Talk:War in Kryta

There are so many obvious spelling/grammar issues in this, but before someone or I fix them, does this article even belong here? Because this seems as relevant as the Exodus of the Gods or something, meaning if it's needed just link to it on the GWW. Taros 19:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree if this comes up in articles, just link it to GWW because the war in kryta takes place in the original GW so it should stay with the GWW. - Giant Nuker 19:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I put the deletion tag up. I agree, it's not very relevant to GW2, and like any other historical event that takes place in GW1 or prior to then, we can just inter-wiki link. -- Konig/talk 19:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. Beyond is all about setting the scene in Guild Wars 2, and the establishment of the monarchy that isn't really a big part of OGW but will be a big part of GW2 is pretty important to GW2. It doesn't need to be as detailed as it's GWW counterpart, but it's something relevant enough to GW2 that it needs a page on GW2W. I'm willing to fix this article up, but not if it's just going to be deleted, so I won't do until we've come to a decision on this article. Along with this, I think we need to start discussing what exactly the scope of this project is. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is setting the scene for GW2, but it is actually happening in game in Guild Wars 1 so is getting reasonably documented there. I don't think a summary article on the krytan war is appropriate at this time because it is no more relevant than any other GW1 lore here even if it is bridging information. When the updates are complete we'll know which details are truly important to GW2 (we possibly already know them; the Krytan throne is restored, Ebonhawke is established) and will be able to add summary information to the directly relevant articles instead. -- Aspectacle  22:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bridge lore is very important to GW2. Look at The Movement of the World, the page for Charr, Humans, and other things. -~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) 00:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point(s), this does directly influence Guild Wars 2, but since it's in the original Guild Wars, I'd still rather link to it and in relevant articles like Ebonhawke just add "This town was established at the end of the War in Kryta" with the link going to the GWW page for it which perfectly explains what happened and its consequences. Perhaps listing this and other Beyond content but only listing it's effect on Guild Wars 2 would work? That way we don't go in specifics and just link people to the GWW for all the details, and we can just generalize the articles and describe why they matter in relation to GW2? Taros 01:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It does hold a lot of sway over GW2 lore. But face it: Everything from Guild Wars 1 does. It's the same universe. Does that mean we're going to document everything that happened in GW1's lore over here? No! That would ruin the point of two wikis. The entire event is being documented on GWW, so why bother documenting a summary of it here when it can just be linking to the entire thing? If there was no inter-wiki linking, then I may say "lets document a summary of the lore here" but that isn't the case. It bridges GW1 with GW2 like the Movement and the Ecology, the later of which could be argued to belong on the GWW due to the pre-GW1 lore, but unlike the Movement (at least) it doesn't occur in GW1 (and the Ecology has been decided to be documented only over here).

If we document this here, then we need an [[Exodus of the Gods]], [[the Searing]], [[the Cataclysm]], [[the Jade Wind]], [[Shiro's Return]], [[the Flameseeker Prophecies]], [[Nightfall]], [[Lord Odran]], etc. etc. on this wiki. It's all the same scenario - events which have a major impact on GW2 lore but happens in or before GW1. To document it here as well is pointless in every way. -- Konig/talk 12:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree most things from GW1 have a lot of sway over GW2 lore, but few things were actually designed with the express purpose of setting the scene for GW2, like the War in Kryta (and everything else in Beyond, for that matter). Surely that's the sort of thing we should be having on the wiki, even if it's only a brief, lore-heavy summary with a {{gww}} on it. As a side note, we should be probably be having this discussion in one place rather than across two talk pages, maybe here? --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well just about everything in Eye of the North was made with the "express purpose" of setting the scene for GW2. but we don't have things like [[The Great Destroyer]], [[Duncan the Black]], [[The Path to Revelations]], [[Svanir]]/[[Nornbear]], etc. etc. Point is, there's no need for this here, as we can just use the interwiki link when it is mentioned. Because even if it is meant to set the scene for GW2 like EN does, it still happens in GW1 and it is already being documented - in more detail - over there. -- Konig/talk 17:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would support having an article on the Nornbear on this wiki, as we know Jormag now has more Norn servants. I wouldn't oppose a brief article on the Great Destroyer, either, seeing as it is one of Primordus' generals - it's as relevant as Ventari, at least. Or Svanir, for that matter, as the first of Jormag's servants. He's notable enough to have a cult named after him in GW2. As for the other two, I'm not sure what your point is with those. The War in Kryta is an event, a piece of background lore that is important to the setting of GW2. Duncan the Black is a GW1 dungeon boss with no known link to GW2 and the Path to Revelations is the name of a GW1 quest. How are they comparable in any way to the War in Kryta? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Let's just answer one good question an ip posted a while ago. Will users be able to find what they are looking for easily? If they do a quest and see a reference like The Great Destroyer, then come here and search it, since there is no article for it would they find the inter-wiki link or just pages that mention him and have the link? Would people be able to read what they wanted to with relative ease? Taros 19:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That is something which is difficult to measure and most easily met by having everything on this wiki 'just in case' someone wants to read about it. However, I think it is a good feeling of the spirit of what should to be included here. Once we get the game some things will be mentioned in game, some things simply will not. Mentioned in Gw2 game == added to this wiki, not mentioned in game == not added to this wiki. The special case is mentioned in gw2 only backstory and lore == add to gw2 wiki. While I think that this article is probably a side effect of us all being a little too excited about new GW content - perhaps we tag with "possibly not relevant to GW2" and leave it as is (was) until we can truly know its significance as an event to Gw2. -- Aspectacle  20:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Santax:The Great Destroyer is dead. He'll have as little importance as Khilbron or Shiro. The Nornbear is Svanir, the new minions of Jormag are (possibly) the Sons of Svanir. They may have a very different name in GW2 than "Nornbear" - I mean, that name would not work for a norn who's corrupted in the form of raven, wolf, or leopard (if those are the only forms available), and it would not work for the corrupted Kodan or other creatures of ice.

