From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search


Never liked Kryta in GW1, hopefully it will be better in GW2. Cress Arvein 02:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way for it, although it felt like the center of Prophecies to me. Calor Talk 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Possibly because it was. Lord Belar 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I liked the Crystal Desert best in Prophecies. Didn't like the Jungle much. --User Pling sig.png pling | ggggg 15:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, my favourite outpost was Deldrimor Warcamp because of the great music there :D --User Pling sig.png pling | ggggg 15:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Same here. I'd park my char there just to listen to the music. :P Lord Belar 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hmm; that's exactly what I did after posting that last comment --User Pling sig.png pling | ggggg 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Kryta seems like it will have more inhabited zones this time around, which for me will help a bit.Tambora 22:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Ahhh Kryta I never really like the senary :/--Icyyy Blue User IcyyyBlue Elementalist Blue.png 20:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Architecture and fashion[edit]

There is a clear departure of architecture and fashion style for Kryta from GW to GW2. In GW, Krytan buildings are angular, with straw roof and small windows. In Guild Wars 2, the Krytan architecture and fashion look more like those from Ascalon of the original GW. -- 09:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Its more like the Victorian style we had on earth, what you see in many European cities. -- Cyan User Cyan Light sig.jpg 10:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I think it's really become a bit of a mix. There were screenshots of a chinese-looking place said to be in Divinity's Reach somewhere, for instance. And I was told that both Kryta and Ascalon have a lot of influences from Elona (in more than the addition of harpies being everywhere). But the most dominant structure influence in Divinity's Reach would indeed seem to be Ascalonian. But it's a mix. Along with new. -- Konig/talk 13:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Divinity's Reach is a mish-mash of all its peoples' architecture; the "chinese-looking place" is a kind of Canthatown/Little Cantha. Probably. pling User Pling sig.png 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ministry Guard[edit]

Wonder how the Ministry Guard will fit in. Guess we'll find out Friday. Ramei Arashi 18:07, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Based on there opposition to the Seraph, allegiance to Caudaucus (who in some sense opposes Queen Jennah). I would guess they would be the equivalent of The Flame Legion of the Charr, Sons of Svanir of the Norn,and Nightmare Court of the Sylvari.


Putting the explorables nav seems a little bit clumsy so I haven't gone ahead and done it, but a reminder/request for some sort of navigation/list of greater areas on these region pages. At the moment, the absence of such linkage is creating a one-way street: one can navigate to 'Kryta' from 'Gendarran Fields', but one cannot navigate back. Redshift 14:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created placeholder sections in each region which has known "explorable zones" - I think that since there's currently only 3 known in a region max atm, perhaps probably will only have about 5-8 at most, we could include this list in the infobox when its created, same (/more so) with city/cities. Konig/talk 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the smoothing that out. :) Redshift 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Southsun Cove[edit]

Southsun Cove isnt part of this. need to be removed to prevent confusion.--Knighthonor (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Per game mechanics, e.g. daily "Krytan" achievements, it is. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 02:50, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Map missing?[edit]

Shouldn't this page have a map, like detailed regions do? -- Rzhaman 20:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, all region articles should have a map - preferably one fully explored and zoomed in just enough to have the clear map rather than the painterly one. Only Ruins of Orr has a map among the regions atm, which needs to have a clear version uploaded over it. Konig 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article[edit]

