User talk:Santax/Archive 4

Archive
This page: 29,511 bytes

---

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

Rox

Why did you remove all of the historical dialogue from her page? —Dr Ishmael 12:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Should be like Captain Ellen Kiel, the dialogue is on the related pages linked in Living World involvement. We still need a dialogue section linking Rox's dialogue on the related pages.--Relyk ~ talk < 13:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Proper file naming

Greetings, thanks for uploading such wonderful images. That being said, this file seems to be ill named. Would it be possible to move it to a better suited name? Venom20 03:34, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

He uploaded it from the release page. We already have a File:Zephyr Sanctum.jpg, which I took in-game.--Relyk ~ talk < 07:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

If it is a duplicate image then it should be replacing the original image (depending on which one is better suited to the wiki's needs). That being said, a more appropriate name would work much better in searching categories. What exactly is 6d637BotFW? Venom20 13:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

BotFW = Bazaar of the Four Winds. I would agree that the two images are redundant - one has a slightly larger field of view, but that's the only difference. We should pick one and delete the other. —Dr Ishmael 15:18, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Rytlock Brimstone.jpg

Seriously? Konig provided a valid reason for the reason, considering you gave no explanation. Instead of discussing reasons for the change, you revert Konig with an almost identical picture. I don't care what reason you had for uploading, use the talk page instead of a revert war.--Relyk ~ talk < 08:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

His appeareance in AC cutscene does not reflect his appearance as seen everywhere else in the game at all. IMO it's a whole different model/variant with more rigid facial animations compared to standard character models seen in "live" cutscenes. Mediggo (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Dialogue

Hello. I reverted your change on Marjory Delaquas page. While I agree with your reason, removing the links is not going to fix anything. To fix it one should move all dialogue to the right place and then provide links to where those can be found on the NPCs page. Also you mentioned quotes being the speech bubbles when interacted with the NPC, those are called greets, and I partially agree with that, those should be the only quotes to include on the NPC page (There are also beckon quotes which also should go there), but like said, if the content is not moved to the right place first, don't remove it. Rakuin (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

New screenshot uploaded

Not sure why you uploaded a new picture of Thaumanova Reactor the other day? As per Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Image formatting replacing an image should only be allowed if "the new image should be of better quality – images not meeting this standard are subject to being reverted". Honestly it's the same dark night time image taken from a vista view.

Personally I don't care to use vista view images for area's unless that is the best possible shot which in some cases it is not. Example Konig's shot of File:Delegation of the Legions.jpg verses my shot of same POI [[:File:User Yoe Dude Delegation of the Legions.jpg]]. Please note his image is the one on the POI page. And the view of not using vista screens is my own opinion and not the reason for this note.

I am not defending Konig or saying your image is not as good, I just was calling your attention to this hoping you will use more restraint from uploading images over existing images. Trust me like in the above example, I often feel the need to up-load my (in my opinion) better images, but I refrain as not to upset the wiki community.Yoe Dude (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

In the case of File:Thaumanova Reactor.jpg, there is more detail on Santax's image. If you zoom in on the floating platform, you find the Konig original^TM had a zig zag pattern on the edge, whereas the Santax replacement is only slightly fuzzy, and mostly a straight line (higher graphics settings/antialiasing/better image format used for capture?). -Chieftain Alex 23:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

The widescreen cut off the top but framed better ^^ I'd ask Santax to leave a reason for the change when it seem trivial like this.--Relyk ~ talk < 03:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I would have not even commented on this except for the fact that I was "looking" for a new map to work on, I looked at this page then went back the next day for editing and said, it's a different image. Broke out the reading glasses and now see the difference, Thanks for the good look Alex, and yes Relyk if I saw a comment... again no post from me. What caught my eye was the top being cropped, wasn't really meaning to be nit-picky, but even thought at times I may not agree with other users (no issue with you Santax) I feel it is important to respect fellow users and their hard work. Ok, I crawl back under my rock now... Yoe Dude (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the top being cropped either, I would have tried to get a picture of full view (I too run 1600x900).--Relyk ~ talk < 20:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

ugh

Next time you move a page, be sure to move the associated images too. —Dr Ishmael 13:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, was in a bit of a rush this morning, sorry. --Santax (talk · contribs) 13:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

{{rarity}}

Please don't use this template in prose. it looks awful, and as an appearance conscious person I expect you not to do that :p -Chieftain Alex 18:06, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Updating NPCs

Hey, if you're updating an NPC you should preserve the old information (location, dialogue), not just replace it. --Sialor (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Per this

