User talk:Santax/Archive 2

Archive
This page: 31,835 bytes

---

• 2007–Jun 2012
• Jun–Nov 2012
• Jan–Mar 2013
• Sep 2013–Apr 2014
• Apr–Jun 2014
• Jul 2014–Oct 2017

"less weird aspect ratio"

Well now, I'm sorry that my standarized monitor is a "weird aspect ratio" monitor, just cuz it isn't wide screen. :| Konig/talk 19:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no offense was intended, it's just that 16:9 is the standard nowadays (mine is 16:10, but at least it's closer), and looks better on wiki pages imo. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken, just seemed odd to call that ratio weird since it's not really all that weird o.O Konig/talk 22:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

History of Tyria

Just curious, where's this "copied verbatim" from? News to me, and explains a few old edits on various lore pages I've been fixing up due to inaccuracies (this History of Tyria sharing the same format and even false information). Konig/talk 04:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind, I managed to find it. No wonder there's so much false information - it's second-hand made (Prima did a better job >.>). Konig/talk 03:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's from the strategy guide, I put it up because I saw some of the edits being made to the Lore page and decided it would be best to put it up to avoid copyvios and to avoid people being confused about where the info is coming from. It's irritating because there's some lore in there that could be new and valuable, or could clarify a retcon or something like that, but the glaring errors (like Rurik being Salma's betrothed) make it difficult to filter out what's new and useful from what's just wrong. I suppose you could think of it as being GW1 from a GW2 historian's point of view with its inaccuracies, but it's kind of hard to believe how they got some of that stuff wrong. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:15, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Reverting

Please discuss edits instead of reverting them instantly. It creates a lot less conflicts with other users. This is also referring to adding "screenshot" to the area infobox template, which i disagree with.--Relyk 16:48, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

The "screenshot" thing was actually the way it was originally, the infobox used to include screenshots called File:{{PAGENAME}} screenshot.jpg by default, so I started tagging screenshots that were just called File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg with {{move}} so they would go in the infobox by default. Konig noticed this and reverted all my edits, used his file move privileges to move any files I had uploadd earlier that were called File:{{PAGENAME}} screenshot.jpg to File:{{PAGENAME}}.jpg, and accused me of trying to start a revert war when I re-added the {{move}} tags (I don't have permission to move files, as far as I know). What followed was an extremely tiresome, discussion-free series of reverts, which is emerging as somewhat of a repeating pattern between me and Konig. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:02, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

However, while the infobox might have originally been including screenshot in the file name, no one but you (edit note: yes, exagurration - there were a handful, but most were from pre-release, often from trailers or from Anet titling them "screenshot" and are all inconsistent with the vast majority of images) had followed that naming convention. It is therefore more reasonable to follow the common naming convention that people use, and not cater to yourself. Konig/talk 17:06, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Konig switch the two in this edit. That made sense as the name of a file for an area should just be the name while a map should be the file the a "{{{PAGENAME}}} map" as an appropriate descriptor, while with the reverse, screenshot is redundant since all images of an area will be in-game screenshots. It follows the same naming conventions with items, we don't call the file "Mad Memoires icon" for the Mad Memories icon.--Relyk 18:07, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

if you have a problem with one of my edits, comment on my talk page before starting yet another dispute. your edit left no screenshots of divinity's reach on the page

Same can be said to you.
Anyways, As I said in the edit summary, the map you've left with does not show all the areas. Therefore, a second map is required in order to do such - this is where the second map, which I had restored but you once more reverted me.
Also, do we even really need an image of Divinity's Reach on it? No, not really. It's an aesthetic bonus, not a mandatory thing. Konig/talk 16:59, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Why can't the middle map go in the gallery? Or one be overlaid on the other? Or even another map field added to the infobox (because let's face it, this isn't the only location with more than one map)? The "screenshot" field is there in the infobox for a reason - to be used for screenshots. And how on earth is an actual in-game image of the location an "aesthetic bonus", I guarantee that there will be people searching the page for exactly that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:28, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

