User talk:Santax

Welcome to GW2W. — ク Eloc 貢 22:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Eloc your plan to raise your mostlinked is epic, lol. --- Raptors / RAAAAAAAAAA!

His plan is to hone his welcoming skills here after I did it on his talk page, and make a grand finale of it when (if) Ryudo pokes his head in here. Calor (t) 19:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...I'd probly get in a lot of shit if I welcomed Ryudo. — ク Eloc 貢 04:52, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

well we couldn't ban it on the basis of it being a sock because someone else could have made it (for instance i could have made an account called sock of santax). But we could still ban for the purpose of them being a vandal (sorry the routers port forwarding seems to bugger up a lot stopping me using IRC)PheNaxKian(T/c) 19:30, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice job

on the whole clearing up of those articles. -- Brains12 • Talk • 19:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. May as well get a headstart now and set a good example than attempt it when we have lots of lengthy, badly-written articles. I needed to get this done while Special:Allpages all fitted on one page :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we need a big notice on the front page that says "No GW1 info allowed, anyone caught posting such will be hunted down, drawn and quartered." Solve that problem. :P Lord Belar 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was saying to Tanaric on IRC a few days ago we might need to bring out the dreaded <blink> tag :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

GO AWAY. imo :P Lord Belar 20:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, a nice "nothing to see here folks, move along" notice might help Emily keep the wiki low profile :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Or a hit squad. :P Lord Belar 20:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, I'll find one straight away :D --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

hah..!

Your "you have Nude Messages" actually fooled me.

God i'm a noob :p ^Teo^ 12:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It says Massages, not Messages Teo. — ク Eloc 貢 22:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, nude messages. Lord Belar 23:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

lol Cress Arvein 02:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"WE LIKE LORE, AND WE DON'T CARE WHO KNOWS" I love this line!! Markus Clouser 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Question.

Where's your source for siege devices and mechanical traps being built at the Iron Citadel? It's been awhile since I've read the Movement, so I'll have to let the control of it by the Iron Legion slide for now, but I definitely know that I don't recall any of the above information that I'm inquiring about being mentioned in either. Thanks, if and when you respond! Gmr Leon 08:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I can answer that, somewhat. The Ecology of the Charr states that the Iron Legion specializes in "mechanical creations and siege towers". Though it doesn't say that they are constructed at the Iron Citadel. -- Konig Des Todes 11:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah..Nor does it state the Iron Citadel, although it very well may be, is owned by the Iron Legion. Gmr Leon 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Er... that last part, actually it does some where (think that is in the Movement), but that is stated, I believe. -- Konig Des Todes 22:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

concept

Could you tag future concept art images with {{ArenaNet image|concept art}} please :) -- Pling \ talk 15:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okie dokie :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and we seem to have a few of the concept images around already (they should be in the category already), so I'm not sure whether we need those 'duplicates' from the video. Obviously, it would be better if we kept the best ones, the most detailed or largest. -- Pling \ talk 15:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The ones from the trailer are screencapped at the wrong resolution (1280x1024 rather than 1080p) and are missing edges or blurry due to the fact that they are moving in the trailer, so I think despite the capped ones being at a higher resolution, in the event of a conflict the "official" ones should be kept. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

unused files

Why delete them? -- Pling \ talk 15:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It helps to conserve server space and it's generally untidy to have them floating about the wiki, but if you don't mind them then I guess I can stop tagging them. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting files, like deleting pages, simply 'hides' them, it doesn't technically delete them from the server. Considering that, I don't think there's any use in deleting them. If these ones are in a category, it seems to be mainly in user images, and that category is rarely ever tidy at any time; I can't think what else would be untidy by having unused images. -- Pling \ talk 21:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you object if I took the deletion tags off? (I'll leave the ones that you uploaded yourself.) -- Pling \ talk 13:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Source?

it was confirmed in an interview that more races have yet to be announced - Please link that interview --GrethortFile:User Gret Chii.jpg 11:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find it in any of the articles linked on the news page, it might have been on an ANet employee's talk page, we really need a references system like on wp. Try the editor who originally added the claim to the article? --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It was said somewhere in this interview. The words were "The five playable races in the initial release of Guild Wars 2 are the asura, charr, humans, norn, and sylvari." The speculation of more races is due to "in the initial release." It was never confirmed. -- Konig/talk 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that it was actually explicitly stated, somebody asked an ANet employee and the reply was that there were more playable races yet to be announced. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That may have been the plan at some point in time, but the recent interviews they speak clearly about what will be the five playable races at GW2. I don't think that note is worth keeping. Erasculio 20:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Try this article instead. --Aspectacle 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

"Right now we've got five races announced, and we're not saying exactly how many, but that's not the total amount that we'll have, we're going to have more in the future": it matches the comment above about how the initial release will have five races, suggesting that in the future there will be more. However, for the initial release, five races it is (as described in the more up-to-date interview). Erasculio 01:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Erasculio. :) I was going to be more verbose but I had to talk to someone.... damn work. :P --Aspectacle 01:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Concept art images

We have been discussing here a change in the naming scheme of concept art pieces in order to make them more organized. What do you think? Erasculio 10:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll add my thoughts to it, cheers for the link. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

redirects

Redirects like File:User Plingggggg sig.png are caused by file moving - the redirect ensures that usages of the original filename use the same image as the new destination's filename. These kinds of redirects should generally be left as they are.

Also, I don't think broken redirects from users' files or user pages to their talk or user pages (as applicable) should be 'fixed' by removing the redirect. If you're concerned about getting them out of special pages, it may be better to create the target page instead, so the user still has their redirects set up as intended. --pling  20:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, noted, thanks. I won't move your sig when I go through doubleredirects, which'll be when the next dragon gets named :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to File:Norn concept.jpeg

The image you uploaded is in fact not the same as the previous version. If you look at the female Norn, in the original titled "Eir" - the female Norn is wielding a bow. In the new, still unnamed, concept, the female Norn is wielding a sword. -- Konig/talk 01:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit, there are other differences as well, like the poles in the background, and in "Eir" there is a dead tree or bush in the foreground. -- Konig/talk 01:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll rv and reupload the second one then. --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Source of new images?

A lot of them, such as File:Lifedraw003.jpg and File:Chickblue.jpg do not look like GW2, and even File:Norndudes.jpg is from EN. In fact, I recall seeing many of these from old independent works from Kekai. So where did you find these? -- Konig/talk 11:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

They're from the gallery of the recent interview with Kekai. I'm not sure about some of them, but there are ones that you can tell are GW2-related. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Imo, most of em are not gw2, why? cuz then they whould be up conceptart.org or anywere else. They are not confermed gw2 art and the one you belive is gw2 I belive is for some other project, can't remember which though. --Talk 13:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Santax, I actually would say that is clearly not for GW2. Why? Because it is a "classic looking" dragon. Anet has stated time and time again that they are not wanting to have their dragons the typical kind of European Dragon for GW2. -- Konig/talk 23:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought that at first, but they've actually stuck pretty close to the "traditional" dragon with some of their concepts, like this one. They're probably going for a different style of dragon for each one, but the stereotypical dragon could appear in concepts that aren't tied to any specific dragon, like the 'defeated dragon' one. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a GW2 dragon ([1])-- Shew 23:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that settles that then :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found a very cool piece of GW2 concept art like the ones you have uploaded here, could you upload it for us, please? Erasculio 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're mocking me or just having a little joke, but considering that the last time you spoke to me you were very rude, I'd appreciate it if you didn't try getting all smart with me, Eras. --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Stealing....