Keep what off the wiki? It is Angel McCoy's reply to a large multitude of people's criticism to her interview. I wasn't being biased, but neutrally explanatory. I stated it to be what it is. So jesus christ Santax, stop assuming so little of me. (yes, that last bit is sarcasm, if you missed it) Konig 11:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The fact that Angel was partially responding to criticism (I'd say it's more accurate to say clarifying points from the interview, anyway) was in no way relevant to the article, and as my edit showed it was perfectly possible to include that forum post as a reference without making a point of it. Throughout that thread you directed rudeness and aggression at Angel, outright stating that she had no idea what she was doing, and after her response (which noted that the interview had been looked over by Ree and Jeff before being published) you continued to do so. Therefore the wording of that reference comes across as you attempting to document your own resentment at how the devs handle lore in their own game.

Now I'm worried that the Magic page needs yet another rewrite, since I'm concerned that you're documenting not how the lore is stated to be, but how you think it ought to be. Anyway, this discussion is more about a comment I made than wiki content. If you want to debate it (I don't) you can PM me on the forum, otherwise, unless you can think of a way that this is going to lead to some kind of improvement of wiki content (I can't), then I'd like to end it here. --Santax (talk · contribs) 11:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

My - or anyone else's - attitude in the linked thread is irrelevant given that the link is to the specific post. I was not contestingthe rewording of the line, btw, but your seemingly intentional instigation upon me.

And for the record, the Magic article - as well as every other article I edit - is not "how I think it ought to be" but how it is presented as using all sources on the topic that I know of, rather than just one (which is what you do). In the linked case - Sea of Sorrows words by Captain Whiting; Edge of Destiny words by Glint; and various interviews stating that the Elder Dragons don't care - that they're amoral, indifferent, and just cause destruction. Stating that their "natural role" is to balance magic would be like saying our natural role is to eat and shit, because that is what they do with magic, effectively. They balance it, it is a natural part of their role in life, but it isn't their goal. Their goals have been outright stated to us to be to consume, destroy, and rule. And except for the one line against many, the Elder Dragons' interaction with magic is that it is their food. I did my best to word it ambiguously because of the seeming contradiction - and as Angel pointed out in another thread, developers can sometimes get their facts messed up (I can pull up a handful of such interviews with Angel and Scott where their words contradict first-hand statements by NPCs - e.g., in an interview Scott stated that all ministers are nobility, but Minister Rachel is not nobility). I might have failed in keeping it ambiguous and/or in line with the full scope of what we've been told, but it as sure as all hell isn't "how I think it ought to be". Konig 13:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit summaries are generally best not addressed to any particular individual. Edit summaries are definitely best not addressed to a particular individual you have a history of disputes with. The purpose of edit summaries is to explain your edit. A more appropriate edit summary would have been "More neutral/less loaded description of reference link" or something along those lines. Simple, concise, explains all that needs explaining, nonincendiary. - Tanetris (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Jungle Dragon -> Mordemoth

I have no opinion whatsoever on this move, however in the future, to move pages, please don't cut content from one page and paste it on another page to move it. This is known as a cut and paste move and they're bad, m'kay. The problem with them is that a large portion of the edit history is now "lost" in that it is located at a redirect. In cases like this where you can't move the page because there's already a redirect there, its best to ask admins to move it for you, since they can delete the redirect and preserve the page history. P.S. you don't need to undo anything, as an admin can fix it later. This is just for future reference. Psycho Robot (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, will do. I did try to move it "properly" originally, but as you said there was already a redirect there. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

talk:mordremoth

Please use the 'move' function in cases like this. Copy/pasting is bad because you lose the edit history. —Dr Ishmael 20:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Crap, now I see that the paranoid android beat me to it. Ah well. —Dr Ishmael 20:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The satanic mechanic. 20:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The mind-nearly-gone automaton! 20:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please add sources and interwiki links. Several bits of text you wrote there seems to me to be derrived from fanfiction telling that it was mordremoth that was 'controlling' Scarlet. Specially Vorpp his statement is putting things into perspective. I don't have all the facts right now, but please provide good sources as well as wiki-links where possible. I'm not reverting right now cause I can't proof you are wrong, but I hope you are willing to prove you are right ;) 195.240.63.18 21:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that anything likely to be challenged should be have references attached, but in the past when I have cited in-universe sources, they have been removed. Vorpp's statement is taken almost verbatim from The Dead End: A Study in Scarlet so as to inject as little external interpretation as possible, and even then it's qualified as an in-universe theory, just to play on the safe side. If there's any other specific passages in there that bother you, do let me know and I'll see what I can do to clarify where they came from :) in fact, it might be worth posting all known sources of information about Mordremoth on the talk page anyway, just so their readily accessible for users. --Santax (talk · contribs) 21:59, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I know what you are talking bout when your changes have been reverted in the past. This subject has been a battleground. I personally don't like the 'other' side. but we are a wiki and there are rules to follow (even if some might mis-use them) evidence is crucial. I do believe that circumstancial evidence here is more then enough. But there should be concensus beyond reasonable doubt, unless the concensus rule is mis-used to block progress above personal gains. My advise here to you is to stay low. The fact that 'the other side' is making this a battleground again is showing more bout his character then yours.195.240.63.18 22:57, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Scarlet's Alliance