1) Because galleries should be, IMO, for the less important images. Maps are of high importance, hence why they are at the top of the area infobox. 2) I'm not sure what you mean by be overlaid on the other. One on top of the other? Unfortunately, I don't think that's possible without breaking over a hundred pages. 3) That's possible to make and I wouldn't be against, but is it necessary? Outside Divinity's Reach, the only locations with more than 1 map will be Rata Sum, The Grove, and Arah. 4) The screenshot there is for an additional image. It's not meant to be solely and only for scenery. Maps are screenshots too, btw (which goes back to the whole redundancy of naming screenshot images "screenshot"). 5) Because we don't need pretty images of no true importance to document the location. Konig/talk 17:34, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

"IMO" is nice, but your opinion (thankfully) isn't the basis of the wiki. When I say "overlaid" I mean in an image editing program, so although the differences between levels can be seen they can be included on the same image. And I think you know full well that the screenshot field in infoboxes are for scenery, as you describe it, and you know full well that when someone says "screenshot" in the context of GW2, they mean an in-game capture rather than a map image. If I wanted to get really idiosyncratic, I could argue that maps are flat textures that are extractable from the game files (unlike "scenery" images) and therefore do not qualify as screenshots, but I won't, since it seems like you are arguing for argument's sake rather than actually really wanting to do this. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

Except for the fact that the galleries are used in 2 situations: concept art, or when there's a large number of images on the page. A map is of high importance and thus should go to the top - this is wiki standard.

I thought you meant that with overlay, but that doesn't really work considering you'll get text overlap. And that just gets messy.

And no, the screenshot field in the infobox is, as I said, for an additional image. Scenery - or any other image - on a large article can go throughout. Much like how we did on GW1. The issue with GW2W's template is the one-screenshot-field. Which I had previously petitioned to expand, without response or action (it was so long ago, I've forgotten). Feel free to add more, and I will not oppose putting additional images in them.

If you wish to get idiosyncratic, then allow me to reply - even to the part prior to idiosyncratic comment - that how we obtain maps is through screenshots, not taking the flat texture itself (with a few exceptions - those being dungeon maps - sometimes).

But my main point remains unchanged: the word "screenshot" is not only redundant, but as one can see via Category:Screenshots, outside pre-beta images, you are one of the very very few individuals who add them to the file name (and even when including those pre-beta images). It is inconsistent. it is redundant with what they are and their tag and category. It is just simply outright redundant, and you are continuing this simply because I reverted your desires to move the vast majority of images instead of moving the vast minority (e.g., your images)? Right.

Admit it - your naming system is a minority and in order to create the consistency you so often use to argue for altering pages (which most of the time is a consistency you created), you're the one who needs to drop this. Konig/talk 18:29, 28 October 2012 (PDT)

region of zones

The region in the infobox is the mechanical region that the zone counts for in the Explorer achievements. The "sub"-regions only exist in lore and are not part of game mechanics. —Dr Ishmael 18:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The Explorer achievement doesn't tell us what the "mechanical" region is, just what counts as a region for the purposes of the Explorer achievement, which is bound to be a little idiosyncratic for the sake of balancing out the number of areas that count for each achievement. In truth we don't know if the game has a way of tracking which zone belongs to which "mechanical" region at all, or whether "mechanical" regions exist outside of the Explorer achievemtns (from what I've seen, anyway), we just have a choice between documenting everything based solely on the achievements, or we can do it based on common sense, and note the oddity at the bottom of the page. We already have a list of regions given by the world map (for what it's worth, I don't like the idea of "sub-regions", all the regions are given the same text size on the map and the Steamspur Mountains is just as much a region as the Shiverpeaks). It just seems confusing for readers and unnecessary to pretend that the Steamspur Mountains and Tarnished Coast don't exist in-game, when clearly they are written on the map right on top of the areas that belong to them. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

And FWIW, I'm not sure mechanics always triumphs lore, although these two situations might not be directly comparable. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it is balancing the number of areas. But it provides a way to group zones into regions. This is the same issue for grouping species. We want all zones that contribute to a given Explorer achievement grouped together, there are no other game mechanics that would give a reason not to do so. The lore aspect is covered zone page.--Relyk 21:58, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

