User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archives12

Thanks but goodbye

Hello, did you ever hear about the person suffering from OCD who insisted on calling it CDO so the initial letters were alphabetically ordered. I have spent a great deal of time wriggling out obscure events etc. But recently, you and another have insisted on rewriting and nit-picking at my work. Fine, it's a wiki. And you obviously know all the rules. It's become beyond irritating so goodbye. I am sure I am not the first that you have thoroughly ticked off, reading around I know it. I am sure you feel completely justified. I think you may have forgotten that it's a wiki about a game, it's not a space-shuttle design. There is room for some slack and, dare I say it, letting someone else have a sense of achievement. Not too sure why I am writing this as I really don't think you can empathise. Bernardus 01:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Before calling it quits, I can go over the edits you find overzealous; I assume it's related to the Plains of Ashford section. That topic hasn't been revisited for a month and didn't seem to go anywhere.-- _talk 02:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm not sure why me fixing formatting is irritating for you? No, I haven't forgotten hat it's a wiki about a game, but a wiki still has formatting and guidelines that are made by the wiki's community. It's not like I'm going around cracking whips at people for not getting formatting right. So, excuse my language here, but I have no fucking clue what's with the stick up your ass about me making articles fitting the community-made formatting structure for articles. You put up information, that's great - someone has to, and I sure as hell don't have the patience to find all that information (though I do add what I see when I realize it needs to be added).

Nothing I have done should by any right irritate or annoy you, least of all to the point of making you want to quite. I never once laid blame on you, I never once criticized you or he information you add, I've never once done anything to you but reformat the information you add for the sake of consistency and, as said, fitting the formats agreed upon by the community (and note, so that its clear, not by me).

So why the hell do you have an issue with me? Because I do my best to make things orderly here? It's all good to just slap on information, but if its chaotic its not very helpful - that's why the formatting guidelines exist, that's why there's been discussions upon discussions for how we should structure articles, and that's why there needs to be people to keep these structures consistent just as there needs to be people who add the information.

No, I suppose I can't empathize with your issue, because I don't see what your issue is. Sense of achievement? I'm sorry, but this isn't daycare - there's no need to have bragging rights about a wiki. You remind me of my father, who hates when I fuck up because it means he has nothing to brag about. I don't have any shred of a sense of achievement or accomplishment for editing the wiki. I just make sure its working. That's all. I don't think you should leave just because others edit your edits - if you get annoyed because of that, maybe you shouldn't have begun editing given that its a wiki. And if you really want that sense of accomplishment, then perhaps you should focus on keeping to the format because unless its perfect, it WILL get edited - be it by me or by others, be it seconds after your edit or months.

I doubt you'll read this, but from what I understand, you give no reason to leave other than you yourself being stuck up. This is not an insult to you, by the way, but an observation on your comment. And if you hate me for keeping consistency within the wiki, then hate me. I don't care if you hate me or love me, because I don't know you. But I haven't done a single thing against you or your work - I don't go deleting what you add going "NO THIS IS WRONG YOU FUCKING MORON" or anything like that.

But what I say doesn't matter, because its your choice to continue editing or not - just as its your choice to follow the guidelines or not to, just as it was your choice to even begin editing the wiki. What I say or do, in the long run, holds little to no value in your own choices and actions. Because I'm just a nobody who edits the wiki just so that its in good quality, not for any sense of achievement or for annoying others or what have you. Konig/talk 02:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

There are other ways of being hostile than calling people "fucking morons", and even if you're not doing that, you're still being hostile. And even though we don't edit purely for personal gratification, it's still nice to see that we've done is helping people. If people feel good about editing, they'll edit more. If they get frustrated, they'll stop. We don't want constructive users to stop editing, for obvious reasons. You have to compromise between your idea of "perfect" and others'.

Before I gave it as advice, but now it's a warning: calm down, stop with the hostility, and don't be overzealous in reverting. pling 17:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Where have I ever said the desire for a perfect wiki? I'm no fool - wikis cannot be perfect, nothing can be. I'm merely keeping to the guidelines that the community (read: not me, there are parts of these formatting styles that I disagree with) has made. So if others ever believe that I'm after a perfect wiki, they're wrong. If I give off such an indication, then I have no intention to.

I have no intention of being hostile, nor do I intend to be overzealous in reverting - nor do I believe I am either. In fact, lately I haven't been doing reverting except on minor things (including what I believe was Bernardus' final straw this as well as an IP adding the fan-made abbreviations for the dungeons on said dungeon articles, something that is redundant with the existence of redirects) - to the point where, as I just checked, there are only about a dozen or two reverts or semi-reverts mentioned in my edit summary (and unless the explanation is too long, I always keep such mentioned) for several hundred edits (up to the 18th of this month at least). Lately, and by lately I mean roughly this past week at least, what I've been doing most is keeping area articles to the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Location formatting guideline, and at best is doing semi-reverts when people edit them, with further changes that's even changing things I initialized.

Fact of the matter is that things will be edited, and I realize this, if others don't and get frustrated over it then there's nothing I or anyone else can really do. If people have issue with my edits, they can feel free to come to me well before they get frustrated to the point of leaving. I do not know what I've done to Bernardus, because in the past I know I've complimented his researching of these event details, or at least helped him in such (like what he previously thought to be historical events in Wayfarer Foothills).

So I am sorry if me keeping to what the community considers best, and again not what I consider best, is frustrating people or making myself out to seem hostile. I - as always - have held no intention to be hostile or overzealous. Only time I do get hostile is when people blame me for things and take a drastic action, such as ceasing to edit, without ever even bothering to talk to me before taking said action. In short: I get hostile over the lack of conversation before results. Nothing more. It is only during times like right now that I'm not calm (though, I suppose, I am not calm when dealing with folks who continuously revert to something outright silly where everyone else partaking in the situation agrees with my side, like the situation with Santax and naming images "<subject> screenshot.jpg"). Konig/talk 02:36, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"lately I haven't been doing reverting except on minor things" - that's my point. Why revert if it's so minor? Completely undoing an edit when it doesn't really matter too much is being overzealous. Is alphabetical sorting really superior to the by difficulty/level/seniority sorting that Bernardus proposed? Or was your reason just that it was against some formatting guideline? If the latter, guidelines change based on consensus; part of the consensus process is editing. Reverting just because it's different isn't helpful, especially when the edit being reverted is arguably more useful.

The dungeon abbreviation thing - the redirect is useful for searching, but if you're already on the page, then the commonly used abbreviation is something informative to note. I'm pretty sure we include alternative names in articles for other things, but I can't think of a specific example. Is that really something you needed to revert? Don't you think it's discouraging when all of your (arguably useful) edits are reverted? We're supposed to be a community here, encouraging each other to contribute usefully. It's not like the edits were harmful. At worst, it's "redundant"... but on reflection, it's easy to see why it's not even that. Can't you see why I'm calling your reverts overzealous?

(I referred to perfection because you said "you should focus on keeping to the format because unless its perfect, it WILL get edited". Even if a perfect wiki isn't possible, we want to get closer to perfection, and my point was that idea differs from person to person. But this is tangential, I just wanted to clear that point up.) pling 16:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

If Bernardus wanted to start a new way of listing NPCs, the way to do that should be proposing it somewhere and making a case for it, not making one list out of thousands different and taking his ball and going home when it was changed back. Unlike other things that have currently have many ways of being formatted, lists of NPCs are quite consistent. Seniority doesn't exist or is very subjective for the majority of NPC lists so I don't see how or why we'd ever want to go that route. It seemed so overwhelmingly obvious to me that it was a silly way to do things that I'm shocked to see someone say "well, maybe we should let this one list be different from all the rest to make this contributor feel good".

