User talk:Konig Des Todes/Archives13

WELCOME BACK!!!

I just wanted to welcome you back. also I think I might have found a npc named after you, pm me in game.- Zesbeer 07:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back from me too. --Claret (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey Konig

A while back I proposed some changes to the Main_Page/editcopy. You usually have a very diffrent view from me, so I would appreciate your feedback. And since you are more a lore guy also some input to the Lore section. Tanks in advance and great to see you more active again. - Yandere 12:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Call me old fashion, but I'm not quite sure I like the mixing of PvP and PvE. Exploring the World and History and Lore both feel a bit lore-centric, which I don't think two boxes for such is really needed. Maybe it's just cuz the World of Tyria and Bestiary bits are lore-focused.

I'd bypass the redirect to Fractals of the Mists (currently links to "Fractal"), shorten "Explorable zones" to Zones, replace Home instance with Instance, in Map Completion move Skill Challenges up a line and add in Landmarks to the bottom line. Other than that, doesn't seem too drastically different than what we have.

And where are my tanks? I have some buildings I want to pulverize. Konig 13:18, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Livia

Hiya, I don't think the the timeline of Livia finding the Scepter of Orr is anything to do with the EN final cinematic, rather her dialogue in Epilogue suggests that she intends to go to Arah to find the Scepter of Orr before her return to Kryta. Obviously Beyond was not planned at this time, so it seems reasonable that rather than have Livia in the possession of the Scepter of Orr for the War in Kryta, ANet retconned her going to Arah to be after the events of Beyond. Also, if you've read Sea of Sorrows, would you mind adding Livia's role in it to her article? I'd add it myself but I haven't had a chance to read the book yet. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

While she says she intends to go to Arah at the Epilogue, nothing really implies she does so immediately. How one interprets that line is rather subjective, unfortunately, since all she says is effectively "I think I'll go to Arah." Which in of itself is an interesting statement - since Arah is fully underwater given the map. Furthermore, even if she does go to Arah before War in Kryta, nothing says that's where she obtained the Scepter of Orr.

I was considering expanding the article, since enough time had passed since Sea of Sorrows, but I was too tired at the time. Guess I should have made a note of that in the summary. I intend to expand other SoS related articles like I did with the ships and ports mentioned there as well. (And I do suggest you read the book - it's one of the better ones of the novels, especially the end, though there's a slight oddity with the royal family's actions). Konig 16:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, I completely misremembered the line. Open mouth, insert foot. Still, because she intends to doesn't mean she does. We have no way of confirming that she did - and again, nothing that says that's where she obtained the Scepter of Orr. She may have gone there indeed, just to find nothing that she found useful to the effort against the White Mantle (or maybe she did, and that's why she was helping Zinn with the Spectral Agony resistance magic). It's still too open for interpretation. Konig 17:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Steam creature concept art

Is from Daniel Dociu's website. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we be certain that's GW2 related? On the archives page, the rest of the first row (as that's part of it) doesn't appear to be GW2-related, and his main page is a mixture of GW2 and non-GW2. (Edit) I looked on Daniel's cghub page, the title of the piece is "Steamdemon" and is marked in the sci-fi category with no mention of Guild Wars 2 - all his clearly GW2 works are put in the fantasy category, and are often said to be Guild Wars 2 concept art either in title or description. I don't think that's GW2 concept art. Konig 10:13, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It can be a possible influence on the steampunk design for steam creatures and watchwork. I don't think we can assign it specifically to steam creature design as Konig pointed out.--Relyk ~ talk < 21:48, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

short stories

do you know if they are being documented any place on the wiki? if no should we start documenting them?- Zesbeer 01:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

yup konig organized them into category:Tales--Relyk ~ talk < 01:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Relyk, I will be sure to link to that category the next time a short story comes up in the news.- Zesbeer 02:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Side note: When I get to it, I'll be improving those articles to include images and proper formatting, atm they're mostly just copy/pasting. Also I'll be separating the short stories from the others category-wise to match how they're set up in {{Lore nav}}. Konig 02:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing concept art of Labyrinthine Cliffs

Just...why? Is it really worth instigating another conflict? Could you not at least have left a message on the talk page, or my talk page first? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Why must I leave a message for every edit I do that follows yours? That's beyond tedious and stagnates and most importantly, instigated the conflicts faster. I left an explanation in the summary, for everyone else that tends to suffice, especially on such a minor thing. Konig 18:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Because of our history, Konig. You seriously think that semi-reverting my edit minutes after I make it is going to do anything else but antagonise me? If you're not willing to justify an edit, then don't make it. That way, we'll only end up getting in each other's way when you feel strongly about something, rather than over trivial things like this, and it could save us both a lot of grief. If I didn't think adding the images was a good idea, I wouldn't have added them in the first place, you see? So you immediately removing them (and simply saying that you did is hardly leaving an explanation, btw) is obviously going to offend.