"demigod IS more specific than half-god"

[1] I disagree. Half-god specifically means that a being is the child of one divine parent and one mortal parent. Demigod just means "almost a god but not quite". —Dr Ishmael 13:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not according to demigod, where did you get your information? --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster dictionary. The Wikipedia article is written in the context of classical mythology, but in modern usage, the meaning has been watered-down. —Dr Ishmael 15:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Most other dictionaries also list half-god as a possibility, but I'm not passionate about the issue enough that I'm willing it to turn it into yet another debate, so I'll leave it. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Area infobox on pure lore articles

E.g. Cantha and Elona. They are not mechanically a part of GW2 (yet), they are purely lore, so they should not have infoboxes. —Dr Ishmael 13:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree - where was it agreed that things that do not yet appear in-game should not have infoboxes? Although I suppose since we define regions differently, things like the "Sea of Sorrows" and the "Steamspur Mountains" aren't technically considered to exist by the wiki, but I'm in the process of writing a proposal to change the way we document regions at the moment, so this will be rendered irrelevant. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to chime in for a second before I go to sleep - the origin to Ishy's statement comes from the GW1 wikis, where infoboxes were never used for places, people, and things that were not seen in the actual game - the practice continued unopposed here, though I for one hold no qualm with adding an infobox to such things, however one should realize that it holds the possibility of making people mistakenly believe that it exists, mechanically and interactively, in game (so in this case, putting an infobox on Strait of Malchor may make people think it's accessible in the same sense Ruins of Orr is). Konig/talk 08:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It will have consequences when we add semantic annotations to infoboxes. If things that aren't accessible in-game have an infobox, then they will have properties set, and will show up in semantic queries. 99% of the time, those queries will only be interested in accessible content. The easiest way to avoid non-accessible content showing up in query results is to avoid giving it an infobox. —Dr Ishmael 13:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Really now

Hoookay, let's try settling this without more revert wars forming.

• Jormag - NOTHING says that dragon is Jormag. Regardless of it having been planned to be in the norn intro. Take, for instance [[:File:|this]], which by name should have been in the charr intro, but there is no line about the Searing in it, so the current intro cinematic mentioning Jormag isn't enough to claim that the old version is Jormag. Furthermore, that concept art is of lesser clarity of Jormag's form. At best, it should be in a gallery.
• Steamspur Mountains and other non-explorable regions and sub-regions - while I disagree with the addition of the area infobox due to it being unexplorable, the nav bar should remain as they are all regions or sub-regions. In fact, I don't know why you ever even removed the sub-regions from the nav bar.
• Melandru, Balthazar, etc. - the quotation as you set it up is false. It is showing it as if Malchor the Sculptor said it, rather than being an inscription by Malchor on the god's respective statue in Divinity's Reach. Truth be told, I am not against outright removing said quotation if there cannot be an agreement on how to properly quote the game verbatim (which is what you're not doing).
  • On Melandru specifically: Cathedral of Verdance, not [[Temple of Verdance]]. Outside a slip-of-the-tongue comment by Colin, there is nothing proving that Melandru=Mellaggan.
  • On Grenth specifically - we do not know how early Dhuum's minions assaulted the Underworld. ""in life" obviously meant as a mortal, demigod IS more specific than half-god" But Grenth was never mortal - he was merely a half-god. Demigod is not more specific, as it can mean a variety of thing, whereas half-god simply means "half god and half something else" (demigod can refer to dieties that aren't of god level, half-gods, quarter-gods even, or mortals who obtained god-like powers but are still in of themselves, mortals). Nothing says Grenth was the son of a human sculptor - it's mortal sculptor that's said.
• On Strait of Malchor, Unending Ocean, and Sea of Sorrows - they are not land regions, but bodies of water. One can technically enter the first and last, but just as Steamspur Mountains, etc. do not exist mechanically, neither do these. Sea of Sorrows may in the future, though we do not know how this new zone that's to come in a week will be presented. As per Ishy's section above, non-explorable areas shouldn't get infoboxes (Unending Ocean and other region articles), and technically the Unending Ocean is not part of Tyria.