There's been an editor-made suggestion to split the article because "the region of Kryta is now distinct from the Kingdom of Kryta, with the Dominion of Winds, Lion's Arch and Harathi Hinterlands all being part of the region but not the kingdom, and Caledon Forest being part of the historical kingdom." I'm of two minds about this: on the one hand I could see this being solved by just writing an extensive history about the kingdom on Kryta's page and pointing out the areas it has historically controlled and how it's distinct from the present-day region, but on the other hand there's a case to be made for the kingdom itself needing a separate page due to the wealth of information about its colorful past, socioeconomic and political stuff, and how the present-day region of Kryta doesn't reflect the borders of the present-day Kingdom of Kryta (due to the aforementioned tengu and centaur areas in the region) so having both of this stuff listed on the same page may be confusing to some wiki visitors. I'd be curious to hear what others think about this proposal and if the split is warranted. --Kossage (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The same editor has already created Kingdom of Ascalon, presumably with the same mindset. Personally, I do not see the splits as necessary; as it stands, at least, the Kingdom of Ascalon article holds little information that would be informative or interesting over the Ascalon and Tyrian royalty family tree articles. I've waited to begin a discussion to see where Santax wanted to take it, but IMO, just as Elona serves to talk about both the continent and the nation without much issue, Ascalon and Kryta articles can talk about both the region and the human nations. Right now, both Ascalon and Kryta articles lack in historical details due to an early decision to keep lore that isn't post-GW1 on the GWW and not on the GW2W (same goes for Human), but that can be reverted, and I don't see a value in making bullet lists for things like counties or nobility given how impossible it would be to properly fill them out and how little importance they hold to lore. As for past historical borders, I have considered the idea of making images of various timeframes that show the borders of those eras; in the case of Kryta, the borders would reflect what we know of the years 100 BE - 300 AE; 300 AE - ~800 AE; 800 AE - 1120 AE; and 1120 AE - present. Konig (talk) 04:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I think in the case of Elona the nation is a little less distinct from the continent. The Kingdom of Elona existed during the Primeval Dynasty, the Great Dynasty, the reign of Turai Ossa, and the reign of Palawa Joko. During those times it encompassed enough of the continent that (as far as I know) no other sovereign states existed on the continent. I mean, I could still see the case for splitting them - there's plenty you could say about Elonian culture, architecture (there have been a lot of different styles), fashion, government and military structure etc. which would fit better on a page about the government than about the geographical region, and there's plenty you could say about e.g. the geography of Elona that'd go better on a page about the continent than a page about the government.
I don't think Ascalon and Kryta's pages lack information because of keeping GW1 and GW2 information separate. It's obviously appropriate to synthesise different sources of information to form a complete story of the nation's history on its page, as long as it doesn't go into unnecessary detail about the storyline of GW1. I think they lack information because nobody's written it yet.
As for the territorial divisions in Ascalon - I find that kind of stuff interesting. Other people might as well. Santax (talk · contribs) 07:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I will say that in the case of Ascalon, the distinction is definitely worthwhile because "Ascalon" and the "Kingdom of Ascalon" are in no way synonymous. When a character says, "the Black Citadel is in Ascalon" they clearly are referring to the region rather than the kingdom, so we shouldn't link to a page about the kingdom because the territorial divisions of the previous occupants of the land are of no interest to someone interested in the current state of Ascalon. Similarly, if an article opens with, "Gwen Thackeray was a famous Ascalonian hero", the article is referring to the kingdom of Ascalon, so why link to an article about the geographical region which is now almost entirely occupied by the charr? Santax (talk · contribs) 12:35, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Just my two cents from never playing Guild Wars, I've never heard of the Kingdom of Ascalon, and don't have a clue about it. As a result, I'd think the history stuff would be better on Ascalon's page since otherwise I'd never know where to look for it other than the GW1 wiki. - Doodleplex 13:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Any reference to being "in", "of", or "from" Ascalon can easily refer to the region as much as either the human kingdom or the charr territory of the same geographical locale. While they're not explicitly synonymous per se, if it means either of the political territories, it will also mean the region. Since these articles are about the geographic region, and house a history section, it'll also inevitably document the political boundaries that were within them.
