Talk:Technomancer

Ambiguity

Sorry, but there is a possibility for ambiguity here, as the term "Technomancer" does exist, is used in several unrelated products, and as such, merits disambiguation to properly direct Wikipedians to the right place. And I wouldn't say there is any association here at all, other than clarity. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, here's an explanation of each of the entries on this list that you removed.

A person with the power of Technopathy.---This should go without saying, but -mancer is a well-known ending for a person who practices a given form of magic.

In White Wolf's roleplaying game Mage: The Ascension, a mage whose magical paradigm regards magic as an extension of science.---Asserted by the game itself. Here are examples in use by the company [1].

Technomages, an order of high-technology beings in the Babylon 5 television series.---valid disambiguation since somebody *might* be looking for an order of technomancers, like well, here: [2].

Please don't remove content from articles in that way, it's not conducive to improvement. And please don't give me any noise about the usenet posting not being a reliable source. I'm using it to demonstrate behavior, not as a source. That is a different concept. FrozenPurpleCube 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV Fork

The above additions are basically POV forks, i.e. an attempt to evade NPOV policy by creating a new disambigutiy page about a certain subject that is already treated in an their respective articles, perhaps to avoid or highlight your own viewpoints. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article. Please remove references to articles that do not have "Technomancer" in their title. --Gavin Collins 16:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What POV? Huh? You are completely baffling me with this argument. Disambiguation doesn't represent a point of view, it represents possibly confusion as to what people might be looking for. I'm afraid I consider your objection so non-sensical that I can't even understand why you brought it up. FrozenPurpleCube 16:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin, this page appears to conform to the style guideline for disambiguation pages, including entries that link to articles that do not have "Technomancer" in their titles. Please see WP:MOSDAB for more information. -- JHunterJ 17:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest to you that it does not conform because the page redirects to Mage: The Ascension that does not have "Technomancer" in its title, nor in the text of the article itself. How this term is related to this article is based the point of view of the editor, as there does not appear to be evidence in the article that this is the case. With regard to the dedirect to Pulse (demo group), I don't see how there could be any disambiguity as Technomancer is the as a stage name for a non-notable performance artist. --Gavin Collins 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your lack of familiarity with the subject would seem to be the reason for the objection, as if you knew anything about Mage: the Ascension, you'd know that there are technomancers in the game. In fact, the word is explicitly used in the title of a book from the series. Therefore, I think it's quite valid to point people in that direction. If the current page doesn't give them the appropriate level of coverage, then perhaps it's that page which needs work. (Which it does, but that's another matter). FrozenPurpleCube 16:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed entries

Technomancer, a person with the power of technopathy
Technomancer or Technomage from the Babylon 5 television series

Have both been removed. Technomages have never been called technomancers. The article doesn't mention that, and I've never heard anything like that. The article on technopathy doesn't make any mention of the word "technomancer" either, and following standard English conventions, the correct form would be "technopath". --Eyrian 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. Technomages could be *confused* with Technomancers(in fact, I noted one example above where somebody did do that). And "Technomancers" and "Technopaths" are both words that have been used to describe the same concept, namely magic through technology. I'm afraid therefore, I don't see why you insist on removing them. FrozenPurpleCube 18:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I have asked at the Disambiguation Wikiproject, and there was at least one other editor with no objection to the content, so I will add it to RFCStyle. FrozenPurpleCube 18:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest the best solution (and one I've used on other disambig pages) is adding a "see also" section and linking to Technomage (disambiguation) there and doing the same on that entry. I agree that people might end up here looking for technomancer (and vice versa) but don't feel they should be included in the main body of the disambiguation (I'd probably also add The Technopriests into the see also while you are at it). In theory you could also add a link to Technopathy in there too. Hopefully that would be a solution that'd keep most people happy. (Emperor 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That would certainly be acceptable to me. FrozenPurpleCube 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is, if I stumbled across this page and started tidying it up, that is exactly what I'd have done. I can see where the concerns come in - I would be unsure about the direct link with technomages (who, I believe, use technology so advanced it can seem like magic) or with a direct one-to-one relationship with technopathy (while some people with technopathy might be technomancers not all technopaths are technomancers - especially as there isn't one clear definition of technomancer and each user will use it and define it themselves). Put them in see also and avoid editorlising them (just keep them as links). I can't see any problem with that. (Emperor 21:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Well, technically a literal definition (based upon word roots) would be that a *-mancer is a person who practices divination through some method (and Technomages do practice divination, it was one of the key points of the episode where they first appeared in B5), but since people are sloppy with language, it's not always limited to that term. Take Necromancy. Literally means divination through the dead, but practically can mean any form of Black Magic or even magic in general. Hence what I see as the advisability of linking to technopathy which covers that subject in regards technology. Do you have any suggestions on pages I can use for styling? FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as I say, because there is no widely accepted definition (and this entry shouldn't be for proving one - start one at wikitionary perhaps and link to it from this) it is better to link to technopathy in a see also. Formatting looks fine. In general see WP:MOSDAB. If the solution I suggest seem reasonable I can add it in. (Emperor 16:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It's certainly reasonable to me to go that route. FrozenPurpleCube 16:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Eyrian has deleted his account so we aren't going tog et input there and nothing else seems to have cropped up on the Disambig Proj talk page so I'll sort it out nd we can take ot from there. (Emperor 17:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]