User talk:Santax/Archive 6

From Guild Wars 2 Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


How do you propose going about Trader Aerin? In-game (prior to this release) he was referred to as a Trader, only to become a Saboteur responsible for the bombing. Should Trader & Saboteur be merged (that seems most reasonable) or split it by their separate characteristics? Also, should we make a Biography section, similar to Scarlet? It would be nice to mention both his initial excitement and impression with the Zephyrites to the insane obsession and delusion at the very end. I'd love to hear your opinion. --Ventriloquist (talk) 10:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, they should definitely be one page. It's the difference between "Captain Logan Thackeray" and "Logan Thackeray", say. They're probably considered different NPC's from a mechanical POV, and I know people like to say that mechanics should always always always come before lore, but in practice if we adopted that practice too rigidly the wiki would become overly idiosyncratic and impossible to use. One page for one character, I think :)
The biography section on Scarlet's page was mainly because the introduction and background would have been too long to put in the lead. In Aerin's case, it would only be 2 or 3 paragraphs long, and so I think it'd be fine just to put his whole "story" all in one place, in the lead. Santax (talk · contribs) 11:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Quaggan icons in maintenance and notice templates

While I appreciate the idea to give them some Guild Wars feeling, I don’t like the icons there at all. Most templates gain way too much vertical space that way making them way too prominent. For example the move templates is doubled in height (going from 50px to 105px); the same applies to most other templates too. Also, the quaggans rarely give an idea what is going on, making it hard to distinguish the templates. This goes a bit against the intent of the maintenance templates—to give a quick and concise idea about the state of the page, without interrupting the page itself. Especially on pages where multiple notice templates are used, the quaggans are now taking up way to much room, unnecessarily pushing down the actual content—which is critical on pages like list of fansites where the templates are meant to be there permanently.

So tl;dr: while I like quaggans, I’m not a fan of using the icons for “wiki business”. poke | talk 18:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, a couple had been used for {{Unimplemented content}} {{Historical content}} and such already so it was just about giving the templates consistency and making use of the concept art, but if it's not a popular idea I'll revert them :) I'm just doing some Living World stuff at the moment, so I'll give it until later on in the evening in case someone else has any thoughts and then I'll revert myself. Santax (talk · contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
TooOOoo bad there wasn’t more interest (by others) in discussing this, but thanks for reverting it for now :) poke | talk 13:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you, poke - a consistent system of quaggan icons would be nice, but they need to be smaller. —Dr Ishmael User Dr ishmael Diablo the chicken.png 13:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
I vote for the return of quaggan icons. Sol Solus (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


It's me again. This time, my plea involves a certain pact camp that will most likely be destroyed in a week. Now, the Concordia page was a just a redirect until today, I literally just wrote a sentence because, honestly, I don't know what else to include in it and it does seem like a shame to leave it so hollow since it's probable to say that it won't be the same after Entanglement. If you have any more knowledge of it, maybe mentioning Trahearne and the Personal Story that takes place in it or something, it'd be great. For the Pact! --Ventriloquist 23:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do :) will probably be tomorrow or something though since I've got a lot on at the moment! Luckily I did a map completion run of that zone a few days ago, although there doesn't seem to be much lore there. It used to be the site of an [[Alliance]] between Priory and Vigil, before the Pact was a thing. Santax (talk · contribs) 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
No problem, you have an entire week! I assumed it still was? See, I've been trying to fill up the holes in the Gyre Rapids page, and saw examples such as Flag Poles which only exist as a Vigil and a Priory variant; also, there seems to be no OOW representative at the fort (although they do prefer a quieter approach). So after all that, I'm not even sure is it considered a Pact fortress (as seen in the PS) or just an Alliance between the two orders, as seen from the NPC's dialogues and objects in the area. There's also a small watchtower at Stromkarl Heights which bears, once more, the flags of only two of the orders with no OOW members whatsoever. --Ventriloquist 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of the few things that's managed to retain my interest in lore as of late. The short jist of it as I understand it is that although Trahearne hosted the first Pact meeting there, the fort is not part of the Pact (not all of the Orders' activities are after all). It was established as one of two bases for this alliance between Priory and Vigil (supposedly before the Pact's existence) due to shared interests in the area - primarily fighting the Risen, excavating Rankor Ruins for ancient knowledge on the Elder Dragons, and generally securing the area from local threats (per Guardian Renton, Explorer Ironpaw, and Researcher Raekk). The second "Alliance" outpost is Caer Evermore. Tactician Art and Magister Lindsay are in command of Fort Concordia (of their respective orders), while Commander Raff and Explorer Banba are in command of Caer Evermore. Given all the dialogue, everything in the open world is pre-Forging the Pact however so it may have become part of the Pact, but there's no indication of this as the only recognition of Forging the Pact taking place is Raekk's dialogue in which he only says he barely remembers the event. Konig 05:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you've a point that we don't see Order of Whispers there in the open world at all. But as you say, the open world in Timberline Falls seems to just predate Forging the Pact, I guess so it's not immersion-breaking for players that choose to do Timberline Falls map completion before doing that mission. We see Pact NPC's as soon as we enter Mount Maelstrom, and of course in Fireheart Rise and Frostgorge Sound. In that case, perhaps it would be best so say that it was a known Alliance outpost, and presumably became a Pact outpost thereafter. Santax (talk · contribs) 14:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nightmare Hounds/Husks as Mordrem

