User talk:Louise

Archive

---

Archive 1

Pictures from the german wiki

Hey, thank you for supporting me in uploading the pictures from the german wiki over here. One thing you could do: On the preview-page, click on the image once to see it in full resolution, then it will be even bigger, better, more wonderful :D --Cloned (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I was pretty sure they would be both the same size and resolution. Will do in the future. --Louise (talk) 17:33, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Image Quatliy

I've said this before, just because it comes from the German wiki doesn't automatically make it better quality, and sometime what they have is worse. Please stop reverting images to ones of worse quality. - Do_odleplex 07:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not reverting them because they're from the german wiki. I revert when I see that the ones I ported had better properties. --Louise (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The minatour one is a bad angle and just as small, the wasp is smaller and a terrible angle. If you really want to improve what we have, take new pictures, but please stop reverting images. - Do_odleplex 08:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The minotaur from ThisIsIsi is clearly bigger, you can see it with your own eyes. As for the wasp, I don't see how having it completely sideways and facing dirt versus more upright facing the horizon and sky is better so on that I absolutely disagree. And I would take new screenshots, but my quality is vastly inferior to ThisIsIsi's, so unless you want crappy pictures... --Louise (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I left my opinion on the Wasp talk page. The German wiki has some gorgeous images, but they also have some bad ones. Try assessing the positives and negatives of your version versus the positives and negatives of the current version in order to decide whether the image is worth replacing or not. —Ventriloquist 10:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Have to be honest, revert wars on a picture of a Wasp is hilarious.--Relyk ~ talk < 10:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new file which should be better than the previous ones. —Ventriloquist 11:34, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Remind me never to buzz around late at night when I should bee hibernating. >_> Lovely picture by the way Ventriloquist! - Do_odleplex 16:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Every mob NPC's locations on this wiki are arranged in order of level "

Very much not true:

• Caithe#Locations + all other DE
• Marjory Delaqua#Locations + all other biconics
• Marsh Drake

Most NPCs are actually arranged with region being alphabetical and zone being by level. It makes sesne this way because of situations like said linked Marsh Drake Low level in both Kryta and Maguuma - which goes first? "Either" or "Alphabetical"? Further, the most noticeable NPCs (DE + DE 2.0) are often the "preferred format" meaning others should match them. Many of the small NPCs like Moose get overlooked because no one cares about those articles and they're so rarely visited in comparison. Konig (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The three examples you gave me aren't even relevant to the discussion. For the Marsh Drake, there's no question to be asked about which comes first since the lower level encountered is in Kryta, hence why it's first on the list of locations instead of the Magumma Jungle (K = 7, MJ = 8 = Simple math). As for Marjo and Caithe, these are both story-related characters which we always put their current location at the top and the rest are in order of appearances and their level doesn't really come into play as it does for regular mob NPC you can encounter in the game at all time. Also, that's three (questionable) examples out of the whole wiki so I think my point still stands.

Edit: Also, so much for discussing before making the change am I right? --Louise (talk) 16:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

About Marsh Drake: Queensdale, Caledon, and Metrica are all 1-15 zones. They are literally equal level zones. Kryta becomes before Maguuma because it's alpbetical, not because Queensdale is a lower level area.

About Caithe and Marjory: No, they are not placed based on order of appearance. For example, Caithe's current appearances are in order: Dragon's Stand, The Grove, then the dungeons (based on level because dungeons = zones); Marjory's historical is Bazaar -> Sky Pirates -> ToN arc -> Origins of Madness. The story order was Sky Pirates -> Bazaar. And I also mentioned, though did not like, Braham which is showing order of F&F->Origins of Madness->Secret of Southsun->Escape from LA->ToN->Queen's Jubilee. There's no order of appearance there.

I linked three, but they're examples. I will not go and list every single article like that just to prove a point (I also made mention - without linking - a total of 12 articles, not 3, but since you demand links: Logan, Zojja, Eir, Rytlock, Caithe, Rox, Braham, Marjory, Canach, Kasmeer, Taimi should all have that set up).