My main issue is the lack of importance the details currently provided by Kingdom of Ascalon give. As it stands, once finished the importance of the Kingdom of Ascalon article will be the "History" section, and the history of the kingdom is also the history of the region, so there's no reason for it to not be on the region article. Same goes for Kryta and hypothetical Kingdom of Kryta. Konig (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) If they are split, we likely should have do it for all nations and regions. (ex w:United Kingdom and w:British Isles articles on wikipedia) It would be a fairly large project, and I'm not sure we as a community really have the interest to see it through to completion. Also, would we want to separate out current states from previous states? Ascalon, Istan, Kourna, Orr, and Vabbi all have undergone MAJOR changes in their sovereignty over the course of gw1 and 2 which may merit separate articles in the event we do choose to split them. horrible | contribs 18:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, we do already have separate pages for some of them - for example, we're talking about whether we should have a page for the previous state governing the territory of Ascalon, but we already have a page for the current one - the Iron Legion - and the system of government of a High Legion more generally. We have a page for the Moletariate, the government of the dredge. We have pages for each individual human church (which barely ever get mentioned in the game - but I think it's absolutely right that we have pages for them), we have pages for the military order for each individual branch of Krytan government, so why not a page for the Kingdom of Kryta itself?
I think the reason such pages don't already exist is because of the near-pathological fear of redlinks that we seem to have on this wiki. If we let links stand to pages that do not yet exist but should exist, it would provide an impetus to readers to participate and create those pages. I think if we organise the pages for existing states and territories properly and ensure on the wiki that where we are referring to (for example) the Kingdom of Kryta rather than the territory of Kryta we link to the page for the Kingdom of Kryta, those pages will eventually fill out - as they should. Santax (talk · contribs) 07:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Wouldn't an article on the "government of Kryta" technically be Ministry (or "Salmaic dynasty" as Sea of Sorrows names post-GW1 rulership) and not "Kingdom of Kryta"? The articles Moletariate and High Legion do not cover territory that they rule(d) nor a list of administrated areas of land nor a list of individuals of wealth within the government's ruled body. Though it's just my opinion, including such would seem weirdly placed on these articles (maybe including a list of members would make sense, e.g., Captain's Council, but no more). They're articles on the group of governments, not the nations (such as they are). Konig (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I think there's a few related but distinct concepts that we're trying to document here. There's the territory of Kryta (Kryta), the state of Kryta (Kingdom of Kryta), the government of Kryta (Ministry), and the royal house of Kryta (Salmaic dynasty). In the examples I gave above, Iron Legion is a state (so we do have pages for those), and Moletariate is somewhere between a state and a government. And FWIW, I don't think it'd be a bad idea to put a list of high-ranking members on the Iron Legion page. Santax (talk · contribs) 07:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Still not sure we need a "state of Kryta" etc. articles. I recommend flushing out Kingdom of Ascalon to a more notable point, since it already exists, so that we have a more defined example of what such an article would be. I wouldn't really compare its current form to something like Iron Legion though. Konig (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I am personally a big fan of seperating states from lands, because it makes it easier for us to link to the appropriate content and for people to find what they are exactly looking for. --Doctor Refrence (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) As suggested, I've expanded the article. Santax (talk · contribs) 14:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of the article is history of the land. Which can easily just fit on Ascalon without issue. The culture part could easily fit as a sub-section of Human, since what little is there is already a compare and contrast to other human cultures. The dutchies/counties/cities, if people find interesting, can be part of the Ascalon article too, though I don't think it's necessary (nor do I find the list of nobles all that interesting, though if folks do, that could be an expansion on the family tree stuff I'm sure).
I just see no reason to split, other than to make people browse through more articles for the same topics.
On an side, regarding the recent discrepancy tag - not much of a discrepancy, in all honesty, given that 1) there's about a dozen sources (not just Orrian History Scrolls) saying the coastal lands of Kryta were established by Mazdak the Accursed in rivalry with his father (Doric), and 2) when Elona colonized, they expanded further north (instigating the human-centaur conflict), and 3) most importantly, a foreign nation can indeed colonize land that is inhabited by a different people already (prime example: Britain colonizing the Americas, Africa, India, etc.). TL;DR, Kryta was colonized twice. Once by rebels of Orr, once by Elonians ~300-400 years later. Konig (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd rather keep this discussion focused on the split. I disagree that the majority of this article is a history of the region of Ascalon. The region of Ascalon and the Kingdom of Ascalon have historically been very intertwined, but they are distinct entities. I also don't think that it would be appropriate to have a list of territorial divisions of a human kingdom on an article about a region that is entirely occupied by charr - those territorial divisions are how the kingdom divided the region, and they are not meaningful to the charr.
Finally, I don't see how splitting the information on this page across the pages of Ascalon, humans, Tyrian royalty family tree, etc. solves the problem of users having to browse through more articles on the same topic. If there is any information on this page that would also be appropriate on another page, there is no reason why it cannot be duplicated or even transcluded on that page. Santax (talk · contribs) 09:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)