Redundant is bad. It makes the wiki look unprofessional and taken less seriously (like the hubbub over the vista pictures), it makes it take longer to take information in. That's harmful. Saying that a fan-made name is the name of the dungeon also seemed like an obviously bad idea to me. We acknowledge that people shorten names with the redirects. There's tons of nicknames for things that we don't and don't need to state in articles. Double Strike is overwhelmingly referred to as "the thief dagger autoattack" by people in-game, but we don't need to point that out on the page anymore than we need to say "Crucible of Eternity is named CoE". Manifold 17:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"If Bernardus wanted to start a new way of listing NPCs, the way to do that should be proposing it somewhere and making a case for it, not making one list out of thousands different and taking his ball and going home when it was changed back. Unlike other things that have currently have many ways of being formatted, lists of NPCs are quite consistent." This could have been brought up earlier instead of a WoT that can be summarized to the dramatically fatalistic viewpoint of, "Your edits WILL be edited. Deal with it." If Bernardus still checks the wiki, we can bring it up on his talk page. --Riddle 18:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"We acknowledge that people shorten names with the redirects." But redirects aren't obvious when you're just looking at the target page. There's nothing wrong with noting alternate names for something in the intro line of an article. "Crucible of Eternity (abbreviated CoE) is a dungeon..." is perfectly fine, and in my opinion, is how we should do this. I agree that the editor's original wording ("named CoE") was incorrect. —Dr Ishmael 18:43, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

@Pling: "Why revert if it's so minor?" Depends on what it is - in the case of the sole full revert of Bernardus that I've done in quite some time (if at all), it was to retain formatting. If we don't retain formatting, what's the point of guidelines? "Reverting just because it's different isn't helpful, especially when the edit being reverted is arguably more useful." If something's more useful then I don't revert it. Denoting one specific type of NPCs in list of "seniority" rather than alphabetically when the rest of the article is listed alphabetically, and that "seniority" itself is rather unnecessary to denote (literally arguing it should be Young Harpy->Harpy Hunter->Veteran Harpy Matriarch rather than Harpy Hunter->Veteran Harpy Matriarch->Young Harpy) I felt is not in any way more useful. "I'm pretty sure we include alternative names in articles for other things, but I can't think of a specific example." Well, news to me. And if so, feel free to add those abbreviations back onto the dungeon articles - though preferrably not in how they were first added of "(named AC)" since that's a misnomer in of itself (saying a fan-name term is the name of something); though unlike what Ishy says, the GW community is rather straightforward with its abbreviations and it isn't all that hard to figure them out if you know the context. Regarding the use of the term perfect, I think you either took my line out of context or misunderstood me because I've never said I'm after a perfect wiki, but rather was saying that unless someone manages to make something perfect, edits will occur so to be annoyed over someone else editing your edits is outright silly. That's not me wanting a perfect wiki, that's me acknowledging a perfect wiki's impossible.

@Manifold: Thank you, and I agree. I also kind of note the irony in how I wanted to say the same thing on NPC listings to you because of this edit, which just to help prove a point against my "overzealous reverting" - I didn't revert when I thought it was silly to break NPC listings! But hey, its only the actions taken and not actions avoided that others see.

@Ishy: Though subjective, I'm going to disagree with the notion that we should denote fan-made abbreviations or coinages on articles that use an official name. Primarily because not only is it uncommon to do, but there's a lot of nicknames for some articles, and for a vast majority of them, knowing the target of those is all that's the point of searching them other than saving time on typing when searching. In other words, there's little to no benefit to readers by adding them, and it simply adds onto people must read past to get to the information they want - which I would consider harmful. The only benefit it provides to say on Crucible of Eternity that the dungeon is abbreviated CoE is for those who do not know that the playerbase abbreviates it to CoE, but is not looking up what CoE means. And that, I would believe, is a very small percentage of readers. Small enough, I would argue, that lengthening the article isn't worth the number of folks it benefits. On the dungeon articles its not much of a big deal, but when you get articles where the nicknames are far more numerous or longer, it is. I, for one, don't want to be making the first sentence of deep sea dragon to be "The currently unnamed Elder Dragon from the depths of a sea, nicknamed "Deep Sea Dragon" (or DSD/dsd for short), "Bubbles," "Dragon of the Deep," and a variety of other names, has the power to create tentacled creatures from the water." which is the same principle as what you propose. Konig/talk 19:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not falling for your reductio ad absurdum. Just because I think we should note some extremely common abbreviations that help to inform our readers on things like dungeon articles doesn't mean I think we should include every single abbreviation/nickname for everything else. Also, stating that such a small addition "adds onto people must read past to get to the information they want" is a bit absurd in itself - most people can easily scan over parenthetical phrases, and for the ones that don't, how much longer does it really take to read "abbreviated CoE" or whatever? You're making up arguments and trivializing the benefits in order to stick with your original position. —Dr Ishmael 19:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Then you fall into the messy realm of what does and what doesn't count as an "extremely common abbreviation that help to inform our readers on things" - that's a very subjective subject. If you start adding (abbreviated CoF) you will get others adding other such abbreviations or nicknames, and then the list eventually gets to the point of my example for the DSD article. And when it gets to that point, it is no longer as absurd as you claim. Konig/talk 22:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Now you're resorting to the slippery slope. —Dr Ishmael 23:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Is it resorting to something that is the case? Konig/talk 23:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The abbreviation only varies in the capitalization of the letters. The exceptions are The Ruined City of Arah as "Arah" and Fractals of the Mists as both "fractals" or "FotM". They are also the logical abbreviations, so we're safe whether or not they are the most common. We need an abbreviation of some kind on the dungeon pages since the redirects are already there. Bubbles doesn't even have an official name, so it can't possibly have an abbreviation, which makes it totally pointless for an example.

We can list it either way, the NPC rank is prefixed onto the NPC name; easy way to confirm is by checking the NPC name in dialogue (so far I haven't seen exceptions). Sorting by family then lexicographically (i.e. rank) follows the convention to include the rank in the name. I'd rather list this way because we're just going to end up getting thrown off by the convention while we try to be clever.-- _talk 03:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

