Template talk:God nav

Is this really necessary? I'd think we'd be deciding whether the god pages themselves are to be kept once the game's out. But then, I guess there's no harm in making it for now... -- Armond Warblade 07:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the Great Dwarf be included on this template?

We don't actually have any evidence that the Great Dwarf is a god, other than the say-so of the Dwarves. They also said that the Great Destroyer was a god, but that also turned out to be a myth. Also, we don't know if the Great Dwarf, god or not, will have any sort of role in Guild Wars 2 with the decline of the Dwarven race. Maybe we should just have gods recognised by humanity for now, as none of the other playable races worship "gods" in the traditional sense. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have doubts about the Great Dwarf, too. You can leave only the Human Gods there, for now. It'll suffice until beta. Calor 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we playing the same game? We only have the humans' say-so that the five true gods are, in fact gods. So should we remove everything from the template because each god only has one race's say-so that it's a god? -- Armond Warblade 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Great Dwarf listed under False Gods?-- Shew 04:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Because his godlihood is unknown? Honestly, I don't know myself. he isn't known to be part of the human god pantheon, but that doesn't mean the Great Dwarf isn't a real god. But I guess that is why there is the "(?)" after his name. -- Konig/talk 05:40, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Arachnia?

who's Arachnia?Arthurperson 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering that too, and while I was too lazy to figure it out, I thought one might find sufficient information on him/her/it if one were to click the provided link... -- Armond Warblade 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

An ancient spider god, older than even the likes of Abaddon and Dhuum, if Gw.dat is to be believed. Apparently there was a game areas based on her (him?) but it was scrapped. --77.98.23.140 23:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bets on her. Calor 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

i just searched arachnia guildwars god and the only thing i found was

Quote: gw.dat The Spider's Heart Glowing radiance of evil at the heart of Arachnia. Said to be the remains of a now-dead spider-god, older than Abaddon and the Five True Gods themselves. Arthurperson 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't include stuff from the dat. There's enough speculation about GW2 around without including GW1 speculation too. :) --Aspectacle 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

OK removing arachnia from the listArthurperson 21:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arthur. :) --Aspectacle 22:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Evil gods

well there is no section for evil gods only former gods (which should only have abaddon) true gods and demi/false gods shouldn't there be a sectoin for evil gods that lists the likes of Menzies and Dhuum after all they are still gods even thought they aren't main godsArthurperson 21:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Classified and organized it betterArthurperson 21:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh.. it depends on how you define "evil". Menzies and Dhuum are just at war with Balthazar and Grenth, they aren't "evil". In the same way that Grenth went to war with the guy before him, but he's still a true god. I would rather they were classified in order of rank (i.e. True, demi) -- Plingggggg \ Talk 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your edit. Dhuum is a previous god, and Menzies is a demi-god. Also, "evil" is a subjective term, if we're going to go down this route then I'd prefer we use the term "antagonistic". --Santax (talk · contribs) 15:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Menzies, Abaddon, Arachnia and Dhuum

Can I ask what the thinking behind this is? I mean, they provide important historical context - particularly Dhuum and Menzies, who are still alive. We've kept articles for Mursaat, the Great Dwarf and even the Destroyers, who were only considered gods for a timeframe of a few weeks at most. Why not gods who actually are/were gods, and still have potential to impact the game? --94.171.77.82 10:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Arachnia doesn't officially exist; it has never been part of GW's canon. The others were removed thanks to this edit summary. The Mursaat will return in GW2 (as mentioned by Arena Net), the destroyers are the minions of one of the dragons so they will likely return, and the Great Dwarf still empowers the dwarves, who will be back in GW2.