Don't you think that's a bit hasty, just because the Shadow of the Dragon is a Mordrem? Unless you've seen something I've missed... Konig 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Double for the Blighted Husks. Konig 19:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
especially since several of the changed creatures have been clearly established as warped and corrupted versions of their Sylvari counterparts, much like the nightmare court itself. Thrain | contribs 19:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
There's heavy emphasis (read: Shadow of the Dragon, and as I found out after making this section, there are Veteran Thorn Wolves amongst Mordrem in Dry Top now) that the Nightmare is tied to Mordrmeoth. However, the presence of the Thorn Hounds I do not yet think confirms that all Nightmare Court/Nightmare-related stuff, let alone the Blighted stuff in Wychmire, are Mordrem. It certainly shows that Mordremoth can corrupt the Nightmare Hounds, and doing so does not outright alter their appearance, but it doesn't yet confirm Nightmare Hound=Mordrem. The Veteran Thorn Wolves in Dry Top likely count as Mordrem, however. But an isolated case is not proof for the full. Unless, as I ask of Santax, he has further evidence? If so, I see no reason to disagree with the change; if not, I'd like to only see the Veteran Thorn Wolf article marked as Mordrem. Konig 20:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should add an Affiliation section back to the NPC infobox, like GWW has? since race and affiliation aren't always the same (Charr/Flame Legion, Elemental/Branded, Asura/Inquest, Plants/Mordremoth etc) Thrain | contribs 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
We have that. It is marked as Organizations however. A single npc can have only one family (internal term of race) and family (internal name for organization/affiliation). So it cannot be both Mordrem and Plant. Dragon minions are marked as species, as far as we know. Konig 23:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) The two most solid ones are Nightmare Hounds and Sinister Nightmare Hounds, which we know are Mordrem because they are summoned by the Shadow of the Dragon during the sylvari opening quest. In the same way, if Tequatl started summoning, say, Awakened, then we'd know that Palawa Joko was a Risen. Next is the enemies found in Experimental Lab Green, which, like Experimental Lab Red (which contains the Evolved Destroyer) and Experimental Lab White (which contains Bjarl the Rampager), is a lab set up for the purposes of studying dragon minions. We already knew that Mordremoth is definitely under scrutiny in the Crucible of Eternity, because that's where we learned its name from. So that covers husks etc. (which isn't surprising, since they have the same orange glow in their bellies as the Shadow of the Dragon). Most tenuous is the enemies which appear in The Battle for Wychmire Swamp, who are all suggested to be Mordrem rather than explicitly stated, but I've not met anyone who seriously believes that the Great Jungle Wurm is a result of anything other than Mordremoth's influence. Santax (talk · contribs) 08:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

