Sheet Moderation

[Charanraja123]

Okay. This is kind of a nuanced topic, and I am sharing my personal opinions on it.

The sheet needs to be cleaned up/pruned. There are lot of unnecessary entries. Definitions for rows are being misinterpreted (prince_rulers) and some duplicates too. Considering we have a sizable amount of entries and more on the way, this is high time we get it into a more organized state

Since we have already established some structure with the Mod side, i feel that should be reflected accurately in the sheet, since it is the best model we have.

For Example, There is no special column for an independent tribal ruler (he falls under principality). Why is there republic kingdoms?. I think that is so niche of a topic that it does not warrant a row for itself.

Also, it would be nice if someone else could take share the work with @Viridianus in organizing the sheet. I would like to know if you guys (especially @Viridianus) share this feeling of having someone else help him in maintaining the sheet might help.

These are all just opinions that I felt I could share, I apologize if I have offended anyone.

[Viridianus]

Organizing the sheet is good - even though I don't quite see what you mean by unnecessary entries (except for republic kingdoms: these are not niche as this is how Italian influential republics and Hansa are treated, AFAIK).

Coding side is restricted by things which are coded in different places while logically belong to the same.

As for principalities for tribal rulers - that's not how the sheet is supposed to work. Principality (and prince(ss)-ruler) is feudalclan_independent, tribality takes priority over that (at least in theory; I will not be surprised if it is coded differently). On republic kingdoms see above.

This will sound unnecessarily harsh, but right now I feel like any "helper" with either formatting or EtB first column will only cause me to wanna tear their arms out of their body and reinsert them (note that while I use Necro's localization extraction and am grateful to him/her for it, it wouldn't even cross my mind to suggest s/he should insert them in the first column personally). But there are many other tasks in maintaining the sheet, including reviewing (which @Gr770 currently does), expanding when needed (which nobody usually does; for instance, we probably need a row for culture groups, as I posted in the forum) and rearrangement (ditto, the only large rearrangement was at September 1).

[Charanraja123]

Let me correct myself here. By unnecessary entries, I meant to cite republic kingdoms. I still think something special to Italy should go into conditional titles, but I'm happy to defer to your judgement on this. The tribal point is interesting since actually, I did do it for feudal clan only afaik. but i'm sure I saw some principalities with tribal governments, which now we should remove(right?). Also this means the "independent" tag doesn't mean anything for tribal governments since we do not have anything specific for that. You already raised the Issue of duplication, which is something we both agree on. I definitely am onboard for reorganization. At least getting in ascending/descending order of Tier would be really nice.

P.S. it is he/his/him, saving you some time in the pronouns friend xD

[Viridianus]

;) I don't think it should be special to Italy. Hansa is an obvious example outside, but also - historically Novgorod republic reached kingdom-level at some point, controlling... well, what's k_novgorod AND k_bjarmaland on the map. They had a knyaz', of course, even if in a limited function, so Novgorod specifically could go with Velikoje knyazhestvo, but this is a general example. Oh, there's an interesting issue: it is quite possible that the actual titles in some cultures are the same for tribes and for feudalclan_principalities. I only meant logic of the sheet.

[Charanraja123]

Like the Sultan, Emir and Emirate rows being used for non-Islamic faiths, Shouldn't we add similar Christian rulers for non-Christian faiths? Also what does this mean since I see sultan has an entry under English, but was there any historical significance behind it? is it supposed to be like a translation?

[Viridianus]

I assume that @Gr770 believes (or believes Pdx to believe) that, since Arabic Islamic rulers distinguished Malik and Sultan, every Islamic ruler should distinguish King and Sultan. The rows, of course, should not be used for non-Islamic faiths; this pertains to the general question of defaults.

[Gr770]

Sultan signifies a faith-based submission to a higher power (Historically the caliph). Religous submission is an important part of the Islamic faith.

Emirs is another story though.

[Viridianus]

So, @Gr770, you were lured and came here ;) 1)Why do we have Emir and Sheikh rows?) 2)Do we officially accept the measure on marking defaults as such instead of repeating the title? 3)What do you have to say on the rest?

[Charanraja123]

I do understand the role and difference between sultan/malik. My questions mainly pertained to why is it included as row in general and is it expected to have English entries into it? The submission to the caliph is something more into the religious condition which we haven't discussed yet. Including arabic christians, islamic indians and such. There is a discussion required in how to represent these on the sheets so that we can look at it in a more holistic manner.

