User talk:Nero9012

(Belated) Welcome to the wiki!

Hi there, welcome to the wiki! Just wanted to make a note that while I reverted some of your image uploads, since I know some folks do get disparaged if a few of their edits get reverted, but overall you're doing a good job in updating images. Keep up the good work! Konig (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and on a second note if you haven't, you may be interested in Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Shared Model Project as it's very relevant to your edits. Cheers! Konig (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

NPCs with Similar Names

Hiya! Just wanted to I love your enthusiasm for helping out. So here's a quick tip. Just because an NPC shares a name with another NPC doesn't mean that they need to be on the same page. Basically if they share the same name, but are clearly not meant to share the same role/persona; then they should not be on the same page. For example Builder (Lommuld Kraal) should have stayed split from Builder since one is just an ambient NPC filling the space in the expansion and one is the focus of an event from the core game. They serve completely different purposes, so they need different pages. If that doesn't quite make sense, let me know. Cheers! - Do_odleplex 02:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Upon looking back, that one seems more sensible to keep split as you've said. I agree with the event-focused aspect. But I think purely dialogue-based NPCs like Lookout should be bunched up, even with if there is some minor heart involvement such as is the case with that one, which are the ones that I'm trying to pin down more. Nero9012 (talk) 02:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Another tip: when moving/merging pages, try to add the different info from the page being merged. For example: merging the two types of Termites is fine (and probably should've been done sooner), but during the merge the skills of the desert version were lost. If someone were to delete the redirect page now, this info could be lost all together from the wiki. ~SimeTalk 14:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I must've forgot about that one, I've been trying to transport info as best I could. Nero9012 (talk) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Gonna comment here since it's a similar topic, I'm not in full support of you merging NPCs just because their names are the same. A key one, for example, would be Warg (phantasm) and Ooze (phantasm). When their model, race, and especially lore are completely different then they deserve to be different articles. While I could see some of the merges you made, certainly not all make sense. Please be more analytical when merging, and don't just merge because they share names. Konig (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't agree with this personally. When it comes to appearances as minor as these, which I'm trying to take into consideration, I think it's much better, pertinent and ergonomic to add them to the main page and specify that they appear in a different format in that instance than to make an entire new page about it, when doing what I did would amount to the same amount of information. The pages I redirected essentially were like Those wargs appear as X during X mission. End I don't see how that warrants a completely separate thing on its own.

Edit: Would've been nice to at least discuss the matter before you went ahead and reverted everything, don't you think?? Nero9012 (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

(Reset indent) First off, I'm not reverting everything. Just the most obvious to keep split. When I see two NPCs of the same name, I look at the appearance, affiliation, skills, and lore to see if they merit a merge or split - every case I reverted has at least three of those being different, in which case they merit a split. Even if their lore role is minor, being a phantasm caused by a drink in one specific situation is grossly different than savage wildlife that is sometimes tamed by certain groups.

