User talk:Kossage

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to the Wiki[edit]

Hi, and welcome to the wiki. I've moved the dialogue from Fort Marriner to the main page, the /dialogue pages are used for old dialogue and this one is current. --Sialor (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Valiant Blanaith[edit]

That's quite a switch in dialogue there, so I'm curious, is the new dialogue you added from interacting with them on both a Sylvari and non-Sylvari character? It kinda feels like that's sylvari exclusive dialouge, but if that's not the case, then the old dialogue should still be listed on the page below. - Doodleplex 22:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Before my edit, Blanaith's page had the exact same dialogue as Peacemaker Cronkka, which got me curious if that was truly the case (with ANet maybe having messed it up because the "old" dialogue of Blanaith as listed in the wiki was stylistically asuran, which seems odd for a sylvari who rarely use asuran lingo) or if the wiki editor who had written it had maybe copy&pasted Cronkka's dialogue there by accident while adding the dialogues (which to me seems more plausible). It's not often that NPCs with unique names share the exact same dialogue in vanilla Tyria maps, after all.
I visited both NPCs with a sylvari and a charr and noticed that the dialogue for Blanaith was completely different than what was listed in the wiki for both of my PCs. Sylvari PCs have two dialogue options while charr only have one; thus the sylvari-only extra dialogue option is noted in the article. I've yet to visit the area with the other three races to verify if they have some unique dialogue with these NPCs, but I intend to do so soon unless someone else beats me to it.
There's of course a chance that Blanaith did originally have the messed up Cronkka dialogue before ANet stealth fixed it at some point in time to its current in-game iteration; they're known to have done such before although I don't recall any other as big changes happening to any other vanilla game NPC's dialogue tree. If Konig or someone else remembers (or happens to have screenshots of) interacting with said NPCs from a few years ago and what the dialogue looked like then, that would give us a definitive answer. But until then, I personally believe that the similar dialogue between Cronkka and Blanaith was just a wiki editor's mistake while adding the dialogues; I've noticed other such mistakes in some old NPC dialogue sections albeit in a smaller scale, so it wouldn't be too far fetched, IMHO.
If editors feel (or have the proof) that Blanaith's old dialogue was actually there and not just one editor's mistake, they can add it back as historical dialogue with an annotation if needed. I'm fine with whatever consensus people come to regarding the matter. :) --Kossage (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the two pages, you could be right about it being editor error, both pages were made within two minutes of each other, but here's why I asked initially: the German wiki still lists that original dialogue. I just poked the German version, and the page was made nearly a year earlier, along with a note saying "she has the same dialogue as Cronkka", so based on that, I'd guess that originally they did have the same dialogue, but somebody at ANet came by and fixed it at some point. Since it seems more like a mistake than intentional dialogue, I think a note will work here instead of adding in her "historical" dialogue, so thanks for the info! <3 - Doodleplex 17:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

PoF "Act I"[edit]

Is there a source for calling it "Act I" or is it just stipulation? If the later, it's best not to include such. For all we know, PoF isn't divided into acts or chapters like before. Konig (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I remember seeing it like that in the achievement panel while I was in the demo. I imagine that's where Kossage got it from as well. - Doodleplex 18:48, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Me 2, the achievement panel called it Act 1 --Doctor Refrence (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough. Not sure how I missed that then, I scoured the achievements for new things. Konig (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as said by others above, I noticed the achievements from the "Sparking the Flame" story instance (e.g. not receiving burning damage while reviving fallen villagers) being listed under "Path of Fire: Act 1" in the panel, so I listed the mission belonging to such. :) --Kossage (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Dhuum's state in the raid (spoilers)[edit]