[Gr770]

1.) I know sheikh is more of religious title, but I'm not opposed to removing them. Sultan should probably stay as that was in the game as is. 2.) I've tried labeling 'defaults to' on the sheet, but not everyone sees it. I'm planning on going through the sheet and expanding and co tracting it after work. I can leave you for EtB 3.) Republics should stay for future proofing, I don't really have a good solution for labeling tribal independents right now.

[Charanraja123]

I did not suggest removing Sultan/Malik, Just make it more clear that that and subsequent muslim ruler rows are not to be entered for all cultures but only for cultures which were multi-religious and did not have Islam cultures as their default King/Queen etc,. titles. Iberian or Indo-Aryan cultures would be the perfect example.

Having sultan entries for English just feels wrong. Maybe give it a row gap with a description of something

In a similar fashion we could (should?) also have Christian based Emperor/King/Queen etc titles which can be used for some non-European Christians i.e, where the default king/queen does not have a christian Annotation like the existing Coptic Egyptian. Again these dont have to be filled up unless it applies to that particular culture, like the sultan/malik/sheik stuff. Hopefully you guys can understand me.

[Viridianus]

1)Then I think it's kinda decided that the rows for Emir and Sheikh should go. And, since other religions don't seem to care that much about the distinction, I don't think we need such rows for Christians, it will only make our heads hurt. (The discussion of Coptic is to be confined to that issue, but in short - what we did there is a hack, a trick to compensate for no Coptic culture in vanilla, it is not generalizable in any way.) 2)I think it's not only the question of seeing it but also the question of "OK, it defaults... so what? Should I copy it anyway to confirm defaulting - or leave intact?" As for EtB - I have just filled in all the localizations for what was colored previously, but I still have to color and fill in the rest of Tibet. 3)I mean, logically tribals are never "governor"-type dependent: even if they're not independent gameplay-wise, roleplay-wise it's always more of a tributary relationship so they shouldn't have the tribal_independent vs. tribal_dependent difference.

[Charanraja123]

1) Yes, Sultan will remain, but please make sure people dont misinterpret it as a translation. I'm sorry if i'm repeating my point, but I just think there is a chance for miscommunication. Since we are talking about sultan, The sultan/malik difference is something that we can address after having flags included by Paradox. I did dirty hack it for the current arabian version, but I do not want to do that for everything. (Said this since we were on this topic). 2) I vote forleaving Intact, since the game by itself defaults. It helps to make sure you have modded the only the required things 3) Hard Agree. Independent Tribal is like a Tautology lol. I do not want a distinction based on independence. If you all agree, I'll add removing Tribal from Principalities into the Fixes issue

[Charanraja123]

4. Sorry for bringing this up late. But can we include a Petty Kingdom row? since a lot cultures seemed to want it.

[palfourti]

Is "prince ruler" not supposed to represent petty kingdoms"? Maybe I'm one of those people who's misunderstood that row but I assumed it was meant to be for things like letting independent duke/count rulers still refer to themselves as kings if it made sense for their culture (Norse, Anglo-Saxon, etc.)

[Charanraja123]

I specifically used it only for counts/dukes since it didn't say anything about kingdom lol. Another one to clean up i guess

[Gr770]

Yeah, I'll label principality as principality/petty king from now on. They are functionally identical but some cultures (irish) wouldn't really have principalities.

[Gr770]

Also knights need to be changed a bit.

[Charanraja123]

How do you mean?

[Gr770]

There is Knight Knight_plural Knight_pural_no_tooltip

In the files by default.

[Charanraja123]

There is Knight Knight_plural Knight_pural_no_tooltip

In the files by default.

So knight f ?. I assumed that to be the case. Since we are only changing the word knight and not giving actual titles.

[Gr770]

Yes

[Viridianus]

What's the difference between knight_plural and knight_plural_no_tooltip in localization files now? 1)I'll delete the rows today (or tomorrow - but probably today). 2)I mean, this is a source of miscommunication. I suggested putting a special symbol like ~ or '= to affirm defaulting. 3)Sounds agreeable (if not already done).

[Charanraja123]

So basically there are different versions of Knight localisations used in events and stuff. No tooltip is for places that they dont want to show a tooptip, whereas tooltip is somewhere they want to show a tooltip. In a similar fashion, there is singluar/plural and Title case /lowercase

[Viridianus]

I mean, are they ever localized differently, or is it just a sign that we will have to duplicate it each time?