I really don't understand. You feel the need to go "cleaning up" after all my edits, despite our previous history, and risk starting conflicts over tiny things such as this, but when we are having a civilized discussion (involving a third party, as well!) on Talk:Magic, regarding a rather more substantial edit on a rather more important page (which it is important we get right, and your input is valued) you lose your temper and quit. What gives? --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

1) Timing was by chance, really. It's just what I saw when I have time to edit today. 2) I shouldn't have to bring up discussion before a small edit. 3) you add irrelevant articles to everything. It is like you think images should be more numerous than words at times. Like the image of the colossus on Magic - what relevance does it have? NONE. You simply added it for gods know what reason. 4) Don't think you're special about any attention of mine. Your not. My watchlist is. And for my rage quitting - it's because I've learned your personality in discussions. As said on my gww talk page, we're both stubborn and hard headed. I can admit that about me. And in admitting it I know that discussion with you is pointless. And lets be honest... What is the point of discussion if you go and ignore it to add in your edits from your less-than-a-day-old draft anyways? If I insist on cleaning up after you, then you insist in having your way while you argue everyone into submission - that's what you did last time. And I'll be perfectly honest... You've managed to get on my nerves when you argued with me hostilely when I tried to peacefully collaborate with you on bee's Abaddon article. And that is a very hard task indeed. Only Falconeye from gww who continuously pushed his guideline and consensus breaking edits through had managed that before in the wikis. But my frustration is not solely at you. It's also at ArenaNet's direction with the fame and the wiki administration and the bad quality of the lore articles since we got banned.

I will be 100% honest. If you focused less on making things pretty with stylizing sentences and adding pictures of questionable relevance (for the reason I can only presume to be to break walls of text. - which is good, but not with irrelevant or questionablh relevant images), then I would hold no issues with your edits. Take for example your Glint edits. I love your edits to Glint. I love your edits to Zephyr Sanctum, sans the images. I love most of the changes to gww's Glint. I'm happy you beat me to updating the Kralkatorrik concept art from SE's cinematic. And that's not all of your edits I like. If you noticed, except for Magic, I have barely touched your wordings this go around. You've improved substantially in my opinion. But do you really need these images? Images themselves are not bad, but those you choose.. yes, I would say they are. So we aren't nearly as bad off as last time. But the need to discuss such minor things? Really? That's what really turned our issue last time into a clusterfuck. Lets not degrade yourselves to bureaucracy like you tried last time. And when discussion is important, lets not fight for a new version to be up just to argue to keep it up - it should be the old version based by wiki tradition (and typical practice even now). Konig 19:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

For exactly the reasons you describe above I'm not going to respond with a wall of text, but I feel the need to challenge your statement that I "aruged with you hostilely" on the Abaddon article - that's an outright lie. I remember making a special attempt to be civil since you'd asked for help, and you made a number of ridiculous accusations against me, such as me trying to manipulate readers (I think you even mentioned Inception at some point), so I bowed out of the discussion. Shame the discussion's gone now, since you tagged it for deletion.

As a note, my "need to discuss minor things" was not the problem last time. Your assumption that I have no idea what I'm doing and subsequent need to semi-revert all of my edits was, and is. Case in point, this edit, which amazingly you made after the beginning of this discussion. The information about the Inquest maintaining the airships comes directly from this article, which you'd have known if you'd just asked for a source before removing that part of my contribution. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:20, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

My memory tells me differently - I requested your opinion on your talk page, you made gw1:Abaddon/Temp, on the talk of which I gave constructive criticism to which you responded with as an opening "Look, you came to me for help [...]" with a continued high-and-mighty feel to your post throughout, then I made the response you mentioned.

I do not - nor did - believe you have no idea what you're doing. I do know that you don't know all I do, and vice versa. That article you mention is written from Kiel's viewpoint and is not objective (same issue you have with Thrulnn the Lost). Now, mind you, I did forget that article however in-game evidence post Sky Pirates of Tyria indicate that the Aetherblades are quite capable of maintaining their airships without the Inquest, given that they haven't been seen since Aetherblade Retreat (Edit: Just looked at that, and the Inquest are never mentioned as maintaining the ships nor are the Aetherblades mentioned at being unable to maintain the ships). Part of the issue is that I think you do have an idea of what you're doing - one example being your recent edits to Captain Ellen Kiel where you removed all historical content despite the fact that the wiki documents historical content and I know you know this because it was brought up to you already and you edited more than one such piece of article content yourself. Another part of my issue with your edits is that you're constantly breaking general wiki formatting for no reason - people say that I try to make this "my wiki" (specifically saying "your wiki" meaning "Konig's wiki", but honestly all of the formatting I do is per general consensus and guidelines - unlike your edits on formatting).

Last time a good part of the issue was how there was multiple long discussions - like this one right here - over pointless things like Sylvari being a references to the gw1:Wardens, and all those multiple long discussions turning hostile because our patience - both of us - ran thin.

On a side note, I'm restoring the historical content you removed from Kiel's article, because by wiki procedure it should remain documented. Konig 16:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Really guys? Really? Ok, cliff pics, it's technically not about the sanctum, so it could go either way. Hash it out civilly and don't take it personally Santax. Abaddon: what you say and what is heard isn't always the same; drop it. Re: "following": it happens, but it depends on what is done about it. Starting discussion or asking a question is fine, like "hey, I thought those pictures were relevant to the Zephyr Sanctum, why'd you remove them?" So, long and short, cool it you two. Take a break if needed. --JonTheMon (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Section-Stubs

From the {{section-stub}} template page:

 * Don't use a stub on a new article or if it's generally obvious that the article is incomplete.
 * Do use the stub when an article appears substantially complete, but isn't.

