User talk:Santax/Archive 3

Archive
This page: 35,744 bytes

---

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

"Forgotten concept art"

Can you please provide the source which states that this is of a forgotten? As far as I'm aware, it's only been player speculation. And if you don't have a source, it should be removed. Konig/talk 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's from the Prophecies manuscripts, next to the chapter that discusses the History of Tyria and the 'serpents'. --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

In other words, you don't have a source. Since that doesn't prove it's of the Forgotten (or even imply - I mean, it could be concept art of a scrapped flying serpent race just as much as proto-Forgotten, and it could have just been used there because it fit the context well enough). Konig/talk 19:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should remove this image from the karka page, because although posted during the Lost Shores with a caption talking about the karka invasion, it could just be concept art of a near-identical race that was scrapped and never mentioned before or since. While we're at it, do we know this is Glint, because although being a still from a cinematic telling the story of Glint and Destiny's Edge, and despite there being no other remotely likely candidates, a little asura never pops up in the corner of the screen and tells us that "hey, this is Glint from Prophecies". --Santax (talk · contribs) 19:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That piece was titled "Karkafbconseptart" by Anet (renamed by us because we like to have correct spelling for "concept" and "fb" seemed more of a denotion for where it was uploaded rather than image name) - rather than the unnamed concept art. And it's very clearly a karka even without a name, as is the Glint one - though File:Kralkatorrik 03 concept art.jpg is less so and has been debated to be Glint instead (despite the many differences) due to the context.

But I digress. I don't care enough to get into another fight with you over this. I'll hold over my view that it might not be a forgotten, as it looks nothing like the forgotten tbh except that it's a serpentine creature, but I won't remove it since you care so much for it. Konig/talk 19:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It looks more like a Fleshreaver more than anything. 71.102.2.41 19:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that one of the depictions of Forgotten from the first game?--Relyk ~ talk > 20:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Forgotten have 4 arms, no wings. I don't see how anyone could confuse this image for a Forgotten. —Dr Ishmael 21:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

IP: the Fleshreavers weren't introduced until 2 years after that concept art was created, and that's assuming the concept art was drawn towards the end of Prophecies' development cycle, which it probably wasn't. That's not to say the Fleshreavers could not have existed before then, but we have no indication of that being the case.

Ishmael: Relyk is correct in saying it is from the first game, for the uninitiated, if you read the Prophecies manual (and I think this is a close-ish online approximation), it places the picture next to an article about the History of Tyria, which discusses the 'serpents' (which are made clear to be the Forgotten) at length. There is no other mention of any other serpentine race, and no other race I can think of remotely fits the bill. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard

Hi, I've started a discussion about your recent disputes with Konig to see what other admins (and users) think. You may want to keep an eye on it. (Your request for arbitration a couple of months ago came at a really bad time for me, time-wise. I'm hoping this time we'll get an acceptable resolution.) pling 23:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks pling. I probably won't have time this morning, but just in case this ends in a block, I'd like to be able to say my piece first on the admin noticeboard page, if that's ok? --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not Pling, but yeah that's fine. It's just fair to give each of you a chance to comment on it; just don't go over the board with it. poke | talk 10:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Southsun Cove map

Why did you replace that with a texture composite? Using maps based on textures is bad because they don't reflect what anyone actually sees in-game. All of our zone maps are based on screenshots, showing area names and map completion icons. —Dr Ishmael 16:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I can revert it if you like, just thought it would be better since it's cleaner, shows a map of the underwater areas as well as the above-ground areas, there's no chance anything will be missed off, and there's a few bits round the edge that can't actually be reached, which is interesting. --Santax (talk · contribs) 16:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice to have in the gallery for the zone--Relyk ~ talk > 16:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that without the area names and point icons, you don't have any frame of reference to interpret what the image is representing. There's also no distinction between land and water, which removes another frame of reference. While it might be interesting to have as a secondary image like Relyk suggested, texture composites should not be the primary map for anything. —Dr Ishmael 16:47, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Name of Great Dwarf in Tome of Rubicon

Source please. I checked gw1:Unspeakable, Unknowable dialogue and it doesn't mention the Great Dwarf's name in the tome, just the Great Destroyer's.
Also, to further elaborate my other changes:

• the line about mursaat and seer info in the tome because that lore comes solely from BrandyGame's guide, which holds dozens of mistakes and unknowns. As such, that source is less reliable than Thruln the Lost. So unless you have a second source, please don't re-add that unless Stephane confirms the questions on the unknowns presented there (given the time since, I doubt he ever will).
• The Durmand Priory didn't exist in 1075, so they couldn't discuss the tome. It was discussed by scholars with Durmand before the Priory's founding.
• The item description is "First Edition" - if anything, this means the Great Dwarf wrote it. But the GD isn't a single entity to what we know, ergo unlikely. Your reference merely states Alkar wrote a sanitized version (aka a version that reading wouldn't end the world), thus is just proof for Scholar Trueclaw's claims of it being rewritten over the ages, so I re-added that bit and included Alkar.

