Talk:Brick of Clay

Link to GWW

The general Trivia policy we've had for GWW and GW2W is that connections should be both notable and relevant. In this case, I would argue that the GWW article on clay brick is neither:

• It's coincidental (and almost inevitable) that certain words for materials will be reused in MMOs that involve crafting: clay bricks are present in many games.
• The GW1 item was never used for anything and was eventually removed from the game, thus following the link doesn't add to understanding of lore or even of game mechanics past.

As much nostalgia as I have for the original, I think we diminish the connections between the games when we link articles that won't illuminate something for the GW2 player who has never seen GW1.

tl;dr I'd like to see the link removed. – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There was enough of a fuss about the clay brick that it seems worthwhile to remember it as something that caught people's fancy in GW1. It's a pretty solid connection for something not lore based and might prove amusing even to someone who had never played the original.

I'd consider it along similar lines to an easter egg, really. And I certainly don't think the connection is weakened by mentioning this, it's less of a stretch than some of the things I've seen in notes. Binary (talk) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Bin makes great points, and we certainly have links for things that are much less related. Bricks of Mud & Clay Bricks were the subject of a lot of speculation, before they were definitively removed. At the very least, I think its worthy of a Trivia mention (which would probably include a gww link anyway). Thrain | contribs 05:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I have never see a mention of the Clay Brick or the speculation in my time playing Guild Wars, so I disagree that it is considered fascinating. There's no connection between the items besides being a crafting material, which TEF already pointed out can be purely coincidental. I don't consider that a solid connection. As far as being amusing, that's not what the {{gww}} template is used for. That also doesn't make it trivia. Not everything that shares a name with content in Guild Wars needs it noted as trivia. You would have to ask ArenaNet to confirm any connection between the content.--Relyk ~ talk < 06:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

"we certainly have links for things that are much less related" I'd say those links should be removed, too. Actually, I'd say that we should only be using that template for things that have a direct connection in lore, where it might behoove the reader to go and read the other article in order to learn more about the subject. With stuff like skills and items that share the same name (and/or appearance, for items), it doesn't provide any benefit to the reader to go and see what the skill did in GW1 or what the item was like. —Dr Ishmael 12:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and that was the initial push that got me to remove it. Sure, it shares the same name, but it's completely useless outside of the "Oh hey, there was an item named JUST LIKE THAT!". For pages like Kendrick Redstaff, it's perfectly understandable, because there is a clear link between the two pages, as for the Brick of Clay, it's just a common material, and nothing will be gained by adding it in. --Ventriloquist 12:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, the template should only be used where GWW actually expands on the content with relevant information, most commonly for lore. When things like names are shared with GW1, then that’s trivia information and at most deserves a line in the trivia section. poke | talk 13:06, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure a trivia line is worthwhile, but if someone feels that the "easter egg"-ness of something like this really needs to be mentioned, then whatever. —Dr Ishmael 13:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this list, I can see quite a few things that flat out don't exist in GW2, aren't ever referenced too, will only ever be accessed by players coming to *this site* from GWW, and in fact may not even be canon anymore. If you're really that zealous about this page (which has an arguably-more-than-trivial connection) not having a link, then you might want to get to work on those pages as well. Thrain | contribs 14:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

You can bring the issue up on the Community Portal or the template talk page instead of berating people to fix the problem.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have the stamina to spend 6 weeks "discussing" about whether or not Clay Bricks are more relevant than Piles of Glittering Dust, so I guess I have to leave this up to your best judgement. I still think that if this page does not have a gww link, then there are a lot of other pages that need to have it removed as well. Thrain | contribs 00:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Not that I do gw2 stuff, but when I saw the talk page here in recent changes, the first thing I thought of was the Brick of Clay in gw1. -Chieftain Alex 17:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Me too. The non-existant brick of mud that was needed to craft the uncraftable clay brick. For some reason, it was an item held dear to old GW players. A bit like Gwen's paraphernalia, except the poor old b.o.m. never got retconned into anything ...concrete. — snograt 18:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)