(Reset indent) "We need an abbreviation of some kind on the dungeon pages since the redirects are already there." See, this is what I don't understand. Look at gw1:The Underworld, gw1:Realm of Torment, gw1:The Fissure of Woe, gw1:Hell's Precipice and so forth - no abbreviations mentioned, despite them being often referred to as UW, RoT, FoW, and HP. So why do we need an abbreviation on the articles? I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing its usefulness or necessity. Those who wonder what it means will search the abbreviation, not the dungeon, and those who search the abbreviation for the dungeon gain nothing from it being denoted there. As said, the only group who get a benefit is those who neither searched it nor know what it means/know about the abbreviation. As to NPC ranking - not all Veterans or Champions or Legendaries are prefixed with their rank. So if you go by rank - which is not what Barnedus did (if he did, it would have been Harpy Hunter->Young Harpy->Veteran Harpy Matriarch, but what he wanted was Young Harpy first, because it's young) - then you'll effectively be getting one to four alphabetical listings, in which case you're better off separating the Foes list by rank rather than type, but that gets redundant since most ranked NPCs have their rank prefixed. Konig/talk 06:42, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I am Bernardus's daughter. Just to let you know that he accurately predicted that his irritation, politely put, would be met with at least someone's crudity. I guess that's the Internet and, therefore, unsurprising. It's strange that you think that the precise, pedantic corrections are to be expected when the whole wiki is full of major errors. Retaining formatting really shouldn't include rearranging a list of three items, it was scarcely chaotic. It's just plain silly to do so. It's not a question of "taking his ball and going home", it's a question of being irritated by the correction of a minor obscure point. There's always one more "rule" that can be brought out of the deep recesses of the policies. And, by the way, he certainly isn't that kind of father, nor indeed that kind of teacher (not his profession). When you correct someone, it's really helpful to tell them why and probably to point them in the direction of the written policy. As for him leaving the community, you should be grateful as he certainly can't see your point of view and by leaving he is avoiding conflict. But, more importantly, it's a game and if the game isn't fun anymore, because of other player(s) or any other reason, then what's the point of playing it. As for "hate", no.

I was doing some lesser "stuff" under his login, and, if it is of any interest to anyone, I will continue under my own name. Hopefully I will be a more tolerant contributor and recipient of corrections. Claret 08:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Such major errors will - or at least should - be corrected in due time. I correct what I see when I see, when I know how to fix. To me, it's just plain silly to get irritated over someone fixing minor issues. If the issues are so minor, why make a big deal out of changing them if there was no big deal made out of their presence? And I for one never said nor expressed gratitude to Bernardus leaving. Perhaps I'm just the oddity in life, but I felt and feel indifferent on the matter - as I do for many things, really, even things that are actually important in life. Konig/talk 08:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone obviously finds it useful, as the anon added them. It's a minor addition that isn't disruptive; unless you suggest a better place that it would be more effective, like a list of common terms or on the dungeon page (where the abbreviations were removed for some reason), there isn't a reason to actually remove the abbreviation. Most people aren't against sticking the abbreviation somewhere. As for the usefulness itself, I don't buy the catch-22. A player doesn't know why they are being redirected to a dungeon unless you state it's an abbreviation for the dungeon. Otherwise, you have disambigs telling you so. It's also needed if you want to check if a dungeon has an abbreviation, especially for the Arah dungeon. Most players won't assume or know that you can simply use the abbreviation for a dungeon to look it up on the wiki. If you don't know about the abbreviation for a dungeon, you can't make use of it. I still have to go through the dungeon page to navigate to the arah dungeon.

But really, my knee-jerk response is to remove them because they sounded terrible, which is why I agreed when I saw you reverted the anons edits. It obviously isn't going over well when you tend to be aggressive on reversions and end up looking like a bully. Now you have a shitstorm on your talk about relatively minor issues and a butthurt user whose daughter had to hijack his account ^^-- _talk 11:28, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

We are not GWW, there's no reason we can't do things differently here. In my opinion, including the abbreviations is part of providing complete documentation, as they have been widely accepted by the player community. I don't understand why you are continuing to argue against such a small addition to 8 articles. —Dr Ishmael 14:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello, I noted your recent edits of the skill challenges I had done. I note your reasons for having done so. I have read the discussion on it and can't see that a consensus was actually reached. The conversation kind of ended a few weeks ago without a conclusion in a couple of places. But, no matter, I may well have misinterpreted what was written or not found the definitive consensus. But I would be grateful if you could point me towards the policy in cases like this. Simple error corrections are no problem ofc.

In all truth, if this is the consensus then I would be perfectly happy as it fits in with my ideas too. Also, do we have to repeat the "Location" in the body of the text when it is a duplicate of the info box? Thanks. Claret 16:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

You're referring to my one edit on moving the object's text from the event page to the object? Such was never discussed, but that's how the articles should be documented - the text is not dialogue that's part of the event, but its what is seen when interacting with the object. If you're referring to the location section, that's just how all objects and NPCs are formatted. The only discussion on skill challenge objects I recall would be for when you got multiple objects - skill challenge or not - that hold the same name, whether to separate them by location (specifically about the statues of the gods seen throughout Orr), to which the consensus was definitely "minimal articles" more or less. Any other discussion I could think of that may be related to what you mean, would be to not document non-existing events for communing and the like skill challenges, which is irrelevant in this matter. Konig/talk 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I was referring to your edit in moving the object's text from the event page to the object. As I said, I had no objection to the move and it seems very logical. What I was asking was that when you wrote "This text belongs on the object page, not the event page" if this was your opinion rather than a consensus. As you say, it's your opinion rather than a consensus opinion. Just that it's nice to know what's an opinion and what's authoritative, bit confusing at times. Claret 18:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, no? "the text is not dialogue that's part of the event, but its what is seen when interacting with the object" That's not opinion, that's fact. It is dialogue with the object, which means it goes on the object page. It may be what triggers the event, but it's not part of the event. —Dr Ishmael 18:53, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So, a dialogue that's always and consistently occurs during an event that is triggered by an object is not part of the event but somehow ancillary to it. Sorry but this is hair-splitting time. I fully agree with it being on the object page as a matter of style but to say that "it's a fact" is a little too far. You could equally argue that communing with an item is separate from the item but you have chosen, quite rightly I think, not to do so. But, really, the object of my query was to establish if there was some written policy/consensus on the matter. Apparently there isn't but it is a self evident fact. Claret 19:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You're being obtuse. Dialogue with an object/NPC goes on the object/NPC's article. That is consensus, as well as common sense. Whether the dialogue triggers an event or not is irrelevant. —Dr Ishmael 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Apparently so. Anyway, fine. Claret 19:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue of an event are what NPCs say during and only during the event at triggered or random intervals. Event dialogue always has voice acting to it. The text of an NPC or object that then triggers or of an NPC/object that is part of an event is not part of an event (the text that is, isn't of the event). As Ishy said, this was not my opinion - nor was it ever discussed, because it's pretty plain and simple, though people have (for reasons unknown to me) added such text to the skill challenge articles (I presume because they were focused on making the event articles rather than the object articles). Konig/talk 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

But, and I hope you understand my thirst for knowledge, if it's not documented, and I found no such documentation, then all I can do is look around for examples to copy. I found examples of each way of doing things and I chose what I thought (mistakenly) was the way to go. (1) I fully agree with your definition of how it should work, no problem there. It flows logically. (2) I was asking, if you read back, for a written policy/consensus. It's always better to have it written somewhere than not. You did not point me at one. hence my "opinion" comment. (3) We will have to agree to differ where fact/choice/style begin and end. Now that I have a definitive answer from you and Dr ishmael, I can write it in my notes and am happy. Bear in mind, please, that things that are obvious to you and others who were with this wiki from its early days are not always so nearly so obvious to relative newcomers. Thanks. Claret 20:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's no written policy because it's not the means to do it - the only "written policies" we have are guidelines - which objects follow the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:NPC formatting guideline (not sure if we have an object formatting guideline), sans the infobox (object infobox instead of NPC infobox) and the dialogue section (tiled Text for objects, and lacking quotation marks). That's not really the case of it being opinion, just that such doesn't exist because it just doesn't exist.

