Thread:The Lord Reader/@comment-5275759-20200325100114

Sorry for the inconvenience, Lord Reader, but given the circumstances, I thought I should probably continue my overdue explanation regarding the external matter I mentioned in January separately from our primary discussion thread.

First off, a quick recap/review of what we talked about before:

Part 1 Inept Wiki User wrote: Sorry to bother you Lord Reader, but would it be OK to discuss a certain problem I have at the moment, which concerns something near where you've recently been editing? There is something which I'm uncertain about and have been delayed with, and I'm worried that mistakes in conveyance might make things worse, so I thought it might be an idea to talk it over beforehand, even though time might be running out.

It concerns problems and worries in conveying certain thoughts in discussion concerning perceived folly in plans for handling the Lostbelts. The Lord Reader wrote: Alright, message me on the TM wiki Inept Wiki USer wrote: Thing is, I'm a bit worried about certain parties there barging in or looking at our talk before the thoughts and words are properly sorted out, and that things might be sent in a bad direction as a result. What do you think would be the best way I should go about discussing this with you? (e.g. here, AS-PM, TM Wiki discrete/in-code?) The Lord Reader wrote: In this case yeah, discussing it here is a better idea. Inept Wiki User wrote: Sorry to keep you waiting, Lord Reader.

I haven't completely got everything together, but I would rather not keep you waiting further and although things are somewhat quiet at the moment over there, I'm still feeling uneasy and not sure how long it will be before the matter comes up.

First of all, are you aware of the circumstances at the moment concerning page Grand Order? The Lord Reader wrote: I am not aware, no. Is there an edit war? Inept Wiki User wrote: There is not an edit war at the moment, though there may be a bit of potential for one. Basically, the page had become too large, due to bloated summaries and large coverage (as it covers the Singularities, Lostbelts and other destinations/events covered in the story of FGO). As such, bits of it are being split off into sub-pages. So far, it has mainly been the Singularities and certain events, and for the most part, there haven't been many problems. The Lostbelts have not been tackled yet as they have not been expanded as much, however there have been a number of signs relating to considered future choices and actions for them, which come across as folly - those are what concern me. The Lord Reader wrote: Yeah, the page is really just cluttered. Redirecting to a main articles and only leaving brief summaries is the smart move. What is your issue?

Part 2 Inept Wiki User wrote: Are you familiar with the names for the Lostbelt story chapters and the ones for the Lostbelts themselves, as well as the differences in naming schemes from the Singularities?

Edit (19/01/2020): Sorry for the delay, more computer problems.

This might be repeating what you already know and I'm sorry if that is the case, but I'll go through the basic naming stuff again just to be sure it is clear on both ends before I get onto the main bit of the problem.

As you probably know, FGO story chapters are typically named using the following format - in full, [Destination Designation], [Subtitle]: [Title] (or [Title]: [Subtitle]), [Alternative Subtitle]. The alternative subtitle isn't particularly relevant in these circumstances. The designation for the Singularities was usually the #th Singularity or Subspecific/Pseudo Singularity #. Usually the chapter is just referred to in the form of [Subtitle]: [Title] (or vice versa), or just [Title].

For the Singularity story chapters, the [Title] and [Subtitle] have been to do with the destination itself - the location of the Singularity, and thus the [Title] is connected to the or the name of the Singularity. As such the chapter title (in short or long form) has often used to refer to the Singularity itself.

However, while the Lostbelt story chapters have the same title format, they have deviated from the aforementioned naming pattern - the [Title] is typically not the (whole) destination, but rather an element present at the destination (e.g. for Chapter 1, Anastasia is the name of a princess faced in the Lostbelt rather than the name of the Lostbelt itself). Additionally, the fifth Lostbelt is split over two story chapters, with the chapters being set in different regions of that single Lostbelt.

In the actual story itself, the Lostbelts themselves have been referred to according to the area they cover (the X Lostbelt) and by their operational code (Lostbelt No.#)(which is also included in the full chapter title as the [Destination Designation]):
 * 1) Lostbelt No. 1 - Russian Lostbelt
 * 2) Lostbelt No. 2 - Scandinavian Lostbelt (also called the Norse Lostbelt, due to its nature)
 * 3) Lostbelt No. 3 - Chinese Lostbelt
 * 4) Lostbelt No. 4 - Indian Lostbelt
 * 5) Lostbelt No. 5 - Atlantic Lostbelt (sometimes also called the Greek Lostbelt, due to its nature)
 * 6) Lostbelt No. 6 - British/English Lostbelt
 * 7) Lostbelt No. 7 - South American Lostbelt

Is this all OK so far? The Lord Reader wrote: Ah, so the confusion is over what to name the articles. I would personally prioritize the in-universe names since the articles are about the locations as a whole, not just their story. Russian Lostbelt for the location and article, "Anastasia" for the chapter it appears in. Inept Wiki User wrote: Well, a bit of confusion but also a bit of foolishness - I'll elaborate shortly (hopefully). All seem OK? 