Talk:Malyck

Dispute

→ moved from User talk:Konig Des Todes#Malyck
Your edit to the page now means that the page gives undue weight to the idea that Malyck's Tree does not have a Dream, when in fact it seems likely that it does, but Malyck's connection is somehow lessened due to distance or injury (he would not feel a sense of loss otherwise, nor would he have any knowledge of language etc.). Now we are just left with a statement that Malyck does not experience the Dreams as the other sylvari do, next to Trahearne's (probably wrong) speculation that he may not experience a Dream (which was a throwaway line, I just included it for balance with the idea that he was severed rather than having no Dream at all). You know as well as I do that people do not necessarily read the wiki carefully, and I don't want people who use it as a lore reference (most of the community, I think) to be misled. I also consider the removed sentence about Malyck's assurance to the PC to be important, as it tells us that Malyck's story isn't done, and that ANet intends to continue the personal story using influences from character creation (which is what I'd suspected, since some things like asura mentors aren't referenced in the story iirc). Finally, why did you remove the quote and change the page from the format suggested at GW2W:NPC? --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I did the storyline, but I recall it giving a great impression that his tree doesn't have a Dream of Dreams. Either way, my intention was to make it sound like "either he was cut off, or he his tree doesn't have a DoD connection" rather than giving weight to either possibility.

It's pretty strong to say that sylvari cannot know of language if they don't experience the Dream of Dreams - I mean, there can be other means of a tree giving knowledge of the basic aspects, and it could be equally likely that he's a speedy learner with language. That's pretty much a loop hole in the story, tbh. All three are possibilities, and none should be favored - nor was it my intention to favor unless presented as being favored in-game.

I removed the re-assurance because I felt the purpose of it was already given in the previous sentence of "to return with an army with which to fight the Elder Dragons."

Continuing personal storyline influences are more or less irrelevant to Malyck's article, I would argue.

The formatting article does not - anywhere - include the use of {{quotation}}. So I did not change the page away from the format suggested at that place with that, and I removed it because it was both unnecessary, leads to many disputes, and is overall uncommonly used on NPC articles (and, I would argue, preferred not to be used - even by you in the past, in fact, though you seem to have changed your stance on its "ugliness" (to use your description of the template) in recent months). That format guideline is vastly out of date regarding personal storyline involvement - Malyck's article, to how I changed it in that regard, fit the majority of articles. Konig/talk 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought the same thing when I expanded the Dream of Dreams article, but when I came to do Malyck and went through the storyline it became pretty clear that that wasn't the case. There's a video of one version of the storyline here. It doesn't say explicitly that his Tree carries its own Dream, but it is hinted, and nowhere does it say that he has no Dream.

Documenting his future presence in the game is important if it isn't necessarily obvious (for example it's a safe bet to say we'll be seeing Trahearne again), and I don't think this is. It's an intentional hint by ANet at future content, and I think the wiki should reflect that.

The formatting article doesn't include the use of {{quotation}}, but by no means does it forbid it (or even mention it either). I am fine with the use of the template where appropriate - for example that quote about Malyck is very significant, and talks of the "dark" that isn't mentioned anywhere else in the storyline. Rather than provide a misleading analysis (it could just be referring to the fact that the cave is dark) it is better in that case to just leave the quote to sit. In the case of Zomorros a few months ago, that was a quote that succinctly and slightly amusingly summarised the character, and the quotes on the god pages were in keeping with the GWW tradition. None of these quotes were hurting anyone, and I don't think in those cases the template was ugly. In those cases it comes to a matter of personal preference (which is why their removal wouldn't have been non-controversial and should have been discussed first imo). This is what I would consider an example of an ugly usage, as it results in almost a duplicate first paragraph, is huge, and doesn't add anything but an official quote to the article. Dialogue etc. is by far preferable. The only "many disputes" I am aware of is you objecting to my usage of it.

