User talk:Leonim

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Please add new messages to the bottom of the page if you're not continuing a discussion.
Vista-Ym.png This user is a member of the GW2W Helper Program.
fr-N This user is able to contribute with a native level of Français.
en-N This user is able to contribute with a native level of English.

Bienvenue[edit]

Welcome and feel free to ask questions if you need be, i'm rather inactive (burst skills ftw!) but i will answer them when I come by. :) --Leonim

Discussions[edit]

On the Conjure page, you wrote: "While the extra summon(s) lasts, before doing so, around a minute in the world or until used by someone." Did you accidently a word there? Doesn't make any sense, does it? :P Teto 15:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah thanks (and sorry), I was too hasty doing that update, initially on the traits section. --Leonim 17:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia templates[edit]

Is there a specific reason you are making those templates? Or are you just having them because wikipedia has them? Unless you have a use in mind for them, I would recommend not making them. Aqua (T|C) 02:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems I will put them in my user space instead, to not clutter the wiki with templates about key press buttons (even without the <kbd> extension) that few other than me would find useful. I do some UI and character sheets on idle time (first from assembling designs from others then sandboxing more stuff), so yeah those kind of templates may be useful but i'm not yet sure if it will be final. I'll file them for deletion in such case, under two weeks.
And no, I don't tend to just copy things for the sake of it. But I tend to place them at the wrong place. ;) --Leonim 02:59, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Categories Tales and Social species[edit]

