User talk:Noxx/2012-2014

2009–2010•2010–2011•2012–2014•Current talk page

skill page moves

I thought that in the case of multiple skills with the same name, if only one of those was a primary skill, we allowed that page to be non-suffixed. Thus Swoop and Pounce were the primary ranger skills, since the other skills were all secondary skills (pet skills or transform skills). —Dr Ishmael 12:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I know this is the case as long as there are only 2 skills, but I thought if there are more than that, the disambiguation page takes that place to prevent otheruses cluttering the top of the pages. If that isn't the case, I'm sorry and I'll revert it back. 12:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This is the situation foreseen by the default case of {{otheruses}} when you don't supply a second or third parameter:

{{otheruses|the user}}

When there is one article that is obviously much more commonly accessed than the others, that page takes priority at "Page", and the disambiguation page is at "Page (disambiguation)". It's more obvious on Wikipedia where they have a lot more situations like this, e.g. w:Boston.

It's not that your changes are "bad", but our goal should be to make it easy for readers to access the information they'll be searching for most often. In these cases, I would think the ranger weapon skills will get a lot more pageviews than the pet or norn skills. —Dr Ishmael 15:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, I'll keep that in mind and change it that way, but I'd recommend mentioning it in the page on skill formatting. 16:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It applies more generally than just skills, though, so Guild Wars 2 Wiki:General formatting would be a better place. —Dr Ishmael 16:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Kind of relevant, but when I was changing all the weapon pages I noticed some inconsistencies in the way skills are named, such as the difference between Jab (ranger skill), Jab (mesmer) and Jab (thief spear skill). I mean there really is no reason for inconsistency like that, but I was a bit scared to dive right in and try to fix it all. Looking at the formatting page Jab (ranger skill) is correct, with Jab (thief spear skill) only occuring if another thief weapon also has Jab, which as far as I can tell, is not the case. I'll drop this on my to-do list for now I guess. Misery 16:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits of Obsidian Sanctum

If you look, the Obsidian Sanctum JP is in the area called Zraith's Beacon, Zraith's Beacon is the area which wholly holds the Obsidian Sanctum. The Obsidian Sanctum is not a zone, it's a JP, Zraith's Beacon not a zone, it's an area of the EB. So, splitting it is a wrong, from the map and from the description of Zraith's Beacon. This seems to be a the understanding of others as far as I can see. --Claret (talk) 14:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

When you enter the Mystic Portal, you are loading into a zone called Obsidian Sanctum, not Zraith's Beacon or Eternal Battlegrounds, which means that Zraith's Beacon is an area in the Obsidian Sanctum zone. This is similar to Molten Facility having an area Molten Weapons Facility or Labyrinthine Cliffs having only an area called Bazaar Docks. If "the understanding of others" is the way it was before, that is that both the JP and the area are part of Eternal Battlegrounds, than it is objectively wrong (it was separated from the EB in order to reduce its queues, the waypoints on all other WvW zones are inaccessible from within Obsidian Sanctum etc.). 14:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

My character in the JP now. It surely did go through a portal to get here but it may be overinterpreting to say that it changed zone. There are loading screens at many instances etc and those do not change the zone or area. My character is on an area of the map clearly marked as Zraith's Beacon. Not sure how much more a part of the EB it could be. Just because it is only accessible via the portals does not, in my opinion, make it any less part of the EB than other JPs are part of their zones. Are you saying that although my character is on the map area called Zraith's Beacon that it is actually in another area or zone? Seems rather a strain of the imagination. --Claret (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, loading screen doesn't necessarily mean a change of a zone but it indentifies them by name. If you enter EB, you will have a loading screen titled Eternal Battlegrounds. If you subsequently waypoint to Stonemist, you'll probably hit a loading screen and it will be titled Eternal Battlegrounds; obviously, since you're loading into the same zone. If I'm in Incendio Templum, the loading screen will say Diessa Plateau and when I enter the portal there, I'll be transported to Flame Temple Tombs via a loading screen titled Diessa Plateau as it's still in the same zone, unlike going into, say, Lion's Arch. If I loaded into Molten Facility through a loading screen titled Molten Facility and looked on the map, I saw only Molten Weapons Facility; however the zone was still called Molten Facility, because a zone is different from an area, even if that area covers the entire zone. You would be able to verify that for instance through the guild panel, where you'd show up located in Molten Facility.