Oh, and to hopefully close this for good: Guild Wars 2 Wiki:NPC formatting "Alphabetize within each level, indicate what levels the NPC is in each area and if they appear only as part of an event or other circumstances" Level comes second, alphabetizing comes first. And it lists a level 8 area then a level 6,7 area. So it very clearly isn't "order everything by level". Konig (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So no one thought to change it until now? All NPC mobs has been arranged this way to my knowledge for quite a while and I personally don't see how it would be more user-friendly or just visually-friendly for that matters by having the levels all over the place. Also, they're not ordered as per the area's level they're in but as per the level they have when you encounter them. It's pretty simple to understand. If you actually want go make the changes, feel free to do so to each and every page because consistency is important, you know. I'm done arguing because obviously my opinion on things isn't worth a damn around here. --Louise (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"All NPC mobs has been arranged this way to my knowledge for quite a while" Here's the 'humor' - I can say the same exact thing about the way I've been doing it.

"I personally don't see how it would be more user-friendly or just visually-friendly for that matters by having the levels all over the place." Another bit of humor: your way still has the levels all over the place. Drake Marsh is a prime example of this. You list Kryta which goes levels 1-60 then you list Maguuma which lists 1-70.

"Also, they're not ordered as per the area's level they're in but as per the level they have when you encounter them." That's largely the same thing.

"If you actually want go make the changes, feel free to do so to each and every page because consistency is important, you know." I'll be sure to do that to the ~500 out of ~10,000 articles. Was planning on doing such as I come across them anyways.

"obviously my opinion on things isn't worth a damn around here." There's a huge difference between claiming "this is how it's done on all articles" and "this is how I think it should be done". You argued the former, not the latter. Konig (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You never, ever want to order by level since level is derived from the location. We group by rank and the NPCs should be alphabetized within the rank. Individual NPC articles are sorted by location. And we will never burden players with manually sorting by order of appearance as this is impossible to maintain. We could generate order of appearance automatically for personal story :D--Relyk ~ talk < 18:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Skritt mobs

Hey, thanks for fixing the level ranges! There is seriously always something I forget to edit in when I find bits and pieces of info to add >_< And by forget, I mean I really didn't even think about it at all ahahaha. — Muirellthe Moon

No problem. It became a habit of mine to check since most people forget to update it when they edit mob pages. --Louise (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Project for you

I've made a page of things we do need pictures of, so if you could go through it and find pictures from the Shared Model Project, that would be a huuuuuge help. Also I'm watching the German wiki image uploads now for better pictures of things we actually need, so you can stop doing that now, I've got that covered. <3 - Do_odleplex 21:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't really want to do that, to be honest. And since you've missed a few of the good screenshots from the german wiki, I'll continue looking into them as well. --Louise (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I said images that we "need", not images that are "good". I purposely left some alone because they weren't needed at all, what we had was already good, and there was no need or request to have those images updated. Not to mention, you look around on their wiki, you'll notice they use our images too, but they don't update those pictures every single time we have a new image of that thing. - Do_odleplex 22:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

And if you looked closely, I don't automatically pick every single picture that's on there, only those that are better than the ones we have. For example, they uploaded a screenshot of the Bristleback that was better than the one we had but you didn't pick it even though you said you checked. If one of their screenshot is better than ours, there is no reason not to use it even though, according to you, we don't need it. --Louise (talk) 23:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

"Better" is subjective. Obviously not everyone agrees with you that some screenshots over there are better. Konig (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course. When I do it, it's subjective but when everyone else does it, it's A okay. --Louise (talk) 23:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's what Konig is trying to say. There are a few objective differences between a bad and a good image. Positioning, lighting, texture quality to name a few. —Ventriloquist 23:23, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I know that. I would understand the criticism if I was uploading every single one of them. When I check them, I always compare the one we have with the one they upload. I compare them, as you've said. What I'm saying is that apparently, when I upload something or edit/revert something, I get, most of the time recently, blasted while I look at others doing the same thing and everything goes smoothly. --Louise (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

As someone who was told the exact same thing I told you, it isn't "when you upload something". But that doesn't mean that on occasion there are images you think are better which have flaws that are more important to others. Konig (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if somebody has a problem about what I uploaded, then I'm open for a discussion. Which ties in to my last commment. In the beginning, I was told (and rightfully so) that if something bothered me, that I shouldn't outright revert it but have a discussion first. Now, some of my edits get reverted without any discussions first and it's somehow OK? --Louise (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Typically it's a matter of situation, not a universal "do not revert!" Sometimes edits simply do not conform to the common practice and when such happens they should be made to conform; if the common practice bothers you, rather than reverting someone making an edit to conform to common practice then you start a discussion. Further, rather than revert you discuss if there's a habit with the person reverting (either reverting you or in general) so as to point out the purpose of the edit (these discussions, I've found, oft result in stagnation). Ultimately, it's up to folks to make judgment calls.