I'm not against returning Dhuum, Abbadon and Menzie, although I don't think it's necessary unless they're mentioned even once within the game. I am against returning the Norn spirits that have been forgotten, though. Erasculio 10:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We also don't have articles about the Great Destroyer, the Destroyers or the Titans. Given how the currently links are to GW1 articles, I have the feeling no one was interested in making an article for them here. If so, I think we could just remove those three from the navigation box and leave only the six gods, the (current) Norn spirits, the Great Dwarf, the Mursaat, and maybe add a link to the Eternal Alchemy. Erasculio 14:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't like linking to other wikis in nav boxes - interwiki links are fine in articles, but navigation templates should be designed to navigate the pages of this wiki. -- pling 15:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lesser Norn Spirits

I think that the lesser norn spirits should be removed from the nav for now. We can list the lesser spirits on the Spirits of the Wild page. If the lesser spirits prove to be more important in the release of the game they can always be re-added later. --hnzdvn 21:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree as there are other "lesser" faiths mentioned here - such as the Great Dwarf and the Mursaat. Both are likely to have a small impact on the game. This is a template for the faiths of the world (started as a deity template though, but Eternal Alchemy isn't really a deity). -- Konig/talk 20:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Color

The color...its just...too intense. It reminds me of the Spoiler Color... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 02:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Would #F9AAAA work? User:Ezekial Riddle/sandbox --Riddle 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Preferably something not even close to the spoiler color... Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 17:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a few arbitrary colours here if anyone wants to take a look. I also dislike the current colour, it reminds me of spoilers too. Venom20 22:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I like the ritualist esque blue that Venom has presented. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 22:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed with Aqua, I also like the aqua color. -- Konig/talk 01:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

God Nav -> Religion Nav

That move tag has been bothering me for some time now. I personally don't care either way, but religion nav seems to be more about religion and less about the gods themselves.
Using real life examples: a "God Nav" would have Buddha, God, and the Hindu gods Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu, while, respectively, the "Religion nav" would have Buddhism, Christianity/Judaism and Hinduism."
tl;dr It should remain here. Aquadrizzt (talk)(contribs) 01:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thing is, it's mentioning both the faith of the gods, and the individual gods. It's also marking other gods and other faiths, and even beings which are not gods but still revered. "God nav" isn't fully accurate. But I guess it doesn't matter either way, the purpose remains the same. -- Konig/talk 01:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see the differences between the names with the data we currently have. Both names are inaccurate to an extent, so it doesn't matter to me. Eive 01:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

What about Faith Nav? I mean, it's not like the Eternal Alchemy is practiced religiously... (Xu Davella 12:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

Depends on how you define "religiously" - it is their way of life, their spirituality, and part of their afterlife in a sense. It very much is a religion. -- Konig/talk 21:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but it is a single concept. Eternal Alchemy only tells you that there's a point to existence, it doesn't teach you how to live or behave. Religions preach more than one ideal. (Xu Davella 21:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC))

It's a bit more than "there's a point to your miserable little life" to Eternal Alchemy - I wish real faiths had that as well, then I actually may belong to one that isn't my own. Where "having a meaning" merely means that an individual has a purpose, Eternal Alchemy preaches that all things are connected, pre-determined and inescapable. It also preaches of a higher order than what is (currently) comprehensible. -- Konig/talk 21:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Eternal Alchemy is truly an ideology as it dictates what the world is like, what the world should be in the future and the fact that every action and reaction is pre-determined. It doesn't preach, it "states". Though it should be neither God Nav nor Religion Nav. Cultures nav, maybe? I don't know.. - Infinite - talk 22:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Cultures is worse imo, but I'd still say that Eternal Alchemy is a religion - especially if things like Taoism and Confucianism can be considered religions. -- Konig/talk 01:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I hate cultures, too. Initially I was thinking Schools of thought, but that is looong. - Infinite - talk 01:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd relate Eternal Alchemy to the same mode of concept as I would Karma. Confucianism would be a religion because it does in fact cover multiple aspects of living and virtuous natures or what have you. (Xu Davella 11:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

I think god nav is wrong since many on it arn't gods. we'd have to decide if we keep the gods/spirit's on it or make it a religion nav with like spirit's of the wild/the human gods and have those pages have an other nav bar like god nav/spirit's nav. because i think that otherwise the nav's gonna get quite big imo --RhoninSoren 15:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) No matter what EA is, Religion nav is the best general word to use. Alternative, which I think sounds silly, would be "Faith nav." -- Konig/talk 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

'Beliefs' is another word often used to describe different philosophies of creation/religion. I prefer it over the other terms you've been testing out.