@Taros: I am not against making such popular pages into inter-wiki redirects, if that is possible. But the only way where they would be worth using would be for direct searches, in which finding pages which mention the things searched for is more than enough to be honest (though others might disagree).

@Aspectacle: Doing that, more or less, ruins all purpose of the interwiki linking if we're just going to have an article for everything mentioned in either GW2 or GW2 backstory/lore. We'll be having copies of every major event and character, and even some minor ones. -- Konig/talk 20:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevance of a Nornbear article here will become apparent when we get the game - best not to argue about things we are simply speculating on the importance of.

I don't think having summary information in this wiki reduces or removes the necessity of using interwiki links, Konig. There are going to be a lot of references back to the first game and I think it is important to be able to explain them to the player from a GW2 perspective before they get funneled off to gw1w to game information which is confusing to them. For example, an NPC in Durmand Priory might be an expert in krytan history and might say; "Everything changed for Kryta when Queen Salma was returned to the throne". One approach is for Queen Salma to get a redirect to a local article 'Krytan royal family' or a very brief summary page here so someone searching can find relevant info in this wiki without the overhead of gw1 information and then we link back to gw1w for all of the other detailed stuff.

In the end I'm happy to leave these decisions until we have the game and can see just how much of a problem this is going to be. -- Aspectacle  22:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I don't think having a GW2 perspective will matter compared to a GW1 perspective on events, so long as they happened during or before GW1. As such, I propose two possible solutions: 1) Delete all GW1-or-before pages, and should the pages become popular, redirect via #REDIRECT [[gw1:<article name>]] instead of making a summary, or 2) Make a couple summary pages such as [[Historical events]], [[Royalty]], etc. (or categories? Doubt that would work), which pages would have summaries of various popular pages, with redirects (and links) to said section - said sections having gww links.
Personally, I go for the first, if such is even needed - which honestly, we are assuming that pages will be popular - this page was made by someone who rather jumped the gun and has given no say in this discussion, and has even removed all the content. I honestly think we're getting way ahead of ourselves on this, like Santax did with the GW:B including a retcon of Ascalon's Fall. -- Konig/talk 16:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If we can redirect searches to GWW then I'm all for that option, but what do we do with pages like humans or something that contains information that spread across both games? Taros 20:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki redirects are not possible here, I think. Konig, I don't see how we're getting ahead of ourselves, it's important we have a discussion about what content we keep on the wiki, better it happens sooner rather than later. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Well if option 1 doesn't work then option 2 is the second best, just have general pages packed with redirects and have those contain interwiki-links, but again, what do we do about pages that have information spanning both games, like Ventari, do we just keep those like we're doing now? Taros 21:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My personal view is we have several different cases we should take into account:

• Case 1: Something is relevant to GW2, not GW1, and did not exist in GW1. Example: Sylvari. This should be documented exclusively on GW2W.
• Case 2: Something is relevant to GW2, not GW1, and exists in both GW1 and GW2. Example: Kralkatorrik. This should have a brief article on GWW explaining the subject in the context of GW1, linking to GW2W.
• Case 3: Something is relevant to GW2 and GW1 and exists in both GW1 and GW2. Example: Ascalon City. This should be documented on GWW explaining the subject in the context of GW1, linking to GW2W, and should be documented on GW2W, explaining the subject in the context of GW2, linking to GWW.
• Case 4: Something is relevant to GW2 and GW1 and does not exist in GW2. Example: gw1:War in Kryta. The specifics of this (viral marketing campaign, exact details of war, etc.) should be documented on GWW. A lore-heavy summary explaining the subject's relation to GW2 should be on GW2W, linking back to GWW. The subject may not be witnessed directly in GW2, but it is definitely important background lore (the War in Kryta is a particularly clear-cut case as Beyond exists to set the scene for GW2).
• Case 5: Something is relevant only to GW1, but exists in both GW1 and GW2. Example: gw1:Cauldron of Cataclysm (as far as we know it has no importance in GW2, may be wrong yet). Content should be documented on GW1 in the context of GW1, and briefly documented on GW2W, if necessary explaining any further developments that have occured since GW1.
• Case 6: Something is relevant only to GW1, and exists only in GW1. Example: Duncan the Black. Document exclusively on GWW.
• Case 7: Background lore that is relevant to both GW1 and GW2, "grey area", example: gw1:Exodus of the Gods. It's important to both games, so where do we put it? This is a toughie, perhaps document the subject on both wikis, except only document the bits which are relevant to each game on each wiki. For example, you wouldn't mention the whole thing about the favour of the gods and statues on GW2W, and you wouldn't mention the gods stepping back from human affairs after the rise of the elder dragons on GWW.