TL;DR The purpose of being told "do not revert" is not to instill "you should never revert, ever" but rather "do not propagate edit wars". Konig (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Articles

Hey, as an FYI, English tends to play very fast and loose with articles. The dropping of "the" is very common, and Anet refers to many places without them. Chasing the Culprits refers to it as just Queensdale and The Informant refers to just Shaemoor Garrison. G R E E N E R 08:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Are we going to base that on the description of two quests in the game or regular, everyday grammar? Because to me, Shaemoor Garrison translates to The garrison of Shaemoor and the word garrison is a common word and thus require the use of the prefix the. --Louise (talk) 08:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just the natural progression of many names. English tends to drop "the" over a period of time, and Anet has incorporated that aspect with some of their proper nouns. An odd one that hasn't is Kessex Hills, which apparently has kept "the" in the general parlance. G R E E N E R 08:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a lot of inconsistency in how Anet decided to handle the way they name their stuff in general. In my opinion, and as I've seen on many other wikis, it's always better to go at it according to regular grammar than with how it's handled in the game. I'm not advocating naming the article The Queensdale or The Kessex Hills since it's not named like that in-game unlike let's say The Wendon Steps or The Blasted Moors. --Louise (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That's because "the" is not considered part of the proper name, a la "The Netherlands" and now just "Ukraine" or "The Dominion of Canada", etc. If you're ready to refer to it as the Lions Arch, then I can only shrug my shoulders. G R E E N E R 08:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, Lion's Arch might be one of the many exceptions Anet made, such as the one I stated above who bear the prefix in their name already, but in that case doesn't get it. For example, in-game, it is called Black Citadel but everyone refers to it as The Black Citadel and both cities' names consist of common words. --Louise (talk) 08:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with using common words or proper grammar. General speech patterns don't care about those. Over time, English has a tendency to drop "the" from names, and Anet's incorporated that into the game. That's all. G R E E N E R 08:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case (and if so, it's the first time I've heard of such a thing), Anet did a fine job at being inconsistent about it just by following the example I just gave you. --Louise (talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, "The Queensdale" sounds weird af as opposed to just "Queensdale". Like you say "America" not "The America" or Illinois not "The Illinois". Konig (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Just between clients, so this is a swing-by. A lot of the locations you've added "the" to won't use the article. As an example, I grew up in Sunshine Hills, which is a part of North Delta; neither of those would ever be introduced with "the", and many neighbourhoods/regions don't as standard practice. G R E E N E R 23:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Rise from your grave

Alright, I think I'm okay now. To be honest, when I decided to leave the wiki last time, I kinda acted in the heat of the moment. I know deep down that I like helping around in the wiki, as small as my help can actually be sometimes but I think I just reached a boiling point last time that made me abandon it all. That break from the wiki did me some good and I truly hope that I won't have to do it again anytime soon. I also hope that this rebirth of sort will lead to better times ahead. Sorry to anyone I might have offended in the past and I will try to be more open to other's ideas in the future. --Louise (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. =) - Do_odleplex 18:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to commend you on your thoroughness. It took me two nights to track down some NPCs you had listed to get their pictures ;D SarielV 22:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, sitting around for people to walk by every 20 minutes was real fun. Even missed one while I was on a bathroom break. Fun times all around. --Louise (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

About the Basilisk...