It might be easier to name if it was just a listing of beliefs rather than also a listing of individual spirits and gods? I'm thinking the listing of norn spirits will only get longer - maybe they get their own nav? -- aspectacle  23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Not only the spirit's should get their own nav bar but the six to. We also know the grawl worship natural and powerful objects. That list might only get longer. And we don't even know nothing about the religion of the tyrian tengu, centaur, hylek, skritt, trolls,... if they all heve 2 or 3 gods we'll get a reaaally long list. So i think it's better to name this the belief nav and different nav specially for each belief. --RhoninSoren 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Depending on how large those actual articles that each creature worships would be (wow, try saying that a million times) It would probably do better to just have them listed and described on the creature's article. Navbars aren't cool when there's tens of them pertaining to one subject.(Xu Davella 09:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

I disagree with splitting. We can merely add an expandable tag akin to gw1:Template:Historical content nav. They aren't that big anyways. And it would be beyond ludicrous to make a nav template "if they all heve 2 or 3 gods". Shall we also make a mention of Melaggan while we're at naming each and every race's god? Just because they are of different names doesn't mean they won't be the same god, btw. -- Konig/talk 17:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

False faiths

All the religions of Tyria are false to some degree. The human gods did not actually create Tyria. Koda is no more likely to be the actual creator. And there is no such person as the Great Dwarf, its the collective consciousness of every dwarf. I still think the Sylvari's faith in the Dream of Dreams qualifies as a religion its no different then the Asura's belief in the Great Alchemy. And this belief is challenged by the Nightmare Court.Ramei Arashi 17:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I would share something about faith and being false in conjunction, but I'll refrain as it might upset people. - Infinite - talk 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Ramei, you are completely right. Infinite that would probably be for the best. Dragging religion or politics in a thread is like shouting "PLEASE TROLL ME!!!! AND FLAMEWAR TO PLZKTHX" --RhoninSoren 18:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that all religions are false, more like there's a difference between truth and rumors. Melandru is credited by being the creator by a race who hates the Six, that seems to give it credit to me. The gods are gods, whether they did what they're said of doing or not. That's what makes them not false. Unseen Ones, Titans, Destroyers, the Mighty Oooh, Great Destroyer, Cult of the Stone Face, and Moa'vu'Kaal are all false because they are normal folks/things pretending/being worshiped as gods. The spirits, the Six, Koda, Eternal Alchemy, the Great Dwarf, etc. are not false because they actually have some degree of divinity in them. Or at least the Spirits of the Wild, Six, and Great Dwarf do - can't say yet (due to too little information) for Koda and EA. Dream of Dreams is not a case of "everything's connected, pre-determined, etc. etc." but a case of a collective knowledge that one can access a little bit of. -- Konig/talk 19:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you ever see the six? no, so how do you know they are real? Or even real gods for that matter? Sure we have the avatars but that could well be the human equivalent of the mighty ooh but with more intelligent and powerfull races in them whe don't know about. And where is the dividing line between very powerful beings and gods? The dragon's are as powerful as the six so if power is the defining thing they must be gods to? also definin "devinity" please because i think it's waaaay to vague to build a definition on it. A religion is a way of life, something that affects a big portion in your life even if you don't realize it. it affects your culture deeply and is the same for at least a group of people. We know the mighty Oooh is false but the grawl worship it. Who are we to judge if a religion is "right" or "wrong", "true" or "false" even in this made-up world of Tyria? The Unseen weren't god according to our definition (all-powerfull and all-knowing) but the white mantle never said they were. A religion doesn't have to be about worshipping all powerful beings. Idea's (bhudism, taoism) or natural things (animistic religions) can be worshiped to. Gods are not what define a religion otherwise boedism wouldn't be one. It's about the idea's behind it, the culture and way of life associated wit it. --RhoninSoren 19:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

With "false" we are stating "faiths that are busted in the sense of divinity". But then again, if this is still divine to the Grawl, it's not a false faith. - Infinite - talk 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Within the GW universe, I'd say that divinity would be having powers over/within/related to the Mists. The Spirits of the Wild has this, Koda has this, the Six has this, the Great Dwarf has this (supposedly, we never do see the Great Forge which would be the equivilant to the biggest evidence for the Six). But while we don't see the Six, they have been seen. As for judging what is right/wrong/true/false - the fact that a simple asura, a playable race, is pretending to be a god (a term used by the developers during Gamescom/PAX in '10) is proof. I am not judging, I'm using the developer's own commentary. -- Konig/talk 21:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

But that does still not mean we can judge what is false faith, nor does it justify classifying faiths as not divine. This also translates to real life. The humans worship the six human gods, whether they have been seen or not, that still doesn't mean they're actually gods. They could be automatons, or an elitist group of humans/other creatures.