Anyways, I know things obvious to me won't be to others, hence why I added an explanation (albeit brief due to character limitation) in the edit summary. Konig/talk 22:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Claret 22:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

file for deletion

[[:File:User Konig Des Todes New Krytan sign with V.jpg]] is used on Talk:New Krytan#The elusive 'V'. —Dr Ishmael 17:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

And? It's not needed anymore, given we have the letter and the discussion is rather ancient, so I figured there's no issue with deleting it. If there is, then just remove the tag. Konig/talk 13:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting it would leave a redlink, which is bad. If you want to delete the image, please first edit your comment to remove the image link. —Dr Ishmael 15:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Mursaat

The wording of the spoiler tag allows it to be placed at the top of a page where there are spoiler sentences, otherwise the wiki would be littered with red bars midway through pages. Also, if you are reverted once, rather than reverting again (or are you attempting to start another revert war?), you can leave a message on either the talk page of the editor concerned or the article concerned, rather than simply reverting again. Talk pages are for conversations, not edit summaries. --Santax (talk · contribs) 01:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, for some reason my brain blacked out the fact that I reworded the "out of phase" bit. I didn't intend to start another revert war - I would actually argue that wasn't entirely a revert, but that'd be nitpicking (as I changed the format to make it more reasonable to have the tag lower - and I would have just shrugged and left it be since it's not a big issue, unlike the images were becoming). I'll go move it to the top, for the reason I first mentioned. Konig/talk 01:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Spoilers is a rather evil template, gobbling up text people may or may not care about >.>--Relyk ~ talk > 07:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? Not questioning it, just that it seems a pretty blatant hint at future updates and it'd be interesting to see where it came from and if it has any deeper implications that could be reflected in the article. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Wardens

Re: this edit. The wardens are speculated to be former humans ("They may once have been human") but they are in the same breath referred to as "ancient and mysterious", which tells us that nobody knows for sure, it's just an assumption based on the fact that they are humanoid, like the sylvari. The manuscripts state that the Jade Wind "inexplicably left the Wardens unharmed", and that it was their insanity, caused by their failure to protect the forest, that causes their aggression towards humans (and that this is not necessarily permanent). --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

However, they are still 1) ancient, 2) not necessarily plants (nothing actually calls them plants, just that they, like the Druids who were former humans and what wardens are suspected of having once been (though probably not the Druids), suspectedly became one with nature), and 3) not unaffected by the Jade Wind's affects (see gw1:Urgoz). The allusions are fairly weak. Either way, it's speculation and the wiki doesn't denote speculation, even in notes sections. Konig/talk 17:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is dialogue in-game somewhere (can't remember where) that implies that the sylvari, too, are ancient, and that a Pale Tree appears around the time of every cycle of awakening. The wardens aren't necessarily plants, I agree, but I never said they were? Not sure why you put that. Fact is, we don't know much about them at all, and what little we know for certain is comparable to the sylvari. And "not unaffected" is very different from a biological immunity to corruption - the sylvari are not unaffected by the rise of the Elder Dragons, should we now document them as being corrupted? It's not speculation to say "hey, look at these two species that are similar in a couple of ways", here is the definition in case you were wondering. It's only a minor note and I'm not hugely bothered by its removal, but I haven't edited in a while, partially because of the level of wikihounding I experienced from you before, and now it feels like as soon as I make a few edits they are being policed again. --19:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't recall any such indication of the sylvari being ancient. And I've done my best to record anything of note - and that is definitely of note. Everything I've seen or heard of the sylvari regarding age is that they're young or too young or some such.

I noted the plant bit because "they are humanoid, like the sylvari" - yes, sylvari are humanoid, but they are plants too. And the warden, except for bark-looking horns and pale green skin, hold no plant-like appearance.

I'm particularly keen about denoting loose ties on the wiki because people mistakenly take the wiki as bible when it comes to lore, if it's mentioned on the wiki the lore forums get floods of precisely what happened when WoodenPotatoes mistakenly said that the Zone Green skill challenge binary translates into "Pale Tree" - a shit ton of long lasting, even when disproven, misinformation spread. That's why, above consistency in format, I uphold "no speculation" on the wiki. As TEF on GWW says: Just the facts, ma'am. And the similarities between sylvari and warden is fairly subjective (e.g., not fact) - regardless if you consider it speculation or not.

I have no intention of "wikihounding" or harassing you, I actually have been intending to get to the articles you've been editing for a long while. Just been too lazy. Seeing them pop up on my watchlist (you have a tendency to edit the articles I have on my watchlist) just reminded me that I wanted to get to expanding them. Like karka. In fact, I THANK' you for editing these articles. Because I often feel that if I don't improve the lore quality of articles, no one will. You are, perhaps, the main other lore article contributor I have seen. I have no intention of chasing you off, I just like to clean up the dust after people walk through the clean rooms. ;) So if you must, think of me only as a janitor making things tidy/tidier. Konig/talk 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The sylvari themselves are young, but the seeds aren't necessarily. Wherever it was (don't think it was in-game but a second hand source, so grain of salt) I remember them saying that something like the sylvari appear in every cycle.

The wardens may or not be plants, but the comparison never said they were. They do have a close link with plants, though, and that is worthy of note.

The Zone Green golem spelling out PALE TREE isn't speculation - it's outright falsehood. Something either appears in-game, or it doesn't, but it doesn't mean that a small amount of reasonable analysis can be applied to what we find in-game. This is an encyclopaedia, not a database. Often your doubts are so far-fetched that you seem to be playing an extreme version of devil's advocate, just to make certain things don't get documented. If you yourself, along with most of the community agree with some well-reasoned "speculation" based on intentional-seeming hints that cannot be documented as "just the facts", then why act all outraged about their subjectivity when nobody actually seems to be arguing against the speculation? I am referring to this discussion, but it applies to most other times you have reverted me on the basis of "speculation".

Whether intentional harassment or not, that is how it feels. I appreciate the thanks for the edits, and I can understand where you are coming from, but think of things from my perspective:w while I appreciate that the wiki is a community effort, and that I appreciate that I should expect my writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed by others, just not within hours, often minutes of me writing them. But this does not feel like a community effort. I will spent a good chunk of time rewriting and expanding articles that are in need of attention, and because they happen to be on your watchlist, minutes later they are almost entirely reworded or repurposed - which I think you'll agree is a lot less time-consuming than my expanding the article (not that I am accusing you of laziness - your recent expansion to the karka article, for example, is better than I could have done. It's just that I, like you, have faith in my own writing abilities, and so it is disheartening to have you "cleaning up dust" after me, as if I do not carefully word my sentences in the first place). And when minutes after working hard on an article, I see parts of it removed with summaries like "removing fluff", "removing irrelevancies", it is difficult not to take offence, no matter the intention. While you changing the wording of sentences is non-controversial (if a little offensive), doing things like removing content and changing the meaning of sentences is not non-controversial, particularly when the edit summary begins with "imo", which is often. These are things you fail to discuss, to the detriment of other editors. Perhaps in an effort to prove you are not personally wikihounding me, you seem to have stirred up quite a lot of conflict in my absence, causing at least one editor to leave the wiki. Perhaps it is you who should be thinking about how you edit.