Hope you don't mind, but I'm stealing your nude messages sign. -- Konig/talk 05:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Tis quite alright, I stole it from some other wiki in the first place :P you can have a snowman too ☃ --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Capitalized Names

To let you know, in the Art of Guild Wars 2 book, the only race names not capitalized are Mursaat and Ogre - the later being the first word in a sentence though. -- Konig/talk 18:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I don't own that :P I find it odd that non-"main" species are decapitalised, you'd think they'd reserve it just for the most prolific ones. I also find it odd that Mursaat is capitalised in that case. We really need clarification from ANet, but seeing as the art book is our only source on those races, yeah, we should keep them decapitalised. Thanks for bringing this to my attention :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a case of asura being capitalized without being at the beginning of the sentence, so it might have been a typo for that and the one case of "Mursaat" being used. I think they are not capitalizing the race names now to have it in the same disambigiuity as "human" - after all, we don't capitalize that. -- Konig/talk 19:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Animations?

Why'd you remove them? They're much more useful than still pictures, and they were placed nicely how they were. Was there any purpose to doing that? :P 173.190.17.186 19:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

They were too tiny to provide any real detail (as oppsoed to the high-resolution screenshots), and they took ages to load (and I'm on 20meg!). I do like the idea of the skill animations, though, so I left them linked in the article, just not on the main part of the page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:38, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? But I'm on 10meg and they load instantly for me. o_O Is your graphics card ok? It would be nice to have a higher resolution for the animations... I wonder if we could make an animations category with an animation for each skill, so that people can see how they work, what they effect, etc. Granted these things can be explained, but sometimes it's difficult to explain something, and there might be misunderstandings (like when someone had previously described the phoenix skill as "the phoenix bounces from enemy to enemy" someone may interpret that as some giant fireball literally bouncing from one enemy to the next). I know such misunderstandings may be minor, but it'd be great if they could be avoided altogether by showing an example of the skill's performance. Do you know if there's any way to attempt categorizing something like that? 173.190.17.186 19:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's ok enough to run GW on max settings. And yeah, a Category:Skill animations could do for now on the image pages until we know enough to categorise stuff properly. There appears to be a skill animations project here on GWW, so maybe we could take a look at that and learn something from how that's done? But for now, I think linking to the animation from the page is better than displaying it, especially since readers are unlikely to miss it due to the small amount of information on that page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be starting up the animations project on this wiki if nobody else does it first. I'm not nearly as well-versed in formatting, so I'll probably need help. EDIT: Oh, and this is also being discussed on User talk:Poke; we'll probably do the linking like GWW, with a link in the infobox. --Kyoshi (Talk) 19:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

And you don't find it strange

That only mursaat and titan would be capitalized compared to all other races? Also: GuildMag had seer and mursaat lowercase. Just fyi. -- Konig/talk 01:21, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit: Make that the pdf version of the interview has seer and mursaat lowercase. Which is interesting that the new link right to it has seer capitalized. -- Konig/talk 01:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

That's the interview that I read, and that's why I had it capitalised. Mursaat is also capitalised in-game in GW1 in recent War in Kryta dialogue, which I'd say is a better indicator of whether it'll be capitalised overall than Guildmag. --Santax (talk · contribs) 06:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, also I changed Tome of Rubicon and War in Kryta to links to this wiki because (well, we've discussed War in Kryta) and because the Tome of Rubicon is far more relevant to GW2 than it ever was to GW1. --Santax (talk · contribs) 07:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

GW2W:Helper

Hey, I made a table with all of our respective nationalities and timezones...and after searching through your various accounts on the different wikis, I couldn't find your timezone or your nationality. Would you please put that information up on the aforementioned table, so that it is complete before I post it on the page. Thanks :) Aquadrizzt Main Page Designer 02:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done :) --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"blazeridge and shiverpeaks do not merge at all on the more recent map,"

Duh, because the Dragonband splits it. According to The Movement of the World:"where the eastern Blazeridge Mountains merge with the western Shiverpeaks." - The Dragonband removes that merge. -- Konig/talk 22:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Blazeridge Mountains and the Shiverpeaks are separated by the Dragonbrand, the Steamspur Mountains and, um, the whole of Ascalon :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The Steamspur Mountains are on the opposite side of the Shiverpeaks. And seem to have been renamed since GW1. However, if you look at the GW2 map, you can clearly see a merging mountain range. And by the looks of it to me, said mountain range was crippled by flooding and the Dragonbrand. If you look to the right of the Dragonbrand were Ebonhawke is, you can see mountains. I wonder which range those belong to. I doubt they belong to the western Steamspur. -- Konig/talk 22:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

On a couple edit

"rv - neither is the great dwarf, or the spirits of the wild, or the eternal alchemy. destroyers are no longer considered gods by charr, but white mantle still exist" from Template:God nav - true, those are not gods (well, the Great Dwarf is), but the Spirits of the Wild are still actual deities - not false. As to the Eternal Alchemy bit: "suggesting move since Eternal Alchemy isn't a god but a faith" - and note I also turned it from "Gods of Guild Wars 2" to "Religions of Guild Wars 2"
In regards to this: Yes, we are, but do note that 1) The Stone Summit were defeated (in the war) in 1072 AE, where they were exiled to the Far Shiverpeaks (you can note this by some generic dwarf dialogues in EN), and Jeff implied during last years PAX, according to someone who went there and gave an overview, that the Stone Summit returns in GW2 - as such, they were never defeated, technically, in 1078 AE. And yes, we are allowed to deviate, but as that bit wasn't completely accurate, I used the official line since it also sounds better (in my opinion, of course).
In regards to this, nothing puts Kalla, or the Scorch warband, into the Blood Legion. If we go off of name, it belongs in the Flame Legion (and do note that in the Ghosts of Ascalon, Ember states that Kalla was able to rise an additional revolt initially because she was kept close to those in power due to the views of women, further implying she was of the Flame Legion). Just because she is the daughter of the Blood Legion's imperator doesn't mean she is of the Blood Legion - yes, the legions are always led by a descendant to the first Khan-Ur, but given the situation of the time, that is women being viewed as underneath men, I doubt that they would of cared about female descendants. In other words, to put the Scorch warband into the Blood Legion is speculation, so please stop adding it. -- Konig/talk 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well by that reasoning, the Mursaat come under the religions of GW2, because they are held to be deities by an existing faction (unlike the destroyers, who have not been considered gods for 250 years). And from an orthodox human perspective, the Spirits of the Wild and the Great Dwarf are both considered false. I do support including all the belief systems, as long as the White Mantle's is one of them.

