Talk:Summon/Archive 3

So..

Why are there still two of the same pages about this subject? They both contain exactly the same info and are both wrong.

On the "Summoned ally" page about a summon: They can be used by any profession. On the Summon page: Types of Summons, by profession.

The pages clearly contradict each other and the defenition of the difference summoned ally and summon is terribly vague, if not plain wrong. All professions can summon things. All races can also summon things. Some runes and sigils make you summon things. Done. There only has to be one page that sums up all summons. I have read the earlier discussions about this, but can't seem to find anyone against deleting a page with constructive arguments. Please delete things. Qiff 14:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If the pages are, as you say, "both wrong", then we can't delete anything yet. First, you should read through the discussion pages for both of them to learn the history of how they came to be (this page was originally at Pet, for one thing). Once you've done that, edit one page or the other to be correct, making sure to preserve all pertinent information from both pages. Finally, make sure to update any links that point to the page you want to delete, then tag it for deletion with {{delete|<reason>}}. —Dr Ishmael 15:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I did not mean that the information about the subject (and therefore the page) is wrong, but my example above clearly shows that there is a distinct contradiction on both pages. I'll try to read the whole discussion, after which I will probably come to the conclusion that it is far too much work to make one page out of these two.. Qiff 19:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Summoned ally is a dumb page name, I already explained this on the talk page of summon. I got reverted without any discussion; people keep listing banners, turrets, and conjures as allies when these are actually summoned objects. All the summon page needs to do is divide into sections for allies and objects, then by profession skills, equipment, and items. The term summoned ally itself is misleading because some summons display minion behavior like minions, the parrot, and Ogre Pet Whistle pet.--Relyk ~ talk > 19:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That is excactly my idea. :) I also can't think, without reading the page histories, of any arguments as to why this page must stay and how it escalated so badly from the page Pet, which is no summon at all.. Qiff 22:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Banners should be removed from the list

I feel like banners aren't 'summoned allies' because they aren't subject to boons/effects such as stability from Hallowed Ground and Battle Presence. When a skill/trait states that it affects nearby allies, then all allies are obviously affected (circular reasoning, yes I know). In turn, the banners should gain stability or battle presence IF they were allies, but in recent testing, as of 5 minutes ago, the banners did not gain stability or battle presence ,and therefore, makes banners not 'allies'. The page ('Summoned Ally') name's definition has a word that conflicts with the pre-existing word 'ally' and should be renamed for accuracy purposes.--Eclipse143 (talk) 10:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I agree - if you'll check previous discussion, you'll see that I've argued this same point before, but consensus always overruled me. Banners, turrets, and conjures should not be on this page, or it should be renamed. —Dr Ishmael 12:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Banners and Conjures are Environmental Weapons, not "Summoned Allies"

Illusions, Spirits, Fellow Thieves, Minions, Summons, Elementals, Turrets, and Spirit Weapons can all be considered "real" NPC's (or at least objects) because they can attack and/or be attacked on their own. Banners and Conjures are not like this, they're just bundle items that can be equipped by a player to attack with and if anything should be called "Summoned Items". I don't see how there's disagreement here, saying Banners and Conjures are "Summoned Allies" is like saying a weapon stolen by a Thief or an Engineer's Weapon kit (Always Prepared used to drop a flamethrower or elixir gun when the Engi got downed) are too. -Somohexual (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Aroused? Yes or No

Thank you for fixing my errors. The word aroused was placed to add spice to the article, but I understand that it might not be wanted within the intro paragraph; when I used it's, it was merely a mistake by typing too fast. >.< I'm so ashamed that I made such a small mistake since I'm a writer. Foxman525 (talk) 18:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) We all make mistakes, due to typing too fast or editing while tired or any of a number of other reasons, so don't beat yourself up about it. If it's not a habit you already have, you can use the "Show preview" button (right next to "Save page") to check for errors before you finalize your edits. One thing I would caution you about, however, is how you go about "spicing up" articles. I can understand wanting to make articles more interesting to read, but I can't think of any connotation of "aroused" that would have worked in that article whether it was in the intro paragraph or not. Wiki editing can bit a bit dry sometimes, but I think it's better to have straightforward text that's easily understood than more flowery text that can cause confusion in a reader just looking for factual information. --Cali (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I must disagree with you there, and yes I do have a habit of previewing the edits several times before saving it; scan reading can be a b**** sometimes. Here is the definition that I found.