Tales sounds really silly in its name. I think Stories would be better, but tbh, both are highly inaccurate ("stories" only fit the quotation points of the blog posts, or the Mr. Sparkles thing). Social species is completely unnecessary as most races in GW2 have some form of culture given to them, and it's just arbituary additional categories. Konig/talk 16:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry that you find such naming innacurate or silly, yet that is what they are : tales from daily-life to more epic events. As for the social species (it exists on GWW and) fits perfectly its description : species which have a culture and as such are linked to the racial sympathy part of the personal storylines.
If you want to debate anthropology, I'm not the guy to discuss it with. It is true that most races have a culture (and that is a proof of the care writers put into the tyrian world), but not all of them are "social" (the difference matters here, especially when you nitpick on terminology). That is also the point of the racial sympathy between them and the "major" (a.k.a. playable) races.
One last thing about tales, so far, they are found at the root of the Category:Lore, which indicates they indeed lack a real subcategory. Have a good day. -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 16:39, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh and wiki content is not about speculation but about information. Refrain to ask for deletion or undo edits just because you are not well informed enough on a topic. Thanks. -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 16:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
They are not tales. They contain stories (or "tales"), but they are documents. Furthermore, your stated plan ("then collection of ingame book items") makes it more off, as the in-game book items are even more document-like than the blog posts. And yes, I know they lack a real sub-category, and I would have given them one if I could find a suitable category name, but tales is not one (also, you fail in giving it a real sub-category in two ways: 1) They are still in Category:Lore, and 2) your name and explanation does not encompass the non-major race blog posts).
Something existing on GWW is not a reasonable argument - GWW structures its categories differently - for instance, GWW separate lore and mechanics, but GW2W merges them in Category:Bestiary. Furthermore, GW1 has far more non-social creatures than GW2. Currently, you only place 8 races in [[:Category:Social species]] (you originally would have had 9 but I removed one before the category existed), but if you want it to be accurate you need to add at least 15 more, including the main race, which ends up with only 21 non-social species. See the silliness? If you go by just racial sympathies than 1) Inaccurate category name (there are more social species, as I pointed out) and 2) that is speculation as of this moment. You added 9 (originally) species into the list, but we only know of Skritt, Quaggan, Grawl, Hylek, and Ogres as racial sympathy options. What I want is to remove the speculation that you added, and yet I'm uninformed? Granted I didn't know you would make them (I suspected such, but me removing the categories was to show that I was against the creation of them!)
With your attitude, that was very rude. Konig/talk 16:57, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
The racial sympathies of each categories are in the blog articles provided during each special week (of the major races), as it was stated during the Paris Games Show (for instance and as far I know personaly and for certain). Like I said, it is no speculation on my behalf, it is just an overlooked fact (or no one else cared to ask the devs at the time).
What is rude is that you might think you are the only recipient of knowledge about the game, when other people (even if they are by far not as active as you on this wiki) can still be up to date on information. The list of the 9 racial sympathies is exhaustive as of now, and yes the category should include the five playable races (but I stopped my edition halfway because someone was undoing the work right behind me and I wanted to discuss the point).
I don't often have time to participate the wikis as much as I would (or could). And generally it ends with "veterans" (something I respect actually) doing exactly what you are currently doing (except on Wikipedia naturally, since the active communauty is larger, less conservative and thus more collaborative/open with new faces).
About the "tales" category, we both know (and I carelessly assume we are not the only ones) that it is needed and that those contents should be categorized. The naming concern is totally right yet. But the ingame books are not documents but tales so far (check the vids), though we only know about a small portion of the whole : the category name could be adapted thereafter if it truly doesn't fit.
And since my alloted time is up, I have no time to argue anymore with you about my weekly contribution. Feel free to do as you see fit and undo all the elements if your personal view is still such inclined. When the game will be out, those categories will resurface anyway, it is just a matter of time and comprehension. I'm not in a hurry.
Enjoy your day Konig. :) -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 17:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to require a source for that racial sympathy bit - because I don't recall such ever being shown during the racial weeks (and if this is so, why does racial sympathy only list charr and sylvari options?). I know I am not the only recipient of knowledge (hell, I barely pay attention to news on the game's mechanics), but you can't just go making your own rules (well, [[GW2W:BOLD|I guess you can]], but not without it being questioned) saying "this is the case" without providing sources. My knowledge for this argument has been the wiki (and a bit of the previous demo footage - that is, what the content of the books are, in that they are nothing like the "tales" but are akin to gw1:Storybooks, just fancier).
Just to note: I have no qualms with new faces changing things - new or old, don't matter to me. So long as the changes seem beneficial, I'll leave it (and often, when there's no benefit or not harm done, I'll leave it). Yeah, it's my opinion, but any other bloke out there can challenge it and I'd be happy to discuss it and try to come to a compromise.
I disagree that the in game books are tales - unless there's confusion in the topic! Creature Codex are the only in-game books I've seen. There are bookstands, I've noted, in Divinity's Reach, but they just give us titles and a brief description sometimes (please link to said video if I am wrong). And creature codexes are, as said, like the GW1 storybooks - except about creatures and factions rather than dungeons and missions. Regardless, for the time being I've fixed the Category:Tales/Category:Lore clash, as we can rename it later when we get a better name. Konig/talk 18:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Heya again Konig, sorry for the delayed answer. Yeah, I was confused about the creature codex and its content which sometimes borderline to story tales. So you were right, the "tales" should not include them, and since there are too few "document" excerpts to begin with and make a rightful category so far. and secondly, the Tour and other storytelling NPCs will probably have their own category as well. So, not the brightest idea I'd got. ^^ The library feature discussed at the Paris Game Show 2010 didn't reach the game full force (yet?), though the codex is indeed a nice and rich part of it.
Thanks for fixing up things (and your patience :) ), it was bothering me as well, sadly I didn't had the time at the moment. I wish there was a way to improve the visibility of those lore elements : from the stories behind meta-events and reknown hearts to the tidbits of story and lore here and there.
As for the minor races (url to the official blog section), those blog articles is what we were pointed at when asking about racial sympathies. I don't know if the ask-a-dev sessions were recorded (I doubt that) but a transcription might be found on one of the french community forums. Though I'm sure, other people asked the devs about it (or was it obvious for anyone but us?).
Hence that's why I didn't update the racial sympathy article since I can't assure you which minor races are tied to asuras, humans and norns, though I could guess (but that is not for wiki pages). What we know for sure is the current list of minor races (a.k.a. racial sympathies). Perhaps the "social species" I created should simply be called "minor races" (since the major ones are under "playable races"), though I slightly dislike the term of minor race, but that is a very personal view... that I should have but aside.
Hope this clears up a bit what I was tryig to convey, sorry again about the confusion on the "tales" mismatch. Have a good day and thanks for the welcomed pointers. -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 13:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
