercy, Valor, or Whimsy. Invention even mysteriously disappears after Harmony initially talks to them. I'm not saying I think it's any of those Shards, but I do think it's not really clear (and short of the standards we try to uphold on speculation) which Shard it would refer to, even if we were to accept that Brandon intended it to be about a specific Shard even though Marasi knows nothing about them (which, to me, accepting that would basically be another level of speculation).

And yeah, like Chaos said, Discord has been a huge efficiency boost for us, which is really helpful since we don't have that many editors; the ease of communication means pretty much all discussion happens there. There are invite links on a couple welcome pages on the wiki, but here's one as well if you want to join!

--Stargazer (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Again I must state my worry in regards to using the Discord in order to make decisions like this on wiki's. There have been many articles and meta pages done on many wiki's, including the Wikipedia itself, explaining in depth why exactly systems like this are a bad idea and why they do not allow them. (And also generally opposed as to the thinking behind creating such wiki's in the first place.) Looking around the site I already have noted myself it slowing down editing since there is no clear log kept on consensus, rulings made, or explanations as to why articles are the way they are. Any new editor's have 0 guidance as to what exactly is going on a particular page. Unless someone is posting their thoughts on the talk pages itself then it shouldn't be lended much weight, the entire point of talk pages are for people to discuss the associated page publicly and so a record is kept of such discussions that future editors can refer to. I do not also see why the speediness of talk pages is a factor here, there is no time limit here and talk pages are meant to give time for other editors to see and respond to it.--Debarra (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Your concern is noted, and I do agree documentation and things could be expressed better--our help pages are an ongoing project that you are welcome to provide input on. But I need to strenuously emphasize to you that the community we serve is NOT the same as Wikipedia's.

Most discussion about this website are conducted in collaboration with other editors, but we operate under a centralized power structure, and thus have a staff group tasked with running the site, dealing with moderation, providing feedback, and making decisions when required. That is not how Wikipedia operates and we are aware of this is distinction. However, we have no ties with Wikipedia, nor do we need to follow their structure; we are a vastly different community in scope, structure, and contents. The Coppermind operates differently, either by necessity or by choice.

I understand that you are used to their system, however, just because something provides the same basic function, doesn't mean it needs to operate in the same way. And talk pages in particular, may work well for the Wikipedia community, however, they have not been very useful or an effective means of communication in this one. We used talk pages for years before moving to Discord and that change had a strong positive impact. People are welcome to use talk pages if they wish--they aren't redundant--but having a real time communication method has made the wiki better and is going to continue being the preferred communication method. I would again encourage you to join the Discord so that discussions, including this one, are more easily conducted. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, we cannot use this quote here. Putting it here will imply to a reader that Marasi is 100% sure this is about the Survival Shard, which is absolutely not the case here. People will argue about that, and I'd like to avoid that. I did not read this as Marasi referring to this. She has no knowledge of these Shards; she's spitballing. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 18:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not think any such implication is made here, the page itself even acknowledges that the terminology it uses here is fan made. The description of the quote below also makes it clear she is not directly talking about the Survival Shard. If there is still some cause of concern this would be an issue even adding a speculation tag would make more sense than removing the quote, that is what it is there for.

As well as this I'd like to note again that it seems clear to me Brandon is intending us to read the quote as this way, in character knowledge doesn't really apply in this case. Resorting to a Thermian arguement here, much like in the vast majority of cases, would seem to be an unideal way to read the text. (Forward to 1:40, site not letting me use the timestamped link.) It would seem downright bizarre and uncharacteristic for Brandon to write two clear analogies to other Shards and then include a third that has no connection to any.--Debarra (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand you read the quote this way, but I read it differently. So I will respectfully disagree. And people do frequently complain about speculation AND canonicity of everything. There have been massive arguments on "this fan art isn't 100% canonical so it shouldn't be on the wiki" that I've had to take part in. Regardless, I strongly think top quotes should not be used this way here. The implication reads extremely strong here. -- Chaos2651 (talk) 04:39, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I also do not think this quote is meant to reference the Survival Shard. The bit about increasing its own value doesn’t really seem to jive with the intent of a “Survival” Shard; it actually seems to go against it. I think Brandon was just trying to juxtapose Autonomy’s and Odium’s methods without meaning a specific to any other Shard. 2601:100:8780:5710:6566:9720:EC6C:3069 08:58, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Marasi knows nothing about Shards nor this Shard in particular, she is not meaning to referencing this Shard, and we as readers do not even know enough to definitively say this is about this Shard. At this point, there have been four people (myself included) who have stated that it is not appropriate to use this quote on this page, so I think this discussion can be put to rest. LadyLameness (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2022 (UTC)