Notice something wrong, missing, or unsatisfactory? Feel free to edit pages yourself and make use of discussion pages. Wiki content is created, maintained, and administrated by players. See how you can help.
[dismiss]

User talk:Santax

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive

Contents

[edit] ugh

Next time you move a page, be sure to move the associated images too. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, was in a bit of a rush this morning, sorry. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

[edit] {{rarity}}

Please don't use this template in prose. it looks awful, and as an appearance conscious person I expect you not to do that :p -Chieftain AlexUser Chieftain Alex sig.png 18:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Updating NPCs

Hey, if you're updating an NPC you should preserve the old information (location, dialogue), not just replace it. --Sialor (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Per this

Keep what off the wiki? It is Angel McCoy's reply to a large multitude of people's criticism to her interview. I wasn't being biased, but neutrally explanatory. I stated it to be what it is. So jesus christ Santax, stop assuming so little of me. (yes, that last bit is sarcasm, if you missed it) Konig 11:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Angel was partially responding to criticism (I'd say it's more accurate to say clarifying points from the interview, anyway) was in no way relevant to the article, and as my edit showed it was perfectly possible to include that forum post as a reference without making a point of it. Throughout that thread you directed rudeness and aggression at Angel, outright stating that she had no idea what she was doing, and after her response (which noted that the interview had been looked over by Ree and Jeff before being published) you continued to do so. Therefore the wording of that reference comes across as you attempting to document your own resentment at how the devs handle lore in their own game.
Now I'm worried that the Magic page needs yet another rewrite, since I'm concerned that you're documenting not how the lore is stated to be, but how you think it ought to be. Anyway, this discussion is more about a comment I made than wiki content. If you want to debate it (I don't) you can PM me on the forum, otherwise, unless you can think of a way that this is going to lead to some kind of improvement of wiki content (I can't), then I'd like to end it here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
My - or anyone else's - attitude in the linked thread is irrelevant given that the link is to the specific post. I was not contestingthe rewording of the line, btw, but your seemingly intentional instigation upon me.
And for the record, the Magic article - as well as every other article I edit - is not "how I think it ought to be" but how it is presented as using all sources on the topic that I know of, rather than just one (which is what you do). In the linked case - Sea of Sorrows words by Captain Whiting; Edge of Destiny words by Glint; and various interviews stating that the Elder Dragons don't care - that they're amoral, indifferent, and just cause destruction. Stating that their "natural role" is to balance magic would be like saying our natural role is to eat and shit, because that is what they do with magic, effectively. They balance it, it is a natural part of their role in life, but it isn't their goal. Their goals have been outright stated to us to be to consume, destroy, and rule. And except for the one line against many, the Elder Dragons' interaction with magic is that it is their food. I did my best to word it ambiguously because of the seeming contradiction - and as Angel pointed out in another thread, developers can sometimes get their facts messed up (I can pull up a handful of such interviews with Angel and Scott where their words contradict first-hand statements by NPCs - e.g., in an interview Scott stated that all ministers are nobility, but Minister Rachel is not nobility). I might have failed in keeping it ambiguous and/or in line with the full scope of what we've been told, but it as sure as all hell isn't "how I think it ought to be". Konig 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are generally best not addressed to any particular individual. Edit summaries are definitely best not addressed to a particular individual you have a history of disputes with. The purpose of edit summaries is to explain your edit. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "More neutral/less loaded description of reference link" or something along those lines. Simple, concise, explains all that needs explaining, nonincendiary. - Tanetris (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Jungle Dragon -> Mordemoth

I have no opinion whatsoever on this move, however in the future, to move pages, please don't cut content from one page and paste it on another page to move it. This is known as a cut and paste move and they're bad, m'kay. The problem with them is that a large portion of the edit history is now "lost" in that it is located at a redirect. In cases like this where you can't move the page because there's already a redirect there, its best to ask admins to move it for you, since they can delete the redirect and preserve the page history. P.S. you don't need to undo anything, as an admin can fix it later. This is just for future reference. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I did try to move it "properly" originally, but as you said there was already a redirect there. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] talk:mordremoth