So basically, "same old speculation." I'll keep my hat on the 'wait and see' button, personally, since we already have cases of Mordremoth's corruption lacking physical alterations. Konig 10:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Dragonrise Discrepancy

I'm not sure where the best place is to put such a note, but I would say the timeline is not it - so I removed it, though I do think it should be present somewhere. Perhaps Elder Dragon or the like. But there's a lot more discrepancies than just the date of when Forgotten arrived on the world. If anything, that's the smallest issue, since nothing says that the last dragonrise only lasted for so little time as to not influence the entire span. Konig (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

What about on the page for Forgotten, since the thing that's in dispute is when they first appeared on Tyria?
Btw, I did think about putting a lore discrepancy template on Return to Camp Resolve, but I don't quite see how the quote "[Glint] had the gift of prophecy and the burden of three thousand years of memories" contradicts what we learned in Arah explorable. Why can't the Forgotten have purified Glint 3,000 years ago, while Kralkatorrik was dormant? Is Glint explicitly stated anywhere to have been purified during the last dragonrise? Santax (talk · contribs) 19:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Because Glint hid the races from the Elder Dragons, indicating that it was indeed during their awakened period. Though given PoF, Kralkatorrik did not realize her betrayal until he was asleep, the ritual was definitely used while the Elder Dragons were awake. Konig (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Where to put...

If you're gonna add lore discrepancies to a page, put it under the "Notes" or "Trivia" section of the page (depending on which is more appropriate), and if there isn't one, just add it in and plop your lore stuff underneath. In the case of adding lore stuff to story instance pages, add the Notes/Trivia section, or move it if it's above, under the "My story" bit. - Doodleplex 20:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realise - thought they just went right at the bottom of the page above the templates. Santax (talk · contribs) 00:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised...

That you did exactly what I said the problem is with how you do things. You cannot even wait for a current discussion to end, you have to have your edits up. I'm not even sure you even bothered to separate the non-reference fixes when re-adding the reference tags, it feels like you just straight up reverted me - and the editor that came after. Since you tell me to go onto a talk page to explain:

  • Abaddon reference note: That's full speculation which should be kept off. If you insist on a reference tag, just reference gw1:The Apostate#Reward dialogue. If one should deem a comment about the speculative possibility of Arachnia, it should be a trivia note on Abaddon.
  • Citation for the gods taking their own domain is not needed. GW1 elite missions make it clear. The gw.dat is not semi-canon, it is fully non-canon until otherwise stated as it contains both scrapped lore and lore that just didn't make it in but is still Anet's intended design but the latter could easily be changed by the time they do add it in.
  • Did you have a reason for reverting the Characteristics section, or was that just because you reverted all my edits? I tried to make the section flow better, removing going into details on a completely separate topic (the nature of Elder Dragons). Ask which is better:
    • "Whereas Elder Dragons will release their magic into the world harmlessly and their corpse rendered inert, a god's death will cause their body to break apart, and the magic within to violently escape, threatening to destroy entire worlds."
    • "As with Elder Dragons, the death of a god causes their magic to escape unbound into the world with potentially catastrophic consequences, although the mechanism may be somewhat different - Zhaitan and Mordremoth released their magic in the world harmlessly along the ley lines to be absorbed by the other Dragons, and Glint's corpse retained enough magic to be harnessed by the Zephyrites in the construction of their Zephyr Sanctum. Abaddon's death, on the other hand, caused his body to break apart, and the magic within to violently escape, threatening to destroy entire worlds. Something similar was seen with Balthazar's death, although in the former case most of the power was absorbed by Kormir, giving her the power of a god, and in the latter case the power Balthazar had accumulated was absorbed by Kralkatorrik and Aurene."
    • Balthazar's death wasn't even a god's death, though his body did break up the magic released was not a god's magic; furthermore, Glint's corpse is irrelevant as she's not an Elder Dragon. Both lines say the exact same thing, one is thrice the length, both with details not pertaining to the topic of the article, and with redundancies (everything before Zhaitan can be removed and you lose nothing in the context).
  • Pre-arrival section: Aside from the overlinking you re-added, it is not "thought" there were only six. It is known. Dwayna is not usually depicted leader, she is always called leader. Not sure why you changed "another world" to "elsewhere" since it's known they came from another world from that very reference (unless you're going to argue they came out of a fractal or an afterlife? Both such argumens would contradict known lore). The line about Lyssa "helping them forget" is too ambiguous, I read it as Lyssa helping the other gods forget (or both humanity and the other gods), and I know others do too, as it then plays into Abaddon's line "What passed beyond in the Mists, only you remember." Proclaiming the line refers to humans is rather speculative, which is why I removed it entirely.
  • You re-added the citation needed for the Tome of Rubicon despite it being right there.
  • Forgotten being brought by the gods as stewards needs a citation? That's History of Tyria right there. 3,000 years ago would be 1,769 BE.
  • "that the Forgotten were present for the last dragonrise, which was around 10,000 years ago.<ref>Varra Skylark in The Ruined City of Arah (explorable) jotun path believes that the Mystic Telescope shows the last rise of the Elder Dragons to be about 10,000 years ago.</ref>" - This is disputable, yet you present it as if it were fact. Varra could easily be mistaken, after all she outright stated "It shows that the awakening of the dragons is a natural and cycling thing. The stars only indicate the passing ages. They do not determine events here." However, we know that the "natural cycle" was broken by the existence of the Bloodstones (removed magic early) and the arrival of the gods (tampered with the Bloodstone, Abaddon's death stirred the Elder Dragons). The two concepts - that this dragonrise happens at the exact same timespan as previous ones, and that what causes the dragons to sleep/wake got tampered with this time only - is incredibly unlikely. Add in the origins and devotion of the Forgotten being stated as a thing in GW2 and Glint saying herself she had been around for only 3,000 years (Edge of Destiny, forgot page number), the oldest dwarven structures being described as "over two thousand years old" rather than "over ten thousand years old", all indicate that at the very least, the end of the previous dragonrise was around 3,000 years ago. Like I said, it's too disputable to present it as fact that the last dragonrise was 10,000 years ago and the Forgotten were around for the whole of it. Didn't you add the lore discrepancy tags exactly because of this? So now you act like one side is the definite right while the other side - which honestly has more facts supporting it (1 versus 3+)? I tried to avoid it altogether.
  • Nothing ever says that the magic at the Artesian Waters is caused by Zhaitan. This is fully player speculation, and should be removed.
  • King Doric's crowning being (around) 100 BE: gw1:Historical Monument of King's Watch.
  • "By the time of Malchor's death, King Doric was already a celebrated figure, as Malchor was aware of the annual [[Festival of Lights]] in his honour." isn't at all relevant to this article.
  • I'm not sure why you prefer yet another reference tag, instead of in-line linking for Garden of the Gods.\

On Forgotten:

Really now. Konig (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't a revert; quite a lot was left intact actually.
  • It's not speculative at all to say that Abaddon had a predecessor who is named in some semi-canon sources as Arachnia. The source is clearly stated as being semi-canon with a discussion of exactly what that means in the reference tag, and readers are trusted to make a decision for themselves. It would be speculation to claim that Abaddon had a predecessor named Arachnia - but my version of the line doesn't say anything of the sort. And your version of the line, that Abaddon had a predecessor who is left unnamed, is just not true. You know that the predecessor is named in an unreliable but official source as Arachnia - who are you to withhold that information from readers and pretend otherwise?
  • I think we're both in agreement about how reliable the gw.dat is as a source, actually - you just appear to be getting in a fuss about what "semi-canon" means. To me it means something that has come from an official source but has not been confirmed as true by anything that is considered a canon source. What we disagree on is whether Arachnia should be mentioned or alluded to at all - to me, we would be failing in our jobs of documenting the lore if we were deliberately missing that detail out.
  • I'm not sure what you mean when you say, "Citation for the gods taking their own domain is not needed". Are you talking about the bit where the article says that the gods asked mortals to help retake their domains? Because I don't see any {{citation needed}} templates there.
  • Clearly I prefer the second version, because I wrote it that way on purpose? It's not true to say without qualification that Zhaitan and Mordremoth's magic released "harmlessly", as the magic went on to empower the other ED's, and we later learn that if any other dragons are killed it could literally destroy the world by throwing its magic out balance. Glint may not be an ED but she's made of the same stuff, and to me Balthazar's death had a lot in common with Abaddon's, and being that it's one of the two gods' deaths that we've seen I thought it warranted a mention in the paragraphs talking about how gods die. The paragraph is in a section on the characteristics of the gods, and since we know so little about them and it seems so important to the story, I didn't want to just gloss over it.
  • Where is the source that says Dhuum came with the rest of the gods? That seems overwhelmingly likely to me, but I've not seen anything to confirm it directly, so it remains speculation on your part. The Orrian History Scrolls only talk about Dwayna, Balthazar, Melandru, Lyssa, and Abaddon. That's the same reason I changed "another world" to "elsewhere" - they probably came from another world but I guess it's possible that they formed from the Mists or something else that we haven't thought of, so I'm not willing to make the assumption that they came from another world. I was accused of adding speculation to the wiki so much in the past (mainly by you) that I'm trying to be careful not to do that now. Rereading that line about Lyssa I can see that it's open to interpretation as her helping the gods forget, but even if that is the case it's too important not to mention somewhere on the page. It tells us what Lyssa was up to in that initial period, and potentially why we never hear about the pre-arrival period, so it'd be doing a disservice to readers not to mention it. It probably does need rewording, though.
  • The GuildMag interview says that the gods did't bring humans to the world until after the writing of the Tome of Rubicon, but unless I'm missing something it doesn't say anything about that being before 786 BE, which is the statement to which the {{citation needed}} is attached.
  • We know that the Forgotten weren't brought to the world 3,000 years ago by the gods as stewards because they were around for the last dragonrise. History of Tyria was in the Prophecies manual, and like much of the lore from that era (some of it in that same document) has been retconned into oblivion (sorry, I should say, "written from the perspective of an in-universe character who is therefore not omniscient"). We could mention it in the article if you want, but then we'd also have to include a discussion about how the source has been contradicted by more recent, more reliable sources (like we do on the Forgotten article) and that'd just bog readers down.
  • What disputable information have I presented as fact? The cite note states clearly that the source is the opinion of a Durmand Priory scholar. That source does happen to be reliable IMO, but it is presented as "just" the opinion of a Durmand Priory scholar nonetheless. I don't think I could have been fairer than including a discussion of the reliability of the source, even though the date of the last dragonrise is widely accepted by everyone except you to be 10,000 BE (and it was clearly intended to be - I remember an interview with Jeff Grubb I think where he said the first thing he did when ANet hired him was to look at the lore, point at the bit in the timeline about GL disappearing in 10,000 BE, and said "let's start with that"). On the point of that theory, why do you assume that Varra is incorrect when she says that, "[the dragons last woke] around ten thousend years ago. You know what this means? The Elder Dragons may have been responsible for the extinction of the Giganticus Lupicus!" when that's clearly supposed to be the "lore reward" for completing the dungeon path, and not when she says, "The stars only indicate the passing ages. They do not determine events here"? In fact, I think you might have missed an important detail - Rising Stars says that "The [Elder Dragons]' awakening moves the Antikytheria, which in turn has tangible effects", and that "the jotun were implying that the constellations themselves are altered by awakening of Elder Dragons". Also, The Natural War says that "Jotun and dwarves were the inventors of modern weaponry. Rocks, metals, and trees of the Shiverpeaks became battle equipment in 10,000 BE", which suggests that dwarves were around building weapons in 10,000 BE. What you've interpreted as hints for your theory is probably, I'm afraid to say, just misinterpretations and/or "lore bugs" on ANet's behalf. In any event, ignoring the topic altogether means removing relevant and important information from articles to better accommodate (fringe) fan theories, which is unacceptable.
  • I seem to remember the magic at the Artesian Waters coming from Zhaitan being revealed (or possibly speculated by Marjory/Kasmeer) around the time we learned about ley lines - something about that part of Orr having a huge concentration of magic. But if I can't find a source for it I'll remove it.
  • Unless I'm misinterpreting, gww:Historical Monument of King's Watch just says that Doric was crowned "more than one hundred years prior" to 100 BE, meaning he could have been crowned in 115 BE, when he first knelt at Dwayna's feet, or possibly even before then. So that source doesn't support us saying that he was crowned around 15 years after going to Dwayna.
On Forgotten (couldn't you have made another section for this? I'm tired 😛):
  • Cool, citation was needed, citation has been provided. The system works!!
  • Braham saying it isn't actually gold and ANet reusing assets from the Wealdwood isn't sufficient to say that the Forgotten structures are made out of pyrite. All we can really say is that they aren't made out of gold (according to Braham, I guess, but I think we should trust him - do you?).
  • It's generally considered good practice to only link once in an article (or sometimes, once in the lede and again in the first occurrence after the lede). However, if it helps a reader's understanding then it's fine to link again, especially if it's far down in the article. In this example, Tarir is mentioned first in the context of Forgotten architecture and again buried deep in the history section, so if a reader wasn't interested in clicking on Tarir from reading the architecture section but the history section makes them interested in the subject, then they shouldn't have to scroll up to find the info. So yeah, overlinking should generally be removed, but not dogmatically so. Santax (talk · contribs) 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Six Human Gods