Whether or not intentionally, you are following me around the wiki, editing almost every page I edit and changing almost all of it. If I object, I either have to enter a revert war or spend literal hours justifying minor phrasings or capitalisations on your talk page. I have been editing again for only a few days and already my energy is being sapped. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please provide a source for the sylvari appearing every cycle, as I've never seen such a comment - either as fact, possibility, or speculation. Only as player speculation, never in-game or by devs.

The note on the article? No. Your explanation was worded to make me understand as if you were calling them such.

I never said that was speculation, I was merely stating that the same thing happens with speculation placed on the wiki, even when said to be speculation, just like what happened with the Zone Green skill challenge fiasco. It's true that I often play devil's advocate - which puts me at odds with a lot of people - for the pure sake of making sure there's an opposing side to help point out flaws, though I hold no intention of preventing documentation. I merely wish to prevent speculation - widely accepted or not by the fan-base. Simply out of the fact of what I just mentioned: even if speculation is stated to be such, it is still taken as fact if seen on the wiki, because for some odd reason people take the wiki as word of god - and far too often at the wrong things. That's why if there's even a hint of possibility of it not being the case, like with Melandru and Melaggan being the same, I want to ensure there's that uncertainty denoted - unlike you, it seems - and when something is clearly speculative, I want to keep it as minimal as possible. If it's a mere observation of the game, that's fine, but the line about the wardens is a very subjective aspect.

I, ignoring the age, possible origins, and geological locations of the two races, still see little relation. The biggest relation are in two forms: both relate to great tree (one serving one, the other being born of) and the name "warden" is used for both (one as a race name, the other as an organization of the race). But that's it - and there's FAR more relations between sylvari and druid, or druid and warden, but between sylvari and warden? I see few - on either a general or close up view. And given how subjective this topic is, especially as speculation, I'd rather not include it.

And yes, I agree my edits to your edits are a lot less time consuming. You wouldn't have had to edited them, at least to such degrees, if they weren't time consuming - otherwise I'd have done it long ago. I've long grown tired of time-consuming wiki edits. Accuse me of laziness if you wish - that wouldn't be false. I added those edit summaries because I got yelled at for not leaving summaries in the past when making such edits (by you, I think, though I very well may be misremembering). For content removal - I only did what many have done to me in the past, and that's keeping the article about the article's topic (even if the seers made the original bloodstone, the history of the bloodstone is irrelevant to the seer race given their lack of interaction). And I didn't intend to make someone else quite (hell, I barely even edited after that person). Konig/talk 23:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Malyck

← moved to Talk:Malyck#Dispute

Forgotten

Just a heads-up, re: this revert, both Forgotten and Seers are given a capital letter at the beginning whenever they are referred to in-game, even in missions where mursaat and jotun are mentioned (and given lowercase). Perhaps because those aren't their "true" names (Proph manual states that the true name of the Forgotten was well, forgotten), who knows. Also, what's the source for them fleeing from Cantha straight to the Crystal Sea? I kind of assumed they were already there and all eventually made their way there, but logically the only place you can really go from the coastline of Cantha is either further inland or into the Unending Ocean. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not always, it seems to be 50/50 from what I've seen. Same goes for mursaat, titans, and playable races (the last especially when an NPC is referring to your character as its race). And "what's the source for them fleeing from Cantha straight to the Crystal Sea?" What? I never made such a claim. The only mention of Cantha in my revision is "Archaeological evidence shows that the forgotten were spread throughout continental Tyria as well as far as Cantha when humans arrived on the world." If you're referring to removing "although later conflicts with the humans would push them into the Unending Ocean" - I removed that because the conflicts with humans had them going to the Crystal Desert (over 200 years after the sea dried up), not the Unending Ocean - even if they did pass through said Unending Ocean. Konig/talk 22:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I realise that ANet's application of their own naming rules is often inconsistent, but in Arah they will mention Forgotten, Seers, dwarves, mursaat and jotun, often in the same sentence, and consistently use capitals for the first letter of Seer and Forgotten, and consistently use lowercase for mursaat and jotun, so it seems intentional, whereas in other cases (e.g. playable races) I would wager either someone slipped up slightly or someone simply didn't get the memo. What I meant by the Forgotten thing was that all we know is that human conflicts in Tyria eventually pushed them to the Desert, and that conflicts in Cantha pushed them out of Cantha, but the two things do not necessarily connect (they take place at different times iirc). But it doesn't really matter. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen all five races lowercased in the same sentence, and I've seen where five are mentioned with Dwarf and Forgotten capitalized by jotun, seer, and mursaat not within the same sentence. So I wouldn't be so certain.

As for the forgotten in Cantha: Surprisingly, although surviving records and artifacts from this period prove that the serpentine Forgotten dwelt in Cantha as well, they appear not to have come into conflict with humans there. My own interpretation of the data indicates that geographic reasons are most likely: the two races did not compete for food or territory before the Forgotten departed the world en masse.

They left at the same time Tyrian forgotten left - for all indications give - and there was never conflict with humans in Cantha, for all indications given. Konig/talk 22:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Trivia bullet?

Since you tagged the article for deletion, I was wondering if the pre-beta information (historical content of some sort) is worthy of a trivia bullet on the Ministry article (or maybe something grander). I am inclined to say it isn't because, in essence, senators are individuals within the ministry, but I'm not that knowledgeable when it regards human politics in Tyria. Either way, I've postponed the actual deletion for now. - Infinite - talk 13:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason why not. Simply a "The ministers were originally called senators before the demos." or some such on either The Ministry or Minister - which would be the case, since there's no senators in GW2 but their job as shown in The Movement of the World is what ministers do. Konig/talk 14:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Seers and the Dream

Re: this edit. You removed quite a lot of information about the bloodstones, whicih we now know the Seers to have created. If you removed every sentence that didn't contain the name of the article, most articles on this wiki would be very short. The article didn't need to be more "concise" - it was hardly sprawling. I'd feel a lot better if you focused on articles that needed improvement rather than ones that ones had been improved by me not long before. And can we get this out the way first, before we get into the realm of the ridiculous: do you honestly believe that the thing on Zinn's table was anything other than a Seer? Really?
Re: this edit. The starting sylvari quest is far more than just setting out the Wyld Hunt, the dream has actually been corrupted with nightmare and you have to fight it. The quest exists outside the PC's own head - there are external characters in there influencing it, and the PC influences the outside world (the fate of the Dreamers). Read all the dialogue on Fighting the Nightmare and see if you think otherwise. And of course, all the phrase "though this is unconfirmed" does is seed doubt where it is not necessary to seed doubt. The Tree believing the nightmare is to do with the dragons is not necessarily true, that speaks for itself. That phrase makes readers think it is less likely than it actually is. You can find an NPC who does not believe the nightmare is to do with the dragon and quote them, but do not include analysis that falsely manipulates the reader.
Also, while we're at it, (how is the fact that Primordus bled enough magic to power the entire asura gate network 'irrelevant'? --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The information on the bloodstones being found by the gods is irrelevant to the seer race and belongs on Six Human Gods, Magic, and/or Bloodstone. Same with just about all bloodstone information other than the seers made it - since that's the only involvement we know the seers had with it. The reason why I focus on articles improved by you not long before is - as I have said - because they pop up in my watchlist, thus catch my attention. Furthermore, you have a long standing habit of putting speculation as fact. I never said what was on Zinn's table wasn't seer. I said that it wasn't (necessarily) a corpse - huge difference.