Please use the 'move' function in cases like this. Copy/pasting is bad because you lose the edit history. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Crap, now I see that the paranoid android beat me to it. Ah well. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The satanic mechanic. Felix Omni Signature.png 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
The mind-nearly-gone automaton! Felix Omni Signature.png 20:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, please add sources and interwiki links. Several bits of text you wrote there seems to me to be derrived from fanfiction telling that it was mordremoth that was 'controlling' Scarlet. Specially Vorpp his statement is putting things into perspective. I don't have all the facts right now, but please provide good sources as well as wiki-links where possible. I'm not reverting right now cause I can't proof you are wrong, but I hope you are willing to prove you are right ;) 195.240.63.18 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that anything likely to be challenged should be have references attached, but in the past when I have cited in-universe sources, they have been removed. Vorpp's statement is taken almost verbatim from The Dead End: A Study in Scarlet so as to inject as little external interpretation as possible, and even then it's qualified as an in-universe theory, just to play on the safe side. If there's any other specific passages in there that bother you, do let me know and I'll see what I can do to clarify where they came from :) in fact, it might be worth posting all known sources of information about Mordremoth on the talk page anyway, just so their readily accessible for users. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I know what you are talking bout when your changes have been reverted in the past. This subject has been a battleground. I personally don't like the 'other' side. but we are a wiki and there are rules to follow (even if some might mis-use them) evidence is crucial. I do believe that circumstancial evidence here is more then enough. But there should be concensus beyond reasonable doubt, unless the concensus rule is mis-used to block progress above personal gains. My advise here to you is to stay low. The fact that 'the other side' is making this a battleground again is showing more bout his character then yours.195.240.63.18 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Scarlet's Alliance

I think it may be a misnomer to put all those NPCs as | organization = Scarlet's Alliance because they aren't united (see here). I think it would have been best to use multiple dpl lists for each individual group instead like how Molten Alliance is set up. Konig 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although she says the Alliances don't work in close proximity with one another, they have been fighting and acting as a unified force since the Marionette weapon test, I think, and in a more technical sense, they all share a "Scarlet's Alliance" loot table. The name actually comes from the flavour text for Bag of Alliance Supplies, which demonstrates there is, in the game's lore, an organisation named "Scarlet's Alliance". --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I still think it would be better to keep them directly linked to the smaller alliances. There's no reason we can't have a hierarchy of organizations, is there? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
To the loot table - this is not entirely true. You can get Salvageable Twisted Watchwork Scraps from Twisted Watchwork, but only them (aside from the bags, of course). Until this update added Blade Shards to all Aetherblades, they actually had distinct loot tables per alliance per update introduction. During Marionette, you'd only get the cypher fragments from the new mobs there (no old Toxic Alliance nor Aetherblades would drop them), and still in this update no old Toxic Alliance drops Blade Shards. So they don't have a unified loot table, neither historically nor presently.
I would go with Ishmael - a hierarchy of alliances is best. Only Scarlet Briar should be a direct member of Category:Scarlet's Alliances - the categories for the other alliances should be sub-categories of that, and the NPC articles should list their specific alliance. You can argue the Twisted Watchworks could be a direct entry into the Scarlet's Alliances category too. (And note: plural, not singular) Konig 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ish: let's just use an umbrella category until we have more data.
It's possible there are multiple loot tables involved: one for members of Scarlet's Alliance and another that is common to foes with similar names/types, e.g I seem to get both dredge bags and scarlet loot from Dredge in Escape/Occupied LA. With the data we have available, it's just as likely that each foe type has its own loot table, some of which is copypasta from similarly-named/typed foes. I think the Marionette fight doesn't tell us anything, since a lot of the foes only dropped cypher fragments, but elsewhere (e.g. around the Energy Probes) dropped their original loot. Thus, I don't think we can say what's mechanically true. Personally, I think it's more likely that the current set of foes are defined differently from the ones we encountered in previous releases, especially given ANet's tendency to reuse names/titles and ill-define their own nomenclature.
Therefore, I recommend that we make things simple for the reader (and if possible, easier for novice wiki editors). For the moment, that seems to be Ish's suggested solution of using a hierarchy. If it turns out that Konig's view is correct (not united, not a shared loot table), then we'd already be set. If it turns out that Santax is correct (they use shared types and loot tables, with minor differences), then we just stick with the larger category (and possible drop the subcats). And if it turns out that I'm correct and that the groups are different, we'd have more work, but it would be straightforward (copy/paste). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Ley Lines - worthy of an article?