Now, if you're in WvW, the guild panel will always say World vs. World no matter the zone you're in. However, entering the Mystic Portal shows a loading zone titled Obsidian Sanctum. Not Eternal Battlegrounds, like the map you entered the portal in, not Zraith's Beacon, like you see on the map, but Obsidian Sanctum, indicating that the zone is called as such.

So I'm saying that your character is in the jumping puzzle Obsidian Sanctum, which is in the area Zraith's Beacon, which is in the zone Obsidian Sanctum, which is not Eternal Battlegrounds (they even have separate queues), because that's what the game is saying as well. This is analogous to, say, the jumping puzzle Behem Gauntlet, which is in the area Behem Gauntlet, which is in the zone Blazeridge Steppes, which is not Plains of Ashford. 15:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. It's, like so many things, an interpretation. I see the logic in yours, I don't agree with it. But honestly, I am not up to arguing about it. Doubtless if others feel strongly, they will intervene. If they don't…  :) --Claret (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't find the patch notes that they said this, but they intentionally moved Obsidian Sanctum to its own map so that players doing the jumping puzzle wouldn't prevent other players from playing WvW in EB. So yes, it is its own zone, by design. Aqua (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) To be honest, I find it somewhat cumbersome as well and would personally prefer to leave both articles on one page, similarly to Super Adventure Box being about the dungeon and the release at the same time (which works, because releases don't have their own infobox), but the automated infoboxes, categorization and whatnot wouldn't like it very much and other JPs are already handled this way. ^_^

@Aqua: It is mentioned on Game updates/2013-05-14#World vs. World :). 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Mechanically, you know it's not a separate zone because you're still on the same zone and can talk with others on the zone. It's similar to the Goemm's Lab, where you are moved to an isolated area in the zone rather than an instance. They use a loading screen because you are being moved to a new map for the area. If you are on a new map, it has it's own set of waypoints. They had to do this, otherwise they couldn't have waypoints without players waypointing directly to the jumping puzzle.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think map chat from within Obsidian Sanctum is the same map chat as Eternal Battlegrounds. I know when I went through the puzzle I didn't see any of the usual WvW chatter. Also, you can always see all of the map icons within the same zone, so if you can't see the puzzle's waypoints from EB, then it's not the same zone. Obsidian Sanctum is a different zone. —Dr Ishmael 15:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Meh, I don't check enough. We'll go with that.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, I can see all EB's map icons inside the Obsidian Sanctum, but not vice versa. You are right, map chat is different, tested with a friend. Also, inside OS, you can't see the battle icon for commander or the crossed swords etc. OTOH, I could see party icons inside Zraith's Beacon - I guess it's a hybrid area/zone/instance - it has features of them all. But fair enough, treat it as another zone. --Claret (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

In WvW, you can always see all waypoints as well as all discovered POIs and vistas on all maps, unlike map chat, battles and commanders; you just can't use any of the other maps' waypoints, they all appear contested. This is true both from inside OS looking at EB or the Borderlands and vice versa. It's still consistent. 19:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten about that - it's like skill challenges in PvE, you can always see all skill challenge icons no matter what zone you're in; in WvW, you can see all WP/PoI/Vista icons no matter what zone you're in. But you can't see OS's waypoints unless you are in OS. Add in the decoupled map chat and the lack of event markers and commander icons, and yep, you're in a separate zone entirely. —Dr Ishmael 20:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Dur, I should've presented this evidence first: the API [1] lists "Obsidian Sanctum" as map ID 899. —Dr Ishmael 20:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just Way-pointed from Blue Borderlands to Green Borderlands, and have done so from a Borderlands to EB in the recent past. So that's not true. And, outside EB - inside any Borderlands, you can see the Obsidian Sanctum's Waypoints, all contested. It isn't consistent, it's a hybrid. As for the map api, it lists similar map numbers for instances, dungeons and games; so again, hybrid. --Claret (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the map list that Ish linked, many of those instances are located in the Steamspur Mountains, not where you think they are. So, the area/zone/instance is what and where ANet say it is. The evidence is contradictory. It's far from consistent. Arguing for fun, now. --Claret (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I can see OS's WPs from EB, now that I checked. --Claret (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Region 8, with the name Steamspur Mountains, seems to be their "dumping ground" region for everything they want to compartmentalize away from region-based achievements - the name is meaningless, probably a leftover from early dev (notice that region 5 is named Tarnished Coast, even though we know it as Maguuma Jungle - apparently at one point they did distinguish between the two subregions mechanically and they never updated the internal names).