Please just use the {{stub}} template on articles that are noticeably incomplete and/or old pages that haven't been updated yet. -Somohexual (talk) 21:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The tower

“The tower isn't a krait obelisk... it's a tower. I've found nothing official that calls it an obelisk. Poke, why'd you start calling it an obelisk?”

I think I based that on the fact that the Krait Obelisk Shards are called like that. But the release page was really lacking information anyway, so yeah… And nobody really bothered to flesh the article out. poke | talk 06:31, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I figured that was the case. Konig 06:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Answer lore questions to draw out a challenger from the legions for a duel

Wow, Konig. Did you actually get to play this event? How did you trigger it? --Musha 18:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I only saw it active during the BWEs. Trust me, I've tried and tried and tried - even in overflows - to get that damned event going. I was just filling out the NPCs we _always_ see there. They even have non-event dialogues. Sadly, my BWE screenies don't include the questions. >.< I guess I was too over-excited over NPCs sharing a "guild tag" that matched my guild's own tag. x) Konig 23:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've honestly been thinking that was historical, but the talk page says otherwise so goodie! I'm guessing that it works on a timer but is blocked by a nearby event (the skritt event perhaps?) and if the said blocking event is up the question event is lost until the zone's remade (new build, overflow, was empty when you entered). Konig 23:31, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I hear that. This might be one of those events that is triggered by a higher number of players in the area. We oughta organize a wiki crowd to go see if we can get this event to trigger. :P --Musha 02:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Eliminate the corrupted ice cores

When you added the note to this event stating that the Claw of Jormag flies over head, dropping the cores, did you find a trigger for this event or did it seem to be on a timer? --Musha 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I just happened to see the Claw on chance while I was heading from Dragon's Rising (I was just northeast of where the kodan champ is) towards the west. I think that event is on a timer though. The Claw came in from Dragon's Rising, went to the event spot (just short of it really) and flew back NE, having done his scream and dropping those things. Konig 02:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Mooty mooty

I think "moot" should still redirect to The Moot, because a vast majority of people searching "moot" will be interested in the weapon, not the celebration. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

{{otheruses}} exist for a reason. Besides, what else would the article be titled? Perhaps Moot (lore), but why have such a title when the base title (Moot) is unused? Konig 17:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Moot (festivity) perhaps. But that's fine. I know this will be shocking to hear, but I don't have a strong opinion on it. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

multi-column SMW

I happened to read an edit comment of yours and took action. The key word for that function is pretty straight forward. --aRTy 04:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Maw's landing

You seem to have taken exception to my moving Maw's Rise to Marionette's Landing. I was doing exactly the same as when The Great Collapse was moved to The Crown Pavilion. The chat link for Maw's Rise and Marionette's Landing are the same so it's a renamed area. I can't quite see what your point is or why this page should be treated differently. --Claret (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Crown Pavilion was the reconstructed Great COllapse. Maw's Rise and Marionette's Landing are two different things in story and design. One's a wurm corpse, name and placement being an allusion to a GW1 boss, the other is progression and story location for the Living World. The id being the same is more than likely a matter of convenience from a design viewpoint (rather than having an id link to nothing and making a brand new id, just rename an old id that's no longer in use), unlike the Crown Pavilion which was a story progression. Konig 21:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah well, that's your interpretation. Not mine. I fail to see your logic. It seems faulty. Still, the history is scarcely lost, a couple of lines, a redirect seems adequate. --Claret (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The Living World content is temporary, so the poi can possible revert back or change again. There's no reason to move it immediately.--Relyk ~ talk < 22:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Claret: I still feel that it is worth having its own historical content article for, as the entirety of the PoI holds a vastly different meaning than the new one. It would be like saying that because they went and destroyed Rata Sum, crashed the floating cube, and then rebuilt it as a differently shaped non-asuran city with a new name, there should only be a couple lines about the old pre-crash Rata Sum. The two are different entities entirely, both in the example and in this PoI case. I bet that if they didn't share ids that you wouldn't care about it. And for your comparison with the Great Collapse/Crown Pavilion - there's entire historical content sections on the Great Collapse full with images, former NPCs, and long detailed history of the area, adding all of that would be fully irrelevant to the Marionette's Landing PoI from the Maw's Rise PoI.

@Relyk: Not sure who you're arguing against there, but just as a neutral (kindasorta)response: ArenaNet has said that they're trying to add more permanent content to the living story. The landscape change is likely among that permanence. Sad as it may be. Konig 23:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It's possible for them to modify the poi once the Living World content is over, so whether the page should be kept doesn't need to be decided yet.That said, we would definitely keep the previous poi for historical content.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The historical parameter does not "work" for locations, it seems. --Claret (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It's y instead of yes, as specified on the template documentation :P--Relyk ~ talk < 09:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look, but thanks. --Claret (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Hayato!

