User talk:Shewmake

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki

Archive

Contents 1 I think it is high time... 2 Mhm... 3 In Responce to Derpman priory 4 The Black Citadel/Black Citadel 5 Deletion tags

[edit] I think it is high time...

We (the GWW lorists) should make a real page instead of a stub for the lore article. Any ideas how to make it as good as the gw1:lore article? I'm thinking, perhaps, having 5 sections: A general section, and one for each race - all containing the basic lore of said section. Asura and Norn would be the smallest at this point, with Sylvari shortly falling behind, but a big stub is better than a small/non-existent stub. -- Konig/talk 03:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Though the playable races are the ones given the most attention, there are other races that are almost equally important (e.g. the once-human druids, kodan, etc.), so where would they be mentioned? What if the lore article had a general section and articles on geographic locations that are further divided into sections describing the races and/or the conflicts/events that have taken place there. We could expand upon each races' lore in their respective articles.-- Shew 04:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to put everything into a single article, nor do I want to make the lore article, which should serve as an introduction into lore, too long. I would prefer to do a world-wide view of history, but as there isn't that much history to go from GW1 to GW2 (as we want as little GW1 lore as possible), it would be rather annoying to try to work it in like that. The race separation was just one idea, though thinking about it, it probably wouldn't work very well. The main reason why I suggested the playable races being the separation is that they have been the main focus of the GW2 lore thus far.

Obviously not everything will be mentioned upon in the lore article - that is simply impossible - and I think we should leave specifics to the articles which they belong to (such as geography going into Tyria (world) and the various region's pages). Though it is annoying to say, I don't think we have enough general lore of just GW2 to really work out the lore page still, as we mainly just have been getting lore on the playable races.

Something we might be able to do is to make a summary of pre-GW1 and GW1 events (exodus, Odran, Khan-Ur, Searing, Cataclysm, Jade Wind, Nightfall, and the Destroyer/Dwarf conflict), then a summary of events from GW1 to GW2 (Shaman Caste's and Ascalon's fall, Usoku and Joko gaining power, and the waking of the dragons) for now. I just hate the extremely shortness of the page when we do have stuff... -- Konig/talk 05:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so how about we do the general summary of events like you mentioned, and then we include the timeline? The timeline could serve as a way to link articles that may not be mentioned in the summary.-- Shew 15:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make such an article. It would be filled with assumptions and with content that has no revelance to GW2; it would likely lead users to making articles about events and characters who have no relevance to GW2 and thus should have no article here. Wait until there is actually lore about the game before trying to fill the Lore article. Erasculio 15:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

The history of the world in GW1 is not going to change in GW2. How is it not relevant?-- Shew 15:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Devona's father died in GW1. Is that relevant? Should we have an article about Devona on this wiki? Do we need an article about Devona's father?

Yet, as far fetched as that example may seem, if Devona's father actually had a piece of magical equipment required to defeat the draons and the search for his grave becomes a main quest in GW2, then we would need to have an article about him.

The Guild Wars 2 lore is already documented in this wiki. The GW1 lore may or not be relevant, but we don't know what will have any impact on GW2, and what may just be forgotten. Trying to create a timeline now, without any knowledge of what is actually going to matter, would only be a big assumption about what is important and what isn't. Erasculio 15:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are pages that have descriptions of events in GW1 and before GW1, but how are people who have no knowledge of GW1 going to find them? Without a general lore page, they aren't going to know about anything major that has happened even if there are articles about these events on the wiki.-- Shew 15:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If they are events from GW1 mentioned in GW2, users may come here looking for information about those events after reading about them in the game. If they are GW1 events that are not mentioned in GW2 and have no impact on the newer game, users are not going to find about them here, and they shouldn't; those events, with no impact on GW2, should not be part of this wiki. Erasculio 16:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how things would be "filled with assumptions" when it is a summary of known and canon lore. There won't be any articles that are clearly related to GW1 only on the GW2 wiki, and anything linked in the summary of articles that regard the history of the lore from GW2's standpoint would just have the [[gw1:<name>]] tag. No one said that such topics would have an article on the GW2W. And those which have some relevance to GW2 and more relevance to GW1 will just have a brief summary article and a link to the GW1W via {{gww}}. So I am not seeing any issue here, I mean, interwiki linking exists for a reason. -- Konig/talk 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki linking is not something meant to confuse users by making them change wiki without their knowledge. Notice how the GW1 wiki only uses interwiki links with wikipedia on very obvious things (no one is going to assume that the Guild Wars Wiki would have an article about Monty Python and the Holy Grail), and with GW2W through the very obvious GW2W box. Filling a common article with interwiki links, such as what was done here, is not desirable nor a good thing.