Second off, it would've been nice to at least discuss the matter when two people brought it up before you continued to make a few hundred incomplete merges in the first place. That statement goes both ways, especially since you outright ignored two people who brought up issues with your merges. I have left the vast majority of your merges alone, despite them being potentially false (you merged skills on more than a few NPCs, with no indication that you actually tested to make sure they did indeed have the same skills, and given the rapid pace of your merging, I'm very doubtful you tested the dungeon and story NPCs, esp. the NPCs from personal story). Konig (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I didn't ignore anything. The two points that were brought up were to keep in mind the gravity of certain NPCs when splitting, especially deep event involvement, which I did from then on. And the other was to port over information when redirecting, which I also did. As to you doubting if I did my research, feel free to provide examples instead of throwing accusations around. When I was in doubt, I did my best to search up online for videos or go in-game if possible to get them, but most of the time it wasn't really necessary since a lot of them are relabelled NPCs. So with those out of the way, it doesn't really excuse you just stepping in saying Hey, I disagree with your edits and then going ahead and reverting them. That's not how discussing a matter works. Nero9012 (talk) 18:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue semantics, finger pointing, and he-said-she-said unprovable claims. I'll just say this: people have been bringing up your merges to me, and even if they weren't, the fact that you're changing hundreds of articles that have been mostly or partially completed for years and were in an accepted form is a huge change, and all huge changes should be discussed before making them. What you've been doing is very little different from what I just did, but on a much grander scale given I only reverted a couple dozen glaring cases. Konig (talk) 19:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Great, more pointless deflecting. What a grand concept. Starts a discussion on a talk page, reverts a bunch of stuff, and two posts down, doesn't want to argue anymore. I've been lurking long before actually starting making edits, and what do I know, what I've been seeing happens again. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. There's more whispering and overpolicing going on here than actual wiki-ing. It's a wiki, nothing is ever truly complete, until the game stops being supported at least, so that point doesn't make sense. And for all the discussion you seem to be so interested in, I rarely see instances of it actually happening. Anyways, I think I'll head out, I was hoping maybe something would've changed at some point maybe, but I guess I should've seen all the prior cases of people being pushed away in the past as a warning sign. I've got better things to do than being barked at and falsely accused for trying to contribute. Nero9012 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems you misunderstood me. I was trying to avoid the "whispering and overpolicing going on here than actual wiki-ing" by "doesn't want to argue". Because an argument over who was right or wrong is not discussing what should be done. Konig (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

You make it hard not to argue when you start reverting stuff as you start a discussion on my talk page about it. Especially when I'm in disagreement with your main points as to why you're doing it, hence why I was trying to discuss it further, but you weren't really interested in that, instead choosing to needlessly accuse me of being careless and lying about me ignoring people when I didn't.

To expand on my disagreement while I'm here, since I wanted it to be a discussion, you reverted the ghost/risen crew, which is a pertinent example for me. Ferghen the Tracker exists already. He is a norn and Risen in different missions and so that is rightfully represented on his page, so I don't see why the same shouldn't be done for the crew, which instances are much closer together. Another point you brought up was lore and skills. All redirected examples I did I know for a fact used the same skills as their more common variant, hence why I think it's even more pertinent to just add them on the main page instead of making a new one. And as for lore, a warg appearing as a drunken vision or a destroyer crab appearing as a hologram during one mission only has exactly zero lore to it. It's only a different coat of paint pretty much. Nero9012 (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Romke's crew, they're different from Ferghen. In Ferghen's case, it's one NPC who turns from one version to another - similar to, say Freed Prisoner or Explorer Hekja. In the case of Romke's crew, you can see both NPCs at the same time in the story instance, making them notably different characters - little different than, say Veteran Doppelganger and Elite Doppelganger. For the others, well: "a warg appearing as a drunken vision or a destroyer crab appearing as a hologram during one mission only has exactly zero lore to it" You're literally stating (part of) the lore to it, and even if you weren't, the appearance, race, and affiliation being different is a good enough reason to split - unlike in Ferghen's case, where it's the same character, these are different figures in every sense of the word (both mechanically and storywise). Unless you can test and find that all versions are affected by the same Slaying components (achievement, potions, or sigils), which I believe have been tested (for those that could be) and proven that they don't, then they should definitely be denoted differently. Because they simply are not the same. Konig (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Infoboxes on non-mechanical regions

Isn't adding infoboxes to non-mechanical (geographical-only) regions incorrect and basically repeating info that is already documented elsewhere? You are listing the objectives again, but at the same time you cannot 100% confirm them because ingame the regions simply do not exist the same way as Crystal Desert, Shiverpeak Mountains, etc, do, making it misleading for visitors and documentation. ~SimeTalk 19:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I saw that the infobox had been implemented already on a couple pages prior (Far Shiverpeaks, Isle of Istan off the top of my head) and I agreed with the concept so I thought I'd do a sweep. I don't think re-listing the objectives is inconvenient in any way since yeah, mechanically, the maps are attributed to another region due to code/design but they're still geographically situated in the specific region pages. And it allows to compile them more neatly in some cases (Kourna, Vabbi, Woodland Cascades etc.) which I think is interesting and valuable. Nero9012 (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So, since Drizzlewood Coast is geographically in Woodland Cascades and Far Shiverpeaks, but mechanically in Shiverpeak Mountains, now it is gonna be listed on three pages. ~SimeTalk 20:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I suppose so. I fail to see where the issue is there personally, both from a wikier or reader point-of-view. As long as it's clear on the Drizzlewood Coast page that any daily challenges pertaining to Drizzlewood Coast count towards Shiverpeak Mountains, there's not really any screw-ups that I can see happening. The important info that a majority of people care about is there to read.