Why didn't you just upload the german version (green skinned basilisk, which is less common - seen primarily in Maguuma Jungle areas best I can tell) in a new file name instead of overriding mine, then re-uploading mine at the new file name? Edit: Just want to say, not criticizing, just overall curious as to why give yourself more work. o.O Edit 2: Also, I nearly reverted you to do move the green skin image to another file name because I didn't immediately catch you re-uploading mine. Konig (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I did so because the green-skinned basilisk I just uploaded from the german wiki looks clearer than the red-eyed version you uploaded a while back so I thought it would be best to put that one at the top until we can upload a better/clearer one. Also, I personally don't think that the fact that a version is more common than an other really matters in the order that the screenshots are put together since you can see both of them upon arriving on the page. --Louise (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

To be fair the original image was of the green skinned version, so it made sense to me. If the two images need to be changed as to which one is more predominate, all that needs to be done is a little bit of moving images, and I can take care of that if needed. - Do_odleplex 22:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Is and Are

English is weird, and sometimes just because a name has an "s" at the end doesn't mean it has to use "are". If the name or object refers to just one thing, use "is", but if it refers to more than one thing or a group of things, that's when you want to use "are". For example "Bridal Veil Falls", even though it has an "s" at the end of it's name, is just one waterfall, and as a result uses "is" instead of "are", and on the same note Tangled Depths is one zone, so it also uses "is" instead of "are". I know it's pretty confusing sometimes, so I hope this helps you. =) - Do_odleplex 18:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I would understand your point about the Tangled Depths if it was called Tangled Depth but in this case, the name of the zone implies that there is more than just one depth and so warrants the use of the are. --Louise (talk) 18:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

This is one of those weird things, where even though it sounds like more than one thing, it's still referring to only one thing. For example Laurel Caverns sounds like it's more than one thing, but in sentences it uses "is" because it's just one thing, even though in translation it might seem like there are more than one. Unrelated, I think it's just "Tangled Depths" without "the" unless I missed something somewhere, as I could swear the updates and patch notes don't have "the" in front of "Tangled Depths", and that's what I've been going off of. - Do_odleplex 19:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Alright, put in like that, I kinda understand your point. Thing is, sometimes, it can be pretty subjective if something is or isn't multiple things so it's difficult to assess. Also, for your other point, it's really on and off with Anet about how they deal with that. For example, I would've put the in front of Gendarran Fields but apparently in the in-game description, it doesn't have it and that's what I base myself on which is, in my opinion, more accurate than patch notes which are sometimes more straight to the point in terms of wording. Unless someone can dig up one for the zones added with Heart of Thorns, I'll just go with my gut and my sense. --Louise (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, sometimes it's hard to tell which is correct. If you're not sure, feel free to ask, as two heads are usually better than one, especially when it comes to English and it's confusing grammar. And fair enough for Tangled Depths, I'll see if I can't poke around to get an answer to see if it uses "the" or not, and if I find anything, I'll let you know. =) - Do_odleplex 20:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh I did just think of something. If an area existed in GW1 and has the same name in GW2, that could also be used as a reference to see if "the" belongs or not. Bloodstone Fen, Dry Top, and Lornar's Pass for example are in both and don't use 'the'. - Do_odleplex 21:52, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess but I still believe that in-game descriptions of the current game would be best. It would be entirely possible for Anet to change it between games. Also, Lornar's Pass is an obvious one. Dry Top too has always been used without a the in dialogues. --Louise (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Like I said above, English is weird, and I don't want to see you get flustered over it, as I really do want to help you out here. =) I poked around a bit for Bloodstone Fen, and other than the GW1 article about it, the in-game references for GW2 I found referring to it directly are the Living World episode Blood and Stone, the various Out of the Shadow achievements, and the descriptions of the gliding skill purchased from Natto, all of which don't use 'the' in front of Bloodstone Fen. I can do the same thing, going about finding in game references for the rest of the zones, and post it on a sandbox page for you so you know for sure which is in game "verified", and then you wouldn't have to worry about weird English rules. - Do_odleplex 00:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Tagging vandalism

Heya Louise, when you spot vandalism on a newly-created page, don't revert it. Leaving it up lets us quickly see what the offending information on the page is, without having to go through revision history. Thanks! —Ventriloquist 21:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I was just going off of what other users usually do regarding vandalism. I mean, this one in particular wasn't anything sofisticated, just a bundle of witty references, plain stupid talk and things that had nothing to do with the article, so I just reverted it. --Louise (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be going off something I've done in the past, in some cases that was incorrect, but in a few (say link to +18 websites or hyper-offensive statements) I will delete or comment out prior to marking for delete just to avoid having other people see it. In most cases however, yeah you leave it to not have admins yell at you like they did to me and now you Mean, Vent, mean -Darqam (talk) 14:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Creating pages for every variant of a type of foe.

