User talk:SkrittmanCometh/Archive 1

Nice work

Hi, welcome to the wiki! You've really hit the ground running; point of interest articles are often neglected, so it's great to see someone uploading quality screenshots and writing interesting intros for them. Thanks! --Idris (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! And indeed, POIs are often my favorite locations in the game so I found it sad how they were left behind. I don't often have that much free time (sadly the weekend has come to an end) but if I ever have time and I feel like contributing, I will. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 05:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

The Siren's Landing

I'm curious, is there a particular reason you think it should be "the Siren's Landing" and not just "Siren's Landing"? As far as I know, no character ingame has referred to it as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexis Toran (talk).

English is my second language so I can be a bit rusty st times and I always had difficulties with the appropriate use of the “the”, “is” and “are”. In my mind, since Siren’s Landing doesn’t start with a proper noun such as with Malchor’s Leap, I’d put a “the” before it. I was also basing myself on some of the other zones’ naming like The Dragon’s Stand, The Straits of Devastation and the Cursed Shore and etc. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 12:27, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Native English speaker here. As a rule of thumb, all zone names can be referred to without a "the", since they're all proper nouns in their own right. "The" typically only gets added to descriptions; for example, "Cursed Shore" can become "the cursed shore" if you're literally referring to a shore that is cursed, but if you're referring to the zone itself, then it should be just "Cursed Shore". Since you're writing lore, you're going to run into a lot of situations where you might want to describe the zone in-character -- in which case, "the cursed shore" is acceptable, because characters would likely think of the area as "the western shore of Orr which is cursed".

To my ears, "the Siren's Landing" sounds awkward. This "siren" seems hypothetical, especially since she's being referred to in the singular (we know the sirens were a group of people), in which case neither "a" nor "the" are appropriate in this context. Referring to it as simply "the landing" is acceptable, though. --Idris (talk) 15:05, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I see. I've never really been good at distinguishing these differences and when it was appropriate to use it or not. My apologies. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise! This is a tricky feature of English; even as a native it was hard for me to articulate exactly why "the Siren's Landing" sounds wrong. You're doing fine. :) --Idris (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

You've made another minor error here. Normally, "The Amnoon Farms" is a perfectly acceptable phrase, but it doesn't work in the context of this particular sentence. "Farms" is a plural noun, so "The Amnoon Farms is an area" sounds wrong. There are two solutions: either change "is" to "are", or drop the "The" in order to turn "Amnoon Farms" back into a singular proper noun. (I hope you don't mind me correcting your English; please let me know if I'm being annoying!) --Idris (talk) 17:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

No, it's fine. It's just that I've been told to do otherwise in the past which is why I'm more hesitant to put "are" and instead going safe with "is". It pretty much always come back to the same problem haha. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Proper nouns can be tricky -- as a rule of thumb, I'd say you can use "is" with the majority of proper nouns, but only so long as you don't add "the" to it. You can still use "is" if "The" is already part of the name, though. Does that help? --Idris (talk) 18:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It does. I'll keep that in mind as I go forward. Thanks for the tips. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I feel guilty -- I think I got a little carried away with my corrections. These are all very minor, inconsequential errors, so please don't feel like you're not doing a good job. You definitely are! Sometimes we get new editors who are too timid to plunge in and start editing because they're worried about mistakes, and here I am, wagging my finger at a new editor who actually had the guts to plunge in. Sorry! --Idris (talk) 19:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's fine. Sometimes it's good to be corrected, even if the error can be considered small. This way, new things can be learned. It's all good. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

And I've gone and confused things even further by changing "The Tears of Orr are a point of interest" to "The Tears of Orr is a point of interest", which to my mind is correct since it refers to a (singular) waterfall for which "The Tears of Orr" is just a name. I'm not sure it's possible to come to a perfect, concise rule for it. But let me say that, for a non-native English speaker, I'm very impressed by many of the descriptions you've been writing for these points of interest, even if there is the occasional error to correct! - Alexis Toran (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! I don't have as much trouble with constructing sentences. My main problem to this day remains everything I stated above. It gets annoying quick...--SkrittmanCometh (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for pestering you again, but I've had to correct quite a few articles where you've needlessly added "The" to the location name. Maybe I didn't get my point across very well before, so let me try again more clearly: I think you should stop adding "The" to names altogether. In the context of wiki articles, writing the name of a location without an added "The" is always correct English. Sometimes adding a "The" is also correct, but in many cases, it's not. --Idris (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