Besides, zones have been listed on both their mechanical and geographical regions for as long as I can recall so it's not like it's anything new. Nero9012 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I am talking about the infobox, not zone listing. ~SimeTalk 20:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

So why did you bring up Drizzlewood Coast in regard to that point then? Nero9012 (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Because based on what you are doing, its objectives are now *counted on three pages. ~SimeTalk 20:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If 10% of areas of a zone extend into a different region, I think it's fair to attribute them all to the dominant region, though I wouldn't really care if people would like to be extra precice about it and split the area objectives into the appropriate regions. Though the only example of this I saw during my sweep was the tiny bit of lands separated between Kourna and Vabbi and I thought it was way too small to bother dividing, which I also think the same applies to the northern areas of Drizzlewood. Nero9012 (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note that the template {{location infobox}} is very powerful, e.g. it sets smw:semantic mediawiki properties, which associates the number waypoints, poi, vistas, hearts to a location page. By adding this template additionally to geographical region (as you did) we are basically counting things twice (previously, we were counting only the mechanical regions as the are implemented in-game and in the API).

Furthermore, the guild halls, see this edits: edit 1 and edit 2, have been excluded on purpose. Unfortunately, I don't know the exact reason, but due to how the location infobox template is designed, the guild hall waypoints/vistas are excluded intentionally. --Tolkyria (talk) 20:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the infobox had that deep a reach. If it truly is that problematic, I don't mind them being reverted. Although I do find the capacity of bundling up geographical region objectives together into a broader image interesting and valuable to some degree (it might be a personal interest of mine), if it risks affecting things up overall, it's not worth it. I wasn't aware about the guild hall/raid things either, though the calculations I made for Crystal Desert didn't add up without them regardless so that's odd. Nero9012 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

After checking the dependencies: as long as you don't set any map objectives (waypoint, poi, heart, vista, hero challange should be on the mechanical region only, there they are calculated automatically), then the infobox probably shouldn't harm anything (mentioning/pinging User:Chieftain Alex here, as he is our location expert: please correct me if I'm wrong). E.g. the geographical region Isle of Istan has a location infobox for 3 years.

I think guild halls are the same as dungeons, they don't really count to the main map. However, if the sum isn't calculated correctly, leaving guild halls aside, then there might be something wrong and should be corrected at zone level (if possible). --Tolkyria (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sticking to geographical regions only, I know that mechanical regions are much trickier beasts. I'll wait for more inputs but like I said, if the objectives listing (same goes for the guild hall/raids objectives) poses too big a risk, I'm perfectly fine with canning it. Nero9012 (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Calculating the number of objectives within a given Continent is annoying to do accurately on the wiki when you consider the geographical/mechanical aspect of the Regions. I believe currently that if we set the number of objectives on a Region page (achievement mechanical or nearby geographical), then the parent Continent page will (if not set manually) sum the region pages and potentially lead to incorrectly higher values. However that's pretty much it. The total on 2 or 3 pages will be wrong.

Considering "does it matter" - probably not that much. I doubt many people will be precise enough to go verify the totals.

