Talk:Dwarf
From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
[edit] Santax revert
If you read, not everything is taken from gww, and it was not a blind copy things were accordingly changed. And why do you think it is a "bad merge"? Coran Ironclaw 17:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- The sections are all over the place, an extract from tMotW is used where a wikilink would suffice, some of the capitalisation is just downright strange, every proper noun is internally linked (King Jalis has 3 links on that page), irrelevant information (Stone Summit) is used where an interwiki link should be used, and the article links on numerous occasions to articles that not only don't exist yet, but should not and will not exist on the GWW (Jalis, Dagnar, Stone Summit etc.) --Santax (talk ยท contribs) 11:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why there shouldn't be a bit of lore about what dwarves once were on the article? caps, proper noun linked can be fixed. All the interwiki links can be fixed when we actually have those interwiki links, if that is what bother you, just remove the links but do not revert. Coran Ironclaw 19:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
- Because Dwarves are more relevant to GW, as opposed to GWW. A much shorter article that points to the more detailed article on GWW would be better. Why do we need GW information on GW2W, when we already have a perfectly good Guild Wars Wiki? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Santax (talk) .
- This needs about 2 lines and a link. Something along the lines of "Dwarves once ruled in Shiverpeaks, fought destroyers, turned to stone/killed, now rare, nomadic creatures." Obviously not that simplified, but Jalis, Thunderhead Keep, etc. need to go. Lord Belar 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- A few still exist, and I'll bet money we encounter a few. There'll be a fair share of GW2 info on them, and the page is already a good size as is. Calor (t) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know they're more relevant to GW1 than GW2? I'd bet money that there's something behind their "deathless ubermode" that'll help us out at some point. -- Armond Warblade
22:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- We don't know yet, but we can always add more after release. Lord Belar 22:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- How do we know they're more relevant to GW1 than GW2? I'd bet money that there's something behind their "deathless ubermode" that'll help us out at some point. -- Armond Warblade
- A few still exist, and I'll bet money we encounter a few. There'll be a fair share of GW2 info on them, and the page is already a good size as is. Calor (t) 20:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- This needs about 2 lines and a link. Something along the lines of "Dwarves once ruled in Shiverpeaks, fought destroyers, turned to stone/killed, now rare, nomadic creatures." Obviously not that simplified, but Jalis, Thunderhead Keep, etc. need to go. Lord Belar 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because Dwarves are more relevant to GW, as opposed to GWW. A much shorter article that points to the more detailed article on GWW would be better. Why do we need GW information on GW2W, when we already have a perfectly good Guild Wars Wiki? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Santax (talk) .
- Why there shouldn't be a bit of lore about what dwarves once were on the article? caps, proper noun linked can be fixed. All the interwiki links can be fixed when we actually have those interwiki links, if that is what bother you, just remove the links but do not revert. Coran Ironclaw 19:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Demise?
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand where all the dwarves went. Sure, I get that most of them were turned to stone to fight the Destroyers (with or without George Thorogood), but what of the others, like Ogden Stonehealer, who didn't undertake the transformation? What about the Stone Summit? --RoyHarmon 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We killed all the stone summit but yeah i dont get it how they just vanished like that too, there were alot that didnt turn too stone but somehow just vanished.. yeh that makes sense.