I think it may be a misnomer to put all those NPCs as | organization = Scarlet's Alliance because they aren't united (see here). I think it would have been best to use multiple dpl lists for each individual group instead like how Molten Alliance is set up. Konig 14:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Although she says the Alliances don't work in close proximity with one another, they have been fighting and acting as a unified force since the Marionette weapon test, I think, and in a more technical sense, they all share a "Scarlet's Alliance" loot table. The name actually comes from the flavour text for Bag of Alliance Supplies, which demonstrates there is, in the game's lore, an organisation named "Scarlet's Alliance". --Santax (talk · contribs) 14:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think it would be better to keep them directly linked to the smaller alliances. There's no reason we can't have a hierarchy of organizations, is there? —Dr Ishmael 15:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

To the loot table - this is not entirely true. You can get Salvageable Twisted Watchwork Scraps from Twisted Watchwork, but only them (aside from the bags, of course). Until this update added Blade Shards to all Aetherblades, they actually had distinct loot tables per alliance per update introduction. During Marionette, you'd only get the cypher fragments from the new mobs there (no old Toxic Alliance nor Aetherblades would drop them), and still in this update no old Toxic Alliance drops Blade Shards. So they don't have a unified loot table, neither historically nor presently.

I would go with Ishmael - a hierarchy of alliances is best. Only Scarlet Briar should be a direct member of [[:Category:Scarlet's Alliances]] - the categories for the other alliances should be sub-categories of that, and the NPC articles should list their specific alliance. You can argue the Twisted Watchworks could be a direct entry into the Scarlet's Alliances category too. (And note: plural, not singular) Konig 16:40, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ish: let's just use an umbrella category until we have more data.

It's possible there are multiple loot tables involved: one for members of Scarlet's Alliance and another that is common to foes with similar names/types, e.g I seem to get both dredge bags and scarlet loot from Dredge in Escape/Occupied LA. With the data we have available, it's just as likely that each foe type has its own loot table, some of which is copypasta from similarly-named/typed foes. I think the Marionette fight doesn't tell us anything, since a lot of the foes only dropped cypher fragments, but elsewhere (e.g. around the Energy Probes) dropped their original loot. Thus, I don't think we can say what's mechanically true. Personally, I think it's more likely that the current set of foes are defined differently from the ones we encountered in previous releases, especially given ANet's tendency to reuse names/titles and ill-define their own nomenclature.

Therefore, I recommend that we make things simple for the reader (and if possible, easier for novice wiki editors). For the moment, that seems to be Ish's suggested solution of using a hierarchy. If it turns out that Konig's view is correct (not united, not a shared loot table), then we'd already be set. If it turns out that Santax is correct (they use shared types and loot tables, with minor differences), then we just stick with the larger category (and possible drop the subcats). And if it turns out that I'm correct and that the groups are different, we'd have more work, but it would be straightforward (copy/paste). – Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ley Lines - worthy of an article?

You tend to link to wikipedia's article on ley lines, though that's obviously something different (it is about geographical and monument stuff), and more recently directly to the magic article which doesn't give that much details on them. I've been thinking that they could be put on their own article describing the full nature of ley lines. However, I haven't made such an article because I'm not sure whether or not it'd be simpler to just expand the Magic article. So I figure since you're the only other major lore-editor on this wiki, I'd ask you: do you think that they ley lines deserve their own article?
Note: I'm not suggesting to go and make such an article, just whether or not it'd be worthwhile. Konig 14:13, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think they absolutely are worthy of an article. They're a maaajor plot point in S1 of the living story, and could come up again in the future. The article would also be an appropriate place to include the locations of the flashing probes on the map aboard the Breachmaker - there's actually a fair bit I think we could say about ley lines, come to think of it. I think the nature of magic in GW1 is subtle and scarcely mentioned, but (frustratingly) massively important to the plot. There was a lot of important stuff about magic in the personal story that was just communicated quite poorly to the player that never made it onto the wiki. I'd quite like to see that documented over a few articles in time, just in case it becomes important again in the future. --Santax (talk · contribs) 17:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