AROUSE (verb) 1.) call forth (emotions, feelings, and responses) 2.) stop sleeping 3.) summon into action or bring into existence, often as if by magic 4.) cause to be alert and energetic 5.) cause to become awake or conscious 6.) to begin moving 7.) stimulate sexually — Foxman525(talk) 03:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, but here we get into the distinction between “connotation” and “denotation”. You’ve listed a dictionary definition, or denotation, that includes a meaning that I, personally, have never come across before. While it may be technically correct that “aroused” can act as a synonym for “summoned” in certain situations per that definition, I don’t think it fits in the context of this article. The most common association I have with “aroused” is to stir sexually or to be awoken from slumber. How many people are going to be familiar with the meaning involving magic? Consequently, I think “aroused” would be a poor choice for this article because the initial connotation would likely be a sexual one rather than a magical one. But, you haven’t actually objected to my removing this particular usage of “aroused”; I assume you are arguing in favor of potentially using “spicy” language in future edits. It’s true that one of the tenets of this wiki is to “be bold” and I don’t want to stifle your willingness to edit. So, good luck with your future edits! --Cali (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen aroused used that way, that's hilarious. It's not a very good word to use in prose on the article as the game uses the term summon in text.--Relyk ~ talk < 05:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I completely understand where you guys are coming from, but I still disagree with what should and should not be used. If this is going to be some sort of editing war, let us get this straight before I go back and polish up that article. This is the first definition on the dictionary.com 1.) to stir to action; we can apply this definition to Necromancers and how they summon minions since they stir dead bones and flesh into something animated. At the least, I ask if I would be able to use this word just for the Necromancer paragraph. — Foxman525(talk) 13:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cali. Articles should be written in a clear manner i.e. no words should feel ambiguous. "A summoned ally is an NPC that is summoned" is much more comprehensible than "aroused", in any given context. Certain words have a popular meaning, and aroused is no exception. Adding it in this context would be wrong because the majority of readers would identify it with its more popular meaning, which certainly isn't to summon anything. Ventriloquist 19:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I most likely will not include the word when I go and polish the page next, but I would still like to hear what others have to say; I still disagree to some degree. Ambiguity does not cause enough confusion within the context here; obviously no matter where I place aroused, it can't possibly be taken as to be sexually aroused. Therefore, for the sake of learning, I would like to place it there and allow people to research what the word could mean. This could obviously be taken as an obstruction to the main purpose of the wiki; which is why, I most likely won't add it again to the article. — Foxman525(talk) 19:39, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't trust everything you read in a dictionary. I'm serious: dictionaries retain old/archaic meanings looooooong after they've fallen out of use. In contemporary usage, "arouse" is far more often used in reference to emotions/feelings or sexual arousal. Like everyone else here, I have never heard "arouse" used as a synonym for "summon."

The wiki's purpose is to provide documentation about a video game. We aren't here to improve anyone's vocabulary, and especially not to put forward non-contemporary usages of words. —Dr Ishmael 20:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to say that I respect your opinion, Dr Ishmael. Secondly, whatever I may say next is not about arguing the validity of using the word in the article since I already established that I will not be using it. Although, in defense of my stubborn creativity, I will defend myself against you saying, what I see as, harsh words towards me. I understand that dictionaries aren't completely indisputable; yet, I have heard someone else within the last five years use the word, as I meant it to be here. The usage of the word for summoning into action or bringing into existence is neither archaic, nor a dead usage. It is the connotation of the word, as I have explained above, and where Cali has politely pointed out. In books and where proper English prospers, the word is most commonly used as to stir to action or strong response which you did not even mention such usage within your response. Please, do not insult my intelligence again, thank you. — Foxman525(talk) 23:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

First of all, your comment isn't really relevant to the page discussion. Second, we take any claims of personal attacks seriously. I very much doubt that was Ishmael's intent to insult or attack you. Consensus is to not use "aroused" and I would leave the discussion at that.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Deletion Tag

It works for me, just one thing, if this gets deleted, should Template:Summon nav go as well? It's only on a few pages at the moment. - Do_odleplex 23:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)