If you can provide sources for the first two (name and mursaat/seer info), I'll be happy to re-add it myself. Konig/talk 22:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

If you doubt my contributions, how about leaving a message before reverting them? I don't revert everything you add to a page that I haven't personally verified - although I suppose at least this time you've bothered to leave a message on my talk page demanding a source. Seriously, within five hours of your block ending you were back to work making edits you knew would be controversial. Within 7 hours you had received a complaint about mass-reverting other users' contributions, sometimes only seconds after they had made them. That user is no longer a contributor to this wiki. For the benefit of you, myself, and everyone on this wiki, you need to rethink the way that you do things here. Seriously.

I can't find where I read that the Tome of the Rubicon contained the name of both the Great Dwarf and the Great Destroyer, but I suspect it was on one of the wikis, or I would have cited it (I'd liked to have cited it even if I saw it on the wiki, but you remove any internal citations as soon as they are added, so...). There is a mention of it on gw1:Religions of Tyria, which you created, so maybe I should be asking you. Similarly, I can't remember where the line about the war between the Seers and the mursaat being mentioned in the Tome of the Rubicon, but I remember first reading it before the BradyGames guide was released, I think from an interview with Jeff Grubb or something like that. The BradyGames guide took a lot of information from the wiki, I know that much - I remembering the wiki mentioning somewhere that Tyria had an unexplained 7,000-year gap in its timeline, and the BradyGames guide leaned heavily on that and gave it undue weight when all it probably meant was that was that not many of the modern races were recording history back then. --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There still isn't (in my eyes) any mention of the Great Dwarf's name being contained in Tome of Rubicon. I think that the Tome isn't accurate in any case, with Jalis claiming that all the transformed dwarves were now the Great Dwarf, and various other revelations about the Tome. I also don't think a strat guide is a reliable source of game lore either, especially if they leaned on this wiki – years ago. Mediggo 14:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The Great Dwarf's name being mentioned was included in Konig's original version of the GW1 page for Religions of Tyria, but to be honest I'm so grateful for third-party input that I'm willing to leave it as-is :P --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:33, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only mention that I see is about speaking either of the Great one's name bringing them both back. If I had just defeated a great evil whose name must really not be spoken, I'd have removed not only its name, but in this case, also my own (Great Dwarf's) name. I'm not familiar with the details of that piece of lore, though (such as do we really know if their names were not spoken?), but in any case I don't think it's very relevant, as long as either of their names remain not known. Mediggo 14:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I reverted that part is because it's outright wrong by all wiki-documented information as well as all information I've seen. You put speculation (Alkar writing that version) and took what I wrote and made it wrong. The edit to the Scrying Pool sounds like hardly an issue, since again, the only bit I actually removed was taking mechanics for lore - a massive fallacy.

Take note: that gww article does not say that the Great Dwarf's name is in the tome. Merely that if spoken it'd have the same effect as the Great Destroyer's name being spoken.

The only place the mursaat/seer war being within the Tome was mentioned was on this wiki in a verbatim copy of the BrandyGames article. You may be mistakenly thinking of an interview with Ree Soesbee where she mentions both in the same paragraph, but this was not about info on the war being within the tome, rather that the war occurred at roughly the same time as the Tome's original writing.