New NPC articles

Amazing work, thanks for contributing all those missing NPCs in the desert. -5.65.85.185 00:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I was tired of seeing all those red links so I decided to do a little sweep. They're not the most complete but at least now they have pages. --SkrittmanCometh (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Dazzi

Hey, I can't find this Dazzi NPC anywhere in the home instance. I suspect she could be one of the unlockable home instance characters, mind posting her exact position, and the story steps you took during the first two chapters of the personal story?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I suspect you just meant Botanist Dazzi instead, didn't you?--Lon-ami (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Inquest overseer Ezrielia

Hey! Thanks for editing the page "Lab Sigma-05" I was kinda lost about how to structure the page ^^--Inquest Overseer Ezrielia (talk) 21:01, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by using the signature option located at the top of the edit box (second starting from the right) in the future. Skrittman (talk) 19:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Again it's me, you recently removed my notes about the ruined paths in sandswept isles, why? You ask for hint for it, here they are: A broken asuran gate, asuran foutain, floor tiles, and the walls is the same assets used to make the infinity coil reactor walls (I have screens of them). For me it's definitely an ancient asuran city/ inquest lab, but again my opinion, why not putting in notes "These ruins seem to be Asuran?" I wait for your answer ^^ gonna ask Anet about these ruins maybe.--Inquest Overseer Ezrielia (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

The only real hint that these could be asuran ruins is the gate and even it looks more recent compared to other structures, which could mean that it was built within the ruins by asura, Inquest or otherwise. Then again, this would also be speculation on my part. As for the rest of your argument, the re-usage of assets by Anet isn't sufficient to say that it is asuran ruins. Plenty of developers do this to save time and money and the re-used assets rarely represent their origins when applied elsewhere. Leaving the more general term <<ancient ruins>> is better as it is more subjective and leaves more for interpretation for the users of the site. If you really do intend on asking Anet about this, go ahead. If they say that these are in fact asuran ruins, than we'll make the appropriate edits then. Skrittman (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers ^^ and sorry for annoying you with that, you are totally right, nothing confirm it. Thanks for explaining :D--Inquest Overseer Ezrielia (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Thumbnails

Hey, any reason you've been converting the images on various creature pages into thumbnails? There's no harm in it, but the benefit of a thumbnail is that it allows you to add a caption and automatically resizes the image -- but since the images already have a specified size, and you're not adding any captions, it seems like you're going to a lot of effort for no reason! --Idris (talk) 03:04, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I find that images that are not on a completely white background (such as game screenshots) look jarring on the white background of the wiki when shown as is so I thought that adding a thumbnail around them smooths them out. If the color of the background was darker like on some other wiki sites, it wouldn't be an issue. Skrittman (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikilinks in ambient dialogue

I've been noticing and appreciating that you've been adding wikilinks in dialogue to appropriate articles. Thank you for that. But I would recommend not getting too general with these. For example, consider this example on the Corsair Flotilla article:

Sly Cutthroat: Stonefist, hah! More like stones for brains. Brawlin’ all the time like a bunch of animals. No honor.

Stonefist Swashbuckler: A Sly wouldn’t know honor if it spiked you on its sword. Backstabbers, the lot of ye!

The "animal" and "sword" articles are not particularly specific in this context, and though it is interesting that we have articles for both, linking these is probably going beyond the extent of usefulness. -- Dashface 12:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

On one hand, I agree that this instance is a bit overboard but on the other, I don't think it's that much of an issue since the ambient dialogue section is more of bonus one, at least in my eyes, and if it gets people that are checking out the site to look at other articles that they might not have known about otherwise, it's a good thing. Skrittman (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

About Eastern Complex...