Anyway, related to the original point, region 7 is World vs. World, and it contains 5 maps: Eternal Battlegrounds, the 3 Borderlands maps, and Obsidian Sanctum. —Dr Ishmael 21:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Yes, I saw that. I was merely pointing it out. Saying something has a map number is not definitive of a zone. Personally I think it's a hybrid as it's not entirely consistent with a zone's behaviour or indeed an instance's. Still, really, it's not important. I suppose Anet could tell us. I'll stop making points now as it's not that interesting. --Claret (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

delete-tagging spam

Please don't remove any content when you're tagging a spam page for deletion. It leaves the spam content obvious for admins, so we don't have to dig in the page history for it - that's only necessary in cases where the page title isn't clearly spam, but we prefer people do this all the time anyway. Thanks! —Dr Ishmael 13:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually wondering this very time whether to leave it or not, so thanks for letting me know. 15:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Study in Scarlet

Oddly enough, I think I picked 9-10 of the same choices as you did. --JonTheMon (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I just felt they made the most sense. I did choose one that pushed me back to do so again, which makes me think that perhaps there is in fact always only one right answer, but I don't really feel like testing it. ^_^ 21:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Only the correct deductions have follow-up conversations. Selecting one of the two wrong responses gets a one-line response along the lines of, "That doesn't seem to fit the evidence." You have to select the correct ones in order to complete the "event". —Dr Ishmael 21:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, that was quick. :D 21:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Living World images

Those are still loading screen images...--Relyk ~ talk < 13:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

So are Category:Personal story images, and they're both subcategories of Category:Loading screen images. Why should all loading screens for story instances released at the game's launch (such as File:Retribution.jpg) have their own category but story instances released afterwards shouldn't? I admit the boundary for what pictures could be considered LW loading screens might not be completely strict (the instances are a given, dungeons very likely, temporary LW maps quite likely and then new maps and temporary minigames which I'm not that sure about), but I see no reason for not having that category at all... 13:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't say anything about not having the category. The Category:Personal story images confuses loading screens with being related to personal story. That becomes an issue for the final involving a dungeon for example. We'd rather have separate categories identify the images as loading screens and as related to Living World. "Living World images" is ambiguous and can refer to any content (locations) related to Living World. Labyrinthine Cliffs and Halloween areas are festival content; only portions of the content are related. We probably want to sub-categorize the LW instances like we do with personal story.--Relyk ~ talk < 15:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Rename them to "Personal story loading screens" and "Living World loading screens"? —Dr Ishmael 15:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just gone with that name to fit the personal story category, but I'd certainly agree with renaming them this way. In fact, I'd even go as far as subcategorize most, if not all, loading screens according to their use. Currently zones and dungeons are in the general category and story instances are in PS and LW subcategories. Dry Top loading screen is used both for LW story and for a zone, so we should put it both in the specific and in the general category, which becomes confusing; similarly, Arah story is both a PS instance and a dungeon, again in need of both categories. So, to prevent these problems, I'd suggest using the following category structure:

• Loading screens
  • Zone loading screens (Bloodtide Coast, Labyrinthine Cliffs, Dry Top etc.)
  • City loading screens (Lion's Arch, Halloween LA, LA under attack etc.)
  • Instance loading screens (Rata Sum home, Trahearne's office, Chantry of Secrets etc.)
    • Dungeon loading screens (AC explorable, Arah story, FotM, Scarlet's Playhouse etc.)
    • Personal story loading screens (Defending Shaemoor, Battle of Claw Island, Fighting the Nightmare, Arah story etc.)
    • Living World loading screens (Plan of Attack, Fighting the Nightmare, Dry Top, Scarlet's Playhouse, LA under attack etc.)
  • Special event loading screens (Halloween LA, Sanctum Sprint, Clock Tower, Crown Pavilion etc.)
  • World versus World loading screens (Eternal Battlegrounds etc.)
  • Structured PvP loading screens (Heart of the Mists, Battle of Kyhlo etc.)

This would allow a little more detailed overlaps with content somewhere in between but still be neatly organized instead of just dumping all loading screens onto a single pile. There might be less categories (such as merging WvW and SPvP to Player versus Player loading screens, or zones and cities to a single category (Persistent PvE loading screens?)) or more (having a separate category for Activity loading screens for things like Keg Brawl or SAB as well as a lot of the holiday activities; or spliting special events into Temporary content loading screens and a subcategory Holiday loading screens), this is just a suggestion. Any opinions? (Also, should this go on the Community portal?) 18:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)