@Mediggo: Technically, no, but we're told that the Great Destroyer would rise irregardless in EN. Konig/talk 21:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alkar writing that version isn't speculation, forgot to cover that one, see the dialogue for Destructive Research. I restate, "If you doubt my contributions, how about leaving a message before reverting them?" And what's your source for the Scrying Pool putting out the source being mechanics rather than lore? Is Spectral Agony also lore, on that basis? --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

NPC pages

You're creating a bunch of NPC pages, but you're not using the NPC infobox. Any reason why? —Dr Ishmael 20:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of these NPC's do not actually appear in-game (as far as I can tell - have quickly searched the wiki for them), and I've been told that we don't use infoboxes for NPC's that don't appear in-game. Would have at least tagged them with {{stub}} otherwise. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Would be helpful to list where they are mentioned in lore so the information can be verified.--Relyk ~ talk > 21:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe include a statement like, "Jack is a norn mentioned by Jill as having done..." And possibly we should make a category for these "off-screen" characters. —Dr Ishmael 21:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against a category like that, maybe something like the Category:Unseen NPCs we had on GWW? --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

we already gave a category for them. -Chieftain Alex 21:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You're suggesting we delete, say, Kralkatorrik? pling 21:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that any character, thing, or place who is mentioned in canon materials but is not in the game should be considered part of the game's lore. Perhaps categories like "Lore object," "Lore character," and "Lore location" would have some merit? 22:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought we had such a category on this wiki... seems I was mistaken. I propose either using Unseen NPCs like GWW, or to keep consistency with Category:Lore locations, go with "Lore characters." Konig/talk 22:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Jotun change

Since you prefer me to discuss rather than alter, and will just revert any alterations I make irregardless, I would like to ask why you put what's now the first paragraph of the History section back to how you wrote it before I tried rewriting it to remove the prose ("sacrificed that knowlege in blood"), speculation ("their monument stones are stellar maps"), mixing of mechanics with lore ("their stargazers were legendary"), and bringing back up things irrelevant to the jotun race ("Varra Skylark believes that the human gods brought that mystic telescope to Arah and rebuilt it." - same situation for the seer article and the bloodstones - while it's a jotun invention, what others did with it is irrelevant to the jotun race and history since they held no known activity or view on the matter). Konig/talk 22:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Come on Konig, don't you have some GW2Guru lore forum users to belittle or something instead of doing this? I wish you'd stop accusing me of reverting your edits when I have tried my best not to do that for the last few months, pretty much all articles I have dared to edit are now in your preferred format. And you can try pulling the other one on the "bigger man" routine, it's a little late to be doing that. The "prose", "speculation", and "mixing of mechanics with lore" is all part of Varra Skylark's dialogue, so it is confirmed to be true. And before you accuse me of quoting the game on the wiki (gasp!), I'd like to point out that you copied large portions of copyrighted ANet blog posts onto the wiki without attribution for articles you wrote on the minor races. Oops.

As for the mystic telescope, (a) it's totally and completely relevant, and that's so self-evident that I can't even think of an argument to support it, and (b) are you going to bother creating an article for the mystic telescope to put the information on yourself? Didn't think so.

Oh, and "irregardless" isn't a word. I've been meaning to tell you that for a while. Seriously, look it up. --Santax (talk · contribs) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not an accusation of you reverting that paragraph to your previous form it is a keen observation. Note how in the first version - which goes from your first rewrite to the new rewrite, has the paragraph unchanged; the second link, which goes from my rewrite to your new rewrite, has it changed. And I'm not meaning to accuse you, I'm requesting explanation. To your points:

1) For Varra's dialogue, I presume that with the exception of the gods taking and repairing the telescope, this is all later in the dungeon? The "their stargazers were legendary" sounds like you trying to turn Legendary Jotun Stargazer into lore - legendary being the NPC's rank.

2) What articles have I copied the blog posts? Or do you refer to the copy of the blog posts themselves? Which are indeed attributed? Provide a link for what you mean, please. (Also, I don't accuse in that, I simply rewrite because quoting NPCs without quotation marks sounds weird as hell).

3) As for mystic telescope: a) really? What part of the Six Gods taking and repairing the telescope affects the jotun? Did the jotun have a say in it? Was the telescope stolen? Even if the telescope was taken from them, rather than found and recovered like Varra says at the beginning of the dungeon, them repairing it holds no influence over the jotun whatsoever. You're mistaking something that action is relevant to the jotun's invention, not the jotun themselves. b) Eventually, yes, but just like you have to stop for me, I must stop for you. I've been slowly trying to work through all locations and the telescope article would be a Point of Interest, e.g., a location. I would make it right now, however, I want to be able to fully complete the jotun path of the dungeon first so I can write it in its entirety. So to answer your question: Yes, but not right now. Konig/talk 23:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Side note since I just noticed it: "Make sure all lore from the ANet blog is documented, some pretty big stuff, like Quora Sum, has gone completely missed." - that's actually my current side-project alongside locations and emptying my screenshot folder. Konig/talk 23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