Thanks for catching that. I wanted to note to state not attack, but forgot to add the 'not'. —Ventriloquist 21:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't sure if it was a deliberate move or a mistake. Skrittman (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Stub categories

I'm guessing you probably don't know, but if you do your stub tags by {{stub|<page type>}} that will categorize the page by type. That makes it much easier to search through and find what needs updating. If you could that, and include a reason for the stub tag, that would be a huge help since you sort of like to create pages in bulk and I don't have the time to go through and categorize 600+ pages that aren't categorized at all. - Do_odleplex 06:18, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I might not go back myself and and apply it to the articles I created recently since I'm going to be a bit busy in the coming days but I'll keep that in mind for the future. Skrittman (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Concept art on bestiary pages

Hey! I was browsing the Centaur page and I noticed that you had recently shuffled around the images on the page to make concept art less prominent than screenshots. I've noticed that this has been changed on a number of other pages as well, and I was just wondering what your reasoning was?

GW2 (and GW1, for that matter) has some gorgeous concept art - the best in the video game industry, easily. My take is that we should be highlighting it wherever possible - on NPC pages obviously an accurate in-game representation of the NPC is the most important thing, so a screenshot needs to be the most prominent image, but on bestiary pages (which are essentially "lore pages"), my view is that the beautiful concept art should be the most prominent feature.

Apologies if there's already been a discussion on this that I've just missed due to inactivity! –Santax (talk · contribs) 09:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

This whole thing is still in progress because there has been discussions (here and here mainly) on how to find the best way to represent races on their respective pages when it comes to what style to use. I originally made the changes because, even though I like the concept arts for this game, I think most of them are either too overblown (not necessary in a bad way quality-wise) or doesn't look similar enough to what the end product looks like in-game. I've instead tried to find in-game screenshots that were the best looking to me and put them at the top of the page and shuffled some excess concept arts into galleries.

Now I do realize that not everyone agrees to that style, such as Konig which we had a discussion about, but I think that in the meantime, the overall representation is more faithful when using material pulled from the game instead of concept arts and promotional screenshots that were made in 2010-2011. Skrittman (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it may be the case that you think it is a better representation, but as it is a subjective matter, I think it is better to work for a consensus before continuing - or even, given that wherever I have seen someone express an opinion on this matter, they have been against "downgrading" the concept art, consider reverting the changes to image placement for now. I hadn't realised you'd actually made the changes to organisation pages as well.

I think the best approach to settle this issue would be to create a new discussion at Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Community portal, so that it is all in a single place, and solicit discussion from the wiki community at large. –Santax (talk · contribs) 13:31, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's a subjective matter to say that years-old concept art, which some are pretty over the top (like the one you linked about the Flame Legion), don't represent in-game NPCs as well as screenshots pulled from the game itself. As for others' opinions, there was Doodleplex and Konig. Doodleplex didn't really offer anything tangible during the discussion we had. Apart from twisting my words twice, she only offered to bunch up all screenshots from a specific NPC type into another page and link it back to the origin page. I don't think that's a good idea. People shouldn't have to leave to another page to see something like that. And adding all screenshots to the page would just bloat it unnecessarily (see Awakened). As for Konig with his cinematic screenshot idea, it has at least more merit. But there are a few problems here as well. First, the quality can be, like you said, subjective. He showed me some that I think were good and others that I disliked. The other problem is that all examples he linked to me and even used so far, such as on the Hylek page, are all screenshots that were provided by Anet. So if his concept were to be applied to everything on the wiki, where would we find cinematic screenshots of animals or fish? Just two examples out of many others but those are always the one that come to mind. Skrittman (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Since he/she/it doesn't want to specify: I said that if players wanted an accurate representation of what the NPCs looked like in game, we could categorize the NPC pictures used in the infoboxes and then direct players to that gallery if they wanted to see all the different appearances that would otherwise bloat up the page(see how Golem was when people try to do that). Additionally, I feel that that bestiary/group page is more of a lore page to start with which is why "pretty" pictures like concept art and or Anet provided images worked better since the page is more about the lore than the nitty gritty facts: that's what NPC pages are for. Additionally, while it is true, some concept art doesn't represent at all what some things look like in game, some concept art pictures actually do look exactly like what's currently in game. However Santax is right, this conversation should really be on the community portal, where more voices then just us have the opportunity to chip in, so if one of you could start something up there, that would be lovely. - Do_odleplex 01:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I still don't think creating external pages that only exist to be screenshot dumps is a good idea. And, like you said, even if those pages fall more into the lore side of things, it doesn't mean they should have pretty (subjective term) pictures that represent the subject matter of the page poorly as the first thing people see. Also, both examples you added to your comment aren't helping me get behind your viewpoint. One of them isn't even a concept art, but a render of what the actual creature looks like in-game with an unnecessary splash of paint thrown on top of it. The other is almost identical to what the dredge rifleman looks like in-game but it makes it seem like they don't have eyelids and the overall paintbrush feel (looks especially bad on the hands and claws) just looks off to me. So in that case, why not just use an image of the actual in-game model when we have access to it? As for starting a discussion on the community portal, if you feel like it, go ahead. I'm busy with other things right now. It would probably be a good thing to make sure all the other discussions scattered on other talk pages get linked there so people see the whole picture. (Here, Grawl and Konig's talk page.) Skrittman (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Fimbul