Why did you feel it was necessary to add a page for the elite variant of Deep Cave Troll? We do not have separate pages for Barracuda.... Veteran Barracuda.... and Elite Barracuda.... for example. 98.193.124.175 07:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Anon, we make pages if the NCP exists, whether if naturally or because an event up-scales. Elite Deep Cave Trolls exist, so he made a page. There probably aren't many underwater foes with variations as there aren't many underwater events, though it if one happened by Barracuda and it up-scaled, then we'd make a page for it, but on land, just about anything can go from normal to Champion. Check out Risen foes, we have tooooons of variations. - Do_odleplex 08:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

"We do not have separate pages for Barracuda.... Veteran Barracuda.... and Elite Barracuda.... for example." Because Elite Barracudas (and by all indication, Veteran Barracudas) do not exist in the game. Konig (talk) 12:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I literally have no words for this... I'm the one targetted for this out of all people... oh the irony... --Louise (talk) 07:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You did nothing wrong Louise, anon is confused. - Do_odleplex 07:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I know that I did nothing wrong. I just find it hilariously ironic that it was brought up on my page. I myself am not the biggest fan of creating pages for up-scaled mob variants. Although I understand why it is done, I just see it as more clutter on pages. --Louise (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We still love you, Louise. —Ventriloquist 11:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to schedule an appointment for a psychiatrist. /s (I think I'm going to need to use this more often) --Louise (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Vent, stop trying to break Louise. We need our trusty non-trusty page editspammer prime and ready for big changes we're too lazy to use bots for. Konig (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Reverted" Brakbrak Ice Snarl

Hello Louise, Before we start a revert war, I was wondering if you would explain why you removed the NPCs I just added to Brakbrak Ice Snarl. Thanks! Adeira Tasharo (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I only meant to revert Innythia's edits about heart vendors but for some reason, at the time I edited, it didn't told me that someone actually did it that already as it usually does so I went with it and I must've removed the correct one you added by accident. || Louise || 01:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for putting them back! I think it's because I was still editing when Innythia did, so when I reverted Innythia's, it was not the most recent edit? Not sure, but it's all better now. (Feel free to archive this section if that is something that is done. Adeira Tasharo (talk) 02:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Creature Nav

Just a suggestion, adding the navigation to the bottom of all the foes might be an easier task for a bot to do, but I'm not gonna stop you if you'd like to do it yourself. - Do_odleplex 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I'm just doing it for a short while since I've got nothing else to do at the moment. || Louise || 00:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Okie dokie, have fun! - Do_odleplex 00:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to put any parameters in either. Just {{creature nav}} will find the page name on it's own. Now it's even easier! J.Tesla (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh cool. Was kinda bothersome having to type it everytime. || Louise || 00:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"I'm just doing it for a short while" Hours later and hundreds of edits later... Louise is still going at it... -Darqam 03:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I imagine he's doing this to the Rocky theme music on repeat. Something epic. - Do_odleplex 03:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darqam I often say that about playing video games... I guess it carries to my other ventures as well...

@Doodle Replace the Rocky theme by various continuous podcasts and remove the epicness factor and you're spot on. || Louise || 03:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

-looks at watchlist- I had no idea I had so many NPC articles on my watchlist. Shame I'm no fan of this new template... wish I saw it being discussed before a mass move. Konig (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Comments about the template probably belong on the template page, not here. Also maybe you should start working on your watchlist if you have that many...XD - Do_odleplex 18:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

I did a copy-paste from another NPC in the event to make the risen NPC page and totally missed that. So thanks for removing it! - Do_odleplex 18:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I figured that since you put Order of Whispers in the organization for a page about dead Priory explorers. It happens. A lot with me. I'm a copy-paste addict. Vent can vouch for that. || Louise || 18:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey, at least it keeps me busy! —Ventriloquist 21:45, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Help finding NPC

I'm looking for Bug Swarms to give them a picture, however I've not had any luck finding them in the HoT maps, and in the story instance they have no model at all. Since you made the page for it, I'm hoping you can locate it in the other locations in order to give it a picture(or maybe file a bug report for NPC with no image heh). - Do_odleplex 01:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I first came across them at Camp Resolve in The Silverwastes at the initial release. They should still be there, pestering about and doing what bug swarms usually do. Piss people off. || Louise || 02:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