While on the topic, I'd like to ask the following:

1. "Many of their monument stones are stellar maps" - can you provide a source on this? Because I have seen many of their monuments, and they don't clearly show stellar maps.
2. "they, along with all the races except the mursaat, gave their magic to the Seers" - this line implies that they willingly gave magic. However, jotun personality as well as Thrulnn the Lost would argue otherwise. Perhaps it wasn't given, but stolen. It's best to keep it objective.
3. "Many years later, when the Six Human Gods arrived at the Artesian Waters and brought the Bloodstone to the newly-built city of Arah, the jotun and the norn were among their favoured races." and "In time, their power came to rival that of the gods themselves, so the gods took their magic and distributed it to the other races" - Do you have any support for this other than Thruln the Lost? Because I sure as hell haven't. And Thurln the Lost, as I have told you specifically - as well as others - is not a reliable source given how much of his information is wrong (specifically about the humans and moreso the human-god relation). Either he's not referring to the Six Gods when he says the gods, or he's not telling the objective truth. In either case, you make it out as undeniable fact when it is not. Though I lacked mentioning the gods, my previous wording of "according to Thruln the Lost, guided lesser races alongside the other giant races, such as the norn." was far better than the first sentence, because it gives the notion that Thruln may be wrong.

In short: Just like before, you're taking an unreliable source who is outright known to be wrong on at least one subject of his four as if he is absolutely correct. This is a fallacy and is exactly the main reason why I edit the wiki, and moreso your edits (you tend to state possibilities and implications as fact). Konig/talk 05:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

About #3, the telescope is relevant to the jotun, so the fate of that telescope is relevant. It gives you a more complete understanding of the jotun. The human gods thought that jotun technology was good enough or important enough for them to improve upon or whatever, which shows how the jotun and their achievements fit into the bigger picture. pling 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

that tag looks pretty unsightly up there

[1] - isn't that the point of the tag? To look unsightly so as to draw attention and get it handled? Konig 20:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

It's featured prominently on the page either way, I'd have just thought it would be better to have it not clutter up the page in the interim, if possible. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance tags go at the top of the page so that they aren't interspersed with page content. The exception is section-stub tags, obviously. —Dr Ishmael 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

"can NPC's be "within" a point of interest?"

Per a discussion here (and a similar far older one resulting in the same though longer), we list the NPCs at the location which the PoI describes, so those in the PoI are in both the PoI's article and the area's article. Konig 23:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah right, thanks. I debated whether or not I should remove it but I assumed you knew what you were doing. --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Dredge and Southsun Cove edits

"the refugees are preparing to make new homes there, not the consortium" The Consortium are building the homes, so "and" is more accurate, given "to *make* new homes" - though I suppose it depends on whether you read that as "build" or "settle in" in which case either can do, but I think most people would read it as the former since "to make" implies, you know, making something physical and not metaphorical.
" dictatorship of the moletariat isn't necessarily oppressive, despite associations of the word dictatorship, and dredge rebels still pledge allegiance to the moletariat" Dictatorship is indeed not oppressive in of itself, however the moletariat are oppressive - as that's why there's a revolt. To quote one situation:

Rasolov: Foreman, you're forcing these people to work against their will.

Foreman Kreutzerova: What? Lies! They love hard labor. The only thing I force them to do is stop for food and sleep.

Rasolov: Then you won't mind, if I take them out for a little break.

Foreman Kreutzerova: A break? That's not very patriotic. I'm afraid I must ask you to stop interfering with our progress, friend.

Basically, the moletariat are forcing labor on the dredge populous - that sounds oppressive to me. As for "rebels still pledge allegiance to the moletariat" - hence why I wrote "The revolution, led by Rasolov, aims to free the workers and overthrow the moletariat as a whole to bring in a new leadership." I suppose I should have been more clear, but Sorrow's Embrace explorable shows that the rebels there intend to replace the members, not the system.
And regarding the verify tag you added - I believe the heart guy before completing mentions a revolt down south leading the charge. I'm unsure if they're united or if its just that those in Frostgorge are revolting because there are revolters elsewhere though. Konig 22:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"And" isn't more accurate at all - if you wanted to say the Consortium were building new homes, you'd say "build new homes", not "make new homes". And in its current form, it says that the Consortium are taking advantage of the refugees, and that they are preparing to travel to SC to build homes there, but doesn't link the two together (i.e. doesn't say how they are taking advantage of the refugees or who they plan to build homes for - it could be themselves for all we know from that sentence). And there's the fact that the Consortium don't have to prepare to travel there because they are already there. Stuff like this is why your revisions to my edits are a lot less readable than you realise, and it's frustrating that it has to become an issue every time.

