User talk:Rangergls

Andu vs. Day

I agree with your interpretation that "one RL day is one IG week," but as I posted on Play.net, there are other sources that more clearly define an andu as a week.

I think that the TIME HELP description of "andu" is just poorly written. It is probably a relic of a confusing decision on the part of some GM to give players an IC way to talk about real days. The author probably thought that it was a good idea to call the Elanthian week a "day" to reinforce the idea that one Earth day is one week in Elanthia.

I find the TIME HELP passage to be internally inconsistent, since it first says that a day is called an andu (and each andu is divided into 12 anlaen) but then says that an andu contains four days and therefore that "weeks" is the better translation. The TIME HELP passage goes on to describe how these "weeks" are named after Elanthian gods. There are also IC sources that refer to andaen as "weeks."

Excerpts from The Elanthian Calendar:

I. The Solar Year

The 400 day (0-399) solar year is broken down into smaller months. Of these there are 10 and each is made up of 10 andaen (often translated "weeks") which are in turn made up of 4 days each so that each month contains 40 days (0-39).

III. The Andaen

Each of the months is, as was pointed out above, divided into 10 "weeks" of 4 days each. These groups of 4 days are each named after one of the great divinities of Elanthia. . . . The word "andu" (pl. andaen) literally means "day" in High Gamgweth but since each of the "days" here is actually four days long, "weeks" is the more common translation.

Excerpt from Northern Customs

Though known as the 'Day of Penance,' this is actually a misnomer as it lasts an entire andu (four days).

Maybe some GM with knowledge of the time system will settle this once and for all on Play.net. However, until then, most players will continue to say that an andu is a week and that the fact that it literally means "day" is just a mistranslation. (Even Olwydd.org defines an andu as one Earth day.) --Isharon 16:33, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

---

If you could please not undo the changes made, particularly regarding formatting? If you feel the need to move back the discussion text, please follow the manual of style I am trying to adopt for NPCs. Elanthipedia talk:Manual of Style/NPCs Thanks, --Hithrael 17:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I did not see any point in having all of the relevant information about the NPC moved to a different page, particularly one no one will ever check. If someone does not take care of it before me, then when I have time I will make all of the Ranger Guildleader pages look more neat and uniform.

I would hardly consider the 'chat' portion of the information as "all the relevant information". As stated, I am developing a uniform style for ALL guildleaders, not just ranger ones. The only information moved to the discussion page was the chat section, and per Thilan's comments, I am going to relocate them to the main page once we have some agreement on a common style.

--Hithrael 18:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)