Thread:The Lord Reader/@comment-5275759-20200325100114/@comment-5275759-20200327100719

Sorry for the delay, Lord Reader. I will continue the explanation now, and it would appear at the time of writing that the time has almost run out.

I've explained the rough situation regarding the Lostbelts above. However, certain members of the English-speaking fandom have been referring to them in the distorted-metonym form "[Chapter Title] Lostbelt" (e.g. Anastasia Lostbelt, Atlantis Lostbelt) - this is not a term used in-universe or officially out-universe in Japanese (I've carried out an extensive search through both of these and have not found any instances). The terms are somewhat inaccurate (looking to be outside of the margin), but also liable to breed misconceptions. I've seen them used on the English FGO Wiki (possibly arising from their altered release page naming patterns), TvTropes, and a few cases on the Type-Moon Wiki.

However, although there are people on the Type-Moon Wiki using the accurate terms and planning for it to be used if the Lostbelts are split off into their own articles, one of the people using the inaccurate terms is one of the admins, User:EGGS, and by the looks of things, they are planning to push for it should the Lostbelts be split off (possibly overriding the others - they seem to be a bit stubborn and perhaps might be difficult to convince otherwise). Furthermore, looking at their words in the discussion linked previously seemed to trigger some alarm bells in my head - by the way things were written, folly aside, it seemed as though there was a disconnect in the conversation (two worrying possibilities came to mind - that the users involved were misunderstanding one another or that there was pretence involved).

Given my own problems regarding communication and indications regarding EGGS, as well as the possibilities mentioned above (stubbornness, disconnects, misunderstanding, pretence etc), I've been uncertain and worried about if/how I should try to convey my thoughts on the matter, as mistakes will likely make things worse. The delay caused by my workload here and a major external issue (not the COVID-19 stuff) has only added to the problem (and this is in part what delayed my explanation to you).

Side note (Rough): I've lost track of quite a few of the notes I've made regarding the matter over the past couple of months but one of the rough notes I relocated involved three possible approaches from the last point of the discussion linked above, the rough gist of the three being; one, to point out the deviation from the naming pattern (and that Singularities/Lostbelts though similar are different) and that consistency is retained within the respective groups, two, to point out that consistency is maintained in the form of [Area] [Type], three, to request that if insisting proceeding with this folly to at least include notes to mitigate misconceptions.