As for the moletariat, if they were oppressive then why would the rebels still pledge loyalty to them? The quote you posted doesn't mention the moletariat at all and takes place during SE explorable mode, which is after the military dictatorship was installed, iirc. And of course the moletariat may be capable of becoming oppressive, but it doesn't mean it has always been that way, for example the dredge pre-SE story mode seem to have been happy with how they were governed (or good at covering up unhappiness, and without any evidence of that it's not the wiki's place to judge). --Santax (talk · contribs) 08:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

--

I think this is coming from the fact that your dialect of English and mine are differing. You use british english - where do you live? This may cause the problem. Because I've been majoring in English and have taken a lot of English classes and I got called out and marked wrong dozens of times for the exact things you do with syntax - but the things I do now are marked right. Why? They're concised, they're to the point, they avoid unnecessary words. Yeah, they're not stylized like you so love, but they're still completely right despite your belief.

So I think that's the issue - your English is not American English, which is what I grew up living around, and have been taking classes studying for my damnable degree (pointless pieces of paper if I do say so myself).

For the moletariat - apparently you don't get it. The individuals are oppressive so they want to remove the individuals - it's no different than having an oppressive king and wanting to replace him with a benevolent one. It's happened hundreds of times in history where one king gets replaced by another, where a duke or nobleman that rules over land gets replaced by a kinder man. The system does not change, the people don't think the system is at fault. They just blame the people. It's the same exact situation here. (btw, the entire game is after the military dictatorship was installed) Nor have I ever said they were always oppressive - just that they are now. And I don't know what you're referring to with dredge being happy with their leadership, since even low level events hold oppressive overseers (like in the norn heirloom storyline, or the event in Diessa Plateau). Konig 14:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

So, regarding the dredge, I think it depends on if you see the Moletariat as "general name for who's in charge of the dredge right now" or "the specific name of who's in charge right now". If the former, you can overthrow it and your new government will also be called the moletariat. In that case, rebels could say "I'm loyal to the 'just/rightful' moletariat" and still, well, rebel.

On the southsun cove page, I think the edit by Konig was a bit unclear since two thoughts were being combined in "and are preparing to travel to Southsun Cove to make new homes there." If you were trying to say "refugees were doing the former and Consortium were doing the latter" that was very unclear since it is a single thought. If that whole phrase was applying to the refugees, it makes sense since they would be doing two things. In general, for complex ideas like that, I try to figure out how they break down into smaller sentences so I don't think it's necessarily a british vs english thing. --JonTheMon 14:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, "make new home" is frequently used to say someone is settling somewhere new. --JonTheMon 14:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

On the dredge, from what I've seen it'd be the case of the former. It'd be like saying the Senate of the United States - if you go and replace everyone in the senate, it's still the senate. Konig 14:58, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Isn't "moletariat" used in a similar way to proletariat and dictatorship of the proletariat? pling 18:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly a pun off of/nod to it, but I wouldn't say they're used in the same means. The moletariat is only used in reference to the dredge government - I don't think it's once used to refer to the working class, nor do the working class of the dredge (Dredge Excavators) have power in the dredge's government. Konig 18:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a British English speaker by birth and have lived in the US and Canada for several years. While there are many differences between British and US English, I don't think "make a home" and "build a home" are any way the same in either dialect. As far as I have ever used any version of English, making a home is an abstraction/metaphor and has nothing to do with physically building one. Hope this helps.

Having read some of the disputed text, I am not sufficiently knowledgeable about the lore to comment but a great deal of the textual changes are really changing the style. Change the facts if they're wrong but for heaven's sake, don't rewrite stuff just because you don't like the style. If you do then it would be perfectly possible for others to rewrite each and every one of your contributions, altering the style. As for your thoughts on Santax writing in British English, I could not say that either of your contributions are characteristically UK/US. US/UK English differences at this level are subtle and many young males in the UK use more US English than UK as they learnt/learned it off (of) the Internet. Claret 01:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

I can't believe you both came back from a month-long block and immediately started up the same kind of passive-aggressive arguments that got you blocked in the first place. If you can't learn your lesson from that and start being civil to each other, there's nothing for us to do but block you again. —Dr Ishmael 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully won't be necessary, see here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)