As much as I hope for the krait to be a sympathizable race, I find it unlikely - the krait and centaurs were both presented as being "pure black" races (though the centaurs now have at least one redeeming member). So I find the krait unlikely to be a sympathize-able race, unless it were for sylari considering their nature... but unless there's more than three (doubtful), that's not the case. And even if the blog list is of racial sympathies it is clearly unfinished as ogres are not up there. Are you sure the devs said "the racial symapthies and the blog posts for the minor races are one in the same" (or of similar line with same exact meaning), or did they say "the minor races are covered in certain blog posts"? Remember that ArenaNet are masters at beating around the bush.
And while I can agree on the "minor race" terminology, it's rather correct. Only those five races - with possibly centaur and tengu - hold large patches of land. Konig/talk 23:31, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
(Indent reset) Heya again loremaster Konig. Indeed, minor races is a fitting title (as well as stories and texts goes better for our previous topic). As for ANet's way of saying it, I don't remember exactly how they worded it. All the articles weren't out and many things changed : at the time, we were still amazed by them changing the Sylvari for a better lore and feel.
It is amusing sometimes to see how things are put into movement, like the Kodan (one of my favorites) who were no part of the initial lore. As for the good guys/black guys... I remember as well hearing that Krait would be considered a dark and ruthless race with nothing to make them pleasant, cute or friendly, but what to say about Palawa Joko going hand in hand with the Sunspears and our heroic campaign?
As you know, Charr from a Human perspective are the evil (and the opposite) for hmmm you know your dates better than me but it goes back to the arrival on the Kryta continent or so and up to a only couple years before the game starts. I don't just mean they were the bad guys in the original game, but that really people on both sides didn't have the time to mend bodies, hearts and minds... as taken into account into stories and lore from both sides.
Another example, Skritt are considered for mass pest extermination by Asura and it is also an all-out war raging for ages.
And now I will refer again to the original game, with the Tengus this time. As to my meager knowledge (correct me if I am wrong), only one tribe is actually sympathetic to Humans, and as a canthan farmer, I wouldn't risk asking the time of day to any Sensali and co. Though the majority is overtly hostile to humans, treaties are more or less there. One interesting thing is that lots of players have a high opinion of the race as a whole thanks to the memorable NPCs they interacted with... more than from the countless bodies they had to left behind.
Ventari alone would redeem the whole centaur affair to me. ^^
In this time of desperation, a good question is if you can really be picky of your allies or if you have to let go with a simple "the enemy of my enemy is my ally" view. I think it is a nice subject for a persistent choice/turn of events in a personal story, don't you think?
As for the size and scope of the impact on lore from a personal story's viewpoint, I'm not sure a lone hero choosing an order would change the (persistent) world. But maybe it does as all threes have a total different way on how they want to deal with the elder dragons and it be a sort of which has the most support from players on each server.
Maybe the race sympathy matter is of the same order and raising similar questions and potential. As for my personal view, I treat it as saving the hospital or the orphanage, it's a way to a mean and your hero will have the ally (or shades of ally) that match her personality and choices, a tribe or seizable cohort will sway your way and that's already making a huge difference when you think of it.
I'm curious about what ANet has decided in the end and will show us, but so far, so good. Shades of gray in storytelling are more than welcomed to me. Oups, sorry, I wrote a long answer. ;) -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 01:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Now you're just going into semantics with your ethics argument. Yes, each race views others differently, but Anet said that they want those two races to be "black" so you can probably bet all races will view them as such - the only race which doesn't view krait as evil things that need exterminating are the sylvari and that's only the young - and again, the sylvari racial sympathies are known - none of which include krait (unless they've altered this but that's speculation). Regarding tengu - we actually don't know how caromi, avicara, and quetzal viewed humans on a whole - just that there were raiding tengu of the caromi, and that we invaded Avicara and Quetzal lands (we really didn't do a good job at reading those "keep out" signs in the Verdant Cascades).
The thing about Ventari - and Qindova - is that they're one of a kind. Kinda like Avarr the Fallen in Eye of the North being the sole evil of the race. This isn't to say they're the only of their moral standings of their race, but rather that they're unique and are an exception to the rule rather than a basis for it - so to speak. And by that, I mean if Anet wanted centaurs to be evil in the game, but wanted to give lore and thus decided to do it via a peaceful centaur, then that one peaceful centaur doesn't mean all other centaurs aren't evil. Though in terms of lore value ethics, it seems the centaurs are going through a similar stage as the charr when they were subjugated by the Flame Legion (centaur equivalent being the Modniir). But in short: If anet said they wanted these races to be "bad guys" then sympathizing with them is... highly unlikely. And krait having a blog post and being unlikely sympathy, along with you not being able to quote what was said, pretty much sums it up to me that the blogs do not equal the racial sympathy options (no matter how much I want centaurs and krait to be racial sympathy options for human and sylvari respectively).
As to personal story and persistence - it has been repeatedly stated that the personal story will not affect other players (unless they were to enter your non-dungeon instances). 01:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Again, I should remind you that I don't try to enforce one view or the other. I just told you what we were told at the time and place, and I don't take what was said as granted or definitive : as I first said, I am patient but I wanted to share the information I had. Soon, we'll know more about racial sympathies and the wiki will be updated with accuracy.
Until more is known, the question is naturally on hold, no backing up on my part, no offense taken either side, that's simply the correct course of actions. But try to refrain from implying that I'm not honest, thanks. Though feel free to come and tell me "I told you" if we learn later that minor races are not those I knew of in October, it will be fine. :)
About another related topic, I presented you with total antagonists being used as allies in the lore of ANet (Palawa Joko is the best example) just to point that it can happen without game or lore breaking and that I find it interesting. Just like in real life and History, those things happen... politics is all about it after all. I'm not defending a point here, just discussing about possibilities on my own talk page.
Same goes for potential impacts of racial sympathy choices on the "this is my story" and "semi-persistent world" features. About personal story, the road (and it's only my guess of the day) we may travel is similar to where Destiny's Edge went on then failed with Kralkatorrik, only with zhaitan and I hope a little more success.
In terms of mechanics and coherence, the aftermaths of its (primordial force) supposed downfall will logically not change the game world before long (when ANet will push forward the timeline in a world-changing update). One hero (and selected allies and companions) may find her way to hit the "source" but I don't think it will put an immediate end to the threat : destroyers still battled the dwarfs long after the Great Destroyer was no more.
On the other hand, if you still have at heart to try to prove my delusion or fallacy with a point about the krait, then please find something that really say they aren't a race that players will interact with, just critters to be defeated. I don't mind debating as long as we are clear that it is for intellectual purposes, not a quarrel.
My personal view on your argument is that writers want to explore in depths this race, with the involvement of players. And to be honest, how to expand and present that lore if we can't even communicate and exchange in any way with those people? How will characters (not players) be taught and exposed to what's in the blog and whats more to discover about this race? Do you really imply "black hat" means no interaction? I don't say it means they will stay (or should be) inside the club of racial sympathies, just that they can easily fit.