The issue here, though, is the fact we labelled a faith as false. I haven't heard any developers talk about a faith being false, so it merits a change until they tell us it's actually a false faith. (Like with us busting the destroyers in GW1 for the charr. - Infinite - talk 21:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, I want to state that a faith is false the second no one believes in said faith, as there is no one worshipping it at that point and its ways go untranslated into actions. Not exactly false either, just unpractised. - Infinite - talk 21:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Mursaats are not divine, the White Mantle's faith were false - Titans and Destroyers are not divine, the Shaman caste's faiths were false - Moa'vu'Kaal was confirmed not to be divine nor a god, therefore the skale's faith is false. Perhaps the err comes in me using the term faith in one meaning, while you guys use it in another meaning. Going by [ Dictionary.com], I use the term faith as "a system of religious belief", while it seems like at least Infinite is using it as "belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc." - if so, we're both right. They are false as in not a true case of divinity, while they are not false as they are mere beliefs and as such are not "wrong." Mister Mighty Oooh is not a god, which is what I meant by "false faiths" - perhaps I should of used the term "false gods" instead to avoid such nitpicking. -- Konig/talk 21:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think False gods indeed works better. :> Also, I believe in no faith whatsoever, but I'm pretending to be like someone who does and would bring up such nitpicking. Now we avoid ragefaces in advance. - Infinite - talk 21:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I think Oooh is an odd case. We know the belief of the grawl is actually much like shinto, they worship significant objects in the world. That an asura abuses the grawl's stupidity to his own ends is not actually representative of what the grawl actually believe enough for the nav. -- aspectacle  00:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

True, whether the mighty Oooh is really divine/god like is irrelevant. they worship it an believe in it so it's a religion. From the moment the grawl discover the asura in it an realise someone was playing them, then it's a false faith. Until then it's a true and very real religion. --RhoninSoren 08:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to note: A false religion is still considered to be a religion. It's called a false religion because while some people may see it as an actual religion, it can be disproven quite simply. But you know people are going to follow that religion regardless of what others might think. (Xu Davella 09:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC))

It really isn't a religion in the broadest sense. While yes, a religion with one (or a very small group of) followers is still a religion, but compared to the other religions here (the Six, Eternal Alchemy, SOTW), this particular "religion" only serves, in my mind, to belittle the more important religions of the world. This is one individualized case, and does not represent a widely held belief (or set of beliefs). Therefore, I do not feel like "The Mighty Oooh" (and its small group of grawl) deserves to be in the "religions of the world-nav" (or whatever else you want to call it.) (By comparison, the white mantle's worship of the mursaat would qualify as a true false religion, as it is a widely held set of beliefs.) Aqua (T|C) 22:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is at least worshipped by a tribe of grawl. We don't know yet how big that tribe is. Also The Mighty Oooh is a religion in tyria. Then why shouldn't it be on the navbar that lists the religions of tyria? Because a religion is small doesn't mean it's not important. The white mantle is a small religion in contemporary kryta. Also The unseen cult is still a religion and "false" is subjective imo. --RhoninSoren 06:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you Aqua. If someone were to look up one of the main religions for the first time; having to see a massive navbar on the bottom would be a deterrent. So a good solution would be to divide the main religions (and by main I mean the ones recognized by the playable races) and then list all of the other beliefs/religions that all of the other creatures recognize. (Xu Davella 12:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

On the topic of religious groups

Similar to the discussion above, do we consider the Sons of Svanir a religious group, since they follow Dragon (Jormag) as a Spirit of the Wild? And if so, how should we note it on this nav, with each other spirit being noted directly? (Just "Jormag" or "Dragon" under "Spirits of the Wild", or "Sons of Svanir" under "Other faiths"?) --ஸ Kyoshi 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

This nav isn't for the religious groups (e.g., those who worship), but for the topic of the religions (e.g., those who are worshiped). Sons of Svanir, just like the shamans, havroun, and so forth wouldn't be put on this nav. Jormag is the one to question - though I say no since he has his own nav (the ED nav) and isn't a spirit of the wild. Only reason why I think the Mighty Oooh belongs on here is because there is no other nav (though said nav isn't needed and Mr. Oooh could be removed for all I care).