And regarding your assumptions: you don't know what matters and what doesn't matter for GW2. Therefore, you cannot make a list of lore articles that matter for GW2 without basing it on your assumptions, and your assumptions only. The current lore available for GW2, and only for GW2, is already documented here. Everything else may as well be irrelevant, and to create articles just to have to delete them later (as has already happened) is a waste. Erasculio 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, on the interwiki linking - would you rather have no links and just leave the person reading confused and not knowing what that is? Or would you rather have the person go to the other wiki, in which it is easy to go back, and would allow the person to read more? I would do the later, personally - I mean, if we don't use the interwiki linking, what is the point of having it? Secondly, it doesn't matter if we don't know what won't be relevant. If it becomes relevant to the point of having a GW2W article, then we could make said article and replace the interwiki linking.

I really don't see the issue with using interwiki linking, especially if the article has something to do with something which has no relevance to GW2 except for the connection with the article which is linking to said irrelevant article. -- Konig/talk 02:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the problem with including a summarization of the major events that have occurred from before GW1 up to GW2 in the lore article. Also, I don't think we should be appealing to those who aren't smart enough to figure out how to get back to the GW2 wiki.-- Shew 02:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"I really don't see the issue with using interwiki linking, especially if the article has something to do with something which has no relevance to GW2": if something has no relevance to GW2 at all, why is it being mentioned in the GW2 wiki? Interlinking already exists through the interlinking box, which clearly states it's linking to the GW1 wiki. Keeping GW1 links "hidden" through the text is ridiculous.

"I really don't see the problem with including a summarization of the major events that have occurred from before GW1 up to GW2": you could also include an article about all the different kinds of oranges. As far as you know, it would have the same relevance for GW2. If an event is not mentioned in GW2 and if it has no direct consequense on the game, it's simply not part of the game; it may have happened on GW1, but there is no reason to document it on GW2W.

"Also, I don't think we should be appealing to those who aren't smart enough to figure out how to get back to the GW2 wiki": spare me the elitist trash. How about we add templates for everything so only those "smart enough" to bother reading through pages of wiki documentation can actually edit anything?

The goal of the GW2 wiki is to document GW2, and be as accessible as possible. Don't expect me to allow a bunch of aspiring writers looking for something to do to fill the wiki with irrelevant content about a different game. Erasculio 10:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"you could also include an article about all the different kinds of oranges." You know that has nothing to do with GW, unlike the events of GW1, which are part of the history. My point about saying we shouldn't appeal to those who aren't smart enough, which I should have included rather than the comment I made, was that GW has age restrictions (I think it's 12+), and GW2 may as well. People who are at least 12-years-old are going to know how to go in between the two wikis. People younger then that may not, but I doubt they'll be playing the game anyways.-- Shew 15:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Why don't you just create a page containing any possible historical content for GW2 in your Sandbox and when the game's released, you can then create an actual article with the information that is relevant. Solved, really. - Infinite - talk 16:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

YES, but when will the new game come out!?|Killer demon 16:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"You know that has nothing to do with GW, unlike the events of GW1", which may have nothing to do with GW2. Shiro's story is part of GW1's history, but very likely will have no impact and no consequence on GW2, making it irrelevant to the new game, and therefore outside the scope of this wiki.

"People who are at least 12-years-old are going to know how to go in between the two wikis", and people who are at least 12 years old can read, right? Why don't we require people to read manuals with 100 pages before we allow them to edit the wiki, then? They can do it, rather obviously, and the wiki would be improved by having users with more knowledge about how it works, right? Erasculio 16:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Shiro's story may have no direct impact on GW2, but it's part of the history of Tyria.-- Shew 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Erasculio, can you tone down your... aggression, I suppose it could be called - let's not make this discussion any more heated than it needs to be).

That aside, I agree somewhat with Erasculio. Something that isn't directly (or substantially enough) related to GW2 shouldn't be on the GW2 wiki, when it's already documented on GWW. However, I think interwiki links are a valuable tool to direct people to said GWW documentation. The reason we don't use Wikipedia links is that very few things are related to both GWW and real life, and most that are don't need further explanation. The case is different with GW1 and GW2/GWW and GW2W; they're more interconnected with each other. There are light references to GW1 events in GW2 lore that don't require an article of their own on this wiki but could be explained in detail just by pointing to GWW. We expect our target audience to have some knowledge of how the internet/web browsers work, and I think we can assume they know how to click a 'back' button. -- pling 17:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Shiro's story may have no direct impact on GW2, but it's part of the history of Tyria": no, it's part of the history of GW1, it has no relevance to GW2. Hence, there is no point in adding it to this wiki.