As for the timeline, I realise that the Stone Summit were defeated in 1072, but they continued to exist until 1078 when they were ultimately defeated (hence the wording). However, if this is incorrect, as you suggest above, they probably need an article on this wiki and we'll have to start looking for interwiki links to change :S it's a shame that there's nothing like Special:Whatlinkshere for interwiki links so when we discover something is relevant to GW2 we can make interwiki links internal links. I do still believe that the fact that the Great Destroyer's defeat prevented Primordus' awakening, the fact that the dredge were freed that year and that it was the destroyers who pushed the asura from underground are all facts worth mentioning in the timeline, which are not mentioned in the "official" revision.

Yes, I was working off the fact that Kalla was the daughter of the imperator of the Blood Legion for adding that. It seems from the Ecology of the Charr that Legion is very much hereditary and that charr are very proud of their lineage, so it wouldn't make much sense that they would drift between Legions in a single generation, even if the charr is female. The assertion that her bloodline would be considered unimportant because she is female has no basis in any known lore. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd hold out on the Stone Summit page for now, as it was merely "possibly implied" (or something of the like). If we make that page, it'll just go into the Category:Articles possibly not relevant to GW2. I suspect that they'll only return in the form of a kind of icebrood (assuming that name, given from the Ghosts of Ascalon, is the name of Jormag's minions).

Regarding the mursaat bit - the thing is that they're not dieties at all. If we include them, we might as well include creatures like gw1:Sacred Griffon of Amnoon or gw1:Moa'vu'Kaal on such a template (no, I don't suggest putting those on the GW2 template). Those creatures have been proven to not be real deities (the first in the quest it is involved in, the second by Ree in an interview). From normal human view, the others' may be "wrong" but that doesn't make said humans "right." They are still deities - and not creatures pretending to be such. The mursaat - if they return - are no more than a cult. The only recognition they should get is on a GW2 version of this page.

In regards to Kalla: Yes, it does. With females being viewed as equals to dirt (exaggeration but you get my point, I hope), at that time females might have been cast out of hereditary lineage. We don't know enough to say either way though, but adding in the "Scorch" prefix to the warband implies otherwise. Still, it is speculation to say whether she is or isn't of the Blood Legion, so until it isn't speculation, it is best to keep it out of any legion. -- Konig/talk 01:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GW1 Concept Art

Your GWW profile says you could use some help uploading and sorting out GW1 concept art. Please let me know on my talk page what I can do to help. -- File:User Kirbman sig.png Kirbman 05:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"less weird aspect ratio"

Well now, I'm sorry that my standarized monitor is a "weird aspect ratio" monitor, just cuz it isn't wide screen. :| Konig/talk 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense was intended, it's just that 16:9 is the standard nowadays (mine is 16:10, but at least it's closer), and looks better on wiki pages imo. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken, just seemed odd to call that ratio weird since it's not really all that weird o.O Konig/talk 22:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

History of Tyria

Just curious, where's this "copied verbatim" from? News to me, and explains a few old edits on various lore pages I've been fixing up due to inaccuracies (this History of Tyria sharing the same format and even false information). Konig/talk 04:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I managed to find it. No wonder there's so much false information - it's second-hand made (Prima did a better job >.>). Konig/talk 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's from the strategy guide, I put it up because I saw some of the edits being made to the Lore page and decided it would be best to put it up to avoid copyvios and to avoid people being confused about where the info is coming from. It's irritating because there's some lore in there that could be new and valuable, or could clarify a retcon or something like that, but the glaring errors (like Rurik being Salma's betrothed) make it difficult to filter out what's new and useful from what's just wrong. I suppose you could think of it as being GW1 from a GW2 historian's point of view with its inaccuracies, but it's kind of hard to believe how they got some of that stuff wrong. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Reverting

Please discuss edits instead of reverting them instantly. It creates a lot less conflicts with other users. This is also referring to adding "screenshot" to the area infobox template, which i disagree with.--Relyk 16:48, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

The "screenshot" thing was actually the way it was originally, the infobox used to include screenshots called File:{{PAGENAME}} screenshot.jpg by default, so I started tagging screenshots that were just called File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg with {{move}} so they would go in the infobox by default. Konig noticed this and reverted all my edits, used his file move privileges to move any files I had uploadd earlier that were called File:{{PAGENAME}} screenshot.jpg to File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg, and accused me of trying to start a revert war when I re-added the {{move}} tags (I don't have permission to move files, as far as I know). What followed was an extremely tiresome, discussion-free series of reverts, which is emerging as somewhat of a repeating pattern between me and Konig. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

However, while the infobox might have originally been including screenshot in the file name, no one but you (edit note: yes, exagurration - there were a handful, but most were from pre-release, often from trailers or from Anet titling them "screenshot" and are all inconsistent with the vast majority of images) had followed that naming convention. It is therefore more reasonable to follow the common naming convention that people use, and not cater to yourself. Konig/talk 17:06, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Konig switch the two in this edit. That made sense as the name of a file for an area should just be the name while a map should be the file the a "{{{PAGENAME}}} map" as an appropriate descriptor, while with the reverse, screenshot is redundant since all images of an area will be in-game screenshots. It follows the same naming conventions with items, we don't call the file "Mad Memoires icon" for the Mad Memories icon.--Relyk 18:07, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

if you have a problem with one of my edits, comment on my talk page before starting yet another dispute. your edit left no screenshots of divinity's reach on the page

Same can be said to you.
Anyways, As I said in the edit summary, the map you've left with does not show all the areas. Therefore, a second map is required in order to do such - this is where the second map, which I had restored but you once more reverted me.
Also, do we even really need an image of Divinity's Reach on it? No, not really. It's an aesthetic bonus, not a mandatory thing. Konig/talk 16:59, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Why can't the middle map go in the gallery? Or one be overlaid on the other? Or even another map field added to the infobox (because let's face it, this isn't the only location with more than one map)? The "screenshot" field is there in the infobox for a reason - to be used for screenshots. And how on earth is an actual in-game image of the location an "aesthetic bonus", I guarantee that there will be people searching the page for exactly that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

1) Because galleries should be, IMO, for the less important images. Maps are of high importance, hence why they are at the top of the area infobox. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by be overlaid on the other. One on top of the other? Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible without breaking over a hundred pages. 3) That's possible to make and I wouldn't be against, but is it necessary? Outside Divinity's Reach, the only locations with more than 1 map will be Rata Sum, The Grove, and Arah. 4) The screenshot there is for an additional image. It's not meant to be solely and only for scenery. Maps are screenshots too, btw (which goes back to the whole redundancy of naming screenshot images "screenshot"). 5) Because we don't need pretty images of no true importance to document the location. Konig/talk 17:34, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

"IMO" is nice, but your opinion (thankfully) isn't the basis of the wiki. When I say "overlaid" I mean in an image editing program, so although the differences between levels can be seen they can be included on the same image. And I think you know full well that the screenshot field in infoboxes are for scenery, as you describe it, and you know full well that when someone says "screenshot" in the context of GW2, they mean an in-game capture rather than a map image. If I wanted to get really idiosyncratic, I could argue that maps are flat textures that are extractable from the game files (unlike "scenery" images) and therefore do not qualify as screenshots, but I won't, since it seems like you are arguing for argument's sake rather than actually really wanting to do this. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Except for the fact that the galleries are used in 2 situations: concept art, or when there's a large number of images on the page. A map is of high importance and thus should go to the top - this is wiki standard.