I do, however, think we need to create a gw2w version of gw1:Religions of Tyria where the topic of this section would be included. -- Konig/talk 02:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That certainly explains why this nav is getting so much discussion. You see it as it representing only one thing when it is actually two. It is a listing of gods or worshipped beings but it is also a listing of beliefs/religions because those powerful beings are grouped according to who/how they're worshipped. This means many of us would instinctively wish to add other religious beliefs to the table. Melandru in particular is quite confusing because she's not only worshiped by humans but quaggan.

If is as you say and just a listing of gods without care for those who worship them it would be less confusing and better represented as a flat listing ... and then the name 'god nav' really fits. -- aspectacle  03:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

"It is a listing of gods or worshipped beings but it is also a listing of beliefs/religions because those powerful beings are grouped according to who/how they're worshipped." But neither are not the worshipers. Sons of Svanir are worshipers, but the Six Human Gods and Spirits of the Wild, and everything else (exception being Eternal Alchemy) are the individual gods. As far as I see it, followers are not religions, faiths, or deities. -- Konig/talk 03:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay - I think I might have misinterpreted you a little. But Sons of Svanir are certainly a norn sect with a particular interpretation of what constitutes a spirit worthy of worship. They still believe in the idea of the spirits of the wild but think there is one true spirit better than the others, jormag, and he's not listed on the nav.

I still think the nav is trying to do to much (religions and individual gods), and at the same time, isn't quite good enough (it doesn't capture the grawl's belief or the charr's atheism (or the flame legion's leader?) well). I think we would be better served with perhaps a religion overview page and a six god nav and spirits of the wild nav? -- aspectacle  06:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree otherwise we might get something as long and confusing as gw1:Template:Historical content nav --RhoninSoren 06:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Charr's atheism has no page, grawl's belief has no page, (nor are either of large topics outside mention on the race's page, or a not-yet-made-page). I agree with a religion overview page, but not a six god/spirits of the wild nav. I don't think either are large enough or individualistic enough to merit its own special nav box. Only reason something small like {{Dragon nav}} exists is... hell, I'm not entirely sure since the playable races nav no longer exists.

As to Jormag's addition onto the nav - I'm on the fence for that. I will not add it, but will not remove it. -- Konig/talk 06:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well we should make on for them and then we can put svanir cult on that page and on the special navbar. Also the spirits of the wils navbar wil be quite large (and may even get larger). there are more navbars on gw1 who are a lot smaller actually. It's agreed we want to simplify the navbar and put the religions on it not the individual whorshipped beingsso why don't make individual navbars? it takes 5~10 min of work and takes almost no place. Also i think they should have never removed the playable races navbox. scratch that it 's still exists and on the pages tyvm --RhoninSoren 07:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree in that the Spirits of the Wild list is "quite large" - I find that reasoning ridiculous, in fact, it is not large in any way nor are the links numerous. Also, it is not agreed anywhere that "we want to simplify the navbar and put the religions on it not the individual whorshipped beings" - no where is there consensus for that. -- Konig/talk 07:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