Pling, we already have the box for interwiki links, which is a perfectly viable and clear way of linking both sites. The problem isn't linking to GW1W, the problem is using too many GW1W links for things that have no relevance here, or that would be made redundant with the link in the interwiki box. Erasculio 18:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think using in-line interwiki links as well as the template is a problem (obviously, there's no need to do both for the same destination). If it's relevant to mention a subject, it's probably relevant to add a link to it. -- pling 18:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"no, it's part of the history of GW1, it has no relevance to GW2" Guild Wars 2 is set in the same universe, 250 years after the events of GW1. The history doesn't just get erased. >_<'-- Shew 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"The history doesn't just get erased": no, it's nicely documented on GW1W, which is where it belongs, and where it matters.

"I don't think using in-line interwiki links as well as the template is a problem": using interwiki links too much is a problem, IMO. Consider this version of the "Gold Legion" article: it links [the Charrs'] "false gods" to GW1W's Titan article. Someone who doesn't already know the backstory of the Charr (in other words, those the link is made for) would go from the "false gods" text and read...A description of a GW1 construct, then see some tables about subdivisions, and that's it. The only mention to the Charr is in a somewhat hidden Trivia note, and there is no mention to the Titans being ever considered false gods. In other words, such link doesn't make sense (and incidentally, all this zeal in adding selfmade fanfiction GW1 lore to the GW2 wiki could be in use to better document GW1 lore in the GW1W). The same older version of the Gold Legion article had an interwiki link to GW1W Shaman Caste article, a small page with no more information than what is found in the Ecology of the Charr article on this wiki. Which means, it's also an unnecessary link, added as part of a frenzy to add as many links as possible to the old content. The only necessary link is the one inside the interwiki box, leading to GW1's version of the Golden Legion, the Flame Legion. Erasculio 21:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. I'd prefer to see the destination article improved than the link removed, tbh, but I can understand how linking to a "bad"/not-so-relevant article on GWW would be unhelpful to GW2'ers. -- pling 21:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What I really want to do is wait, though. We really don't know what's going to be relevant to GW2. If the Titans return, we will need an article about them here, explaining what they are and very likely what they were, but right now there is no point in adding an article about them. If we meet Shiro's soul somehow, then we would need an article about him, explaining what he is. I wouldn't be surprised to see many small nods to some specific GW1 events, but until we know which events those are, I think it's pointless to even mention them here. So my reply to this entire section, which is about creating a big lore section here, is a "not yet", not until we actually know what the lore of GW2 is. Erasculio 21:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the interwiki links will be useful for the legacy sites. For example, if something has happened to Gwen's garden, we could link back to the original article on the GWW in the trivia section, that is, if we have pages for the legacy sites.-- Shew 22:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"if something has no relevance to GW2 at all, why is it being mentioned in the GW2 wiki?"Because it has relevance to the lore of the game. No direct relevance to GW2, but relevance to the lore, the history, of the Guild Wars franchise - for example: The Titans, they are relevant to the Charr in many ways, especially the Gold Legion (which you removed the link to the GWW from), but not to the game as a whole.

"There are light references to GW1 events in GW2 lore that don't require an article of their own on this wiki but could be explained in detail just by pointing to GWW."Do note, I never said we should make articles for things with no relevance to GW2 - but I do think we should link to articles on the GWW which are mentioned in articles on the GW2W.

"Pling, we already have the box for interwiki links"That is for interwiki linking pages of the same name/topic, not for things like linking to something of GW1 when it is relevant to GW2's history, but is not in the game itself.

"no, it's nicely documented on GW1W, which is where it belongs, and where it matters."Which is why we don't document it on the GW2W - instead we just link to the GW1W's article through interlinking.

"<a bunch of stuff about a bad link destination>"That is no point for not linking, just because the GWW articles are in need of fixing, doesn't mean we should not link there. Instead of removing links, why don't you fix the links?

"We really don't know what's going to be relevant to GW2."That is why we don't make an article until we know it is relevant to GW2. Which is something I've always been doing. But lore of GW1 is relevant as history - so mentioning them in other articles, instead of making an article for them, and linking to the GW1W article of the topic should be done. -- Konig/talk 03:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Because it has relevance to the lore of the game. No direct relevance to GW2" and thus it should not be here. This isn't a wiki about the Guild Wars franchise, this isn't a wiki about the Guild Wars universe; it's a wiki about Guild Wars 2, and the things that matter to Guild Wars 2 only.