You tend to link to wikipedia's article on ley lines, though that's obviously something different (it is about geographical and monument stuff), and more recently directly to the magic article which doesn't give that much details on them. I've been thinking that they could be put on their own article describing the full nature of ley lines. However, I haven't made such an article because I'm not sure whether or not it'd be simpler to just expand the Magic article. So I figure since you're the only other major lore-editor on this wiki, I'd ask you: do you think that they ley lines deserve their own article?
Note: I'm not suggesting to go and make such an article, just whether or not it'd be worthwhile. Konig 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they absolutely are worthy of an article. They're a maaajor plot point in S1 of the living story, and could come up again in the future. The article would also be an appropriate place to include the locations of the flashing probes on the map aboard the Breachmaker - there's actually a fair bit I think we could say about ley lines, come to think of it. I think the nature of magic in GW1 is subtle and scarcely mentioned, but (frustratingly) massively important to the plot. There was a lot of important stuff about magic in the personal story that was just communicated quite poorly to the player that never made it onto the wiki. I'd quite like to see that documented over a few articles in time, just in case it becomes important again in the future. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
So what would you argue is worth its own article in relation to magic? Obviously there's Magic, Bloodstone, and Ley line (always lowercase in-game so should lowercase "line" in the article name, IMO, despite the common stance of capitalizing all official terms). Only other thing I can think of in magic-importance is the relation of dragons consuming and exuding magic. But I am unsure if that mandates an article of its own, as it feels like something to document simply on both magic and Elder Dragon.
I want to ensure we're on the same page so as to avoid clashes. Konig 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Those three, for sure (and I agree - only use title case when it's used in-game, otherwise sentence case). I think Elder Dragons absorbing and emitting magic is more an aspect of their physiology, however it does have an in-universe name (draconic enchanto-consumption theory), and although it's rarely ever mentioned in-game it's basically the reason we were able to kill Zhaitan, and the reason that Mordremoth is awakened. The article could also discuss the attempt by the Arcane Eye to suppress it, the technology developed with it, etc.. That's just off the top of my head - my knowledge of lore isn't exactly encyclopaedic, and I'm sure there's plenty of equally obscure but important magic-related topics that have gone undocumented (for example we don't have anything on dragon energy, or if it's interchangeable with magic, or what). --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I would think ley line would be a section in Magic.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, that page is already overly long, and doesn't cover nearly enough content. Ley lines and magic are very closely related, but should be regarded as separate objects, imo. I think we probably have enough to write about ley lines to make a separate article. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Tsuru Whitewing Edit

Do you have a reputable source for the information you wrote on the article for Tsuru Whitewing? They seem to be purely based on speculations. --Archeer (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mini Tsuru Whitewing is a set 3 mini. Since it Whitewing doesn't yet appear in-game, it is a character that can only be added with a future living world release (assuming that ANet continues with the model of releases we have seen so far, rather than expansions). --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But this is still speculation. Lots of datamined information don't end up making into the actual game. You don't seem to have a verifiable source to back up the information you posted. --Archeer (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not datamined - you can go into your collection tab in-game right now and check that it exists. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
But the idea that the character may appear in a future Living Story release is speculation. Granted, pretty much all updates to the game are considered "Living Story" now, so odds are good that if the character ever exists it will be due to a Living Story. Felix Omni Signature.png 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, exactly. If ANet keep up the current model, it'd be impossible for the character not to appear as part of a future release. Nobody's saying it's a central character or anything. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not true. it could EASILY be quite a few other things: A major leader in the Tengu exodus from Cantha, one of the founders of the Domain of winds, the main character for some new book, or many many other lore-related positions that would never be a new in-game living story NPC. They also added a mini King Adelbern and Faolain, but that doesn't automatically mean the living story will include them. Thrain | contribs 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand your argument - King Adelbern and Faolain are both NPC's that exist in-game (and Faolain is very likely to have a role in the future living story, but I digress). And even then, this NPC requires documentation beyond "Tsuru Whitewing is Tengu." --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I prefer a placeholder page over the redirect. If the NPC is added to the game, a redirect makes it harder for new users to add information.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 00:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That mini is an interesting case - it was added in set 2 and never appeared in-game, sure, but was also around in the betas and removed before launch. I think there is a good chance that Maut was originally supposed to appear in-game, but then later removed along with the mini. The mini was probably restored because, hey, why not (and as the likely leader of the Inquest, I'd be surprised if he wasn't going to appear in the future anyway)? This, on the other hand, is the first we've heard of Whitewing, and comes across as an intentional hint towards that character's future involvement in the LW. It doesn't seem right to me to not document that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
"an intentional hint" But that's still not concrete enough to write an article about. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Marjory Delaqua

Thank you. Felix Omni Signature.png 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] moving images

I kinda feel this is a redux of the moving articles bit but... When moving images to upload a new while keeping the old, rather than uploading the old image in a new location, simply move the image, then upload the new image at the original name over the redirect. You'll have to then manually replace the redirect with proper templates and categories, but doing this retains the image history which as before with articles, is desired. Konig 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

[edit] Of Magic - Let's get things properly communicated before rewriting

moved to Talk:Magic

[edit] Why...?