There's the versions that are summoned by Mordrem Trolls, but those aren't ambient creatures, and I'm not finding them in Camp Resolve other than story instance. Is it possible you got those two mixed up? If not, do you remember where you saw them in the HoT maps(like where in the area)? - Do_odleplex 02:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I know for a fact I saw them first at Camp Resolve outside instances. If I recall, they were hanging out near the cook's tent. It's impossible that I mixed them up since The Silverwastes release came out quite a bit of time before HoT. || Louise || 02:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hrm, well I guess they're instance only now for the Silverwastes, and they have no model in the instance, so I guess I'll be looking in the areas you saw them in the HoT maps since it's kinda hard to give an NPC a picture if it has no appearance heh. Though if you can find them first, that'd be lovely. =) - Do_odleplex 02:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

After a thorough inspection of all mentioned areas on the page, I'm beginning to think they've been completely removed from the game apart from the ones you saw on the story instance and the ones summoned by Mordrem Trolls. || Louise || 03:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I think for once this might warrant a creature picture WITH a UI component... What a world!-Darqam 13:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Level stuff

Just curious about the Aatxe change, if they're only at levels 14 & 15 and 34, then that means there's no 16-33, so it isn't really 14-34, unless I'm missing something. - Do_odleplex 06:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It's more of a consistency thing. Non-rank mobs are all done that way while, with the veteran version and up, it's formatted with its specific level and area it's in. It's been this way for as long as I've been here so that's how I've been doing it. || Louise || 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Feels a tad misleading to me, but if that's how it is, then okiedokie. Thank you! - Do_odleplex 06:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't make that up. It was like that when I joined 3 years ago afaik. And I understand its purpose. Some mobs are found in a lot of areas across the various maps and adding every different level would make the list insanely long. Free-roaming ranked creatures are less common and, if they are, they get the same treatment when their list of levels gets too long. || Louise || 06:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, that makes sense now. Also, I think some of the lower levels are from the personal stories, ie Icebrood Mauler being at level 10 and one of the nightmare court dogs being level 1, should those not be included in the levels on the infobox? - Do_odleplex 06:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

To my understanding, the levels going into the infobox are those of mobs found within areas outside of story instances and that are there at all times, meaning those that spawn due to ongoing events doesn't. || Louise || 06:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Works for me, thanks again. - Do_odleplex 07:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad we could discuss this civilly. Less edit warring suits me just fine. || Louise || 07:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yeah, I'm not a fan of it either. I'm really sorry about doing that in the past. =( - Do_odleplex 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Don't be. I could be considered a war veteran by now with how many I've been a part of, some of which were instigated by my inherent stubborness. We've all been there. Well, maybe not all, but you get what I'm saying. || Louise || 07:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just gonna note, "Non-rank mobs are all done that way while" isn't entirely true. It likely seems that way because many normal ranked mobs can be found in almost every level from 2 to 80. Unless it's just missing a handful of levels (for example, an NPC is seen at levels 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, 18 then it'd be fine to do '2-12, 18'), or it has such huge variances that listing them all would be too long (e.g., instead of '2-12, 18, 22-26, 50-60, 80' it would be reasonable to put '2-26, 50-60, 80' or even '2-26, 50-80'), it should be denoting actual levels it can be seen. Do note that from upscaling, an NPC can go up to 3 levels higher than what we see normally. Veterans are less often seen with a dash because they're much rarer and don't have nearly as many level variances.

So in the case of Aatxe, the proper way to denote it would be '14-15, 34, 40' (the 40 because they appear in the Chapter 4 Priory personal story). Or if you include upscaling: '14-18, 34-37, 40' though '14-18, 34-40' would also be reasonable for shorthand). But 15 to 34 is a big enough gap, with few enough other levels presented, to not do 14-34.

In large, it's a judgement call for whether the gap is big enough or not.