Oh, and for your previous comments of you claiming I have some grudge against you - I think this is proof that it's the other way around. I would say this is also such, since there was nothing wrong with my changes on Kryta outside creating a consistency with other region articles. Could also use the same argument for why you removed the {{gww}} tag on Unending Ocean - are you so into outright reverting me that you don't actually look at the changes? Konig/talk 00:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If we were the three stooges I would poke you both in the eyes and knock your heads together. Just saying. 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Felix, please feel free to do so. Every edit I make creates an issue with Konig, no matter how minor, so I am desperate to bring some third parties into this.

Onto the edits:

• Jormag: The dragon is obviously meant to be Jormag - who else would it be? Unlike the (broken) example you gave above, there is a line about Jormag in the norn intro, which that concept art was originally meant to appear in. Not that it matters really, since the dragon will almost certainly look completely different to either piece of concept art when it finally appears in-game. I just wanted a cleaner image than a screencap of a YouTube video as one of the main images on one of the more important pages of the wiki.
• Quotes on the god's pages: did the character, Malchor, at some point say the quotes carved onto the statues (e.g. "Dwayna, goddess of air and life, beloved to me. She is the promise of salvation whispered in my ear, the silent resolve to carry on. How my heart yearns to bask in her light once again.")? The answer is of course he did, which is why it is inscribed on the statues. The statues are quoting him. So why do we need to quote the statues quoting him when we can simply quote him?
  • On Melandru: "The quaggan worship Melandru, however, they don't really know it as Melandru, they like to call Melandru Mellaggan." that isn't some slip-of-the-tongue comment, that is a clear, repeated statement. If anything is falsification, it is you changing hte wording of the Melandru page to suggest otherwise. Also, your revert makes the image on the page inconsistent with every other god page - "are you so into outright reverting me that you don't actually look at the changes?"
  • On Grenth: no, we don't know how early Dhuum's minions assaulted the Underworld, but we do know it was happening as early as 1072. That's all we can say about that. I won't repeat the above discussion on demigods, and I am loathe to let you drag me into a debate on semantics, but besides the obvious implication that Malchor was Grenth's father (thankfully never mentioned because the lore in that area appears to be extremely muddled), I'm not sure why you are trying to start a debate on whether Grenth's father was a human or just a mortal, since you were the one who added that to the page in the first place.
• On the regions: Dr Ish will have looked at those pages when he reverted some of my edits to region pages, and left them as they were. I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me, and I am not obligated to justify every one of my edits to you, but I will talk about that more in a second.

Me reverting myself when I realised I had made a mistake is holding a grudge against you? It takes some cojones to claim that, having been repeatedly mass-reverted by you, and having been contradicted by you at every turn, no matter how small, I am the one with the problem with you. I created the request for arbitration, I asked you politely to stop, I wanted to end this, but you just couldn't let me edit the wiki without your constant wikihounding. I spent a day editing over the weekend, and you spent a good hour or two mass reverting nearly all of those edits, without leaving so much as a message on my talk page. All the edits I reverted were your reverts of me, and now you have the audacity to claim I have a grudge against you! The truth is that you are a possessive bully who responds to attempts at editing "your" wiki with passive-aggressiveness, condescension, and occasionally outright belligerence. Your sense of entitlement is such that you feel as though every edit should be cleared with you before it can stay on the wiki, and that "imo" is enough of a justification to make a revert. The edits stay until this discussion is resolved, or until (please!) there is some sort of admin intervention on the arbitration request. --Santax (talk · contribs) 09:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