Yes, there's Nightmare to fight in the Dream, however, we are told by the custodian of the Dream that the dragon was a symbol of the PC's wyld hunt. Therefore, said Shadow of the Dragon might not be tied to the _source_ of the nightmare, but merely extending it. And how much doubt a reader puts on a phrase which merely states it's not confirmed cannot be controlled by the words except to make the reader believe, falsely so, that it is one case or the other. It is merely stating "it is believed, but not yet confirmed, that x causes z."

What's irrelevant is the gate network - what's relevant is that he produced magic while hibernating which led to the asura settling near him. We already know they're powerful, so saying Primordus powered the former gate network is not needed to be denoted for sake of showing how powerful they are. You're trying to cram every single bit of possible information into every page with the even smallest amount of relevancy.

And while we're at it - Elementalists are bound by the Bloodstone too; the old Elementalist page on guildwars2.com even outright stated they use the Destruction school of magic (they are the one and only profession who's school is confirmed). Konig/talk 23:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Fimbul

I'm not doubting your screenshot, but this is from January 4th. I don't think he appears in two paths, either. I don't know what the deal is. Manifold 20:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess his name got changed then, my screenshot's a bit older. Should redo the path to double check though, before moving or anything. Konig/talk 21:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

God concept art

I'm not sure I like the new ones. They seem to lack a bit being in black & white and being a 2-d version of a 3-d object. --JonTheMon 21:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. I'd much rather have concept art of the gods (rather than statues of the gods, or avatars of the gods) on their pages, especially when we know for a fact that Kormir's statue does not resemble Kormir. The Ascalonian murals appear in Guild Wars 2 (in the human intro, possibly in the environment as well), and we do know that there is one for each god including Kormir (again, from the human intro), although I haven't found Kormir's online yet. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't mind keeping the mural art, I just switched them all for consistency (if we find a version of that Kormir piece, I'd be more than happy to put those on all six!) - and the fact that when Santax uploaded the Grenth mural at File:Grenth concept art.jpg, he overrode a different concept art that's actually called "Grenth concept art" - I'd rather have the murals put at "<God> mural concept art.jpg" just for that case (or overriding the File:<God>.jpg images).

I don't see the issue with the whole "2d version of a 3d object" tbh - not like we have that issue with every single screenshot or other kinds of images.

And if Kormir grew her hair and straightened it out, and lost the blindfold, I think that statue would look like her. But that's semantics - it is her irregardless.

And I don't think the mural appear in-game outside of that intro cinematic anywhere. Which is odd, imo. Konig/talk 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I posted a question on the GW2 forums here, hopefully we'll get an answer. To be honest I think I'd maybe prefer having one article inconsistent than have the current images - since they are concept art of the God statues, not the gods, they appear to be screencapped from a YouTube video rather than from any official source, and they don't look that good compared to the "murals" :/ --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They come straight from Kekai's tumblr (example). So they are, indeed, from an "official source" and not from some Youtube video like the kormir one was originally. Konig/talk 00:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't necessarily preclude it from being a YT screencap - the height of the image is 1080px, a common screen resolution and also the highest possible resolution of a YouTube video. If Kekai didn't have access to the original file it could have been capped from a YouTube video. And of course, it does not change the fact that these are not actual concepts of the gods, but rather their statues. I think the murals would be of more interest to readers because the statues can be seen everywhere in-game, and all have their own wiki pages anyway, whereas the murals appear only briefly in-game and so should be featured more prominently to ensure that readers get the "full story". --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The full story would be better delivered using both the statue images and the concept art. The statue is a better illustration of what's actually seen in-game, and the concept art is pretty. pling 13:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Uhm, Santax, you do realize that there is no youtube video featuring all six statues, let alone the Dwayna, Balthazar, Melandru, Grenth, and Lyssa ones, right?

And I don't see how the murals give a "full story" - or even fuller - compared to the statue concept art given that said statues of which the concept art is of are, with exception of Kormir's, designed by Malchor and as such they are the truest depiction of five of the Six Gods. Konig/talk 20:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

The murals show the story of how the gods are perceived by humans and their artists, which isn't necessarily the same as their actual appearance, but is still kinda significant. Also, they're pretty :P. pling 21:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Request

I am currently working on a new event / quest idea for either GW1 and/or GW2: The Nightmare Before Wintersday. If your feeling particularly creative, what would the Mad King (in his words) say if the Lunatic Court informed him that their "Flux antics" has granted access to the Mortal Realm twice a year; perhaps even hijack two holidays that should never coexist? ^_^ Also, what happened your awesome Mad King parody? --108.38.59.50 12:32, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dunno and I can tell you right now that such a suggestion would never make it into GW1 that's for sure (it's already established lore on what happened between GW1 and GW2 with the flux bit - Thorn disappeared - so if anything, something would happen that prevented his return). Konig/talk 19:38, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Jungle Wurms

Hello. I've reverted an image on Great Jungle Wurm because the other Jungle Wurm image doesn't reflect the size of the creature and its surrounding location of this specific world boss. However, I've noticed that you're consolidating various Jungle Wurm images to only one single image due to same model used, so I'm wondering if there are consensus on wiki pages about dealing with duplicate images of the same model. Regards. Geekfox 10:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

If they use the same model and size, then a single image works perfectly. Konig messed up with the rapid fire edits.--Relyk ~ talk > 10:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

@Geekfox: Showing just the head does nothing to reflect the size of the creature or its surrounding location. I don't know if it was ever discussed in length, however, word of thumb is that if they use the same model then use a single image - if they change weapons (e.g., the three kinds of risen krait), then a second image is ok but not needed (and only preferred when both are of good quality).

@Relyk: Technically, I didn't mess anything up. I just did not sit around waiting for an admin to go and delete File:Jungle Wurm.jpg so that File:Veteran Ancient Maguuma Wurm.jpg could be moved there. Konig/talk 20:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I can see what you're doing now, but it would be less confusing to simply upload a new version of Jungle Wurm. Not that it's a big deal.--Relyk ~ talk > 20:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, I'm lazy like that. It'd require saving the image, then when uploading changing the folder to the right one (I like having it auto-opening my GW2 Screens folder!). Konig/talk 20:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You can open the image by url, no saving required.--Relyk ~ talk > 20:58, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've attempted such before. Never worked. Anyways, image changed. Konig/talk 20:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Hi, I've started a discussion about your recent disputes with Santax to see what other admins (and users) think. You may want to keep an eye on it. pling 23:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite tired of Santax already and I'm really just about wanting to quit the wiki. The stress he gives me is not worth it (he says I'm wikihounding him? I feel hounded too - and it doesn't help that half of his edits are speculatory or that when he preaches "discuss first" it's his version of the article which always must be up while it's being "discussed" (not like he ever ceases even if everyone disagrees with him anyways), and that while he claims that I put forth what I want, he does the exact same thing). The only thing that kept me from leaving since the screenshot fiasco was that I hate how people quote a wrong wiki as fact more than I hate dealing with Santax. So the outcome to that is, at this point, irrelevant to me. If I'm banned, so be it, I need an excuse to stop trying to improve this site. Konig/talk 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting?