The krait have always been an unapologetically evil race. While we take pains in many instances to provide two sides to any story and to show that even evil races, cultures, and characters have good reasons for their actions, the krait were designed to be straightforwardly “black hat.”

— Anet Blog

For me "black hat" means the Krait as a whole have no redeeming factors. Still they are no minions of the dragons and like any other living creatures, they are forced to be at war with them, vying for their survival and still seeking dominance over other races. My personal view of race sympathy does not mean that they should be fine ally... or sympathetic, just that they will help you to achieve your goals. In the case of Krait as a choice, it could hypothetically be the lesser of two evils : brush them in the sense of the scales but never let your guard down.
A character such inclined could say and think : "If the world is not destroyed, then there will be happy times to regret this choice... and others. But right now I need them on my side, not in our back."
Oh one more thing, when I call you loremaster, it is a respectful title, not a bashing attempt; just as I allow myself to use master Soesbee without knowing her, only her work, views and dedication (met her once, and like other ANet devs I exchanged with, they are really pleasant and interesting individuals to converse with, but I disgress again ^^). It didn't strike me first that you were the Konig I used to read a lot of comments on the other wiki, maybe it doesn't mean much, but kudos for your passion.
To conclude, I will say that imo all GW2 races would do great partners as far as storytelling goes, thanks to the care they've been designed with. I have my personal favorites : some are in, others aren't. Makes me happy any way. :) -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 16:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

About my signature image[edit]

Please see File_talk:User_Leonim_Sig.jpg for any concerns and related discussions, thanks. -- User Leonim Sig.jpg Leonim [talk·contribs] 20:34, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Pages where template include size is exceeded[edit]

Hey Leonim!
I noticed your skillbar template examples page was using too many template calls for the wiki to process properly. This is not really harming the wiki in any way, as you may know. However, to remove the category from the wanted categories list I have taken the liberty to add code to make the warrior template call invisible to the wiki (by wrapping it in <!-- --> tags). The code is still there when you edit the page, but the wiki will not attempt to load the last example (and thus the amount of template calls can be handled without a problem). Of course if you would still like to show the warrior example (for the burst skill, likely), I understand and would like to suggest to swap it with the mesmer example (which doesn't add anything special, compared to the other examples).
Happy wiki-ing! - Infinite - talk 10:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your character templates interacting poorly with tables[edit]

Hello I really like your character templates and was considering using them for my own userpage. However, it seems these templates REALLY don't like to be put in tables and somehow are just ending the table when I use them inside one. I don't know if there's a way to change this as my proficiency with wiki code and html is pretty bad, but let me know if you figure anything out! Thanks, Windtalker 23:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Skillbar template height too low on MSIE 11[edit]

User:Leonim/Template:Skillbar Hi there. I'm using your skill bar template which is AWESOME, but there is a small problem. Height is too low on Internet Explorer 11 browser. It is being cut-off at the bottom. Can you take plz do an attempt at fixing this? Thanks! Hyper (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)