Also, yes, story instance and upscaled levels are included (or rather, can be but not required in upscaling case) in the level listing. At least, I've been including such - and have seen others do such (it's also not such a big deal whether to include it or not). Usually it's such a non-importance because the level's already in the range seen in the open world, or they don't appear in the open world much (if at all) to bother making a question of it. Konig (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm just saying. At the time that I went around and catalogued all the mobs areas and levels a few a few years back, that's how I went about doing it and I didn't get any notices about doing things a certain way so I just assumed it was alright and this is how I've been doing it ever since. I still disagree about the upscaling because first, some mobs appear and sometimes don't during upscaled events and when they do, their levels can be all over the place depending on how big the zerg is. Secondly, they are only there temporarily, so I think it would be better to keep these specific mobs listed on the events that they are tied to when it is the case. || Louise || 18:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Typically I only list upscaled levels (they're not really all over the place - there's an obvious system to it when you notice it) for events where it's expected for upscaling to occur, such as world bosses. You probably never got a notice for 'how we do things' because there really isn't much care about how its done so long as its legible.

For how I've noticed upscaling/mob levels works: foes can spawn anywhere from 2 levels under to 1 level above the event level normally (depends on the event, largely), and have a +3 level upscaling; higher ranks will begin spawning at event level and get that same +3 level upscaling dependent on number of players; only thing I've not been able to figure out is the number of players before certain upscale parts, but from research I've seen it is universal and begins at 5 players, though there's a difference between core and post-release events (and events altered post-release) for how big of an effect that upscaling is - for an obvious example, release events do not have elites in their upscaling. Konig (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

That's the last piece of a mystery I've been looking at for the last week. SarielV 15:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Nuhoch Tonic is best tonic

It simply is [1].

Ambient dialogue moving

Thanks for moving it off point of interests and landmarks to area pages, much appreciated! If you have the time, could you possibly find where Tira Quickfury's ambient dialogue belongs and move it to the relevant areas(and link "Bonfaaz Burntfur" to the GW1 wiki)? If you don't want to, no biggie, but thought since you were moving that sort of stuff that couldn't hurt to ask. Cheers! - Do_odleplex 22:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Every time I tell myself I'm going to update the ambient dialogues, I start doing a few and five minutes later, I'm too bored to be even bothered. It's likely that I'm going to do it, although it all depends on how my brain is feeling about it. || Louise || 23:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick note, since I just noticed, hr tags (or the ----) are primarily used to break up webpages in regards to new sections of content, for example every section of this talk pages uses them via the header tag to separate the groups of comments, and it shouldn't be used to split up content within a section. I know you just wanted to split up the ambient dialogue, but space between the blurbs is enough to indicate they're not the same dialogue. If you did that on a bunch, I can fix it for you with my bot so you can continue moving ambient dialogue off the wrong places and onto the right place. =) - Do_odleplex 00:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, alright. If that is their prefered use, it's alright by me although I personally think it looks better that way instead of just putting a space in-between different dialogues. || Louise || 00:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

← moved to Guild_Wars_2_Wiki_talk:Location_formatting#Position_of_the_Ambient_dialogue_within_a_page

Personal story (etc.) header level and placement

It should be ===[[Personal story]]=== not ;[[Personal story]]. I've been making these changes for months? (thanks to setbacks... like this... it's still not done) because this is better organization. And event involvement always has gone under story involvement. Please stop any such mass revisions reverting the work I've been doing. It's been part of the formatting guides for a long time (over half a year) and has been discussed (though I can't seem to find where - started when Alex reverted the changes I made to an NPC...).
Please go back and revert your changes. I've done some but honestly I can't stalk your contributions as I do not know when you started doing this or the system you used to sort through the NPCs. Konig (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting your more recent ones. Also the discussion if you were interested (thanks Doodle). Konig (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Ordering of NPC Locations

