From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

IG icons[edit]

I found the fixate and volatile poison images that are present on the main screen during combat (not the UI effects). Not 100% sure if/how to use them, so if someone wants to use them, they are File:Volatile Poison IG.png, and File:Fixate IG.png The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darqam (talkcontribs) at 00:42 15 March 2016 (UTC).


It was my understanding that the section listed the effects in play during the fight, including all the boss specific effects. Now it's inconsistent with the other boss articles and there's no single section listing the effects and mechanics in a concise way. Seylan (talk) 03:54, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No. That section is for effects on the creature (both during combat and not). The other raid boss articles are inconsistent with the rest of the wiki (except Matthias which I had fixed already, given your comment I'll get to fixing the rest tomorrow as I should be going to sleep now). Skill descriptions should list which - if any - effects they apply to players. Effects section is just for effects applied on the NPC by the NPC. Konig 05:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You've just made the pages, which were documented as both boss/mobs a lot less useful for the sake of cutting them down to some form of consistency with pages of regular mobs. Why can't we have some place for the effects instead of wholesale wiping them and all the work put into it? Seylan (talk) 10:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
And for future reference, maybe you want to discuss things before wholesale removing portions of people's work which they put many hours into for questionable reasons without discussing it first. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate people deleting your lore posts for 'consistency'. Seylan (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You discuss changes to format, not conforming to format. Technically, most of this information belongs on the raid page, just like every other boss in the game does. From Giganticus Lupicus to Tequatl the Sunless, the information for how to fight is not on the NPC pages but the dungeon and event pages.
And honestly, how is it less informative to say "This skill the boss uses applies burning" instead of "This boss applies burning... This skill the boss uses applies burning" - it's not less informative. It's less repetitive. Konig 12:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, it is 100% pointless to just say "this boss applies vulnerability" without saying what causes the vulnerability, but if you're stating what applies vulnerability, then it's pointless to be redundant in stating that the boss applies vulnerability. Konig 12:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
(Reset indent) Don't turn this into an edit war, both of you. Discuss the changes, and then edit the page. Going back and forth with edits won't get you anywhere.
Seylan, keep in mind that not everything listed on the page is related to Slothasor, the subject of this article. Konig, don't just flat out remove piles of text without discussing it first with the only two editors that actually added substance to this article.
Perhaps it would help if we were to use a different format for the (few) raid bosses we have, as it's clear that they require more information than regular bosses. —Ventriloquist 13:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
This isn't how to fight the boss, that's in the walkthrough. This is things which happen during the boss fight, which doesn't happen in isolation with the boss. It includes the players and the boss arena. I'm not going to clutter the walkthrough to detail every effect in play; it doesn't belong there. As far as I'm concerned, it's as much about the boss as an NPC as the encounter itself. I've split the effects on the boss from the effects that get applied to players, and I'll wait until Darq gets on to weigh in on anything to do with formatting for a raid boss article. Seylan (talk) 14:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I disagree that "the things which happen during the boss fight, which doesn't happen in isolation with the boss" belong here (which is about the boss specifically) rather than the walkthrough (which is about the boss fight). No one is saying to put every effect on the walkthrough - you don't need to list the conditions (note: conditions and effects are different things - effects are buffs and debuffs which cannot be removed by normal (condi cleanse/boon strip) means) on the walkthrough, but you don't need to list them twice on this page either.
It is fully pointless to have one line that reads:
"Burning - Deals damage every second; stacks intensity."
And a second line not far above/below that reads:
"Halitosis - Casts a frontal flame breath that applies Burning 40px.png Burning, up to 8 stacks for a full unavoided channel."
Your very literally duplicating the information. Both are outright stating "the boss applies burning" but one states in addition "this is how". We do not need redundant information, which is half of what I removed.
Furthermore, about the "arena effects" - those are not part of Slothasor, but are part of the fight, and therefore belong on the walkthrough and is the second half of what I removed. Konig 15:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
With regards to redundant information; I think the main point was simply to have a concise list of what you can get hit by; without having to read everything prior. Granted the whole description might be excessive (as I expect most people doing raids know what effects do) but was put there for the sake of full information.
As for mechanics; the issue with removing things from here and having them only on the walkthrough is, according to me, that the information gets buried in the walkthrough. Additionally we don't have the pages for the events "defeat <raid boss>". The main goal of these pages was that you could find everything you needed to know about the boss on his/her/its page. Originally I think walkthroughs were going to be on this page as well, however simply to keep a flow to the walkthroughs they were moved to the raid wing page.