Per [1]: Fimbul is attacking the structure of the sanctuary, while the rest are hunting kodan or plundering artifacts. Hence "literally assaulting" the Sanctuary. Konig (talk) 23:18, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I get that but that's pretty much what all the other icebrood are doing. They attacked and sank the sanctuary and then started killing and pillaging. I just felt like that sentence was a bit unnecessary and repetitive. Plus, I think the note at the bottom is sufficient enough to convey Fimbul's savagery. Skrittman (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

None of them are seen attacking the foundation of the Sanctuary (and it was the Claws of Jormag that caused it to begin sinking, iirc, not the other icebrood). They're attacking the kodan (or just standing there waiting for us to come by). I'm not disputing the removal of it, was just explaining why he got that special treatment before. Konig (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, they're standing in place waiting for players to come by because of game restraints. If it were real life, I doubt invaders would wait kindly to be slaughtered. And earlier, I used the Icebrood term in a more general way. Also, to me, attacking and killing the inhabitants of a settlement equals attacking the settlement itself hence why I said it in those words. Skrittman (talk) 18:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Point being, it's one thing to attack a settlement's populace, and another to attack its infrastructure. Fimbul is the only one to strike at the infrastructure, hence "literally"; the rest, be they standing guard at a doorway or a totem, ransacking barrels, or patrolling, never attack the infrastructure itself (I should clarify that none are "just standing around" unless they're at a spot, usually a choke point, with turrets, ballistas, traps, or totems; this was actually a well done dungeon in terms of enemy action/placement before PC aggro). Konig (talk) 01:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

NPC naming

I think NPC job names should be upper cased, them being lower case looks mega weird, especially because they were all upper case to start with. Can you move them back to how they were please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 174.225.9.252 (talk) at 16:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC).

I made these changes yesterday with consistency in mind. These were exceptions that were forgotten, I'm assuming. The general rule, judging from all the other names that I saw in the past, is that the only time they are to be upper cased is when that NPC is found in an area/specific story mission or they're part of an organization that is never lower cased in writing such as the White Mantle. Skrittman (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

To add onto that, races that are lowercase (human, sylvari, etc.) should be lowercase in the qualifiers. Races such as Awakened or Risen are uppercase and therefore should reflect that in the article name (e.g. Inquest Asura (Awakened), not Inquest Asura (awakened). When it comes to anything else, such as user-made descriptions, they should be lowercase. —Ventriloquist 19:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I might be willing to agree about what you said for the Awakened but I'm pretty sure I saw the word Risen used in-game both lower and uppercased at times. Skrittman (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Possible, I was more going off off the article description. Could use a check! —Ventriloquist 20:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As an addendum, the Refugee (Krytan) and (Elonian) ones should have remained capitalized as they're proper nouns and always capitalized, just like English, American, etc. Konig (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't care about the naming scheme other than if stuff is captialized in game always it should be capitalized here too, nuff said. I just want to make sure Mr. Skritt here has been doing all the things when moving links since I've kinda been preocuppied with work for the past two days. I.E. fixing all the links that the pages he/she/it has been moving, marking all the move remnants for deletion, and fixing interwikis if they exist. - Do_odleplex 13:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I looked it up Vent btw, Risen is primarily capitalized in game like you thought, according to NPC dialogue in both open world and story, event names, and object text(or basically any page we have linked to Risen on the wiki). - Do_odleplex