Perhaps a better question would be "Should we actually be displaying the number of objectives on any Continent pages anyway?" It doesn't really mean much in a game where core map completion is the only total map completion thing that matters; the rest is tracked at the zone level. I propose we disable showing the number of objectives on Continents, and possibly on Regions too. Is it useful?

fwiw I cleaned up the top of Property:Has location type to visualise how granular each location type is. Do the columns on the left really need the sum of the columns on the right? -Chieftain Alex 22:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

And in case it isn't obvious why we would want to remove the totals from Continents, it means you're free to add infoboxes to whatever pseudo locations you like! -Chieftain Alex 22:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a stats nerd so I think it's a neat thing to have. But as you said, since the world completion stat stopped being global since Core game and now calculated at the zone-level, I think the value of that information has dropped sharply. But if I had to say keep it or ditch it, I'd rather keep it at this point, which would go for geographical regions as well, as long as it doesn't cause any problems as I said earlier. Nero9012 (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

There are two aspects: geographical regions based on in-game lore and mechanical regions based on in-game mechanics (e.g. daily gatherer) and the API. So why should we connect in-game mechanics (here map objectives which relate to mechanical region) with lore-based mechanics (here geographical regions)? This doesn't make any sense and due to the discrepancies between lore and in-game mechanic this will yield incorrect results.

What about clearly splitting the location type "Region" into "Mechanical region" and "Geographical region"? We would allow double usage for e.g. Ascalon and disable any map objectives for "Geographical regions" only. --Tolkyria (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

That last bit about splitting into two region types was the exact thing that went through my mind when I first started doing my sweep earlier. I think it would be a great solution for separating the two region types period instead of only leaving a note at the bottom of the page. Nero9012 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Family parameter

There is no reason to add the family paramater to creatures that have the rank set (including the normal NPCs that do not have any (NPC/charr/etc) suffix.) Like {{Creature nav|Branded Lieutenant} is no needed, just add {{Creature nav}} and set the rank for the npc's that are missing it. Also, zero reason to remove the cubs and fawns and offsprings from the navs, since they do belong to the family-the creature nav has been used that way for many years. ~SimeTalk 13:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

No where in the template page description for Template:Creature nav does it says it's supposed to include young versions or loosely-related NPCs. At the base of it, it's to bundle up the different ranks of NPCs named the same way. Besides, from what I saw, it was included very inconsistently and loosely so in my eyes, and according to the template, that seemed the incorrect way to write it. As to not needing to include the name, I kinda blitzed through the pass late yesterday and realized it very late.

Actually upon looking into the talk page, the only mention I see is someone asking if that could/should be done, and it didn't go anywhere so it's not like it's obvious standard practice at any rate. Nero9012 (talk) 16:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, although I reverted few of your changes and removed the family parameter when not necessary, it is still appreciated that you went through the articles and added the missing creature nav. Maker knows how much more neglected articles there are. ~SimeTalk 20:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Image uploading

Hi, just noticed you were uploading some images to fix some mistakes in the old ones and wanted to suggest that you take a look at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/Darkroom/How to Take Images. Hopefully the article will be helpful. Sunlion (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Noticed something about your images. Check your graphical settings - your shaders and/or textures are of lower quality than some of the images you're replacing (like File:Krait Nimross (alt).jpg). 35.128.192.3 18:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I set my shaders to high just for this but I forgot about textures. Should be better now hopefully. I know I don't have the best specs ever but I can still manage. Some of the images I'm replacing are more about angle and framing also. A minor bump in quality for a better overall look is better imo, within reason off course. Nero9012 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, you do have high-res character textures active, correct? Sunlion (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't, I was under the impression that only affected player models. I'll set to max just in case I guess. Nero9012 (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Exit Back to Ashford

Hi Nero, in case you weren't aware of it -> Talk:Test Your Metal. You deleted the red link i put on the story article, but I think it's really worth a page on the wiki :)--Aylia (talk) 09:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I didn't see that there was something pertaining to this on the talk page, my apologies. That would explain why I wasn't seeing this anywhere in the videos I checked. Thanks for letting me know. Nero9012 (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Page has been created. Nero9012 (talk) 09:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Move remnants

If it's not too much trouble, would you mind remembering to tag remnants of pages you move with {{delete|Move remnant|speedy}}, so that the redirects can be more easily deleted. Sunlion (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure thing, I wasn't 100% sure what the line was for that but now that I know, I'll apply it for future use. Nero9012 (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also before adding the delete tag, please try to check the What links here section and remove the incorrect links, like the ones on area pages/Shared project. Cached pages like on Race/coordinates projects will eventually clean themselves so no need to worry about that showing. Cheers! ~SimeTalk 10:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