I thought you meant that with overlay, but that doesn't really work considering you'll get text overlap. And that just gets messy.

And no, the screenshot field in the infobox is, as I said, for an additional image. Scenery - or any other image - on a large article can go throughout. Much like how we did on GW1. The issue with GW2W's template is the one-screenshot-field. Which I had previously petitioned to expand, without response or action (it was so long ago, I've forgotten). Feel free to add more, and I will not oppose putting additional images in them.

If you wish to get idiosyncratic, then allow me to reply - even to the part prior to idiosyncratic comment - that how we obtain maps is through screenshots, not taking the flat texture itself (with a few exceptions - those being dungeon maps - sometimes).

But my main point remains unchanged: the word "screenshot" is not only redundant, but as one can see via Category:Screenshots, outside pre-beta images, you are one of the very very few individuals who add them to the file name (and even when including those pre-beta images). It is inconsistent. it is redundant with what they are and their tag and category. It is just simply outright redundant, and you are continuing this simply because I reverted your desires to move the vast majority of images instead of moving the vast minority (e.g., your images)? Right.

Admit it - your naming system is a minority and in order to create the consistency you so often use to argue for altering pages (which most of the time is a consistency you created), you're the one who needs to drop this. Konig/talk 18:29, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

region of zones

The region in the infobox is the mechanical region that the zone counts for in the Explorer achievements. The "sub"-regions only exist in lore and are not part of game mechanics. —Dr Ishmael 18:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Explorer achievement doesn't tell us what the "mechanical" region is, just what counts as a region for the purposes of the Explorer achievement, which is bound to be a little idiosyncratic for the sake of balancing out the number of areas that count for each achievement. In truth we don't know if the game has a way of tracking which zone belongs to which "mechanical" region at all, or whether "mechanical" regions exist outside of the Explorer achievemtns (from what I've seen, anyway), we just have a choice between documenting everything based solely on the achievements, or we can do it based on common sense, and note the oddity at the bottom of the page. We already have a list of regions given by the world map (for what it's worth, I don't like the idea of "sub-regions", all the regions are given the same text size on the map and the Steamspur Mountains is just as much a region as the Shiverpeaks). It just seems confusing for readers and unnecessary to pretend that the Steamspur Mountains and Tarnished Coast don't exist in-game, when clearly they are written on the map right on top of the areas that belong to them. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And FWIW, I'm not sure mechanics always triumphs lore, although these two situations might not be directly comparable. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is balancing the number of areas. But it provides a way to group zones into regions. This is the same issue for grouping species. We want all zones that contribute to a given Explorer achievement grouped together, there are no other game mechanics that would give a reason not to do so. The lore aspect is covered zone page.--Relyk 21:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"demigod IS more specific than half-god"

[2] I disagree. Half-god specifically means that a being is the child of one divine parent and one mortal parent. Demigod just means "almost a god but not quite". —Dr Ishmael 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not according to demigod, where did you get your information? --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster dictionary. The Wikipedia article is written in the context of classical mythology, but in modern usage, the meaning has been watered-down. —Dr Ishmael 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Most other dictionaries also list half-god as a possibility, but I'm not passionate about the issue enough that I'm willing it to turn it into yet another debate, so I'll leave it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Area infobox on pure lore articles

E.g. Cantha and Elona. They are not mechanically a part of GW2 (yet), they are purely lore, so they should not have infoboxes. —Dr Ishmael 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree - where was it agreed that things that do not yet appear in-game should not have infoboxes? Although I suppose since we define regions differently, things like the "Sea of Sorrows" and the "Steamspur Mountains" aren't technically considered to exist by the wiki, but I'm in the process of writing a proposal to change the way we document regions at the moment, so this will be rendered irrelevant. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in for a second before I go to sleep - the origin to Ishy's statement comes from the GW1 wikis, where infoboxes were never used for places, people, and things that were not seen in the actual game - the practice continued unopposed here, though I for one hold no qualm with adding an infobox to such things, however one should realize that it holds the possibility of making people mistakenly believe that it exists, mechanically and interactively, in game (so in this case, putting an infobox on Strait of Malchor may make people think it's accessible in the same sense Ruins of Orr is). Konig/talk 08:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It will have consequences when we add semantic annotations to infoboxes. If things that aren't accessible in-game have an infobox, then they will have properties set, and will show up in semantic queries. 99% of the time, those queries will only be interested in accessible content. The easiest way to avoid non-accessible content showing up in query results is to avoid giving it an infobox. —Dr Ishmael 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Really now

Hoookay, let's try settling this without more revert wars forming.

• Jormag - NOTHING says that dragon is Jormag. Regardless of it having been planned to be in the norn intro. Take, for instance [[:File:|this]], which by name should have been in the charr intro, but there is no line about the Searing in it, so the current intro cinematic mentioning Jormag isn't enough to claim that the old version is Jormag. Furthermore, that concept art is of lesser clarity of Jormag's form. At best, it should be in a gallery.
• Steamspur Mountains and other non-explorable regions and sub-regions - while I disagree with the addition of the area infobox due to it being unexplorable, the nav bar should remain as they are all regions or sub-regions. In fact, I don't know why you ever even removed the sub-regions from the nav bar.
• Melandru, Balthazar, etc. - the quotation as you set it up is false. It is showing it as if Malchor the Sculptor said it, rather than being an inscription by Malchor on the god's respective statue in Divinity's Reach. Truth be told, I am not against outright removing said quotation if there cannot be an agreement on how to properly quote the game verbatim (which is what you're not doing).
  • On Melandru specifically: Cathedral of Verdance, not Temple of Verdance. Outside a slip-of-the-tongue comment by Colin, there is nothing proving that Melandru=Mellaggan.
  • On Grenth specifically - we do not know how early Dhuum's minions assaulted the Underworld. ""in life" obviously meant as a mortal, demigod IS more specific than half-god" But Grenth was never mortal - he was merely a half-god. Demigod is not more specific, as it can mean a variety of thing, whereas half-god simply means "half god and half something else" (demigod can refer to dieties that aren't of god level, half-gods, quarter-gods even, or mortals who obtained god-like powers but are still in of themselves, mortals). Nothing says Grenth was the son of a human sculptor - it's mortal sculptor that's said.
• On Strait of Malchor, Unending Ocean, and Sea of Sorrows - they are not land regions, but bodies of water. One can technically enter the first and last, but just as Steamspur Mountains, etc. do not exist mechanically, neither do these. Sea of Sorrows may in the future, though we do not know how this new zone that's to come in a week will be presented. As per Ishy's section above, non-explorable areas shouldn't get infoboxes (Unending Ocean and other region articles), and technically the Unending Ocean is not part of Tyria.

Oh, and for your previous comments of you claiming I have some grudge against you - I think this is proof that it's the other way around. I would say this is also such, since there was nothing wrong with my changes on Kryta outside creating a consistency with other region articles. Could also use the same argument for why you removed the {{gww}} tag on Unending Ocean - are you so into outright reverting me that you don't actually look at the changes? Konig/talk 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If we were the three stooges I would poke you both in the eyes and knock your heads together. Just saying. 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Felix, please feel free to do so. Every edit I make creates an issue with Konig, no matter how minor, so I am desperate to bring some third parties into this.