There will be those out there (like myself) that would like to see all of the religions in one section, than to have them split up into their individual navbars. So I agree that we should keep the general structure as it is. (Xu Davella 08:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Konig, you just said you didn't want a seperate navbar because they are to small, i say they are quite large (10 links for the spirits so far, not counting svanirs cult) and you dismiss that argument as ridiculous. second, i do think the navbar is fine as it is. but time doesn't stand still. Wat about the religion of the skrit, the trolls, ogres, krait, hylek, Tyrian tengu, centaurs, ... and so on? if the game gets released we might get more religions and they to may have multiple objects/beings they worship. my example is the grawl. They worship things of power or natural formation. ATM we know one "The Great Oooh", but what about others who might be in the game? My suggestion would be to put "Grawl Religion" or something like that on the navbar and that leads to a page with all the objects of worship by the grawl on it. The more important ones (wich i think the great Oooh will be because it's a scam by an asura) then get their own page. and yeah the consensus was a bit stretch i misread Xu's comment at 2 sections herebove (God Nav -> Religion Nav) Aspectle agrees (i think) i agree, you disagree konig --RhoninSoren 11:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If it does get to the point where the nav would become too big, I would be happy to split playable races - religion from the religions that other creatures have - or go with as Konig suggested, to have a collapsable nav. If these beliefs do end up playing a large part in GW2, then keeping them all together makes for easy reading. (Xu Davella 12:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

EDIT: Just saw that page, probably something more user friendly than the gw1 historical nav....(Xu Davella 12:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

1) "Svanir's cult" aka Sons of Svanir isn't a religion, they just have a unique religion. It's like saying the White Mantle is a faith, not an order with a unique faith (to be clear, the faith is "Unseen Ones" not "White Mantle" and is the White Mantle's faith - likewise, it is the Sons of Svanir's faith which is the same as the Spirits of the Wild but is dedicated to a specific being rather than the group - if we add Jormag, it should be in the SotW section set up as [[Jormag|Dragon]]). 2) IF it ever gets to a point where this nav gets to the size of gw1:Template:Title nav or gw1:Unimplemented content nav, then I may see reason to split off the individual spirits and Six Gods, but until then I say no. For all we know, those races and more either don't have a faith (thus no place) or share faiths with others. I would say collapsable nav would be better though (but would need a slight redesign from the gw1 collapsing navs to better separate the sections, which I wouldn't mind seeing now either). But either way, it is not at such a point, nor do we know with certainty that it will even get to such a point. -- Konig/talk 20:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, I would rather remove this template and make a "Religions" article dealing with this issue. Erasculio 21:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, we could just add a Jormag section in the spirits of the wild page as an alternate faith... --AdventurerPotatoe - 22:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

nah that won't work IMO --The Holy Dragons 22:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We don't really have enough to talk about Jormag on the Spirits of the Wild page except for what already exists - a note stating that the Sons of Svanir worship Jormag as the greatest spirit. -- Konig/talk 00:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Jormag isn't a spirit of the wild, though. Those norn worship him because he is a powerful being, not because he is of a spiritual nature - I wouldn't agree with adding it under the SotW section. (Xu Davella 09:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

No, they see him as the ultimate spirit of the wild and think that he blesses creatures, so, they think of him as a spirit of the wild. --AdventurerPotatoe - 09:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you put it that way...A false ultimate spirit of the wild. I think it should be classed in the same manner as the Mighty Ooooh - separately. (Xu Davella 11:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC))

I still feel iffy about judging faiths as true or false (even though they are fictional). It just doesn't feel right. I think an article "Schools of thought" With a redirect to it from "Religion" should be a good alternative. As I mentioned before, schools of thought would be a horrible nav title, but it's fine as article title. Schools of thought encompass religions, faiths, ideologies, ethics and such. It would do all "schools of thought" some good respect, I think. At the same time we stop judging faiths on false or true, though we can point out how certain faiths are easily disproven as divine. - Infinite - talk 13:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with putting non-deity creatures (even if viewed as a deity) as false - I personally wouldn't consider anything "true," it's just either "false" or "unknown" at this point. Regarding article title - "schools of thought" is imo far to generic, as you said it includes religions, faiths, ideologies, ethics but also include philosophies, political standpoints, racial standpoints, profession standpoints, and so forth. Far too large. There is no issue surrounding "Religions of Tyria" and it holds Eternal Alchemy, afterlives, known-to-be-false deities (titans, destroyers, mursaat, mr. ancient skale, a statue), and religious-based cults. I see no reason why it should be an issue here, let alone at all. Perhaps I'm just the only one not caring for "specifics" and "real world analogies" in using such terms. -- Konig/talk 18:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "Religions" would be a good article title ("Religions of Tyria" is redundant - is there any other place a religion could be from, in GW2?). If you wanted to be politically correct, I guess "Schools of belief" would be better than "Schools of thought", but I don't think that kind of title is necessary. Again, I do think we could just delete this nav if we make such article, though. Erasculio 23:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Matters of belief.... nah that sounds weird. Well, having the template remain as religions is probably something I can live with I guess. I still don't think EA fully qualifies as one though, but it does share some of its characteristics. My stance would probably change on Asura week. (Xu Davella 02:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Jormag