NPC editing

I see you’ve been pretty busy recently with NPCs and I’ve noticed a couple of things that I’d like to point out to you to help you out. First and foremost, is that we want the wiki to be both factual, as well as helpful as it can be for your average reader. Sometimes that means putting in things that seem maybe a little redundant, like the During template on an NPC that only appears in one place during one event, splitting NPC from each other even if they seem to be the same, or having things being inconsistent with everything else simply, because it’s easier for readers this way. I understand that doing things in a way that doesn’t seem to make sense feels pretty weird, and sometimes you’re not going to like it, but if it allows us to both document the game accurately as well as making it easy/clear for readers, then that’s best thing for the wiki to do.

Which brings me to two comments: Going forward, if you wouldn’t mind using Template:Merge on NPC pages you think should be merged, it would be greatly appreciative. Some of the merges that have occurred are fine, but a some of the others have been found questionable by others and don’t seem to be perhaps the best for the readers. Adding that template will allow for feedback to find the best way to document the NPC. The other thing is that usually when we have to have two or more NPCs that have the same name but different race/location/whatever and need separate pages, the standard format is to have it as “NPC Name (area NPC is in)” as that’s usually a better descriptor for people than race or what they’re doing. If there are pages that aren’t like that currently they need to be moved to the format I mentioned.

In general, there’s a lot of NPCs, it’s hard to get them all, so if you see something that seems strange, feel free off ask, or keep in mind it’s likely just an older page needing some updates. Happy editing. =) - Do_odleplex 00:20, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm aware that I'm a bit of a consistency drone/nutcase but I guess that's just how I am. As far as moves go, I'll try to use the template more if I feel it's needed. Upon looking back, the one recent case that I agreed can remain split was the dredge since the main page is mostly about an enemy NPC and they also have unique (ambient, iffy) dialogue and they're also part of LWS4 content. But I feel that if the only difference an NPC like let's say Priory Scholar has, or any other NPC of that nature, is dialogue then their location and said dialogue should just be added to the main page. That's why I've been leaving event vendors or event criers that have copy names alone since they play a more in-depths role with some things. And for enemies, if the only difference is small additional combat skills (Champ Icebrood Goliath comes to mind), the same should apply. Nero9012 (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick heads up: while yes, usually NPCs should not have Points of Interest as their location in the infobox, if that point of interest is an instance, then it's fine. Reference Category:Instances to know which ones are okay. Cheers! - Do_odleplex 23:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

To answer that NPC dialogue question, here you go Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Dialogue formatting. If there are other NPCs that are like that, I can do a bot sweep to make sure it's consistent formatting for you. =) - Do_odleplex 00:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

NPCs that were using the method shown in the template were the exception so far, just saying. I feel it's smoother and looks cleaner written in sub-branches that way so I can't say I'm really in favor of changing them personally. If anything the template section should be changed to use that method. The larger separation could be kept for collection dialogue or stuff of that nature, as seen in the Countess Anise page. Nero9012 (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Choose One

Hi. I'm trying to clear the Guild Wars 2 Wiki:List of candidates for maintenance and am quite lost with these two requests: [[:File:Zojja (Nightmare).jpg]], [[:File:Zojja (phantasm).jpg]]. Which one do you want to keep? Choose one and fix the link to the image on Zojja's page, please. Thanks! talk 16:56, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Delete both, Inc. The correct image is File:Zojja (nightmare).jpg.(Links should be fixed anyways, of course) DJemba (talk) 17:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

What a wild ride. I think I had enough of the maintenance list today. Thanks, Dj! talk 17:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

My brain had a massive meltdown with one, sorry. Nero9012 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bestiary screenshots

Hello. Just wanted to suggest that you remember to categorise images for NPCs with Category:Bestiary screenshots so that they don't clog up the Screenshots category and are easier to find shared models for the project. Sunlion (talk) 05:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest the bestiary category is optional, however what's not optional is setting all your graphics to maximum (except post-processing) before taking the screenshot... I've made similar mistakes before. -Chieftain Alex 22:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)