Onto the edits:

• Jormag: The dragon is obviously meant to be Jormag - who else would it be? Unlike the (broken) example you gave above, there is a line about Jormag in the norn intro, which that concept art was originally meant to appear in. Not that it matters really, since the dragon will almost certainly look completely different to either piece of concept art when it finally appears in-game. I just wanted a cleaner image than a screencap of a YouTube video as one of the main images on one of the more important pages of the wiki.
• Quotes on the god's pages: did the character, Malchor, at some point say the quotes carved onto the statues (e.g. "Dwayna, goddess of air and life, beloved to me. She is the promise of salvation whispered in my ear, the silent resolve to carry on. How my heart yearns to bask in her light once again.")? The answer is of course he did, which is why it is inscribed on the statues. The statues are quoting him. So why do we need to quote the statues quoting him when we can simply quote him?
  • On Melandru: "The quaggan worship Melandru, however, they don't really know it as Melandru, they like to call Melandru Mellaggan." that isn't some slip-of-the-tongue comment, that is a clear, repeated statement. If anything is falsification, it is you changing hte wording of the Melandru page to suggest otherwise. Also, your revert makes the image on the page inconsistent with every other god page - "are you so into outright reverting me that you don't actually look at the changes?"
  • On Grenth: no, we don't know how early Dhuum's minions assaulted the Underworld, but we do know it was happening as early as 1072. That's all we can say about that. I won't repeat the above discussion on demigods, and I am loathe to let you drag me into a debate on semantics, but besides the obvious implication that Malchor was Grenth's father (thankfully never mentioned because the lore in that area appears to be extremely muddled), I'm not sure why you are trying to start a debate on whether Grenth's father was a human or just a mortal, since you were the one who added that to the page in the first place.
• On the regions: Dr Ish will have looked at those pages when he reverted some of my edits to region pages, and left them as they were. I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me, and I am not obligated to justify every one of my edits to you, but I will talk about that more in a second.

Me reverting myself when I realised I had made a mistake is holding a grudge against you? It takes some cojones to claim that, having been repeatedly mass-reverted by you, and having been contradicted by you at every turn, no matter how small, I am the one with the problem with you. I created the request for arbitration, I asked you politely to stop, I wanted to end this, but you just couldn't let me edit the wiki without your constant wikihounding. I spent a day editing over the weekend, and you spent a good hour or two mass reverting nearly all of those edits, without leaving so much as a message on my talk page. All the edits I reverted were your reverts of me, and now you have the audacity to claim I have a grudge against you! The truth is that you are a possessive bully who responds to attempts at editing "your" wiki with passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and occasionally outright belligerence. Your sense of entitlement is such that you feel as though every edit should be cleared with you before it can stay on the wiki, and that "imo" is enough of a justification to make a revert. The edits stay until this discussion is resolved, or until (please!) there is some sort of admin intervention on the arbitration request. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me" Sorry, but that is a horrible reason for disrupting the wiki - that is outright revert warring. I have given you a short block for this violation. In the future, please consider your actions more carefully. —Dr Ishmael 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Source? It could easily have been intended to be a dragon champion, given the fact we have absolutely no context to it.
• Because that's proper format. How you're doing it gives a falsification on how its presented in game. You are presenting it as if Malchor/Jurah are being quoted directly, as if that is their own personal words, rather than an inscription holding their words. But that's not the case. But this is semantics and as I said, I would rather have that, rather unnecessary, quotation outright removed.
• Where is is ever repeated? Source please, because I only know of one repeat of this (outside of "humans think this, quaggans disagree" which is only ever mentioned once as well). And you can easily just revert the image alone (something I overlooked).
• No, you mean as late as 1072 AE. "As early as 1072 AE" - as the page is worded - implies that it couldn't have been earlier. Implication or not, Malchor's never proven to be Grenth's father nor is it ever proven that Grenth's father was human - again, you're turning speculation and presenting it as fact (side note: I first added human sculptor when I only had that information second-hand, and take note that I removed it, but you readded it).

"I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me" What Ishy said. At least when I revert you, I actually look at each and every change you make and revert only that which I think should be. I don't arbitrarily revert just for the sake of fucking reverting. And you reverting yourself after outright reverting me does indeed show that you have a grudge against me - why? Because you reverted me for the sake of reverting me, then realized "oh, that was actually better" - improving the articles on the wiki was a secondary thought for your actions. That proves that you have some sort of rivalry view of me, whatever the reason may be. Cajones or not, I think my claim was on the mark. (and indeed! Every turn, despite the fact I haven't reverted all of your changes in fact, but some revert wars are started by you yourself! I have in fact left some articles you've edited go unaltered by myself, and not just out of being bloody tired of trying to improve articles I think you're lowering the quality of!) Konig/talk 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, a wise guy eh? Why I oughta... — snograt 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your karka images

First this is actually the Ancient Karka. Secondly, since the Egg Layer has the same model as the other adult karkas (including Ancient Karka sans the Ancient Karka being much larger and, I believe, a thicker shell at the beginning), don't you think we should only have 1 image for those? And one image not from the trailer that shows only 20% of the creature? Bringing this up before I do any alterations to your edits, so that I can at least try to stiffen the false notion that I have an issue with you personally. Konig/talk 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that it has stopped you in the last 24 hours or so, but sure, feel free to shuffle round the images if it makes you feel better, but I was always taught that variety is a good thing. Although if you want to "stiffen the false notion" that you have a problem with me, perhaps you should cut back on attidue-laden comments such as "don't you think we should only have 1 image for those? And one image not from the trailer that shows only 20% of the creature?" --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that setting up for auto-categorization was a problem. Or a rather unneeded quotation box you've repeatedly expressed distaste for (yet another oddity with you, no offense intended).

My "attidue-laden comments" was actually rather attitude-less, unlike the sentence directly before this. What I meant was simply this: would it not be more efficient to hold one image of the same model, so as to reduce the amount of images on the wiki, and as per the atypical style of the official wikis, rather than holding an image which shows a relatively small amount of the subject matter (e.g., that trailer-based image) or one with effects in it (e.g., the one of the Ancient Karka incorrectly titled a Karka Egg Layer). Konig/talk 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Tyria (world).jpg

Suggestion: Why not Tyria (globe) or Chantry of Secrets? Konig/talk 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Chanty_of_Secrets_globe.jpg is much more descriptive--Relyk 02:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Forgot to link you immediately, but this may interest you. Konig/talk 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up so you know, this week when I have enough time I'll be removing "screenshot" from the names of images you've uploaded, per the linked discussion above - 4 people who commented are all for removing it. Making a new here so that you can see it before hand (should you have time to visit the wiki prior to), and to give you a chance to argue for yourself before such, though I think half a month's plenty of time in of itself. Konig/talk 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion

I already got yelled at for this before, don't remove the contents when tagging pages for vandalism, it lets the admins see immediately what vandalism took place instead of checking history before they go head and delete it.--Relyk 07:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