There's a bit of reversion issues going on with Jormag and whether he is a spirit of the wild or not. I don't think he's a spirit of the wild because it's the sons of svanir that believe that he is one, rather than actually being one like the other spirits of the wild are. (Xu Davella 15:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

But it's a belief, which is what the above section was debating: whether the nav should document actual deities, or anything people believe in, or the groups who believe in them. --ஸ Kyoshi 15:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I say just put him under "Other" (since people are against "false"), since he's viewed as a deity but is not actually a Spirit of the Wild. -- Konig/talk 18:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't explain it very well, though. If you just say "Jormag" then people will wonder "okay, but who worships Jormag?" and will have to sift through the article to the note where it says "Jormag is regarded as 'Dragon'". --ஸ Kyoshi 19:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I say stick him under Other. You have to go to the Mighty Oooh page to find out who worships it. So I don't see why it should be so different for Jormag. Eive 20:53, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Technically, you have to go to any page to learn who/what worships it. Melandru's worshiped by more than the humans - as are the other "Six Human Gods" - and anyone not prone to gw lore would not know who worships the Spirits of the Wild. -- Konig/talk 21:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

But Jormag being worshiped by the SoS is just an after-effect, while the others fill that role specifically. I won't oppose putting it there since I have no good alternative, but I don't think it's the best option. --ஸ Kyoshi 22:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mighty Oooh being worshiped by the Grawl is also an after-effect, as it is in fact a vocally amplified rock. (Xu Davella 01:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

But it specifically fills the role of a deity, whereas Jormag is first an Elder Dragon and second a false deity, as far as its article is concerned. --ஸ Kyoshi 20:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

"Since Svanir, there has been a cult of norn known as the Sons of Svanir who worship Jormag as the strongest Spirit of the Wild. Over the years, Jormag drew on their powers and hastened his own awakening." I would say Jormag is trying to "specifically fulfill the role of a deity." Article-wise, you make a great point Kyoshi, but I don't see why it has to be one Nav or the other. Eive 23:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Really that's the only point I'm trying to make: the article makes very little reference to his role as a pseudo-deity, and it'll be confusing for people to jump to the page through the nav and go "wait, why is this guy on the gods nav?" Still, again, I don't have a good alternative to offer. --ஸ Kyoshi 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Because people worship him as a spirit. Asuras does not agree with that the 6 human gods are gods(just a part of the eternal alchemy.) --AdventurerPotatoe - 23:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really potatoe, rather they believe the gods are part of eternal alchemy but are still gods - everything is a part of Eternal Alchemy. -- Konig/talk 02:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not disagreeing with him being on the nav. But having only a small note on the page to give people context for Jormag being on this nav under "other" is going to confuse people, I guarantee it. (My hope is that more info on SoS will be revealed eventually, if there is more to say, and we can give it its own section on Jormag's page to link to directly. But I don't know if that's optimal or will even happen.) --ஸ Kyoshi 06:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm.....Make Other expandable and show who worships whom? Eive 06:54, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) What about putting Sons of Svanir in the navbar instead of Jormag? I mean, they're the ones who are worshipping Jormag, why not list them as the faith? (Xu Davella 08:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