So I've just finished going through your recent edit to The Six Gods. I'm not sure what you were thinking in using ref tags to link to wiki articles, especially when the discussion over on the Community portal seems to leaning in the direction of "let's use as few reference tags as possible". Take a look through my edit and tell me what you think; it's not perfect, but I really feel it's an improvement over the huge number of ref tags you were dropping in before. --Idris (talk) 17:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I was restoring tags that were removed at a time where everyone in the discussion was in favour of using more reference tags, by Konig who removed them on the basis of Wiki policy - which it later turned out he wasn't aware of. I can see how it might have come across as a bit tone deaf, but your solution works for now. The only thing I'd change is the removal of "By the time of Malchor's death, King Doric was already a celebrated figure, as Malchor was aware of the annual [[Festival of Lights]] in his honour", because that quote actually helps us put King Doric, Grenth's birth, and ascension into a timeline (within 100 years of each other). Santax (talk · contribs) 00:08, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
You know, just because I cannot find the exact discussion from years ago doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I do not focus on remembering where discussions were held, just what their conclusion was.
We already know that Grenth's ascension is likely at 48 BE since that's when he gets his first follower. So we could use that instead if you really want to establish a probable timeframe (doing so on Grenth would be more appropriate, IMO).
That sentence doesn't even set up a timeframe for Grenth anyways, since that entire paragraph completely lacks mention of Grenth, Grenth's father, or the possibility of Dwayna's love for Malchor (the latter being too speculative to mention). On top of that, Malchor could have learned of the festival post-mortem, so by itself (as it is) does nothing to promote the apparent intended point. This leaves the paragraph feeling like the writer went on an off-topic tangent and abruptly ended it, going to a seemingly completely different topic in the next paragraph, before making the point the tangent was started to make. And that isn't aided by the fact that the prior paragraph is also of a completely different topic - this results in both the paragraph on Doric and the paragraph on Malchor feel like disjointed "this is some interaction with humans during this timeframe" that hold no relation to each other or the other paragraphs. Konig (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you got the policy wrong, either because you misremembered it or because you weren't aware that it had been updated. So maybe you should focus on where policies are written rather than what you remember their conclusion to be. Because when you go around enforcing rules that you're actually incorrect about, it causes unnecessary confrontation.
I hadn't thought about checking the date on the Scriptures of Grenth, good catch.
We can discuss the probability that Malchor is Grenth's father in the article but we can't assume it to be true because we have no source directly supporting that. The best we can do is put the pieces in place and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. But the intention of those few paragraphs was that they'd talk briefly about what it was like while the gods were living among mortals, and being able to put the paragraphs in the correct order is part of that. Each of the paragraphs are about a different topic, but that's what paragraphs are for. Santax (talk · contribs) 00:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I hadn't gotten it wrong. [[Guild Wars 2 Wiki talk:References#Citing official sources|Found another discussion]]. It was changed, without discussion best I can see, and no one - literally no one as far as I know - noticed (and honestly, that's a running issue with GW2W - people edit the guideline and policy pages and no one notices for months and months). But enough of this merry-go-round.
Not talking about the probability of Malchor being Grenth's father on the article was rather my point. "But the intention of those few paragraphs was that they'd talk briefly about what it was like while the gods were living among mortals" Two unique cases doesn't really do that, and they were so disjointed from the rest of the section that I couldn't tell what your intention was beyond "oh the gods did this too" tangents. "Each of the paragraphs are about a different topic, but that's what paragraphs are for." Paragraphs should flow into one another easily, otherwise it's just jarring to the reader and it feels haphazard. Konig (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) That edit was in 2014 - you've had three years to read it since then (and my edit doesn't affect the policy that you were citing - "referencing the wiki is not how we do things around here". I'm not satisfied with "enough of this merry-go-round" because you're trying to question my integrity and then just drop the subject. You try to make out that I was underhanded in some way by updating the policy, but Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Practices and processes says, "As practice can change and evolve over time, this documentation might often be a step or two behind. As with any article on the wiki, be bold and correct mistakes or improve outdated information here". Have you read any of these "rules" that you're trying to pass off as Wiki policy? That policy was updated multiple times in the time since I made that edit, and later evolved to say, "Note that if you want to cite from an official game update patch, blog post, news or lore article, it's better to copy the article verbatim to the wiki so it can be linked to directly. Examples of these verbatim copies are Game updates/2017-07-13 and The Ecology of the Charr" - funnily enough, a reference to the Ecology of the Charr was exactly one of the ones that you removed. Santax (talk · contribs) 01:09, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
For context, the above was in response to your reply, which originally said "I hadn't gotten it wrong. You had changed it (and without discussion it seems)". During my response this was edited to say, "I hadn't gotten it wrong. Found another discussion. It was changed without discussion best I can see", linking to a different diff (by a different user) and adding a new link (to a talk page discussion in 2010 which, FYI, still does not make it Wiki policy). Santax (talk · contribs) 01:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Let me make something clear. I could not give less of a shit whether any poor-quality edit is your fault or Konig's fault. I'm willing to act as mediator for the two of you if you're tired of arguing with each other -- because believe me, the rest of the wiki is tired of your arguing -- but I'm not interested in dealing with childish outbursts like "but he started it!" You both have excellent grasp of the lore and are dedicated editors -- don't waste your time on petty squabbling when you could be improving the wiki together.