So what would you argue is worth its own article in relation to magic? Obviously there's Magic, Bloodstone, and Ley line (always lowercase in-game so should lowercase "line" in the article name, IMO, despite the common stance of capitalizing all official terms). Only other thing I can think of in magic-importance is the relation of dragons consuming and exuding magic. But I am unsure if that mandates an article of its own, as it feels like something to document simply on both magic and Elder Dragon.

I want to ensure we're on the same page so as to avoid clashes. Konig 17:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Those three, for sure (and I agree - only use title case when it's used in-game, otherwise sentence case). I think Elder Dragons absorbing and emitting magic is more an aspect of their physiology, however it does have an in-universe name (draconic enchanto-consumption theory), and although it's rarely ever mentioned in-game it's basically the reason we were able to kill Zhaitan, and the reason that Mordremoth is awakened. The article could also discuss the attempt by the Arcane Eye to suppress it, the technology developed with it, etc.. That's just off the top of my head - my knowledge of lore isn't exactly encyclopaedic, and I'm sure there's plenty of equally obscure but important magic-related topics that have gone undocumented (for example we don't have anything on dragon energy, or if it's interchangeable with magic, or what). --Santax (talk · contribs) 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I would think ley line would be a section in Magic.--Relyk ~ talk < 20:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, that page is already overly long, and doesn't cover nearly enough content. Ley lines and magic are very closely related, but should be regarded as separate objects, imo. I think we probably have enough to write about ley lines to make a separate article. --Santax (talk · contribs) 10:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Tsuru Whitewing Edit

Do you have a reputable source for the information you wrote on the article for Tsuru Whitewing? They seem to be purely based on speculations. --Archeer (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Mini Tsuru Whitewing is a set 3 mini. Since it Whitewing doesn't yet appear in-game, it is a character that can only be added with a future living world release (assuming that ANet continues with the model of releases we have seen so far, rather than expansions). --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But this is still speculation. Lots of datamined information don't end up making into the actual game. You don't seem to have a verifiable source to back up the information you posted. --Archeer (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not datamined - you can go into your collection tab in-game right now and check that it exists. --Santax (talk · contribs) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

But the idea that the character may appear in a future Living Story release is speculation. Granted, pretty much all updates to the game are considered "Living Story" now, so odds are good that if the character ever exists it will be due to a Living Story. 21:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, exactly. If ANet keep up the current model, it'd be impossible for the character not to appear as part of a future release. Nobody's saying it's a central character or anything. --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Not true. it could EASILY be quite a few other things: A major leader in the Tengu exodus from Cantha, one of the founders of the Domain of winds, the main character for some new book, or many many other lore-related positions that would never be a new in-game living story NPC. They also added a mini King Adelbern and Faolain, but that doesn't automatically mean the living story will include them. Thrain | contribs 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument - King Adelbern and Faolain are both NPC's that exist in-game (and Faolain is very likely to have a role in the future living story, but I digress). And even then, this NPC requires documentation beyond "Tsuru Whitewing is Tengu." --Santax (talk · contribs) 22:29, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I prefer a placeholder page over the redirect. If the NPC is added to the game, a redirect makes it harder for new users to add information.--Relyk ~ talk < 23:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there. —Dr Ishmael 00:08, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That mini is an interesting case - it was added in set 2 and never appeared in-game, sure, but was also around in the betas and removed before launch. I think there is a good chance that Maut was originally supposed to appear in-game, but then later removed along with the mini. The mini was probably restored because, hey, why not (and as the likely leader of the Inquest, I'd be surprised if he wasn't going to appear in the future anyway)? This, on the other hand, is the first we've heard of Whitewing, and comes across as an intentional hint towards that character's future involvement in the LW. It doesn't seem right to me to not document that. --Santax (talk · contribs) 12:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"an intentional hint" But that's still not concrete enough to write an article about. —Dr Ishmael 12:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Marjory Delaqua

Thank you. 22:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

moving images

I kinda feel this is a redux of the moving articles bit but... When moving images to upload a new while keeping the old, rather than uploading the old image in a new location, simply move the image, then upload the new image at the original name over the redirect. You'll have to then manually replace the redirect with proper templates and categories, but doing this retains the image history which as before with articles, is desired. Konig 03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)