Hey, are you going by your memory on the Quotes section for this NPC or something else? I'm mentioning this because I spent about 15 minutes near those NPCs, idling, and the quote that's on the page looped twice. I'll hang by some more tomorrow and see what's up with that. Thanks for the correction though! --Ventriloquist (talk) 00:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I once 'afked' near Hayato with GW2 not muted in the background as I did other stuff, and I heard him saying multiple lines. I think there's a total of three conversations. I'll go check after Marionette. Konig 02:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Well THAT was fun. Marionette starts, dc'd. Character selection pops up, dc'd out of being logged in. GEt back in about 5 minutes after event started, into an empty overflow. And I was, for once, in my home server's zone. *sigh*. Welp, to check on Hayato! Konig 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Welp, just got in and already got the "swarm of krait or horde of undead just to break the monogomy" conversation. Missed the first (most complex) line in screening though. So I can confirm there's at least that other one. Konig 02:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, I see what happens. The ding dong ditch dialogue (what was there before) shows up in chat log. The other(s?) do not. Konig 02:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

And the mystery is solved! Thanks a bunch, all is well now. --Ventriloquist (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Bloodcoast Ward miniatures.

What miniatures were there when you edited this area? When I was doing the cleaning up, I found a mini Green Moa and a Storm Imp, in the Tenanera's Pit. I see you've added a Frost Drake and an Ice Elemental. Do you think these are server-based or do they switch later on? --Ventriloquist (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

WHOAH this is cool. Just swung by and saw a mini Forest Spider with a Frost Drake. As cool as this is, it makes documenting them harder. --Ventriloquist (talk) 14:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Had Frost Drake and Ice Elemental. Konig 19:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Just logged in, had Frost & Green Moa, again. Guested to Blackgate, found 2 Green Moas. How do we document these? Just list all possibilities (even if we don't know the trigger)? --Ventriloquist (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Trigger is likely a randomized picking - given you can get the same one twice in a single go - for when the zone is created. I'd just list every version, which would mean the Wind Rider I removed would be re-added (I didn't know if it changes periodically somehow or if it was just altered throughout updates).

The only tricky one to denote is the Green Moa, as there are normal Green Moas there too. Konig 20:23, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps link them to their respective miniature versions. Would that create confusion? --Ventriloquist (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I was actually considering that. Simply a Green Moa linking. I think that'd be best. Another option would be two lines for Green Moa, the second having a (miniature version) after it. Konig 20:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Summoned husks update

I had reviewed the section listed as "missing race" and found ALL of the "husks" listed there. On review, the "basic" husk is defined as a member of the "plant" family, thus all of the various iterations of "husks" should? be categorized the same, correct?

undouble@comcast.net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Undouble (talk • contribs).

No, not technically. One would think such, but that's not always so. Example: the "Nightmares" at Reaper's Gate are, technically, without a character type (they do not contribute to the daily creature variety slayer) mechanically (aka the race perimeter); we only mark it as such because other NPCs with the same name at other locations have a creature type. Just because a Summoned Husk may be considered plant, doesn't mean Toxic Husk (or its various rankings) will too. One would think it logical to be so, but mechanics don't always match logic because they're "invisible" rules to the players are are, in fact, made on a base-by-base stasis. Konig 21:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks a lot for that concise explanation!! It does make a lot of sense, even if it creates it's own issues with "incomplete NPC data" records.

Asura gate doodeedoo

Asura Gate Operator Driks explains the deal with the ebonhawke/lion's arch thing. Also i'm confused as to what you meant about the gate in Divinity's Reach... it only goes to Lion's arch, doesn't it? Psycho Robot (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Mechanically, yes. But talk to Asura Gate Operator Wikka and she says "Oh, our primary connection is to Lion's Arch. We also offer transport to Rata Sum, Hoelbrak, and the Grove." Also, Driks just says it was inefficient, not that it was cost effective to build a new gate. Konig 05:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Contradictions are fun. Psycho Robot (talk) 05:31, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: Re-reading Driks' dialogue again after responding, he states that the asura gate in The Upper City is more efficient at retuning. Basically, the Rurikton gate is an older model, thus is less efficient at retuning than the gate in the Upper City (which thanks to its efficiency I imagine, can be re-tuned to the four locations with more ease than Rurikton's gate to LA would). Konig 05:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Do people no longer use apostrophes?

Well they do, but more often than not erroneously. Personally I would rather they omitted than misused them. But then I am a confirmed grammar Nazi. :) --Claret (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Edited for bad grammar, <shame> --Claret (talk) 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

-whacks you with the shame stick- Shaaaaaame. Konig 23:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I iz duly shamed. --Claret (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Strategy merge

Are you sure that it's best to merge the strategy for Prime Hologram to the event article? I mean, every single entity in that event has a strategy for it, as they're all pretty unique. I think it would be hard, even impossible, to put all the details in one walk through on the event page. I think it is best to put a rough strategy in the event article with more detailed strategies on each monster page with more precise details. Psycho Robot (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

NPC pages should never have walkthroughs. I don't see what is hard about putting all the details on the event page either.--Relyk ~ talk < 10:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with our resident hylek mascot. Surely it can't be much longer than some of the dungeon walkthroughs? —Dr Ishmael 13:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Rylek the Hylek spoke the stance held since Giganticus Lupicus' stragety got moved to The Ruined City of Arah (explorable)#Walkthrough. That's the stance I took. Not mine, but consistency.