So, with that out of the way: At the time I made my edit, my perception of the consensus on the community discussion was to minimise ref calls, and I thought you were in agreement with it, so it kind of annoyed me when I caught you doing the exact opposite of this. Having read your more recent comments to the community discussion however, I feel like I have a better grasp of where you were coming from -- consistency in the way we link to sources, yes? That's fair. I still feel that minimising ref calls is the way to go, but I'll admit that a major downside to the inline wikilinks approach is that it relies on the author being skilful enough to seamlessly integrate a link in a non-confusing way. This might end up creating a lot of rewrite work. --Idris (talk) 01:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Santax: I changed my text for a reason. I was trying to avoid further antagonizing, and realized my original wording did the opposite (and I had noticed something I hadn't before). It doesn't matter how old a change is if no one knows the change has been made, nor ever reference it. The first time it gets brought up is when it will be noticed - in this particular case, it took 3 years. There have been other cases where such changes were left ignored for longer, on more common topic guidelines.
And discussion pages are where wiki policy - or if you prefer a different term, practices, guidelines, rules; they all mean the same thing in the end no matter how you want to twist things - come from. So linking to discussions where multiple people say that format should take one form over others, that is indeed making it wiki practice if it gets followed up upon.
@Idris: Thank you for your patience on this matter. Konig (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2017 (UTC)