I get that these pages kind of go against the norm, but I thinks it's warranted. That said; if we can clean up the page so that there is no unneeded repeat information then I am all for it. The main goal for me having to remain that players can get all their information about the raid boss, on the raid boss' page. -Darqam (talk) 15:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You and I disagree about what belongs here. As far as I'm concerned, it's a raid boss, and this is the best place to list what happens in the fight. The walkthrough deals with how to do the mechanics, not what mechanics are there. Imagine describing everything that happens in the fight on the walkthrough page instead of having it on like the stats and info page of a TCG. It would be excessively cluttered instead of a tl;dr how to beat him. The conditions are lsited again so give a picture of what condis are around without having to wade through individual skills, and they tend to have multiple sources. I agree the pages are messy, but you didn't just demove the condis. You pretty much removed every special effect (of which the bosses have multiple) and arena mechanic description which was discussed to be included well before you turned up to delete things. Seylan (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
@Darq: Concise does not mean lacking information; it's possible to be concise without redundant listing or keeping information out, and that's what should be worked towards. With regards to "getting lost" - this discussion was had ages ago with the Giganticus Lupicus, which was the original "tough fight" of the game, with folks wanting the walkthrough on the NPC page - end consensus was, iirc, that if people need it, they are able and willing to go to the part of the walkthrough that is about the fight, and the NPC should only link to the walkthrough rather than contain it.
@Seylan: "how to deal with the mechanics" includes "what mechanics are there". So you're just replicating information, once again, where there is no need for this replication. You already need to see both this page and the walkthrough for both how to deal with mechanics and the effects the boss applies; having the effects the boss applies twice in a single page is not necessary.
All I'm trying to do is reduce duplication in a form that keeps consistent format. Konig 18:07, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
So what? Just because some of the information is somewhere else, means it has no right to exist on another page, where it arguably belongs more than anywhere else. Pages which are as much about a fight referred to by the same name, because of some ultimately arbitrary, must-adhere to bygone user decided rules no matter what the reasoning and usefulness to people mindset? Don't even bring Lupi into this. Is Lupi a raid boss with far more complex group and environmental mechanics? No? Is the wiki going to end because some raid boss pages have some extra information consistent within itself for reference purposes? Are we going to remove indexes from books now because they duplicate information? You're arguing for conciseness and rules for their own sake. This is asinine. I don't even want to go into how the page looked after you gutted it of 2/3 of the things mob is involved with. Seylan (talk) 20:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Your right, this is getting asinine. If you so desperately want to have the same information on the same page within five lines within itself, then feel free. But stating that the Slothasor, at some point, can provide poison is far less effective than stating which skill - and describing the skill's animation - applies poison. Which was the direction I was going towards - sadly, I do not know which skill applies which so I could only go to what was on the page, which is literally "Applies conditions on hit." - very useful.
Current format literally states that Slothasor gets fixated on one player twice, states it applies burning twice, and states it knocks down twice. Why state "it can knock down" when five lines above it states which skill knocks it down - with the proper formatting, the condition isn't going to be buried in lines of text. There is no point in this duplication of information, and you've yet to state why the duplication of information on the same page is necessary.
And stop exaggerating, please, because removing duplicate lines was not removing 2/3rd of the article. Even by the sad argument of characters, I only removed a fourth of it (from 4,387 to 3,050) but in terms of information the only non-repeated stuff was about the environment, which I would disagree "belongs more" here more than elsewhere (this isn't an article about the environment, it's not an article about the boss fight, it's an article about the boss and its - and only its - capabilities). Would it end the wiki if raid bosses are different? No. Is there a reason for raid bosses to be different? No. And I'd say a long list of conditions adds nothing to the article except lengthening it. Konig 21:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Tell me how it goes when you cut out the screaming figure from the scream and describe only part of the whole by itself without the rest of the picture. The bosses exist within their context with their environment, and that is as much a part of the whole package. Sorry, no further amount of arguing back and forth and trashing the work I've put into this is going to convince me that information belongs only somewhere else. It's not killing anyone to have an index of abilities, especially of the large number of unique ones which would just clutter the walkthrough page (and which I'm not going to split a second page for). Seylan (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Okay, I'm going to use your analogy in the simplest way I can to show what I did:

  • Current version:
The figure screams. The figure screams by opening its mouth. Near the figure is a box. (Other page: Near the figure that screams is a box that you can open.)
  • Format rules would ultimately result in:
The figure screams by opening its mouth. (Other page: Near the figure that screams by opening its mouth is a box that you can open.)

Which is simpler to figure out? Which is less redundant? Which has less wording? All answers: the latter. But hey, if you're so intent on repeating information that doesn't help players in said repetition, feel free. I'm done trying to clean up this part of the wiki. Konig 00:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I can see that analogy went completely over your head, and you missed the point. Maybe it would be better saying it's a car crash scene, but you're trying to describe what happened by only including the one crashed car. Or here is a guy. Forget that he's on a road and nevermind the car behind him. You don't think it's important to have those elements in a holistic space, and hey here's some rules and tradition. Not to mention everyone who wrote those thought it was fine to include what was included. I can work on making a format which is clearer and less confusing, and preserves that element of mob consistency you seen to want to rabidly defend. But the context stays. Seylan (talk) 09:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)