"not for things like linking to something of GW1 when it is relevant to GW2's history, but is not in the game itself": if something is not in GW2, then it's not going to be in the wiki about GW2. Simple as that.

"Which is why we don't document it on the GW2W", no, which is why we don't describe on the GW2W events that are pointless for the newer game.

"Instead of removing links, why don't you fix the links?", I fixed them. I removed bad, unnecessary and redundant links which were not adding anything relevant to GW2.

"But lore of GW1 is relevant as history": nope. And I'm sorry, but all the italics in the world is not going to change that. Or do you think we should add to the Guild Wars 1 wiki a description of how Orr is going to rise from the sea? It is part of that world's history, isn't it? However, you won't see that information on GW1W, since it's not relevant to GW1. Likewise, information about the past that has no impact on GW2 does not belong on this wiki. Erasculio 04:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Escralio, it is one thing to not have articles on the GW2W, and it is another thing to not link to articles on the GWW when a GW2W article has something about an article that is on GWW which is relevant to the article. This is the same universe, so events in GW1 will affect GW2. And you didn't fix the links, you removed the links - that is not the same. Your example about Orr is pointless - what affects GW1 can, and many times will, affect GW2, but that won't always be the case vice versa. Orr rising (despite there being already a few references to that event in GW1) won't affect GW1, but if, for instance, Dhuum is killed in GW1, then that could affect GW2. Just like many things in EN affects GW2 - like the Sons of Svanir being named after gw1:Svanir. In short: Events in GW2 won't affect GW1 (though new "historical" lore will affect GW1's lore, as Linsey has said), but events in GW1 does affect GW2.

And a question, what made you be such an asshole? -- Konig/talk 05:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Dhuum is killed in GW1, then that could affect GW2": key word being "could". You. Don't. Know. Claiming that now is "high time" for you to make a big lore article filled with pointless GW1 content which may have no bearing on GW2, only to have it deleted later when the game is actually released (which coincidentally is when we will know what the full lore of the game is) is an effort in waste of time.

"what made you be such an asshole": lol, the "great" GW historian, self-entitled "King", who has filled GW1W with notes about how he wants to work for Arena Net is lowering himself to be point of calling me an "asshole"? I would claim it's NPA, but keeping it for posterity (hey look, it's history!) is funnier. Erasculio 10:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Claiming that now is "high time" for you to make a big lore article filled with pointless GW1 content which may have no bearing on GW2, only to have it deleted later when the game is actually released" DO YOU EVEN READ?!? I have point blank stated that I don't want irrelevant pages on GW2W - we are in agreement on this and no one has ever said to do this here so why are you constantly bringing this up? What I am saying is to link to GW1W articles when the topic of said article is in a GW2W article - like things like the Flameseeker Prophecies which will have relevance to the Mursaat page, as that is the cause of them nearly dying out (and that page is relevant, as it was stated that the Mursaat will make an appearance in GW2). The prophecies don't provide enough influence in GW2 for all we know, so instead of making a new article, we link to the GW1W article. Why are you not comprehending this?

"the "great" GW historian, self-entitled "King""I do not call myself a "great" anything - nor do I call myself "King" - King of Death is an old character name from Diablo 2, which I brought into GW1 as a Necromancer but renamed to the german version (slightly mispelt) of the name as the english translation was taken, and I have taken Konig Des Todes to the forums and wikis so that people know who I am, I use "Konig" in my signature because it is short. I do not call myself a king or anything - other people call me things like loremaster and other ridiculous things, I never call myself such. Yes I am applying to work for Anet, no I have not filled GW1W with notes on that (I have only mentioned it once!), and I'm not "lowering" myself by swearing - anyone who thinks such is an idiot that swearing a little lowers themselves. And nice way to not answer the question - you used to be a nice respectable person, but now you're reducing yourself by repeating arguments which don't need to be argued instead of debating what should be - that is, besides insulting people over on GWO and even having a very hostile choice of wording here.

I really wish people stops thinking I consider myself to be higher than others just because of a simple name. -- Konig/talk 11:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"and no one has ever said to do this here so why are you constantly bringing this up?": because a certain someone claimed he wanted to "make a summary of pre-GW1 and GW1 events (exodus, Odran, Khan-Ur, Searing, Cataclysm, Jade Wind, Nightfall, and the Destroyer/Dwarf conflict)". The assumption that "We (the GWW lorists) should make a real page instead of a stub for the lore article" is by itself an intent to add irrelevant content, given how there is currently not enough GW2 lore (and thus not enough lore relevant to this wiki) to make a "real page" in the lore article instead of a stub.