"Forgotten concept art"

Can you please provide the source which states that this is of a forgotten? As far as I'm aware, it's only been player speculation. And if you don't have a source, it should be removed. Konig/talk 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's from the Prophecies manuscripts, next to the chapter that discusses the History of Tyria and the 'serpents'. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a source. Since that doesn't prove it's of the Forgotten (or even imply - I mean, it could be concept art of a scrapped flying serpent race just as much as proto-Forgotten, and it could have just been used there because it fit the context well enough). Konig/talk 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove this image from the karka page, because although posted during the Lost Shores with a caption talking about the karka invasion, it could just be concept art of a near-identical race that was scrapped and never mentioned before or since. While we're at it, do we know this is Glint, because although being a still from a cinematic telling the story of Glint and Destiny's Edge, and despite there being no other remotely likely candidates, a little asura never pops up in the corner of the screen and tells us that "hey, this is Glint from Prophecies". --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That piece was titled "Karkafbconseptart" by Anet (renamed by us because we like to have correct spelling for "concept" and "fb" seemed more of a denotion for where it was uploaded rather than image name) - rather than the unnamed concept art. And it's very clearly a karka even without a name, as is the Glint one - though File:Kralkatorrik concept art.jpg is less so and has been debated to be Glint instead (despite the many differences) due to the context.

But I digress. I don't care enough to get into another fight with you over this. I'll hold over my view that it might not be a forgotten, as it looks nothing like the forgotten tbh except that it's a serpentine creature, but I won't remove it since you care so much for it. Konig/talk 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like a Fleshreaver more than anything. 71.102.2.41 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the depictions of Forgotten from the first game?--Relyk ~ talk > 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten have 4 arms, no wings. I don't see how anyone could confuse this image for a Forgotten. —Dr Ishmael 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP: the Fleshreavers weren't introduced until 2 years after that concept art was created, and that's assuming the concept art was drawn towards the end of Prophecies' development cycle, which it probably wasn't. That's not to say the Fleshreavers could not have existed before then, but we have no indication of that being the case.

Ishmael: Relyk is correct in saying it is from the first game, for the uninitiated, if you read the Prophecies manual (and I think this is a close-ish online approximation), it places the picture next to an article about the History of Tyria, which discusses the 'serpents' (which are made clear to be the Forgotten) at length. There is no other mention of any other serpentine race, and no other race I can think of remotely fits the bill. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Hi, I've started a discussion about your recent disputes with Konig to see what other admins (and users) think. You may want to keep an eye on it. (Your request for arbitration a couple of months ago came at a really bad time for me, time-wise. I'm hoping this time we'll get an acceptable resolution.) pling 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks pling. I probably won't have time this morning, but just in case this ends in a block, I'd like to be able to say my piece first on the admin noticeboard page, if that's ok? --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Pling, but yeah that's fine. It's just fair to give each of you a chance to comment on it; just don't go over the board with it. poke | talk 10:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Southsun Cove map

Why did you replace that with a texture composite? Using maps based on textures is bad because they don't reflect what anyone actually sees in-game. All of our zone maps are based on screenshots, showing area names and map completion icons. —Dr Ishmael 16:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can revert it if you like, just thought it would be better since it's cleaner, shows a map of the underwater areas as well as the above-ground areas, there's no chance anything will be missed off, and there's a few bits round the edge that can't actually be reached, which is interesting. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to have in the gallery for the zone--Relyk ~ talk > 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that without the area names and point icons, you don't have any frame of reference to interpret what the image is representing. There's also no distinction between land and water, which removes another frame of reference. While it might be interesting to have as a secondary image like Relyk suggested, texture composites should not be the primary map for anything. —Dr Ishmael 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of Great Dwarf in Tome of Rubicon

Source please. I checked gw1:Unspeakable, Unknowable dialogue and it doesn't mention the Great Dwarf's name in the tome, just the Great Destroyer's.
Also, to further elaborate my other changes:

• the line about mursaat and seer info in the tome because that lore comes solely from BrandyGame's guide, which holds dozens of mistakes and unknowns. As such, that source is less reliable than Thruln the Lost. So unless you have a second source, please don't re-add that unless Stephane confirms the questions on the unknowns presented there (given the time since, I doubt he ever will).
• The Durmand Priory didn't exist in 1075, so they couldn't discuss the tome. It was discussed by scholars with Durmand before the Priory's founding.
• The item description is "First Edition" - if anything, this means the Great Dwarf wrote it. But the GD isn't a single entity to what we know, ergo unlikely. Your reference merely states Alkar wrote a sanitized version (aka a version that reading wouldn't end the world), thus is just proof for Scholar Trueclaw's claims of it being rewritten over the ages, so I re-added that bit and included Alkar.

If you can provide sources for the first two (name and mursaat/seer info), I'll be happy to re-add it myself. Konig/talk 22:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you doubt my contributions, how about leaving a message before reverting them? I don't revert everything you add to a page that I haven't personally verified - although I suppose at least this time you've bothered to leave a message on my talk page demanding a source. Seriously, within five hours of your block ending you were back to work making edits you knew would be controversial. Within 7 hours you had received a complaint about mass-reverting other users' contributions, sometimes only seconds after they had made them. That user is no longer a contributor to this wiki. For the benefit of you, myself, and everyone on this wiki, you need to rethink the way that you do things here. Seriously.

I can't find where I read that the Tome of the Rubicon contained the name of both the Great Dwarf and the Great Destroyer, but I suspect it was on one of the wikis, or I would have cited it (I'd liked to have cited it even if I saw it on the wiki, but you remove any internal citations as soon as they are added, so...). There is a mention of it on gw1:Religions of Tyria, which you created, so maybe I should be asking you. Similarly, I can't remember where the line about the war between the Seers and the mursaat being mentioned in the Tome of the Rubicon, but I remember first reading it before the BradyGames guide was released, I think from an interview with Jeff Grubb or something like that. The BradyGames guide took a lot of information from the wiki, I know that much - I remembering the wiki mentioning somewhere that Tyria had an unexplained 7,000-year gap in its timeline, and the BradyGames guide leaned heavily on that and gave it undue weight when all it probably meant was that was that not many of the modern races were recording history back then. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There still isn't (in my eyes) any mention of the Great Dwarf's name being contained in Tome of Rubicon. I think that the Tome isn't accurate in any case, with Jalis claiming that all the transformed dwarves were now the Great Dwarf, and various other revelations about the Tome. I also don't think a strat guide is a reliable source of game lore either, especially if they leaned on this wiki – years ago. Mediggo 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Great Dwarf's name being mentioned was included in Konig's original version of the GW1 page for Religions of Tyria, but to be honest I'm so grateful for third-party input that I'm willing to leave it as-is :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only mention that I see is about speaking either of the Great one's name bringing them both back. If I had just defeated a great evil whose name must really not be spoken, I'd have removed not only its name, but in this case, also my own (Great Dwarf's) name. I'm not familiar with the details of that piece of lore, though (such as do we really know if their names were not spoken?), but in any case I don't think it's very relevant, as long as either of their names remain not known. Mediggo 14:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted that part is because it's outright wrong by all wiki-documented information as well as all information I've seen. You put speculation (Alkar writing that version) and took what I wrote and made it wrong. The edit to the Scrying Pool sounds like hardly an issue, since again, the only bit I actually removed was taking mechanics for lore - a massive fallacy.