Why did you create a qualified version of a page when the non-qualified version didn't exist? And then create it as a redirect to the qualified version? —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 16:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The colossus in the Cliffside Fractal is a generic unnamed colossus, and its species is 'colossus'. Also, 'colossus' could refer to The Colossus, Icebrood Colossus, Jade Colossus, Colossus Rumblus or the creature from whence the Colossus Fang came, so the page at Colossus should really be reserved for disambiguation, but in the meantime I redirected it to the Cliffside Fractal NPC because that's probably the most likely search term. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
"its species is 'colossus'" Source? We don't know what its species is, as far as I've ever seen. On an aside, Colossus Fang is named after/comes from Colossus Rumblus (a lot of the dungeon trinkets are named after/come from the bosses of the dungeon). Konig 17:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Then why didn't you create a disambiguation page? That would've made sense to me, instead of making it a redirect. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 18:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Turned it into a disambig page. Konig 18:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Cliffside Fractal objectives text, "Free the captured colossus". The, as in, one of many, and the lowercase 'c' shows that it's given the same treatment that species names are given (if it were the name of the NPC then it would be given a capital c, as it is a proper noun, like Archdiviner). Additionally, I think there was some other text elsewhere that refers to "this colossus" or "a colossus", but I can't find it. Maybe it's in Dessa's dialogue for that Fractal? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thinking about it, it could be here. Is there a transcript anywhere? --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I would also argue against that “colossus” race. A single entity does not really justify a race, and given that the article the race-link links to isn’t about the race, I don’t see any use of it. Just leave it empty.
The disambig page is good though. poke | talk 19:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