I might have missed a couple of possibilities out, and that's just my personal view, not official policy. That's the purpose of this discussion, to determine exactly what we keep here :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with case 4 and I think it is directly related to case 7. I think there needs to be an evolution of the story after GW1 events for something to be included in this wiki. Many events in GW1 will effect the GW2 world, but are not actually worth mentioning in gw2 because they haven't change at all since gw1.

Ventari is actually a good example of an article which belongs in both wikis. His GW2 article clearly states how significant he is to the sylvari who are strictly GW2 beings and what happened to him after events in GW1. It shows how he has evolved since GW1.

The War in Kryta page should be deleted because we cannot currently show that the War in Kryta will go on longer than the GW1 timeframe - we can't know the significance of the War after the events of GW1. -- Aspectacle  23:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This war once developed in Guild Wars will probably give us plenty of info that we can use to write an article for it on here stating how significant it is specifically to Guild Wars 2 and how it evolved since GW1. Arenanet has clearly stated that these events are to set the stage for GW2 so this war will have significance after the events of GW1, the most obvious one being that it puts the Queen in power. Also, if we do end up deleting this page for now until the War is over or forever, can somebody please move this talk page to one of our talk pages for reference's sake? Taros 01:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Santax, I didn't mean getting ahead of ourselves for discussing this as a whole, but getting ahead of ourselves with this page. But regarding the whole thing, if the topic in question has no change since GW1, then there's no need to document it here. That would include War in Kryta, Khan-Ur, Exodus of the Gods, etc. As it stands this has no say to be here on this wiki, nor does anything else of GW:B. Vantari is a different case than this, as he lives past GW1. -- Konig/talk 04:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

If it starts to be mentioned in gw2 as a pre thing, then document, but War in Kryta is a gw1 thing that should stay there. things relevant to gw2 should go here. Things that aren't, should go there. Ariyen 21:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering how important a role this event in particular plays in leading up to GW2, I think the article (and others like it) should stay here with a short summary and link to GW1. However, the GW1 War in Kryta page is mainly about the release of the information involved, the updates pertaining to that information, and the areas the event has affected; ideally if the page here is to be (re)created, it should pertain to the lore. And I fully support it being created again.

We may have to rename it later, but we can assume it will have some after-affects in GW2, since if I remember correctly the remnants of the White Mantle are still lurking around even after the war's conclusion. --Kyoshi (Talk) 22:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather rework the GW1Wiki page to have lore of it there. We have gw1:War_in_Kryta/Walkthrough and gw1:War in Kryta Viral Marketing to cover most of the release information. Truthfully, the page looks like a complete mess and needs a rework, and in that rework, more lore could be added. As could a "Storyline of Guild Wars Beyond" be eventually made for the entire GWB series, which would hold the plot of the various portions of GWB. -- Konig/talk 23:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair. It should just be put somewhere, and we should still have something about it here imo. I'm pretty confident that it'll have some relevance in the new game, but I'll let it be. --Kyoshi (Talk) 02:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, the entire GW1 (lore-wise) has relevance to GW2 - GW:B moreso than others - but that doesn't mean we should ((/)have to) document it here. It would be easiest to just document GW1 and before GW1 events on the GWW while documenting post-GW1 events here. The only issue comes in when people search for such topics on this wiki and comes up short - they'll either go "wtf?" or make the page. How I see it, that is the discussion we should be having. -- Konig/talk 02:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(Reset indent) So then what's the harm in having this page, explaining briefly what the war is about and how it is relevant to GW2? I'm against having 1079 as a "cut-off point" for content on GW2W, seeing as there is stuff from before then that is very relevant to GW2, as you yourself said here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a difference between mentioning events and making articles for them. For the timeline, I think that certain events should be mentioned, but I do not think said events should have articles here. I think the Exodus of the Gods should be mentioned on the timeline because it's a pretty damn important event, but it happened over a thousand years before GW1 and is not relevant to GW2 anymore than it is to GW1 (it is less so important to GW2 than GW1, in fact). It's still an important event, just not relevant. Likewise, in other articles, I am all for mentioning events that take place during and before GW1, but I'm against making article for them - because then we'd simply have far too many articles. -- Konig/talk 19:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any reason to have this article here. There's only a couple articles in which the War in Kryta should even be mentioned, and in those cases we can just link to GW1W - there's no need to document the same thing twice. Filling the wiki with pointless content is not the same as filling the wiki with content. Erasculio 00:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

*completely shocked and amazed* Era... agrees... with me? o_____O -- Konig/talk 00:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@Konig: What I mean is that I assume it will be alluded to, specifically, by NPCs or a narrator. But as it stands, that can't have happened yet, and I'm not going to argue that we should jump that gun. --Kyoshi (Talk) 05:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)