Take note: that gww article does not say that the Great Dwarf's name is in the tome. Merely that if spoken it'd have the same effect as the Great Destroyer's name being spoken.

The only place the mursaat/seer war being within the Tome was mentioned was on this wiki in a verbatim copy of the BrandyGames article. You may be mistakenly thinking of an interview with Ree Soesbee where she mentions both in the same paragraph, but this was not about info on the war being within the tome, rather that the war occurred at roughly the same time as the Tome's original writing.

@Mediggo: Technically, no, but we're told that the Great Destroyer would rise irregardless in EN. Konig/talk 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alkar writing that version isn't speculation, forgot to cover that one, see the dialogue for Destructive Research. I restate, "If you doubt my contributions, how about leaving a message before reverting them?" And what's your source for the Scrying Pool putting out the source being mechanics rather than lore? Is Spectral Agony also lore, on that basis? --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NPC pages

You're creating a bunch of NPC pages, but you're not using the NPC infobox. Any reason why? —Dr Ishmael 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of these NPC's do not actually appear in-game (as far as I can tell - have quickly searched the wiki for them), and I've been told that we don't use infoboxes for NPC's that don't appear in-game. Would have at least tagged them with {{stub}} otherwise. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would be helpful to list where they are mentioned in lore so the information can be verified.--Relyk ~ talk > 21:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe include a statement like, "Jack is a norn mentioned by Jill as having done..." And possibly we should make a category for these "off-screen" characters. —Dr Ishmael 21:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a category like that, maybe something like the Category:Unseen NPCs we had on GWW? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

we already gave a category for them. -Chieftain Alex 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're suggesting we delete, say, Kralkatorrik? pling 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that any character, thing, or place who is mentioned in canon materials but is not in the game should be considered part of the game's lore. Perhaps categories like "Lore object," "Lore character," and "Lore location" would have some merit? 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had such a category on this wiki... seems I was mistaken. I propose either using Unseen NPCs like GWW, or to keep consistency with Category:Lore locations, go with "Lore characters." Konig/talk 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Jotun change

Since you prefer me to discuss rather than alter, and will just revert any alterations I make irregardless, I would like to ask why you put what's now the first paragraph of the History section back to how you wrote it before I tried rewriting it to remove the prose ("sacrificed that knowlege in blood"), speculation ("their monument stones are stellar maps"), mixing of mechanics with lore ("their stargazers were legendary"), and bringing back up things irrelevant to the jotun race ("Varra Skylark believes that the human gods brought that mystic telescope to Arah and rebuilt it." - same situation for the seer article and the bloodstones - while it's a jotun invention, what others did with it is irrelevant to the jotun race and history since they held no known activity or view on the matter). Konig/talk 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on Konig, don't you have some GW2Guru lore forum users to belittle or something instead of doing this? I wish you'd stop accusing me of reverting your edits when I have tried my best not to do that for the last few months, pretty much all articles I have dared to edit are now in your preferred format. And you can try pulling the other one on the "bigger man" routine, it's a little late to be doing that. The "prose", "speculation", and "mixing of mechanics with lore" is all part of Varra Skylark's dialogue, so it is confirmed to be true. And before you accuse me of quoting the game on the wiki (gasp!), I'd like to point out that you copied large portions of copyrighted ANet blog posts onto the wiki without attribution for articles you wrote on the minor races. Oops.

As for the mystic telescope, (a) it's totally and completely relevant, and that's so self-evident that I can't even think of an argument to support it, and (b) are you going to bother creating an article for the mystic telescope to put the information on yourself? Didn't think so.

Oh, and "irregardless" isn't a word. I've been meaning to tell you that for a while. Seriously, look it up. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an accusation of you reverting that paragraph to your previous form it is a keen observation. Note how in the first version - which goes from your first rewrite to the new rewrite, has the paragraph unchanged; the second link, which goes from my rewrite to your new rewrite, has it changed. And I'm not meaning to accuse you, I'm requesting explanation. To your points:

1) For Varra's dialogue, I presume that with the exception of the gods taking and repairing the telescope, this is all later in the dungeon? The "their stargazers were legendary" sounds like you trying to turn Legendary Jotun Stargazer into lore - legendary being the NPC's rank.

2) What articles have I copied the blog posts? Or do you refer to the copy of the blog posts themselves? Which are indeed attributed? Provide a link for what you mean, please. (Also, I don't accuse in that, I simply rewrite because quoting NPCs without quotation marks sounds weird as hell).

3) As for mystic telescope: a) really? What part of the Six Gods taking and repairing the telescope affects the jotun? Did the jotun have a say in it? Was the telescope stolen? Even if the telescope was taken from them, rather than found and recovered like Varra says at the beginning of the dungeon, them repairing it holds no influence over the jotun whatsoever. You're mistaking something that action is relevant to the jotun's invention, not the jotun themselves. b) Eventually, yes, but just like you have to stop for me, I must stop for you. I've been slowly trying to work through all locations and the telescope article would be a Point of Interest, e.g., a location. I would make it right now, however, I want to be able to fully complete the jotun path of the dungeon first so I can write it in its entirety. So to answer your question: Yes, but not right now. Konig/talk 23:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Side note since I just noticed it: "Make sure all lore from the ANet blog is documented, some pretty big stuff, like Quora Sum, has gone completely missed." - that's actually my current side-project alongside locations and emptying my screenshot folder. Konig/talk 23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

While on the topic, I'd like to ask the following:

1. "Many of their monument stones are stellar maps" - can you provide a source on this? Because I have seen many of their monuments, and they don't clearly show stellar maps.
2. "they, along with all the races except the mursaat, gave their magic to the Seers" - this line implies that they willingly gave magic. However, jotun personality as well as Thruln the Lost would argue otherwise. Perhaps it wasn't given, but stolen. It's best to keep it objective.
3. "Many years later, when the Six Human Gods arrived at the Artesian Waters and brought the Bloodstone to the newly-built city of Arah, the jotun and the norn were among their favoured races." and "In time, their power came to rival that of the gods themselves, so the gods took their magic and distributed it to the other races" - Do you have any support for this other than Thruln the Lost? Because I sure as hell haven't. And Thurln the Lost, as I have told you specifically - as well as others - is not a reliable source given how much of his information is wrong (specifically about the humans and moreso the human-god relation). Either he's not referring to the Six Gods when he says the gods, or he's not telling the objective truth. In either case, you make it out as undeniable fact when it is not. Though I lacked mentioning the gods, my previous wording of "according to Thruln the Lost, guided lesser races alongside the other giant races, such as the norn." was far better than the first sentence, because it gives the notion that Thruln may be wrong.

