Talk:Orrian Fire-eater
I believe it is known that one can only find one of these creatures only during a personal story mission.
While this may be the case, the creature has no involvement in the personal story, triggers no dialogue from any npcs, and is actually a good distance out of the way from the path players must take to complete the mission.
To imply that it is "involved" in a personal story by applying a corresponding heading to a section is almost misinformation.
It is no more "involved" in this personal story than any other destroyable object creatures Risen Rotmouth Bone Tendril Risen Hand are involved in others etc.
The creature can found in the personal story instance and nothing more.
I am adding this note to explain why I am reverting the edit made to this article.
If you believe that this object/creature truly does require this heading on this section, please discuss it here rather than editing the page once more 98.193.124.175 00:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- In this case, "involvement" simply means that something appears in a specific PS mission. It's a formatting standard we use across the wiki, regardless of how important the NPC actually is during that mission. —Dr Ishmael
03:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- To put it in other words, "Location" is used for open world/non-story instance (e.g., Seraph Headquarters) locations; "Story involvement" is used for where they can be found in story instances (Personal Story and Living World). Konig 18:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
So then you still need to add an involvement section to about a thousand other articles where it is missing? Glad you started with this one. 98.193.124.175 05:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
- New comments go to the bottom. In a manner of speaking, yes, though we tend to keep such only to non-generic NPCs. Son of Svanir would be insanely long if we listed every single story instance with an NPC named such. As such, it's not really a priority to most users, but it wouldn't be wrong to add such a section. Konig 17:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
IMHO, A wiki should strive for uniformity while remaining informative. Edits were made to this article, even when they go against all of the other articles in the same category (destroyable objects). This article was created using the same template as all of the other articles in the came category, yet it was altered. I honestly feel as if both of you simply edited the article to make it appear as if you made a contribution in some way. The article has had no information added (save a note about stealth which is again completely irrelevant.... and should then be listed on every destroyable object article if you decide to add it to this one to maintain uniformity -- Something that won't ever happen since it is foolish) and instead has had uniformity removed by altering a section which all of these types of articles contain. The article was fine almost immediately after its creation, and now it lacks the uniformity that the other articles in the same category share. Surprising coming from a wikipedia admin... but then again not surprising given his history on GW + GW2 wikis of making 'oh look I contributed' "edits"98.193.124.175 13:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that a wiki should strive to be uniform as well as informative, and I've also been called out for being oppressive, egotistical, an asshole, and worse for attempting such. However, I am uncertain on two things:
- Is this really an object by game mechanics? I recall it being a For. It either changed, the article is wrong, or I misremember.
- What, exactly, is not treated like other objects that is also incorrect? Keep in mind that most editors don't pay attention to uniformity perfectly, or don't know all the coding formatting (for what there is with wikis) to know to create that uniformity. And those that do, cannot or simply do not attempt to go through all articles to ensure uniformity.
- Rather than discussing here on an obscure page, I would suggest either taking our word for format and change the articles you see are not the same, or go to a more generic talk page related to this topic, which will be in the Guild Wars 2 Wiki: namespace. Konig 14:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to note that the stealth note I added was added not for the stealth mechanic, but instead because of the unique mission mechanic provided by Tegwen with full party permanent stealthing that allows bypassing this thing absolutely, whereas normal stealth is not permanent and allied NPCs will not ignore fighting enemies under it (they will if you tell Tegwen to stealth everyone). The mechanic of stealth provided by the mission NPCs is unique to the mission, just as this object is. It is not something that exists for *any* other object. Konig 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- @98.193.124.175: The way you talk about others editing this article actually makes it appear more as if you were overly protective of “your article”. Please note that there is no ownership of articles. Everybody is welcome to improve any article, regardless of whether it’s a large edit that adds lots of content, or a minor edit that just adjusts the formatting to the overall practices of the wiki. If you disagree with those, you are free to voice your opinion in a civilized manner—without attacking individuals—in a more appropriate location (e.g. here).
- Finally note that special things (e.g. like an object that appears only in a single story instance, is an object although it is more like a foe (?), and that there is a special stealth in the instance that behaves differently like others) deserve special treatment, so going off from what we usually do is fine. poke | talk 14:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