From the way the nav is set up, it makes the most sense to have the SoS listed and under the Other heading. The items listed under "Other" are on par with the other two groups' headings, that is, the belief's known name. In fact, this template could be entirely redone; renamed to "Beliefs", and simply list "Six Human Gods", "Spirits of the Wild", "The Great Dwarf", "Eternal Alchemy", "Koda", "The Mighty Oooh", "Sons of Savnir". The Six and the Spirits pages already have their own sub-listings, making the sub-lists in the nav redundant, and the removal of them would make it easier to include the SoS and other belief oddities. -Yossitaru 08:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Svanir isn't a faith - it's a group with a faith. You wouldn't say that the White Mantle's faith is "White Mantle" - no, it would be "Unseen Ones" and their gods would be the Mursaat (aka Unseen Ones). Koda, Six Human Gods, Spirits of the Wild, the Great Dwarf, and the Mighty Oooh are also not faiths but the focus of faiths. Eternal Alchemy... is a mix. And plus if you have the Six Human Gods but not Melandru individually, then you ignore the quaggan's faith of Melaggan (aka Melandru). -- Konig/talk 09:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah but that's like saying Christianity and Judaism aren't faiths, but a group with a faith. Same-same? (Xu Davella 09:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

I think the issue here is that there are some beliefs that don't have a name (worshipers of the Six Gods aren't called Sixists) and Sons of Svanir doesn't have a proper name we can attribute to Jormag for it to be recognized, or enough info on its page related to the Sons of Svanir. --ஸ Kyoshi 14:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm really bad at tampering with bits of lore, gets too confusing. (Xu Davella 14:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

EDIT: You know what I just realized? The SoS say that Dragon Should be revered as one of the spirits of the wild. Meaning? From a lore perspective, the norn as a collective haven't come to an agreement to include Jormag as a spirit. So we're kinda having the same discussion as what norn would be having in this situation, which we can't really resolve for them or else we'd be writing the story.(Xu Davella 15:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

The SoS do regard it as a spirit, and the rest of the norn don't. Just like the norn in general regard spirits as their deities while, for example, humans regard the Six. --ஸ Kyoshi 17:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

But do remember that this isn't a lore document, but a document about lore. The SoS page would have the most information on what they are, and would be most similar to the Six or Spirits pages. The only choices being made by us is how we are grouping this information and presenting it to other wiki users wanting to access the information. If we still want a nav to link all the individual beings that are worshiped, such as the actual god and spirit pages, and have Jormag listed there. -Yossitaru 21:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Yeah but that's like saying Christianity and Judaism aren't faiths, but a group with a faith." No, those are faiths - the groups would be "Christian" and "Jews." We actually don't have a name for any faith in gw - just the name of the groups with the faiths. If we want a nav for religious groups, then we should have it at "Template:Religious groups nav" - but that's an unnecessary nav bar. -- Konig/talk 00:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you guys are right. Well, if we put jormag in the navbar at all, it's going to confuse someone or another. Which option should we go with that is less frustrating than the other? (Xu Davella 00:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Grawl worshipping, norn beliefs

Grawl worship any unusual pool of mud or column of dirt they can get their hands on. The Mighty Oooh is in no way influential to primitive grawl culture. It is part of their religious beliefs to worship nature - not the Mighty Oooh.

About the norn: Most norn recognize all spirits of the wild, and there are indeed quite many of them, more than the less prominent ones that were listed on the template. In my opinion it was streching the marginally useful template longer than needed, so I removed those less prominent spirits. "Dragon" should remain because it has great influence on their culture and wellfare of society. Mediggo 07:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Fallen Human Gods, a new look in 2017

I was viewing the template when I noticed that its labeled ¨Six Human Gods¨ when it actually lists seven, with Abandon being in smaller font. I created a sandbox page which alters it and adds Menzies and Dhuum, along with Abbadon, as ¨Fallen Gods.¨ [[User:Endeavor7530/sandbox/godnav|godnav]]. endeavor7530 06:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

edit I did not want to blatantly alter the actual template without approval of members of the community. endeavor7530 06:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Menzies is not nor ever was a god, and we do not even know if he was once a demigod either. Dhuum is technically a former god rather than fallen god depending on how technical with terminology you want to be (as is Balthazar in S3/PoF for that matter). Abaddon was a god until his death, unlike Dhuum/Balthazar.

"Six Human Gods" is a group name not referring to the number of gods there ever was, but rather the number of gods there currently are. Abaddon is a dead god, and is honestly only listed because he has become relevant enough to GW2 to have an article. Since we do not have an article for Menzies or Dhuum, due to their lack of relevance, I personally do not feel confident in linking to GWW articles in a template that'd be decently used. Konig (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)