Please stop reverting everything I do 20 seconds after I do it. On the page Gravestone (Stronghold of Ebonhawke) you reverted my deletion of the words "These graves mark the final resting place of fallen citizens and soldiers of Stronghold of Ebonhawke." These pages are now objects, and this description does not belong on this page. I already had moved it, word for word, to the page Defender's Field. Yoe Dude 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't meant to be 20 seconds after. The timing is pure coincidence. We're just both being active. I explained why I semi-reverted that in the summary - I felt that one sentence was way too short, and the wording ("this graveyard") was an oversight/typo on my part when I was rewording it - where I was putting a mixture of your old wording with the version I wrote up before you started altering all the things. Anyways, I think I'm done for the time being anyways. Konig/talk 06:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

location, location

Eh... it's in the infobox. Do we really need it listed again under a section header in the article? —Dr Ishmael 05:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of objects are in multiple places; true, this one isn't, but it keeps formatting consistency for those which do. Speaking of which... is it possible to make add additional area parameters now since the semantic stuff automatically takes zone/region from the entered areas? Chieftan Alex altered the infobox once, I believe, to allow the area parameter to function like the locations parameter for NPC infobox when there's extra brackets in, but I think this would be far better. Or we just go the route of the NPC infobox and only enter the zones. Konig/talk 05:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephane said he's going to have a "big announcement" for the wiki this week, which I'm pretty sure is going to be the MW upgrade, which means they can finally install the semantic extensions. Then we can #arraymap multi-valued parameters instead of having to use multiple parameters. —Dr Ishmael 15:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Giant (NPC)

Not touching that with a 10 foot pole lol--Relyk ~ talk > 04:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I wouldn't care enough to bother with the note further. But it is a 1 of a kind being the sole non-rank giant NPC, and possibly the sole hostile giant NPC not tied to an event. That's kind of worth denoting, especially for those wanting to progress their slayer achievements. Konig/talk 04:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's useful in only the vaguest of sense on the notes section of a single npc. It does bug me we can't differentiate between allies and foes in a query like Giants. Maybe a hostile parameter instead of the (foe) suffix. Good day.--Relyk ~ talk > 04:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That bothers me too. It very much does. Konig/talk 04:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Concept art

Where was it decided that concept art on pages would be a generic "Art by [artist]." rather than actually describing what is going on in the images (also pertinent). Now the captions look repetitious and ugly, and contain information that can be found simply by viewing the image full-sized. They add nothing and take away information, particularly on the GL page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it was "decided" - that's just how it's been since this wiki's been making articles with concept art images. The caption on the GL page was only repetition of information in the main body of the article, so nothing's lost there. Konig/talk 22:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Concept art of the Risen Giganticus Lupicus, by Kekai Kotaki" - does that work for both of you? pling 22:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds redundant to me but meh, I care enough to debate it. Though Santax's wording was originally "The last known True Giant, corrupted by Zhaitan." Konig/talk 22:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) It doesn't pack as much of a punch as "The last known True Giant, corrupted by Zhaitan.", but it's a lot better than what we currently have. FWIW, thanks for getting involved in this, I'd planned on getting quite a bit done today but was stopped in my tracks pretty much as soon as Konig logged on (this applies to everyone else who got involved in discussions too, if you're reading this). --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Aaaaand here we have it folks! The true origin of the conflict between me and Santax. "It doesn't pack as much of a punch" - the issues all stem down to this mentality. I want documentative, clear and concise, provides just the facts articles. Santax wants stylized (or whatever word you prefer) articles that, as he put it, "packs a punch" - putting enjoyability over facts. And that means, often leads to misinterpretation of information - something I want to avoid first and foremost.

Santax, you just confirmed the source of the problem between you and I, despite your previous lack of ever commenting on it when I bring it up. Konig/talk 22:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want "just the facts", go to gw2db. But we would be doing a disservice to wiki readers not to include everything we know about a subject, including a small amount of non-controversial analysis. This wiki is more than just a list of facts, and articles should be interesting to read.

I'm trying to find a talk page comment you made to the effect of the above, saying you used to agree with my style but were told the wiki should be written very formally, and eventually came to agree. I can't find it but would appreciate it if you could, just so I'm not misrepresenting you or anything. Because with it, things make a lot more sense. The discussion were referring to was, presumably, this ridiculous saga, where you wrote an article in the voice of a character that you did not create and wanted it to be included on the wiki. It is possible to keep things encyclopaedic without everything being short, clipped statements of facts, and it is possible to make an article more readable without having it outright become fanfiction, which is what you wrote. Is "The last known True Giant, corrupted by Zhaitan." putting enjoyability over facts? I don't think so. To think that this whole issue was because you are still reeling from when a bunch of users put down your bad fanfiction two and a half years ago is, frankly, pretty breathtaking. I'm done. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that Konig's version of the page was pretty well liked, actually. Let's try to keep things professional and impersonal, shall we. 04:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken, Santax. Firstly, I am including everything - it's just that we're dividing by topic (and in the case, the actions of group x over item y does not affect the topic of group z, even though item y does). As to gw2bd - that's all mechanics, no lore is ever documented there, so irrelevant suggestion. The comment you refer to is from the recent admin noticeboard discussion. As to the topic referred to - though the MKT does state the same, though for different reasons, that was not it, actually - nor am I sore about something I wrote in the style of some character tvtopes (such as this which actually inspired that). The topic was regarding a revision of gww:Tyria (world). I didn't find the discussion before, though managed to now, can be found here: gww:User_talk:Pling/Archive_box/2009_Oct-Dec#Slightly_confused_on_a_tag_you_added... - in which Pling added a rewrite tag to part of my expansion of a section (though I rewrote most of the article, the section tagged was only expended, don't be fooled by the red though). To quote the important parts: "I think that when things get too rhetorical and more entertain-y rather than informative-y, the latter gets weakened." and "As far as I know, we've always preferred objective to subjective content" - most of the things I was writing then, and not just in that article, was set up very similar, though not just like, how you do now. Only real difference was that I avoided saying things like "the player" - I kept things (and still do) to avoid breaking the fourth wall, though this is merely a preference of myself and never something I'd edit an article to change that alone. Though in the end the point remains the same. Konig/talk 05:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Krait

Re: this edit. The obelisks are pretty much the basis of krait religion, I think it's important they get a page. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I can understand that. And wouldn't disagree if they get one. Though given the obscurity in name and reference, I'm more inclined to hold a "wait until one is made before linking" position. I won't remove if re-added though. Konig/talk 23:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't have articles for many objects of worship, such as statues of human gods or shrines of totem spirits. I'm not sure if there's enough details about the obelisks to justify an individual article of them, instead of relying on the krait article, for now. Also, krait religion consists of fabricated beliefs to purposefully manipulate the mundane krait population. Where does this info on the obelisks come from anyways? :/ Just wondering. Mediggo 07:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Erm... we do have articles for objects of worship - that is, when said object has a name; in most cases, it's an object (e.g., Statue of Balthazar) or PoI (e.g., Deadgod's Lair). But I agree on the lack of info. As for the source - the blog post from way back when, recently transcribed today on the wiki by yours truly at Shadows in the Water – The Krait. That is the one and only source for these obelisks. I'm kind of disappointed not even one made it in-game, considering this concept art: File:Krait obelisk land concept art.jpg. Konig/talk 09:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Decisions

I came to one, my personal attempt to solve the issues on this wiki between me and others. Depending on how much work I can get done, preparations will be done within 1-2 weeks. End of February at worst. Konig/talk 00:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

is this you saying that you are leaving the wiki? if so that is really to bad because you are a great resource. but if you feel thats what you need to do for a wile then good for you.- Zesbeer 00:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I may feel it needs to come to that, but not at this time. I'm trying a different measure first. Konig/talk 01:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

:D

welcome back! -Auron 01:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also glad to have you back on dee weekieee- Zesbeer 07:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

yeah

That's really not the best way to go about tagging images for deletion. I'm not going to bother with it though.--Relyk ~ talk > 22:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

"Concept art is concept art so it doesn't imply actual lore."