"but now you're reducing yourself by repeating arguments which don't need to be argued": apparently I do have to remind a few users the things they have stated a few paragraphs above. True, it doesn't "need to be argued", because it's rather obvious that adding GW1-only lore to the GW2 wiki is pointless, but some people may actually do so if they are not stopped.

"nor do I call myself "King"": really? If I may give you a hint, the reason why people keep "thinking I consider myself to be higher than others" is not because of a name. Erasculio 11:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"irrelevant content" It isn't irrelevant, actually. It's the history of the game. And I would rather have a summary of the history of the game's lore than what we have, or had just before it (which is literally nothing) - that is completely different from making articles that haveabsolutely no evidence currently to appear in the game. Making an article to temporarily (at least) fill out something which has next to nothing and has for nearly two years when it could have something. There is enough knowledge of lore to fill make a better article for a "basic lore" article - and there is no reason why we couldn't put 2 or 3 paragraphs for lore gained from GW1, espescially when the GW1W article is far more than 3 paragraphs, so it would be a massive summary of that, then the addition of post-GW1 events.

As for that post - that was a joke. And honestly, the reasons people have given me for why I'm some egotistical bastard worth all the hate in the world who should die this very instant is poorly thought out and easily countered - which I have done countless times by now. -- Konig/talk 13:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For someone who complains so keenly about "repeating arguments", you surely like to repeat things mentioned a few paragraphs about. At least I can have some variety, as I don't have to quote only yourself anymore:

"Shiro's story may have no direct impact on GW2, but it's part of the history of Tyria"

"no, it's part of the history of GW1, it has no relevance to GW2. Hence, there is no point in adding it to this wiki"

(And for the records: "And honestly, the reasons people have given me for why I'm some egotistical bastard worth all the hate in the world who should die this very instant", incidentally I didn't call you any of that, but if the bellowing fits...) Erasculio 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GW2W:NPA, GW2W:DICK, GW2W:COMPROMISE - please keep these ideals in mind, even if they're not created/formalised. I've seen aggression become personal attacks and trolling, and I don't particularly want to hand out blocks. If you still disagree but you're not willing to compromise, leave the discussion be for a couple of weeks until you are. -- pling 15:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I would like to do, too. Wait. Erasculio 15:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I'd like to see this discussion continued? I've yet to see somebody really agree with Erasculio, one person shouldn't be enough to stop the wiki moving forward. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The pause came when the users who managed to read and understood the discussion above (a mighty feat, indeed) realized how there are multiple supporters for both points of view. Erasculio 12:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, Era, I stopped for two reasons: 1) as Pling said, it is best to take a break and calm down as the discussion was getting too heated, and 2) because I realized that this would go no where with you. Also, not a single person has yet to show their agreement with you. -- Konig/talk 21:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Mhm...

With the scarecrows Magical powers...im guesing... your real name.... is brandon? --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 16:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

yup! I'm guessing your powers involve facebook in some form?-- Shew 19:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

(Insert "Old news is Old" here) My powers is seeing the past. In more than one way. -- Konig/talk 20:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Drugs.bombs.Ive got it all! Maybe facebook helped a Wittle bit <3 :P --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 22:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, forgot about that, Konig. :P-- Shew 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] In Responce to Derpman priory

If we did split.there would only be a little bit of info on it (E.G:players may join the <example>) i also say this within other groups.Untill we get more info,i think it would just be dead space.So ide say keeping it on the respective 'mother' page is easyer. --Neil2250 , The Zoologist 10:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

that sounds fine to me-- Shew 22:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] The Black Citadel/Black Citadel

In future with something like this, could you use the move tab and move the page and its talk to the new location - it helps to keep the discussion in an appropriate place and makes attribution easier. -- pling 23:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Sorry about that. I didn't even know I could use move on pages other than my own.-- Shew 00:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion tags

Hey - it helps to keep the content on the page and just stick a tag at the top, instead of removing the content and replacing it with the tag. I check the history anyway, but I think it's better to see it straightaway as well. -- pling 16:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright...but what about in the case of profanity?-- Shew 17:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The page is going to be deleted anyway, so it doesn't matter. As an aside, the consensus in the past has been not to censor profanity (on talk pages), and GWW has articles like gw1:Kurdick. -- pling 17:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)