Speaking of the G-Lupe... I wonder if it's possible to go and revert Santax's manual moves to preserve proper article history? >.> (Same with Mordremoth). Side rant.Konig 13:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Weeeell, I was mostly successful on G. lupicus, except I forgot that it was a double c/p move so the original history of Great Giant is now all mixed up with the history of GL. And I don't feel like disentangling them now.

Mordremoth was a single move, so everything's fine there. —Dr Ishmael 15:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Mordremoth's article is all messed up now - it's the version before moving... but it got changed a lot after moving, and those revisions are now gone. Konig 15:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. —Dr Ishmael 16:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Section hijakers! @fishmeal you could move all GL revisions to one page, deleting the present page each time, then undelete every revision at once. If they come up out of order you can delete then undelete again. I had to do that a few times when I was sysop on the runescape wiki. They were much more anal about preserving edit histories there, though. Anyways, my thoughts on the strategy split was that its granular this way. The strategy for defeating an enemy is not always going to be the only strategy relevant to the event, and vice versa. Consider the many events that have a risen abomination. The strategy for those fights are always the same, so a strategy for defeating the risen abomination being in a centralized location is a good thing for all the readers. Relyk you say NPCs should never have walkthroughs as if the thought is foolish on its face. I don't understand that sentiment. What about enemies that aren't part of any event? Yes, length isn't necessarily a problem, but it doesn't make sense to me to try to jam together 7 unique fight mechanics into a single article when the constituent npcs articles are basically empty. I'll add strategy to the event article and make npc articles without it, but I want it on record in this, some dude's talk page, that I think it would be better some other way. God bless america. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"The strategy for defeating an enemy is not always going to be the only strategy relevant to the event, and vice versa." True, but it is the only strategy relevant to phase 1 of this event. And in other cases, to either the whole or part of the event/dungeon/instance.

"What about enemies that aren't part of any event?" Name for me an NPC which is difficult (thus needs a strategy that cannot be figured out by looking at the list of the skills and abilities of the NPC) that is not part of a personal/living story instance, dungeon, or event. I can't think of one. But should that ever occur, then putting a walkthrough/strategy on the NPC article is worthwhile - otherwise, it should just hold a {{main}} to the relevant event/whatever article's walkthrough (or walkthrough section). Some people will look to the event/etc. for the walkthrough, some to the NPCs. We gotta have it at a singular location, and given that there's more NPCs with multiple battle strategies than there are events/etc. with multiple battle strategies, putting them on events/etc. is preferred. Konig 20:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

"you could move all GL revisions to one page, deleting the present page each time, then undelete every revision at once. " That's exactly what I did to merge the history of [[Giganticus Lupicus (NPC)]] into Giganticus Lupicus. HOWEVER! I should have first done that to merge (pre-c/p-)Giganticus Lupicus into Great Giant. Because I didn't, all the GG revisions and all the GL revisions are part of the same history, and there's no easy way to split them apart again - you'd have to go through every single edit individually to determine which page it should go with. And that's what I don't feel like doing right now. —Dr Ishmael 20:58, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

husks, golems, and constructs

Sorry, I'm not sure where this should be discussed since it involves many different articles...

Anyway, I can tell you that husks and golems tend to share the same "loot" table with regards to what thieves can Steal from them. No one has ever finished a comprehensive list of stolen items, but the general pattern from my own experience says that it's more closely related to creature race than to the specific monster...for example, all birdlike foes should have one of the two (three?) Throw Feathers or Eat Egg skills as something that can be stolen. There are exceptions, like each element of Elemental gives different things, but all husks and golems seem to be the same.

Obviously this doesn't prove anything, and I'm not familiar if there's a distinction between "golem" and "construct" for the sake of stealing, but I thought I'd put it out there.

I would also like to note that the Plant page does list all Husks as plants, which might be where some of the confusion comes from. But that seems wrong; you are 100% correct that they don't count towards Plant Slayer. My own testing shows that only things in the oakheart family reliably count towards Plant Slayer; there might be a few special/rare/personal-story-only mobs that count, but I don't know what they are. Going through Twilight Arbor in story and explorable modes, I don't get progress from any creature except the Veteran Oakheart adds in forward path (not the Nightmare Tree itself, since that counts as a structure) - therefore, husks and thorn wolves don't count. Toxic Husks also don't, since I've tried farming them in LA for the slayer achieve, to no avail.

It's possible that it's the slayer achieve that's wrong, but I doubt that. I wish Edge of Extinction or Disease existed in this game. Vili 点 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Construct is a catch-all term for an anamaton - something that should be inanimate made animate, such as piles of vegetation turned into husks or even juggernauts, golems, watchknights, etc.

As to the Plant page listing husks - that's because I added them to the Category:Plants because it's the best we can really do and this wasn't the first time people add things based on looks and not mechanics - it's an ultimatum I made. The plant article, like all species and group articles, utilize a DPL listing that pulls straight from the respective category. So before I put the Husk articles into Category:Plants, the plant article did not list them.

What counts to plant slayer, in my experience, is just treants and the trees in Arah Seer path.