It's... weird. I came into this expecting to drop a banhammer on both participants in this never-ending drama war, but the more I looked into it and the deeper I read, the fewer reasons I found to ban you. It started when I looked up your edits on GWW; thousands of them, spanning back to 2007. Years of edits... completely under my radar. That pretty much means you weren't involved in any wikidrama. Glancing through your talk page archives, you've got a long history of explaining your actions and a willingness to compromise when met with differing viewpoints. The fact that you feel unappreciated for that saddens me, since drama-free and civil editors are the best kind, and should always feel welcome and appreciated. Unfortunately, I pretty much only pay attention to someone when they fuck up or say enough stupid things to get on my radar. My ignorance of your wiki history, in general and regarding Konig, is a glaring oversight, and I'm sorry for painting you with the same brush.
Your harsh critique of my inactivity regarding this case is... well, accurate. I maintain that I did weigh the pros and cons of my decisions, and I realized even then that the wiki was paying a price for Konig's continued presence, but my lack of punishment for Konig's anti-community behavior taught him (or at least reinforced the notion) that it was okay to act that way. After years of getting his way in nearly every situation, he took it as the norm. When it all snowballed into a massive shitstorm, you were simply the user caught up in it at that given time; another in a line of victims, more or less, who "dared" to show interest in editing the lore section and disagreeing occasionally with Konig. When called upon to defend yourself, you were roped into an escalating situation with no real way to get out of it - no real way aside from simply throwing in the towel and walking away, which you deigned not to do. That's... brave? Noble? A bunch of other words I could put in here, but on the whole, it's pretty neat that you didn't back down. It certainly incited drama, a normally banworthy amount (well, you did get banned for it, actually >.>) but the reasons for not giving up were definitely justified, and I respect you for it. I'm sorry for my inaction allowing this situation to escalate, and again sorry for slandering your character with inaccurate comments.
It's the job of a sysop to protect the wiki and its users, not just from vandals but also from troublemakers. Obvious trolls are easy to pick out and chase away, but a more insidious threat are the ones with good intentions. It's easy to turn a blind eye toward bad behavior if they're doing a "fair amount of good" to offset it, but too many blind eyes turned toward too many editors and you can get a really nasty situation. I think our collective inactivity on this case is shameful, and mine in particular (after receiving complaints) is just... shitty. We definitely need to re-dedicate ourselves to being more vigilant for threats and less quick to assume everything is A-OK.
Anyway, enough of the sappy shit. I'm not going to ban you, and honestly if I could I'd go back in time and unban you, but lacking that ability, we can only look forward and deal with what comes next. On the noticeboard I mention not stooping to his level; for a long time (since this conflict started on GWW) you played nice, but after having to deal with it for ages, you started doing more or less the same shit he was doing. That's why, at a cursory glance, the sysops who did look into the case figured it was a problem of two users equally at fault, bitching at each other over <content dispute>. Not that it justifies the bans you received, but that is largely the reason they were applied. You were under a fair amount of duress, but you lashing out at Konig showed onlookers that the fight was a two-way street, and that opened you up for punishment. As I mentioned earlier (and as you mentioned in your post), you were stuck between a rock and a hard place; and while your decision to stick up for yourself eventually got you banned, it was definitely the harder decision over simply giving up, and showed quite some strength of character.
When Konig comes back, just do what you do best; ignore him. Utilize talk pages as much as you can to avoid edit wars, and keep your interactions as civil as you usually keep them, and you'll be fine. I'm sorry this chapter in wiki history was so messy, but hopefully we'll all be able to get through it without too much more pain. -Auron 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I...honestly don't really know how I should respond to such a lovely message. I guess I'll start with thanks. For what it's worth, I hold absolutely zero ill will to you or anyone else within the wiki's administration, I was just frustrated that myself and Konig were both being given the same treatment when...well, it's dealt with now, so no need to worry about the details. But thank you. Mediating all this can't have been easy, with each separate silly argument generating its own separate wall of text (seriously, must be in triple figures by now), it's easy to see why others were unwilling or unable to get involved. And the fact that you've gone back and looked through, as you say, thousands of edits show that you do have a commitment to fairness.
Despite my disagreements with Konig, I'm sad that things had to end this way. He knows more about GW2 lore than anyone else I've spoken to, and the wiki will feel his absence. That is a void that I will try to fill, and hopefully there are others interested in the lore who will join me—now might be a good time for a recruitment drive on the official lore forums, although I don't think it'd be appropriate if I did it. When Konig is directing his energy toward documenting the game rather than other users, he is very good contributor, and still can be after his block expires.
As for me, I'll going to try to suck less in the future. I acknowledge that my edits aren't always made with enough care, and now that there is one less person with the requisite knowledge to challenge any mistakes I make, I'm going to do my best to take Psycho Robot's advice on board. Both Psycho Robot and Chieftain Alex already seem to have been keeping an eye on my lore edits, and that is something that's really encouraging. I'm also going to try and add more references to articles, particularly when something is quite obscure—the lore in this game isn't always well-communicated, and it can be intimidating to try and edit lore articles when it's not obvious where any of the information is coming from. Konig is a walking lore encyclopaedia, but if we're going to keep the game well-documented, the articles need to be more lore-accessible. Maybe by the time he returns, we'll have a community.
But yeah, thank you. No hard feelings at all from me, and hopefully I haven't upset any of you guys too much either. I think we're gonna be okay. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Group hug? Felix Omni Signature.png 21:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] My poor missing NPCs.

Heyhey, I saw you linked Voppa and Izzitt as NPCs in the game, but I gave up on doing since nothing links to them nor have they been mentioned anywhere. Do you know something more or is it a matter of principle to tag 'em? --Ventriloquist (talk) 19:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I definitely don't know anything more! I "guild+wars+2"+izzit googled "guild+wars+2"+voppa them and nothing comes up, so I think they're probably generic citizens that had names that were just never revealed (like the "By Ogden's Hammer!" guy). I figured they should have pages, cause things like Desmina or Wren in GW1 went unlinked and undocumented for a very long time, only to show up in GW2, since ANet has a lot of lore that it doesn't reveal to players. But at the same time, these are just a couple of (probably) unimportant asura, so if you feel strongly about it then I won't stop you unlinking them :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh hey, nonono, I'm perfectly fine with it, I just hate red links, lol. I guess a simple two sentence page could be made about the NPCs, we defintiely do need more of Scarlet's victims on the wiki, is that what you had in mind or? --Ventriloquist (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Pretty much, yeah. I just try to keep everything linked because Special:Whatlinkshere is such a useful tool for tying together lore articles. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
This might be a good time to make the Unseen NPCs category, because oh lawd, we need it.--Ventriloquist (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

[edit] The Legions of the Charr

I made your edit to the page. If i've looked at the filter correctly, you can now edit it yourself. --JonTheMon (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal tools