As for the format guideline being out of date, if that is the case then you should at least start a discussion on changing it, rather than going gung-ho and changing other articles (I have no idea whether "the majority" of articles fit the format you changed it to) to fit a format that has never been discussed. You can't hide behind policy in, for example, stating authoritatively that unseen NPC's do not get an infobox, something which actually has never been discussed as far as I can see, and then minutes later claim that you have bypassed the existing formatting guidelines, which were designed by a number of editors, because you consider them out of date. If the the guideline is wrong, then it needs to be changed, rather than just going ahead and pretending the guidelines don't exist - if everyone did that - there'd be no points in us having guidelines at all. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll watch the video in a moment, though iirc it was mentioned in an NPC dialogue box during Caithe's story path that he had no Dream experience. IIRC, Trahearne's path brings doubt to it, while Caithe's confirms it.

It already mentions he returns once, do you truly think we need to write what effectively would be "he says he will return with an army. He says he will return."? I don't. It's redundant.

On the quotation template - I suppose this is where our opinions on the template divide. You say quoting official descriptive text becomes unsightly, while I say quoting stuff to make the wiki lighthearted is unsightly. No, the format guideline doesn't condone the usage of it, nor does it promote it. The other disputes I refer to are actually in reference to the template's usage on the Destiny's Edge member pages (e.g., Rytlock Brimstone), which I recall it being overall disagreed upon. Though I cannot remember exactly where it was discussed - and these lines were much like the one on Zomorros' article - a lighthearted line quoting the NPC which provided nothing to the article (and unlike common belief, "existing without adding anything does no harm" is not all that true).

As to out-of-date. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention to those things anymore. There were discussions for how things should be formatted, and other things just got changed on some articles and the convention carried over (and in some cases, old styles continue despite the formatting guidelines becoming updated). I agree that guidelines need to be changed - thing is, as I said, I don't pay much attention to them given how frequently they're out of date in the past few months, and as such I don't realize when they are. I'd have updated it already, but updating it while discussing it with you felt like a bad idea. For "majority" - I admit, it's subjective, as in the majority that I've seen (read: all of the articles I've seen never include the format you used for personal story influence). Konig/talk 22:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Point by point: in either case, the article should give weight to both ideas which it doesn't at the moment.

Do you truly think you need to talk in rhetorical questions? I don't. It's rude.

Could you please link me to the discussion? And the quotation in question, on Malyck, is far more important than Zommoros' quote, and you have failed to address that.

On the formatting guidelines, it's up to you whether you pay attention to the guidelines or not, but when another contributor goes around bringing articles into the agreed format and you go around reverting them or converting them to your own, that is unacceptable. How are people supposed to keep up with what you think the guidelines should be in your own head, when you haven't written them down anywhere? Although you have absolute faith on the quality of your edits (which is reasonable, you wouldn't have made the edits otherwise), that doesn't necessarily mean they are perfect, and the guidelines exist so that things like this can be scrutinized before being rolled out onto the whole wiki en masse. It's like the screenshot naming debacle - your ideas may or may not be correct, but they shouldn't be applied to the entire wiki without being discussed first. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I did retain that part for you when once more fixing format, so if it still doesn't, it's your wording that's bad.

Funny.

If I could remember where it was, I would have - it's really hard diving through discussions of multiple talk pages to try to find a discussion from what was, I believe, in 2010.

It's not my own format. Get that through your head - in fact, I'm conforming them to a format someone else began. Again, I would have updated the guideline, but like I said I found it to be in poor form while the matter is a topic of your argument on me. And I never once laid claim that my edits are perfect nor do I think they are - why you believe such is beyond my comprehension (proof, in fact, that it's not perfect). And if you recall correctly, it was actually you who were going about without prior discussion with the screenshot naming fiasco - as while the template (old as the coding was) had what you were doing you were going against just about every other naming format out there and reverting more than just my attempts to update the template. Konig/talk 23:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

In the screenshot naming scenario, there was an "official" way to name screenshots (from the template), and there was a way that you decided was more prevalent on the wiki, and so should be used, and you went around changing them all without any sort of policy discussion and resisted any attempt at having one until very late in the day - the entire conflict could have been avoided by starting a discussion first. This is no different - how is a user new to the wiki supposed to know how to document NPC pages when the format that you have decided is the best one is not documented anywhere? That is why we have the guidelines in the first place, and you are not so special that you get to ignore the guidelines that have been established by other editors through discussion in favour of one that has been decided by you or another editor to be the correct one. I have moved this discussion to Malyck's talk page, as it's desperately in need of some third party input, and it doesn't seem right to have this argument by who has the energy to argue for the longest. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

To prevent further off-topicness, I didn't decide anything, nor start it - I followed others' goings, and others also followed it, except you. I just did the major alterations no one else would do without assigning a bot to them, because unlike others, I don't mind editing 100+ articles back to back.