It easily could be the slayer achievement, since in it I believe Husks and Thorn Wolves count to the Nightmare Court's Bane achievement instead of plant. Slayer looks at both race and affiliation and alternates between them it seems. Konig 23:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Improving the Tales category

Hi Konig. Let me first say that you've done an incredible job on adding/editing many of these articles.
Right now they are alphabetically sorted in the Category page (which is fine). But personally I was looking for a chronological overview. After all, for a person who'd want to catch up on the lore, it would make little sense reading (e.g.) Lionguard Security Force before Short Story: What Scarlet Saw, right?

I tried to structure it into a "nav" table. But it just ended up very big and messy. Maybe you have some thoughts on how to show the same thing as I'm trying to do, but in a more presentable way? Please check out my [[User:Titus_The_Third/Sandboxes/Template:Tales_nav|Tales nav-box]] --Titus The Third 10:59, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

They should be chronological at {{Lore nav}}. Though outdated as of at least the Lionguard one.Konig 13:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Nevermind my ramble then. Thanks for sorting that out :) - Edit: added Twilight Preparations and Lionguard Security Force Titus The Third 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Creating articles

Trying to use SMW to make this easier hopefully. Form:ArenaNet content for making news articles with {{ArenaNet content}}. Not sure if it can be applied to articles outside the news and blog posts, but I really like using a form to create the news articles as that's one of strengths using forms.--Relyk ~ talk < 18:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

relyk sucks at naming stuff. fixing links. -Chieftain Alex 18:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

And I don't know why this is told to me. I am lost. Konig 20:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This applies to any articles in Category:Tales, most of which you made.--Relyk ~ talk < 16:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

If it looks like an Elder Dragon, and quacks like an Elder Dragon...

I would like to restore the section "What Scarlet Saw" to the Mordremoth page, which you removed in this edit. This looks like a move to reinforce your own personal theories about Scarlet's motivations, which is obviously not an appropriate use of the wiki. Sure, nothing explicitly says that "the entity" from Scarlet Briar's Journal is Mordremoth. But that's not because it isn't Mordremoth - it's because nobody has spoken about it yet. In the same way, nobody in-game has even mentioned the name "Mordremoth" - the only solid confirmation that we have is a vague forum reply by Colin, and yet I'm sure if this was not the case you wouldn't advocate eradicating any mention of "Mordremoth" from the wiki. This is because everyone knew the dragon was Mordremoth, and to pretend otherwise would be doing a disservice to wiki users. Just because ANet have communicated this aspect of the story poorly doesn't mean we have to as well.

Now, even if it does turn out that the "entity" is Lazarus the Dire, or Dhuum, or Oink the pig, or whatever (seems unlikely imo, but we won't go into that), that'd be a misdirect on ANet's part. At this point, it seems clear to me that what ANet wants players to believe is that Mordremoth is the entity. And the wiki should reflect that. The "entity" is what caused Scarlet to awaken Mordremoth, and even if it turns out not to be Mordremoth or a champion of Mordremoth (and again, I'll eat my hat if this turns out to be the case), for some reason the entity wanted the dragon awake. And refusing to make mention of that on Mordremoth's page leaves a gap on the wiki that's frankly embarrassing.

For reference, the following three paragraphs are what appear to have been removed (along with this image):

Mordremoth's earliest known activity in modern times was in the Season of the Colossus, 1321 <small>AE</small>, when it appeared as an "entity" in the nightmares of a young sylvari named [[Scarlet Briar|Ceara]]. In Ceara's journal, the sylvari complains of feeling like she is losing control of herself, and that she is being "possessed". The last entry, dated Season of the Scion 1323 <small>AE</small>, merely states, "It communicated with me through images of death, destruction, and destiny. I must know more. I must confront it and put an end to this madness".

The sylvari spent many years travelling the world, studying the [[engineer]]ing secrets of each of the races. Eventually her travels brought her to [[Rata Sum]], where [[Omadd|Headmaster Omadd]] of the [[College of Synergetics]] offered her to "see into the [[Eternal Alchemy]] itself". Ceara, unable to resist the opportunity, agreed to the experiment, entering an [[Omadd's Isolation Module|isolation tank]], the purpose of which was ostensibly to shut down the mind's security system and open it—like opening a door—to welcome in the truths of the Eternal Alchemy. In practice, this exposed her directly to Mordremoth's influence, and broke her mind.

[[Vorpp]], the [[Arcane Council]]'s point person, noted that the only things Ceara could have encountered in the isolation tank were the things that she had brought in with her, concluding that she had been exposed to a part of her psyche that had previously been walled off—perhaps for her own protection. Vorpp also admitted, however, that a far more extensive study of the [[Dream of Dreams]] would have to take place before any more detailed conclusions could be drawn.