Per your edits to Dhuum in regards to this thread. Dialogue before the first boss implies the siege has been ongoing for some time, not being a very recent thing; and a Reddit thread showed dialogue that implied Dhuum is killed. So how sure are you about stating that he recently broke free and that he is reimprisoned rather than killed? Konig (talk) 03:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I was working on what was known at the time, so that's the reason why I posted the biography section with the stub tag specifically calling out editing in missing info from the raid story to flesh stuff out. There's undoubtedly more to the story that the raiders have not checked yet from optional dialogues and such since my writing the article, so folks will no doubt change or expand on the lore where needed as more info is revealed to us. As for Dhuum being sealed instead of killed, I haven't witnessed the actual defeat dialogue or read the Reddit threads yet, but there's a cinematic posted on Youtube where Desmina looks on as Dhuum's essence leaves his armor and is sealed up with magical chains holding the prison in place. This to me indicates that the Reapers' ritual (which plays a major part in the boss battle as you need to keep them from getting killed while battling Dhuum) was successful. If any dialogue that takes place after the cinematic tells us more about Dhuum's ultimate fate, people are welcome to edit it in to clarify stuff, but the aforementioned cinematic does look rather conclusive to me. --Kossage (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Does sound like imprisonmnt but that cinematic upload time is suspect compared to reddit thread kill time claims. And I've seen more comments of "killing Dhuum" but that cinematic does make it seem hard to tell if he's killed or spectrally imprisoned (or would that be *both*?).
Shame they made him effectively a divine exalted. His undead appearance from GW1 was superior, imo. :( Konig (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

IO Ezrielia[edit]

Thanks for welcoming me ^^ you are part of the nicest contributors I met :)--Inquest Overseer Ezrielia (talk) 12:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Always nice to see more folks contributing to the wiki with such a positive and open-minded attitude. :) --Kossage (talk) 18:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem a bit much?[edit]

It does to me. A major reason why I dislike and was against the notion of "reference tagging everything". For me, the references take up nearly an entire screen's worth of text. Do we really need to quote verbatim text displayed in the link? I can understand quoting the book, but quoting the other text seems a bit much and massively bloats the reference section. Konig (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I was indeed wondering what would be considered too much, but I had a difficult time figuring out how to best make it work without cutting out useful information so I left it as it is until a better solution presented itself. If you or others find a good middle ground for it to get the point across, I'm all for anyone editing the page to keep the citations short. Perhaps a reference to the chapter title itself would suffice in this case, or just selecting the most crucial lines to be cited? --Kossage (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd say maybe treat it like how I was taught to do for papers in school, just add a number/refence anchor-thing that goes to the bottom of the page where a small line with the author, the book & page number, or in this case the name of the NPC who said the thing and a wiki link to the page where they said the thing. Short, links to all the things, doesn't start making the page blow up. - Doodleplex 18:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
And now Elder Dragon is insanely huge at the bottom. >.> Konig (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
Elder Dragons are the centerpiece of GW2 lore with lots of history and in and out of game lore statements about them, so naturally there would be several relevant sources citing some important information, hence the size of the References section for that page (similar to how we have multiple references for Balthazar's page which expand on his character or help clarify lore matters due to his extensive narrative role and history). My reasoning for adding actual relevant quotes in the cited sources instead of just having the sources link to the relevant wiki page itself (unless we can directly refer to a short wiki page like the books such as "The Elder Dragons") is the following: Given old and more recent dev comments on streams and forums/reddit, including as recent as Jessica Price's replies, we know the narrative team likes to browse the wiki for lore. Based on recent comments, it appears their internal lore bible may not actually be extensive enough on certain matters for various reasons so they rely on the wikis for more in depth or at least up to date info; all we know for certain, though, is that some lore was "retconned" because GW1 and GW2 wikis didn't cite exact sources for e.g. the Secondborn date of awakening or Primordus being the statue in Central Transfer Chamber, which made the devs assume there was no conflicting lore when they expanded on the lore. The devs are often on limited time, so quoting snippets from the exact relevant passage(s) from e.g. lengthy dialogue heavy pages (looking at you, "The Way Forward") saves that precious reading time. It also lets readers (developers; lore focused content creators who rely on wiki documentation to verify if wiki's lore statements are objective or biased; other visitors like lorehounds, casual fans, curious onlookers etc.) instantly get what the citation is in reference to. If there's a more elegant solution to the aforementioned dilemma, I'd be happy to hear it, but currently I feel like this compromise is the only feasible way for References section to work when it comes to some of the interwiki stuff while keeping visitors, who are interested in lore, in mind. :) --Kossage (talk) 01:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Joko and Scriptures of Abaddon[edit]

Not all were fakes it seems, Konig (talk) 21:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! I keep constantly finding all sorts of interesting interconnected things in GW1Wiki while browsing the quests, so one can only wonder if Joko's lichdom had anything to do with wishing a djinn for immortality or abusing deity scriptures somehow... --Kossage (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2018 (UTC)