As I wrote for my reasoning of reverting your edit, the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:NPC formatting article indicates that locations be ordered alphabetically. I am confused as to why you would go back and revert it again. If your reasoning is inconsistency, then I suggest that you change any pages that do not follow the criteria, not the ones that do. I don't know why this was removed when you made your commentSythe 20:54, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I wrote my reasoning in my revert notice. It's been written this way in the formatting for as long as I can remember, that being years, and it's never been implemented consistently. So instead of doing a quarter of the job and leaving it an inconsistent mess like it was before I checked yesterday, I rearranged it like it was previously. I always wanted to start a discussion about it in the past but it never came to be apparently. I personally think having it ordered level-wise makes more sense than alphabet wise. With the latter, levels are all over the place, often the highest level areas being at the top of the list and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me from a visitor of the wiki's perspective. || Louise || 21:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think many players who are low level will make the effort to look on the wiki for NPCs that aren't unique (ie. Inquest Extinguisher, Ascalonian Warrior, etc.). If they do search for NPCs, it's more likely to be a boss of some sort. Most of this game is played at end game (see HoT/LWS), many people will say that leveling to max level is very easy compared to other games. Either way, a discussion for the way it should be ordered should be on the talk page for Guild Wars 2 Wiki:NPC formatting, but the standard is still alphabetical currently. Personally, I'm against level-wise ordering because a player will most likely look for the map name first over level of the mob. Sythe 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to spark a discussion in the past and it didn't amount to anything. Still, like many other editors have reminded me in the past, and which I agree, consistency in the wiki is very important. Our opinions and preferences are just that. I won't disrespect yours or any others and I want other people to do the same. But the issue is, the alphabet-wise locations ordering has been written this way for years and never implemented consistently, where as it was ordered level-wise up until recently. You said earlier that I should be doing the opposite, being editing pages according to the formatting criteria but since I don't agree with it currently, I can't really do that so I thought it would be best to put it as it was before where it was atleast consistent throughout. || Louise || 21:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"It's been written this way in the formatting for as long as I can remember, that being years, and it's never been implemented consistently." That may be true, but going against the formatting for the sake of consistency invalidates it in the first place. Personally, I agree with Sythe. Not seeing 'Ascalon' at the top of the locations seems weird imo. Furthermore, most text on the wiki is organized alphabetically, so this shouldn't be an exception. —Ventriloquist 22:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if that's the case, why not do it consistently? When I went and checked two days ago, around maybe 15-20 articles out of the entire bestiary was done alphabet-wise. I was told multiple times in the past that consistency is key around here so why not apply this here? As I've said, it was written like that when I started doing wiki in 2013 and it's never been applied throughout as I recall. It's always been level-wise since I've been here. So you either do it throughout or you change the formatting. I don't agree about the whole Ascalon part at all. To me, NPCs mob locations should be listed according to their levels in-progression as you come across them throughout Tyria. Alphabet-wise, levels are all over the place and it doesn't look very appealing or sensical. || Louise || 23:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe just do it consistently in the way of the formatting guideline? Just because it was implemented incompletely (though I am pretty sure we started out with regions being alphabetical while zones and areas are by level) doesn't mean it should be reverted. No one is arguing against consistency, but rather it's everyone versus you (among those who comment - just like last time) for implementing "alphabetical regions" versus "numerical regions". The main reason why we do alphabetical regions (as I see it) is because trying to get those by level is far too messy and often subjective since there are too many zones across multiple regions that are in the same level gaps (e.g., Plains of Ashford and Queensdale, which do share some enemies, like plain wurm hatchlings). It's just simpler, easier, less complex etc. to do regions by alphabetical order, then zones and areas by level (followed by alphabetical of zones then alphabetical of areas if they share the same level). Konig (talk) 08:15, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Why would I be the one doing it consistently when I don't agree with the format in the first place? If all of you are so adamant about it being done consistently, then do it thoroughly instead of applying it to 15-20 articles and then leaving it at that. And no, when I started back in 2013, it was the same deal as it is being contested now. It was badly inconsistent to the point where it was arguable that the formatting was in place or not before I got here. I really don't see how having levels and area being all over the place is less confusing to viewers than having it by levels. You make it sound a lot more intricate than it really is. If you just class each regions in order of their lowest level in the first area they are encountered, it isn't subjective in the least. They are very rarely mobs with the same levels across regions in the first place. If you all really want to do it your way, alright but do it throughout or not at all, or we all end up with an unfinished mess rather than one that atleast was consistent in its application. || Louise || 17:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

NPCs and Heart involvement

Since I noticed you adding a lot of heart involvements: Typically we only add such to mobs if they only spawn in heart areas, or are specifically listed for the heart's objectives. Since killing any NPC will typically progress a heart, it seems silly to flood NPCs with barely-related heart links. Very generic mobs - like some of the dredge you added links to - can get rather unwieldy with their lists. Just a heads up. Konig (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If a mob being slain contributes to the progression bar of a heart, it implies that it is involved with said heart. || Louise || 12:44, 6 July 2017 (UTC)