In short: Just like before, you're taking an unreliable source who is outright known to be wrong on at least one subject of his four as if he is absolutely correct. This is a fallacy and is exactly the main reason why I edit the wiki, and moreso your edits (you tend to state possibilities and implications as fact). Konig/talk 05:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

About #3, the telescope is relevant to the jotun, so the fate of that telescope is relevant. It gives you a more complete understanding of the jotun. The human gods thought that jotun technology was good enough or important enough for them to improve upon or whatever, which shows how the jotun and their achievements fit into the bigger picture. pling 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

that tag looks pretty unsightly up there

[3] - isn't that the point of the tag? To look unsightly so as to draw attention and get it handled? Konig 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's featured prominently on the page either way, I'd have just thought it would be better to have it not clutter up the page in the interim, if possible. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tags go at the top of the page so that they aren't interspersed with page content. The exception is section-stub tags, obviously. —Dr Ishmael 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"can NPC's be "within" a point of interest?"

Per a discussion here (and a similar far older one resulting in the same though longer), we list the NPCs at the location which the PoI describes, so those in the PoI are in both the PoI's article and the area's article. Konig 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks. I debated whether or not I should remove it but I assumed you knew what you were doing. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dredge and Southsun Cove edits

"the refugees are preparing to make new homes there, not the consortium" The Consortium are building the homes, so "and" is more accurate, given "to *make* new homes" - though I suppose it depends on whether you read that as "build" or "settle in" in which case either can do, but I think most people would read it as the former since "to make" implies, you know, making something physical and not metaphorical.
" dictatorship of the moletariat isn't necessarily oppressive, despite associations of the word dictatorship, and dredge rebels still pledge allegiance to the moletariat" Dictatorship is indeed not oppressive in of itself, however the moletariat are oppressive - as that's why there's a revolt. To quote one situation:

Rasolov: Foreman, you're forcing these people to work against their will.

Foreman Kreutzerova: What? Lies! They love hard labor. The only thing I force them to do is stop for food and sleep.

Rasolov: Then you won't mind, if I take them out for a little break.

Foreman Kreutzerova: A break? That's not very patriotic. I'm afraid I must ask you to stop interfering with our progress, friend.

Basically, the moletariat are forcing labor on the dredge populous - that sounds oppressive to me. As for "rebels still pledge allegiance to the moletariat" - hence why I wrote "The revolution, led by Rasolov, aims to free the workers and overthrow the moletariat as a whole to bring in a new leadership." I suppose I should have been more clear, but Sorrow's Embrace explorable shows that the rebels there intend to replace the members, not the system.
And regarding the verify tag you added - I believe the heart guy before completing mentions a revolt down south leading the charge. I'm unsure if they're united or if its just that those in Frostgorge are revolting because there are revolters elsewhere though. Konig 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"And" isn't more accurate at all - if you wanted to say the Consortium were building new homes, you'd say "build new homes", not "make new homes". And in its current form, it says that the Consortium are taking advantage of the refugees, and that they are preparing to travel to SC to build homes there, but doesn't link the two together (i.e. doesn't say how they are taking advantage of the refugees or who they plan to build homes for - it could be themselves for all we know from that sentence). And there's the fact that the Consortium don't have to prepare to travel there because they are already there. Stuff like this is why your revisions to my edits are a lot less readable than you realise, and it's frustrating that it has to become an issue every time.

As for the moletariat, if they were oppressive then why would the rebels still pledge loyalty to them? The quote you posted doesn't mention the moletariat at all and takes place during SE explorable mode, which is after the military dictatorship was installed, iirc. And of course the moletariat may be capable of becoming oppressive, but it doesn't mean it has always been that way, for example the dredge pre-SE story mode seem to have been happy with how they were governed (or good at covering up unhappiness, and without any evidence of that it's not the wiki's place to judge). --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

--

I think this is coming from the fact that your dialect of English and mine are differing. You use british english - where do you live? This may cause the problem. Because I've been majoring in English and have taken a lot of English classes and I got called out and marked wrong dozens of times for the exact things you do with syntax - but the things I do now are marked right. Why? They're concised, they're to the point, they avoid unnecessary words. Yeah, they're not stylized like you so love, but they're still completely right despite your belief.

So I think that's the issue - your English is not American English, which is what I grew up living around, and have been taking classes studying for my damnable degree (pointless pieces of paper if I do say so myself).

For the moletariat - apparently you don't get it. The individuals are oppressive so they want to remove the individuals - it's no different than having an oppressive king and wanting to replace him with a benevolent one. It's happened hundreds of times in history where one king gets replaced by another, where a duke or nobleman that rules over land gets replaced by a kinder man. The system does not change, the people don't think the system is at fault. They just blame the people. It's the same exact situation here. (btw, the entire game is after the military dictatorship was installed) Nor have I ever said they were always oppressive - just that they are now. And I don't know what you're referring to with dredge being happy with their leadership, since even low level events hold oppressive overseers (like in the norn heirloom storyline, or the event in Diessa Plateau). Konig 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, regarding the dredge, I think it depends on if you see the Moletariat as "general name for who's in charge of the dredge right now" or "the specific name of who's in charge right now". If the former, you can overthrow it and your new government will also be called the moletariat. In that case, rebels could say "I'm loyal to the 'just/rightful' moletariat" and still, well, rebel.

On the southsun cove page, I think the edit by Konig was a bit unclear since two thoughts were being combined in "and are preparing to travel to Southsun Cove to make new homes there." If you were trying to say "refugees were doing the former and Consortium were doing the latter" that was very unclear since it is a single thought. If that whole phrase was applying to the refugees, it makes sense since they would be doing two things. In general, for complex ideas like that, I try to figure out how they break down into smaller sentences so I don't think it's necessarily a british vs english thing. --JonTheMon 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, "make new home" is frequently used to say someone is settling somewhere new. --JonTheMon 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On the dredge, from what I've seen it'd be the case of the former. It'd be like saying the Senate of the United States - if you go and replace everyone in the senate, it's still the senate. Konig 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "moletariat" used in a similar way to proletariat and dictatorship of the proletariat? pling 18:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a pun off of/nod to it, but I wouldn't say they're used in the same means. The moletariat is only used in reference to the dredge government - I don't think it's once used to refer to the working class, nor do the working class of the dredge (Dredge Excavators) have power in the dredge's government. Konig 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a British English speaker by birth and have lived in the US and Canada for several years. While there are many differences between British and US English, I don't think "make a home" and "build a home" are any way the same in either dialect. As far as I have ever used any version of English, making a home is an abstraction/metaphor and has nothing to do with physically building one. Hope this helps.

Having read some of the disputed text, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the lore to comment but a great deal of the textual changes are really changing the style. Change the facts if they're wrong but for heaven's sake, don't rewrite stuff just because you don't like the style. If you do then it would be perfectly possible for others to rewrite each and every one of your contributions, altering the style. As for your thoughts on Santax writing in British English, I could not say that either of your contributions are characteristically UK/US. US/UK English differences at this level are subtle and many young males in the UK use more US English than UK as they learnt/learned it off (of) the Internet. Claret 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I can't believe you both came back from a month-long block and immediately started up the same kind of passive-aggressive arguments that got you blocked in the first place. If you can't learn your lesson from that and start being civil to each other, there's nothing for us to do but block you again. —Dr Ishmael 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully won't be necessary, see here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)