Talk:Prehistory (oWOD)

From the White Wolf Wiki, the most complete White Wolf reference

I suppose my concern with just leaving "the Concord happened on this date" is the fact that it doesn't point out the uncertainty of the date as proven by other suggested dates from other books. The date of the Concord is *highly* dubious, really - all events preceding human history are in W:tA. While that can be addressed in the main article for the Concord, I still feel uneasy treating the 7000 BCE date as canonical when canon really isn't entirely clear on the matter. PalominoMule 15:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the discrepancy, and that the date is a possible date; give emphasis to one if you think it's more likely. If you want to see how I handled something similar, check out the Treaty of Tyre article and the corresponding year entries (1493 and 1496, IIRC.) -- Benjamin 15:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ben already answered while I was answering, but my original response read:

Fair enough, I'm just a little leery on having book titles within the main text. What you may want to consider doing is just an entry that says "One of the possible dates for the Concord." Then at the bottom have a separate "Notes" section. See the bottom of 2007 (TU) for an example. You could also (and this is not exclusive to the previous suggestion) have a Notes or Background Information section within the Concord article that discusses the ambiguity more clearly.

So we've all dealt with this sort of thing before. WW stuff is rife with contradictions. :D --Ian ^talk 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)