Re: this. The concept art in question was used in a cinematic, so it does depict an event that happened in lore. Similarly, DE were stated to be fighting dragon minions while this concept art was onscreen in a cinematic, which you would have known if you'd asked before simply assuming I was wrong and removing that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything. 1) We know for a fact that Destiny's Edge never went to Cantha, given it was blocked off. I'm actually wondering if it means gw1:the Jade Sea, or if it just means a sea that's jade in color. Either way, that concept art was conceptual which was used for the game - wouldn't be the first time, and your argument would be the same as saying that Zhaitan should appear as File:"Last Shot" concept art.jpg, since that image is used in-game (at the end of The Battle of Fort Trinity) - but obviously, he doesn't. 2) Yes, DE are known to have been fighting dragon minions in the Crystal Desert, though you can bet your ass that both concept art predate the cinematics given how the original version has Caithe using a staff (for starters), Logan using a longsword (instead of mace/hammer which he did when DE was together), and Rytlock had a standard sword (not flaming). The in-game versions were altered though, as I recall a lack of staff-wielding white heads. 3) The second image still doesn't look like dragon minions, to which I point back to point 2 about the concept art's date compared to the cinematic's date and whether or not they were made for each other (I would think if so, then it'd be clearly Branded they were facing there); and even then, by your own words they're not said to be facing Branded since that line is actually about how they fought the Dragonspawn, Morgus Lethe, and Destroyer of Life among other standard minions (e.g., before Branded existed).

Anyways, I did my best to make things more generalized and without presumptions or assumptions. I hold no interest in arguing with you Santax. Konig 21:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Facts"

Can you provide an in-game or developer source, or a wiki discussion that places the sub-regions you invented as fact? Because those definitions are contentious at absolute best - personally I consider speculation if not fabrication. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I really don't feel like digging through 2009/2010 interviews for the lines about how there's now a volcano in the Shiverpeak Mountains or how the Tarnished Coast is the coast of the Maguuma Jungle. I'm too tired today due to work for lots of reading and and I feel like hitting the sack right about now (part of the reason why I didn't fix the dredge culture section). If memory serves me correctly, Snuffing Out Embers states Malyck's tree is in the Maguuma Jungle, east of where they are - which would be Magus Falls. But thanks to the lack of dialogue on the wiki, I cannot be certain. Either way, it's not fabrication. And please, lower the hostility in your syntax, Santax. Konig 22:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You can't just revert me and then refuse to back it up with any sort of evidence. And I see you reverted a bunch of other region-related stuff I did. Southsun Cove is part of Kryta - at least according to the definition you argued so vigorously for, because kills in Southsun count towards daily Krytan kills, events in Southsun are considered part of daily Krytan events, etc. As for the nav, having those regions present creates a problem, because although they are locations in lore they are not regions - the wiki's definition of a region is mechanical and achievement-based, and the inclusion of "lore regions" on that template is arbitrary - it doesn't include water regions or any of the "sub-regions". It also puts them on the same "level" as the explorable regions, which is inconsistent because all apart from the Maguuma Jungle have map text. The bottom line is, we have to choose one approach or the other and apply it consistently: either the regions are based on achievements, and there are 5 explorable regions and 0 "lore" regions, or they are based on map text, and there are 7 explorable regions and 15 unexplorable ones. And you were the strongest proponent for the eliminating a "common-sense" approach and using one that makes potentially interesting lore and hints for future expansions less visible, so don't complain when it's applied rigorously and it turns out it's not all it cracked up to be. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Didn't refuse, though I suppose due to my tiredness I didn't make it clear. I'm looking for said articles now - having woken up from sleeping not long after I posted this. I think even you would agree that searching through hundreds of interviews for obscure lines is rather annoying.

I didn't see the bit on Southsun Cove (though I've done Krytan kills and got no progress in Southsun - I'll just look into that again next time, maybe it changed since the first rotation of that or it bugged for me?), so my bad there.

Regions are both lore and mechanical - the infobox and categories go by mechanics, but that doesn't mean the rest aren't regions (in lore). I argued for how we document regions in the infoboxes and categories. There's a huge difference and I'd appreciate you not mixing my words up.

For the template talk, I'll just respond on the template's talk. But bottom line is - mechanically there are five (possibly six, I still want to double check this) regions, and lore wise there are 9 with 2 separated into 3 and 4 sub-regions.

As to the sources for subregions:

• A jotun in Snowden Drifts during Escort the supply dolyak to Snowdrift Haven calls that area part of the Far Shiverpeaks. (side note: wonder why they're called the Far Shiverpeaks? Because they're the far northern ends of the Shiverpeak Mountains).
• "The northern parts of the Maguuma Jungle have dried out, creating the wastes" - outright showing that the Maguuma Wastes is still part of the Maguuma Jungle. [1]
• "Malyck has gone into the Maguuma to seek his true origin." - Snuffing Out Embers - proof that Magus Stones (where Malyck has gone - to the western base of the river which is approx at where gw1:The Falls was, now part of Magus Falls) is considered part of the Maguuma Jungle.

I'm sure there's more but I haven't found them in my - tbh rather brief - search. But I hope this is proof enough for you that, at the very least, Magus Falls and Maguuma Wastes are part of the Maguuma Jungle in lore. I'm pretty certain I've seen references of the land being the Shiverpeak Mountains in Mount Maelstrom, and I do recall 2008/2009 interviews where the norn were said to come from the Shiverpeak Mountains (rather than "Far Shiverpeaks" - it was either "Shiverpeak Mountains" or "northern Shiverpeaks") before being pushed south by Jormag. Konig 14:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I can't believe you both came back from a month-long block and immediately started up the same kind of passive-aggressive arguments that got you blocked in the first place. If you can't learn your lesson from that and start being civil to each other, there's nothing for us to do but block you again. —Dr Ishmael 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd give a proper response but I'm certain it'd be misinterpreted as hostility. So I'll just say this: I don't like conflicts either. Which is why I'm attempting to work with his edits, but when facts are wrong it doesn't always work out pleasantly. Konig 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your diatribe on "dialects of English" was completely unnecessary. That specifically is what spurred me to make this warning. —Dr Ishmael 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Though I'm truly honest in thinking that's (another) source of the issue - he's always writing with British English, and though I don't know all the qualities of it I do know that there are various syntax, spelling, and grammar alterations that would make certain wordings "make no sense" between one to the other. I don't know what part of it you think was unnecessary, but I was pointing out the possible issue and how I'm very well aware of how American English is taught, learned, and used. Both formally and informally. Though it is a bit insulting when I'm told my wording "makes no syntactic sense" when it, in fact, did make sense - hence again, why I think the dialect may be the issue. Konig 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Walk it off. Ask for input from other users instead of responding directly to Santax; if you're right, people will agree with you. 15:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)