Again, I did not decide on any format. I'm merely following what I see to be the most common and most logical approach. I don't ignore guidelines - not intentionally - but I don't go out of my way to keep them up to date when doing so would require changing them every other freaking day (even now, months after release, formats are changing and people are still stuck on the old formats). And again: I would alter it, given that it was brought to my attention that it is out of date (and again, I did not decide the more common place formatting despite your claims! You just see me altering things to these formats that I saw others make and agree with, that's all, so stop making false proclamations (even after I tell you otherwise) please!), but I'm sure you'll have a pissyfit about me doing that too. So, you know what? With you, I'm done. I give up. You win, you're right and always right, because and you'll just debate and debate away and get nothing done until you are right. Konig/talk 20:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not going too deep into above discussion. This is discussion is old and discussed elsewhere on the wiki. Actions have been taken. This page is a remaint of this. seeing this dicussion is dead for a while and how the page is now, I replaced the dispute notice with a speculation notice, both repsecting this discussion and the outcome.195.240.63.18 13:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Secret

The secret Scarlet mentions in Nightmare Chambers is obviously the fact that Malyck comes from an another tree. That Scarlet knows about this is rather worrisome as she now works with Nightmare Court too, or at least a section of it, and the very point of "Where life goes" was to prevent the Court from learning about the other tree. Rakuin (talk) 20:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you'r seeing too much behind that. She only mentions it when you did that specific storyline. She also has lines for all other storylines you could have chosen.195.240.63.18 15:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I know. I followed documenting of those lines very closely. But the existence of another Tree always felt extra special. And Scarlet knowing about the other Tree made me uncomfortable. In the light of the most recent update, Battle for Lion's Arch, I have come to conclusion that Scarlet never intended to reveal this fact to Nightmare Court. She had greater plans. Like awakening the dragon who the Trees serve as champions. Pure speculation, but I have always liked the "The Pale Tree is dragon champion" theory. Rakuin (talk)

Hooo boy. Point of No Return sure put a final stamp on this theory. I hope we get to see Malyck make an appearance, or see if his meeting the player character, Caithe and Trahearne leave a good impression on their cousins. --108.202.168.241 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

'Debunking Asura Theory'

"Physically, Malyck resembles the sylvari of the Pale Tree, debunking the popular asura theory that the sylvari take the humanoid form that they do because the Pale Tree was planted on the grave of the human Ronan's family."

This doesn't actually debunk the theory at all. The theory goes that as the Pale Tree was planted at the ruins of Ronan's village, the Sylvari were influenced in phenotype by the remains of the dead.

To claim the theory is debunked, we have to assume that there are no human remains in the vicinity of the second Pale Tree, and that therefore the Sylvari and their Fern Hounds take the forms that they do simply because of the nature of the Pale Tree species. However, there ARE human ruins in the vicinity of Magus Falls - there's a Temple of Balthazar, which suggests there was significant human habitation in the area at one point.

Therefore, this sentence is misleading and should be removed. --The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.72.207.229 (talk).

Arguably, the theory is debunked but not by Malyck. See this interview, specifically the final question on sylvari - the one of their appearance and designing them, Kristen states that they are humanoid because they are made in the Pale Tree's interpretation of humanity due to the influence from Ronan. Konig 17:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal story - of Sylvari. Should that be mentioned?

Or am I the only one who at first thought he forgot that part of the story? (Considering it was years ago where I didn't play GW2...)--Cyberman 15:38, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

If what you're referring to is the Story involvement section, it technically is done. "Chapter 2: The Teachings of Ventari" is a sylvari-only chapter name. And it's fairly clear given Ventari has little to do with any other race. Konig (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)