[Charanraja123]

I don't quite understand your question. But if you are asking whether we have write "knight" in eight different versions (left out adjective and plural possessive) for the localisation, then yes we have to do them. They dont necessarily have to be different, but we have to still copy the same thing again

[palfourti]

Since we're discussing pruning unnecessary entries from the title sheet I wanted to ask, do we really need a Grand Duchy row? Maybe @Gr770 or someone else can correct me but from what I've seen the only instant of "Grand Duke" in the game is as a special cultural localization for independent Lithuanian king-level rulers, and that there's no special "grand duchy" tier or government type as it were. If that's the case there's really no reason for that row to exist since every culture will already have its own localization for king titles.

[Viridianus]

AFAIK, Grand Duke was supposed to be a title for an independent holder of multiple duchies who is not a king (so somehow greater than mere Prince ruler); however, @Gr770 hasn't even found a way to implement them. I would go against deleting the rows for now, but it may turn out that we don't really need them.

[Gr770]

Move Marches, Palatinates, and Grand duchies to a possible sheet?

[palfourti]

Ah, I wasn't aware, I assumed it was to fill something already in the game.

[Viridianus]

No, please don't multiply sheets (among other things, it makes working with requested cultures way harder). Maybe a special section in the end of relevant tables?

[Viridianus]

Also, I request protection for columns of Bosnian and Buryat on Main Titles sheet (as well as first column on EtB sheet). Someone just tried to insert a Croatian term for Bosnians.

[Gr770]

I cant do it from my phone, but I'll check updates from my time till when I can lock it and reverse them.

[Viridianus]

No need for reversing, THAT I took care of) What do y'all think of a special section for "possible titles" on MT and RC sheets?

[Gr770]

I put a warning up for editing the titles. I don't feel it needs a total lockdown, I don't want to completely discourage someone from posting a source.

[Gr770]

In fact I just went ahead and placed a warning for all completed (mostly green) cultures.

[Charanraja123]

Everything seems amazing guys. Overnight you guys build Rome xP. Some changes, The titles "Council and Court","Republics" are not really visible. If you could make the same changes to them as "Possible Future Titles", it would be nice.

[Charanraja123]

Also someone should review the existing Sultan entries.

[Viridianus]

I will raise the issue of defaults here until it is solved :D I really want to use ~ there, but then do we color the tildas same as usual titles? And, related, East Slavic female barons should actually distinguish regnants and consorts - that was my bad, and I edited the sheet now accordingly.

[Charanraja123]

Color the tildas the same way as any other entry i suppose. If someone says this shouldn;t default, they they color it yellow. If we modded it in, we color it green. On a related note why does the rules say tribal titles overrides prince rulers? aren't they entirely different government types? I'm okay with them defaulting to count/duke. But I cant understand the override thing

Also. English sultan. Someone. Please. xP

[Viridianus]

Included the rule on tildas in RaG. Commented on Sultan in the sheet.

Also, I petition for deleting third row in EtB: it duplicates information from Main Titles and isn't updated accordingly. Same pertains to Religious Titles.

[Viridianus]

Do you remember me saying that someone else's formatting will make me wanna tear their arms out? Religious Titles was a prime example of this.

[Gr770]

1. For deleting the third row, are these named the same as the head of faith or are they the names of the church?

2. I mostly added all the faiths in the files. Feel free to move them around.

[Viridianus]

The third row is cultural names of cultures (Erennach for Irish and so on). It's enough to have the row in MT (and RC).

[Viridianus]

Turns out that because of lock on EtB first column you can no longer hide/unhide, so @Gr770 - please unhide all the lines.

[Gr770]

I set it to warning like the others

[Viridianus]

Still can't unhide (just like I can't now hide lines in MT).

[Gr770]

That is a little odd. I just went ahead and removed the protections.

[Viridianus]

Thx! That also led me to recheck Pdx's localization of no-hierarchy titles and update them (as well as get rid of that 3rd row). You can re-protect the first column now (hiding those few titles is too minuscule given the twelve thousand titles anyway).

Also, do I really have to say that any rearrangements of MT are to be repeated in RC?

[Charanraja123]

So.. can we bring this up to 50 comments. It sounds like a good number and I would be proud of creating this Thread xD

[Viridianus]

Unfortunately, it doesn't even seem to be difficult. There are multiple problems - for instance, many important edits are commented and remain unimplemented for weeks despite having a good proof while some less-proven edits belonging to more self-assured people get in. Someone should go through comments regularly - and preferably more than one (I can't do the whole sheet moderation alone, even just for MT it's thousands of cells, not to mention it begins to quickly develop into me making judgment calls alone because no one else cares).