"I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me" Sorry, but that is a horrible reason for disrupting the wiki - that is outright revert warring. I have given you a short block for this violation. In the future, please consider your actions more carefully. —Dr Ishmael 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• Source? It could easily have been intended to be a dragon champion, given the fact we have absolutely no context to it.
• Because that's proper format. How you're doing it gives a falsification on how its presented in game. You are presenting it as if Malchor/Jurah are being quoted directly, as if that is their own personal words, rather than an inscription holding their words. But that's not the case. But this is semantics and as I said, I would rather have that, rather unnecessary, quotation outright removed.
• Where is is ever repeated? Source please, because I only know of one repeat of this (outside of "humans think this, quaggans disagree" which is only ever mentioned once as well). And you can easily just revert the image alone (something I overlooked).
• No, you mean as late as 1072 AE. "As early as 1072 AE" - as the page is worded - implies that it couldn't have been earlier. Implication or not, Malchor's never proven to be Grenth's father nor is it ever proven that Grenth's father was human - again, you're turning speculation and presenting it as fact (side note: I first added human sculptor when I only had that information second-hand, and take note that I removed it, but you readded it).

"I did, in fact revert them simply because it was you who had reverted me" What Ishy said. At least when I revert you, I actually look at each and every change you make and revert only that which I think should be. I don't arbitrarily revert just for the sake of fucking reverting. And you reverting yourself after outright reverting me does indeed show that you have a grudge against me - why? Because you reverted me for the sake of reverting me, then realized "oh, that was actually better" - improving the articles on the wiki was a secondary thought for your actions. That proves that you have some sort of rivalry view of me, whatever the reason may be. Cajones or not, I think my claim was on the mark. (and indeed! Every turn, despite the fact I haven't reverted all of your changes in fact, but some revert wars are started by you yourself! I have in fact left some articles you've edited go unaltered by myself, and not just out of being bloody tired of trying to improve articles I think you're lowering the quality of!) Konig/talk 16:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, a wise guy eh? Why I oughta... — snograt 16:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Your karka images

First [[:File:Karka Egg Layer.jpg|this]] is actually the Ancient Karka. Secondly, since the Egg Layer has the same model as the other adult karkas (including Ancient Karka sans the Ancient Karka being much larger and, I believe, a thicker shell at the beginning), don't you think we should only have 1 image for those? And one image not from the trailer that shows only 20% of the creature? Bringing this up before I do any alterations to your edits, so that I can at least try to stiffen the false notion that I have an issue with you personally. Konig/talk 23:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not that it has stopped you in the last 24 hours or so, but sure, feel free to shuffle round the images if it makes you feel better, but I was always taught that variety is a good thing. Although if you want to "stiffen the false notion" that you have a problem with me, perhaps you should cut back on attidue-laden comments such as "don't you think we should only have 1 image for those? And one image not from the trailer that shows only 20% of the creature?" --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that setting up for auto-categorization was a problem. Or a rather unneeded quotation box you've repeatedly expressed distaste for (yet another oddity with you, no offense intended).

My "attidue-laden comments" was actually rather attitude-less, unlike the sentence directly before this. What I meant was simply this: would it not be more efficient to hold one image of the same model, so as to reduce the amount of images on the wiki, and as per the atypical style of the official wikis, rather than holding an image which shows a relatively small amount of the subject matter (e.g., that trailer-based image) or one with effects in it (e.g., the one of the Ancient Karka incorrectly titled a Karka Egg Layer). Konig/talk 23:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Tyria (world).jpg

Suggestion: Why not Tyria (globe) or Chantry of Secrets? Konig/talk 02:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

[[:File:Chanty_of_Secrets_globe.jpg]] is much more descriptive--Relyk 02:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thought you should know

Forgot to link you immediately, but this may interest you. Konig/talk 16:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a heads up so you know, this week when I have enough time I'll be removing "screenshot" from the names of images you've uploaded, per the linked discussion above - 4 people who commented are all for removing it. Making a new here so that you can see it before hand (should you have time to visit the wiki prior to), and to give you a chance to argue for yourself before such, though I think half a month's plenty of time in of itself. Konig/talk 01:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

speedy deletion

I already got yelled at for this before, don't remove the contents when tagging pages for vandalism, it lets the admins see immediately what vandalism took place instead of checking history before they go head and delete it.--Relyk 07:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)