--Santax (talk · contribs) 16:58, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Santax, tone down the accusations. On the topic itself, there is something to be said about the the connection between Scarlet and Mordremoth. Something influenced her to awaken it, and that broke her mind. So, some of that would be appropriate between pre-Awakening and the Awakening sections (or as part of the Awakening section). --JonTheMon (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, my theory came after realizing that... that section being related to Mordremoth is 100% pure speculation in the end. The thing is, the entity doesn't look like a dragon (as far we we know; we don't know what it looks like), and it doesn't roar like a dragon (as far we we know; we don't know what it roars like, or if it roars). Thing is, we know next to absolutely nothing about the entity - we know two things: it first affect Scarlet's mind after she went into the machine and hence forth tried to take over, and it claimed Scarlet's ideas were its own ideas (which could be truth or a lie).

Nothing says it is a dragon.

Nothing says it acts like a dragon.

Nothing says it thinks like a dragon.

Nothing says anything to relate it to dragons. Except that Scarlet woke up a dragon and there's a dragon cave painting (which is rather un-Scarlet like in some views - I'm indifferent on it) in her lair. Hell WE DON'T EVEN KNOW IF WAKING MORDREMOTH IS WHAT THE ENTITY WANTED - we simply know far too little of the entity to draw proper conclusions.

So it is speculation to say that Mordremoth - or its champion - is the "entity."

"Now, even if it does turn out that the "entity" is Lazarus the Dire, or Dhuum, or Oink the pig, or whatever (seems unlikely imo, but we won't go into that), that'd be a misdirect on ANet's part." Actually, it'd be a misdirect on the players' part because Anet never confirmed it. This is just like the "Jormag is under Drakkar Lake" situation. People thought it was because of the original Drakkar Lake concept art and because of Edge of Destiny, but yet it turned out to not be Jormag.

"At this point, it seems clear to me that what ANet wants players to believe is that Mordremoth is the entity" Then that's your opinion. Because it doesn't come out that way to me. It seems like players want it to turn out to be Mordremoth - no different than players wanted Flame and Frost to turn out being about Primordus rising and fighting Jormag, or for the constant Primordus theories back in January. That wasn't ArenaNet wanting players to think its Primordus - it was players wanting it to be Primordus. This situation is no different - players want the entity to be Mordremoth.

"The "entity" is what caused Scarlet to awaken Mordremoth, and even if it turns out not to be Mordremoth or a champion of Mordremoth (and again, I'll eat my hat if this turns out to be the case), for some reason the entity wanted the dragon awake. And refusing to make mention of that on Mordremoth's page leaves a gap on the wiki that's frankly embarrassing." I have no issue with re-adding this, however, read what you quoted. The entire section is all "Ceara this, Scarlet Briar that." And all mentions of the entity directly claim it is Mordremoth. I was functioning on a "remove speculation first, fix what is left later." I was going to re-add the mentions of the entity, but I was internally debating whether it's relevant enough for the Mordremoth article (see bolded, cap, italicized sentence above), and if so how to word it to avoid repeating the exact same issue of speculation. In the end, however, I would prefer a new article solely for this entity - or to keep it restricted to Scarlet Briar's article - because that would allow the least speculation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Konig Des Todes (talk • contribs).

(Edit conflict) I agree with Konig on this one. Yes, "something" touched Scarlet's mind and set on the path that resulted in waking another dragon, but we have no evidence whatsoever as to that entity's identity. It could have been Mordremoth himself, yes, but it could just as easily have been one of the other elder dragons who realized that one of their number wasn't awake yet and decided to do something to fix that.

I don't agree with the assertion that "what ANet wants players to believe is that Mordremoth is the entity." That is based on too many assumptions about Anet's intentions. —Dr Ishmael 17:36, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I think with minor alterations to the passage pasted above (remove mention of Mordremoth from the first sentence of the first paragraph and the final sentence of the second paragraph), it would be possible to reinsert it into the article and satisfy all parties. It would discuss Scarlet's motivations, and acknowledge the existence of the entity, without ever explicitly stating that it is Mordremoth (just like the game). Would that be acceptable? --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:37, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel the old version delves too much into who the entity is and what it did to Scarlet (the entire first paragraph is about that; the entire second paragraph is about Scarlet - all of which can easily be found on Scarlet's article; the third is about Vorpp's interpretation of the entity accessing Scarlet's mind) - which will mislead readers into thinking "the entity is tied to Mordremoth, because it's talked about so much here" and the third paragraph would no doubt, just by its placement on Mordremoth's article, make more people believe that the "sylvari are dragon minions" to be a fact (I can very easily proclaim that your addition of that was you enforcing your theories on the wiki, Santax, so please for the love of god stop making that claim at me when since day 1 I have been solely about maintaining a full lack of speculation and theorizing on the wikis).

I think a much shorter version would be in order - if any mention of the entity is placed on the article. Again, I would prefer an article made at [[the entity]] (best name I can think of. If any mention of it goes on Mordremoth, I'd work it into the Awakening section. Perhaps something like:

The sylvari [[Scarlet Briar]] worked to awaken Mordremoth for over a year, driven by insanity and her encounter with [[the entity]] while in [[Omadd's Isolation Module]]. Mordremoth woke when Scarlet Brair's drill, [[Wreckage of the Breachmaker|The Breachmaker]], struck the [[ley line]]s beneath Lion's Arch. This resulted in a magical chain reaction, culminating with the awakening of an Elder Dragon somewhere west of [[Thaumanova Reactor]], across an arid plain in a vegetated area (presumed by players to be [[Magus Falls]] given location and direction of the cinematic).

