Talk:Minister Caudecus

Caudecus is not Caduceus. Similar spellings, different words. --Emelend 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Well noticed... that's what i get for just clicking the first link of google :P ,,"Klumpeet",, 20:26, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

lol--Icyyy Blue 23:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The voices in the human week thing show that he has a power struggle with Queen Jennah. Mango 02:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Minister Caudecus

→ moved from Talk:Minister Caudecus

i like him(:--Icyyy Blue 20:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Isn't it the same character as [1]?? Would it be possible to merge the two? --Gwethelyn 01:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

yeah I'd say that it is :P (203.46.11.172 02:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC))

Merged talk pages. -- Konig/talk 03:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody else think that at the trial, that he looks a fair bit like Arthur Weasley from HP? LOL! At least from some angles. Puk 03:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Move

To [[Caudecus the Wise]]? via new human page-- Shew 13:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the article's name should remain "Caudecus", but the introduction should contain his titles and honorifics. pling 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

k-- Shew 13:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

...Why are we using incomplete names for article titles? This character is called "Legate Minister Caudecus the Wise", not just Caudecus, just like it's use "Uzolan the Artist", not just Uzolan. We should have articles with the full names and redirect from abbreviations, not the other way around. I sincerely hope that no one will suggest moving the Guild Wars 2 article to "GW2"... Erasculio 15:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the point here is that Caudecus' name is "Caudecus," but his title includes "the Wise." Then again, I don't remember naming articles for bosses on the GW1 wiki with simply their names.-- Shew 15:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

One example from GW1W is gw1:Prince Bokka redirects to gw1:Prince Bokka the Magnificent. I think the page name should be with all of his titles and honorifics. Manifold 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

this is 'not' GW1W ^^ --The Holy Dragons 15:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We need a Manual of Style (preferably written by ANet)!-- Shew 15:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Minister Caudecus" would be the longest name acceptable, imo, which is how he's referred to in Edge of Destiny. And this really is not similar to "Guild Wars 2" and "GW2" at all. pling 19:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we should go with just the name until we see their NPC name - Prince Bokka redirects to Prince Bokka the Magnificent because the later is what the NPC is called. Same with Prince Rurik, King Adelbern, and so forth - otherwise they'd just be "Bokka" "Rurik" and "Adelbern." As such, I think this should stay until we see him in game. If the NPC is called "Elegant Ministry Caudecus the Wise, Brilliant, and Most Undrunk" in game, that should be his article's name. If the NPC is called "Caudy" in game, that should be his article name. -- Konig/talk 20:04, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point...& that has my vote.-- Shew 20:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) ""Minister Caudecus" would be the longest name acceptable": Why? Is there any logical, objective reason as to why the title of an article should not be as long as the title of its subject? If he's called "Legate Minister Caudecus the Wise" or "Elegant Ministry Caudecus the Wise, Brilliant, and Most Undrunk", there is no solid reason to not use that as the article's title. Erasculio 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be most common to see him called "Minister Caudecus" or "Caudecus", similar to how "Queen Jennah" or "Jennah" are more common than "Her Royal Majesty, Jennah, Queen of Kryta, Regent of Ascalon". pling 21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

6/12 BWE The name over his head in-game is Minister Caudecus, as well as in his dialogue box. I say change it to that. Kenrid 05:30, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. In-game names should be used for NPC article names. This should be moved. — Rari 12:19, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, too, and it's been a month since this move was originally suggested here, so might as well do it. Unfortunately, the page we want to move it to has an edit history. Razoras 05:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Trivia note

I think I must be more immature than I thought... A F K When Needed 17:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I approve all over it. Seriously. I'm getting flashbacks to Caecilius from the Cambridge Latin Course =D 86.27.189.195 01:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Alathaea

So uhh

Why does he have a robot? 02:27, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Robotic minions are good for all kinds of dastardly schemes. Arshay Duskbrow 02:53, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you lived in a land where cylons robots were real and you were the Legate Minister, wouldn't you have one? Venom20 03:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

He obviously "commissioned" it from the enslaved dredge that are being sold to corrupt Seraph. Konig/talk 19:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Locations

This NPC also appears in the Story mode instance of Caudecus's Manor. How should we indicate that in the info template? I don't imagine we'd want a separate page for him there... or do we? Dialogue spoken by him in the instance would be considered a spoiler. Razoras 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost every NPC will have multiple locations. It'll be hard to denote uniquely named NPCs all of their locations via the infobox. So it won't go there - generic NPCs get their zones denoted in the infobox, then the area in a section titled ==Locations==. In the case of uniquely named NPCs, as per what's being done with Destiny's Edge due to being in about 60+ personal story instance, would be to denote permanent (read: can always access, not tied to a story) locations in the infobox (in this case, Queen's Throne Room, and personal story/dungeon locations be denoted under a Locations section (for those who appear in the persistence, the same just with area as generic NPCs are done). Konig/talk 06:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

New Image

I've uploaded a new image for the minister since when I saw him he did not look like the one pictured here. Apparently the beta was quite gruesome and he's lost a lot of hair. If someone could please confirm that he's now bald with a goatee we can update the image. old Caudecus[[:File: Minister Caudecus new.jpg|new Caudecus]]--Zerebruin 15:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, his model was updated in order to match the Beetletun statue and that broken-head-sculpture in this garden. Konig/talk 19:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I updated the image.--Zerebruin 21:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Move (part 2)

I disagree as that would be a massive spoiler to new players who have not yet reached Season 3. Normally we document articles under the most commonly used name - in this case, Minister Caudecus. This is why the article is not "Legate Minister Caudecus Beetlestone the Wise" or the like. Konig 23:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, wasn't sure what our policy on character development was. I'm fine with seperate articles, he technically coexists in the game in two different locations (CM and now LWS3) anyway. —Ventriloquist 23:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't separate articles, IMO, just because of name/appearance. Otherwise we'd have five different versions of Rytlock articles due to his name showing up as Rytlock, Rytlock Brimstone, Tribune Brimstone, Tribune Rytlock Brimstone, and probably even Tribune Rytlock. We should only separate articles for MASSIVE spoilers like gw1:Undead Prince Rurik was - you know, final boss reveal sort of things. Since this (like Vinetooth Faolain) is kind of "beginning of plot reveal" I wouldn't bother. Konig 23:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

I (surprisingly) don't have a strong opinion about this. As long as the character development/lore is documented somewhere, I'm happy. —Ventriloquist 23:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it's strange that a character who fundamentally changes (somewhat strange to possible minor antagonist), has to share one page for this change. For GW1 multiple characters who underwent this transition also got that treatment, even smaller changes such as undead Rurik got a separate page. --Dav 23:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Since I guess I type to slow and keep getting edit conflict, I agree with Konig. 'nuff said. - Do_odleplex 23:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)