Or something of that like - I didn't put too much thought into it. But with the original version I'd be slapping a split tag there once I realized we never got confirmation that entity=Mordy Konig 18:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Toodles

Konig 00:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

May I ask why? I think it is very sad to see you leaving the Wiki, if that is what you mean by "toodles"... Titus The Third 08:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: saw your reason on yesterday's revision of your user page. I just want to repeat that I think it is sad to see one of the most active persons of the community (since far back in GW1) leave the Wiki. You're probably one of the most active contributors to both the forums and the Wiki, and I hope you change your mind.

If not, I wish you all the best of luck! Titus The Third 08:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I too am sad to see him leave. but I think a third party needs to step in and objectively review whats going on between him and Santax.- Zesbeer 09:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah. That has been done loads of times, the two of them just don't get on + can't stand each other. They shouldn't be on the same wiki. -5.67.233.114 09:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Since I came back cuz of an email from TEF, I figure I'll respond to the IP here: It isn't that I can't stand Santax. And we've been less hostile on the official forums (he doesn't go under Santax there though). The wiki is just feeling like work (mind you, large in thanks to Santax) rather than what it was originally for me: recreation. And I don't need more work to add onto all the shit that's going on in my life. So I figured I'd leave. I removed the comment on my userpage from yesterday because that was said in frustration, but I've been considering this for a long time. Konig 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Take a well deserved break, but let your user page be there ...just in case :) There's no harm in that.

I would also tell you and Santax to try to reconcile with eachother, but I do understand that it would be easier said than done. Just give it all some rest, and maybe things will brighten up. No matter your choice, I wish you all the best of luck, and thank you for all your contributions to the wiki(and forums etc.,etc.) in the past. Titus The Third 14:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Last chance

Per Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:Admin noticeboard#Closure, I'm blocking you for 3 months. Please use this time to think about what the wiki, and your continued contribution to it, means to you. I spent a long time on GWW sticking up for you - telling other users, in short, that you were a more valuable investment to the wiki than they were, and that's largely the reason we weren't going to take any admin action against you. Most of the actual disputes you got into were content disputes, which admins have no control over regardless - and your knowledge of lore so outclassed mine I couldn't begin to correct you... or side with you, or anything. I could simply trust that you knew what you were talking about. I figured your behavior didn't outweigh your positive contributions to an otherwise incomplete section of the wiki. I could have been wrong then, but it's the decision I made and I stick by it. I still think you're a valuable resource, and I respect your drive for perfection. You put a shitload of time and effort into learning the lore and connecting the dots in a fairly chaotic and ever-changing game universe, and you can translate that knowledge into readable, informative wiki pages. All of that is great, and all of that is why I want you to keep editing.
But I can't justify the cost any longer. The wiki is, at its core, a collaborative effort to document a video game. A video game! Something we play during our free time, something to take our minds off the drudgery of Real Life™. While I know how attached we can get, how immersed in the world we get, taking a step back and putting it all into perspective is good to do now and again. In the end, this isn't something we use on a job resume. On our deathbeds we aren't going to look back and think "man, if only I'd edited more video game wikis!" It's just a pastime. A game we play, one we enjoy enough to document - but it shouldn't be so serious that you're willing to risk permanent blocks on a wiki for.
Over my years of editing and sysopping these wikis, the one "main" lesson I've learned is that wikis are strong because of input from a lot of people. Sure, certain areas can be spearheaded by one or two people. Anja and Bex did wonders for GWW's armor section and galleries. But they did not refuse help, or actively chase away people from their section. Even if someone else attempted to change something and fucked it up completely, Anja would calmly discuss with the user to find out the rationale behind the changes and work to reach a peaceful resolution. That way, the section now has more people willing to edit it, and all of them are on the same page. You've rarely done this on the wikis, preferring instead to dissuade others from editing your lore section so you could maintain it exactly the way you want. That would be fine on the Konig Wiki, but on the Guild Wars or Guild Wars 2 wikis, it's not. The community makes the wiki strong, and infighting works against that goal. In the past, the infighting was usually over quickly, with you "winning" over opposition by chasing them away. The wiki lost out on the strength of diversity, but at least the drama wasn't drawn out. That's what I told myself, anyway, to assuage my guilt. Not the best scenario, but it "worked."
I still want you to edit - as much as you feel you want to contribute. Your stores of knowledge are vast, and your sources are usually accurate. But you really have to integrate into the wiki community instead of expecting it to leave you alone. You aren't editing in a vacuum - other people read your changes, and other people edit beside you. Embrace their ability to help clarify articles or even just work as a sounding board for ideas. Don't push them away, and don't try to undo any change you personally disagree with. It's frustrating, but keep in mind that this isn't your personal wiki. There are plenty of resources available if maintaining your own unalterable website is what you want - but on a wiki, especially the "official" one, the community is more important than any single editor. If you're forcing us to make a choice, we're choosing the community. But it doesn't have to come down to that. I hope that you do come back, and I hope you stick around for years as a lore expert. I've invested a lot in keeping you around, and I'd hate to see that amount to nothing. But the line has been drawn. Now it's up to you not to cross it. -Auron 16:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)