Bazaar Docks NPCS

Would you mind tagging them with {{temporary|Festival of the Four Winds 2018|for [[Festival of the Four Winds]]|image=Zephyr Sanctum Supply Box.png}} at the top of the page? That way they get properly categorized from the start instead of months or even years later (which was what happend last time this thing came around...that was fixed years later. Ouch). Thanks! - Do_odleplex 06:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I did what I set out to do originally, create the pages. If you really care about that, and considering you already started on most of them, go and apply it to the rest yourself. I don't really feel inclined to help out someone who's so quick to twist arguments and put words into other people's mouths. Skrittman (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Children, stop fighting. Konig (talk) 06:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, because I'm a child for replying in an at least regular manner and having what I said twisted for no reason. Please. Skrittman (talk) 07:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

With your Icebrood edit war, and that attitude, you're both being children. Konig (talk) 07:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Today I learned defending your argument against someone rewording it immaturely is called "behaving like a child and having an attitude". Skrittman (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I do apologize for the "fight" I honestly thought it looked better without an image period for this particular article, but since Skrittman really wanted one, I put the "prettiest" one I could find(and honestly the Icebrood Elemental isn't too terrible of a shot) to compromise(though I really need a proper computer to take the nice pictures based off of Konig's idea). That and their second image broke the spoiler tag on my phone when they moved it, so that's that, accidental fight. Anyway, I really only came to ask if those things get tagged since I'm going to bed: Skrittman you're not helping "me" you're helping the wiki, readers, and other editors to know that the NPC was only part of the festival, since with the Zephyrites being in a few places and Olmakhan being new, it's not that hard to get people confused. - Do_odleplex

I don't know whether to believe you or not about the fight bit considering our previous interactions but that's all I'm going to say about that for now. And I understand your point about helping the readers understand and that's all well and good but one of the major aspects of the wiki is people picking things up where someone else left them. All I had in mind when I started was creating the pages and get them going. I wasn't aware of the temporary template thingy until your brought it up but after I was done with that, I didn't really feel like going back because I was already in the process of getting back into playing the game. That's all. Add that to the fact that you asked me that immediately after your rude edit summary, I didn't really feel inclined to fulfill that request. Skrittman (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I want this to be clear, Skrittman, it is not the act of "defending yourself" but how you went about doing it which is immature. And your reaction to me is especially childish and immature. Check your phrasing, and you won't come off as such. EDIT: Also, the fact you went and complained about a completely different topic here, responding to Doodle's rather polite and reasonable request with an insult and rude tone, only worsened your position. Konig (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Twisting words and butchering arguments is something I absolutely despise. So yes, I stand by all my replies to you and Doodleplex. If you think that way of responding to something like that is immature, then perfect, that's your opinion on that. Not facts of life. Skrittman (talk) 07:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Email

Hey Skrittman, could you please email me via the wiki? Thanks! G R E E N E R 15:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Bull

Hi minor edit, here is the ambient bull in Beetletun farms: link —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thalegend (talk).

I restored the other locations you removed since I went and checked each one to find they did have an ambient creature bull there, and not an NPC. If you wish, I can provide a screenshot as well. For future reference, when it comes to ambient creature locations, don't remove everything just because you don't see it there: since ambient creatures die so easily it's easy to go to a location, see none and think "it's wrong!". It's happened a few times before(Armadillos and Ravens specifically for whatever reason), I suggest waiting/doing a thorough search of the area in relatively dead map, you're more likely to find if the ambient creature is there or not. Cheers! - Do_odleplex 00:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Stub Tags

Just a heads up, "Character" isn't an acceptable parameter for the stub tag. To see all of the acceptable parameters, you can go here here. Also since I don't think you're aware, you did a ton of page creations that count towards Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Projects/On Wiki of Gold's Set 659. You should sign your name, you're eligible for gold and or gems. - Do_odleplex 05:33, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

My b on the stub. And I'm aware of that project but I don't really need the gold and gems, I got enough of it in my account already. Skrittman (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No biggie on the stub tag. Also I suggest looking into Guild Wars 2 Wiki:Location formatting, general formatting is to leave objectives as plurals even if there's only one. Also you don't need to put "interactive = y" and "destruct = n" on object pages, those are the defaults and don't need be specified. If you want, you can read up on the infobox template here, it usually answers questions better. - Do_odleplex 21:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough on the plurals thing. I guess it comes down to my obsession with wanting things to match up. I'm not sure I get what you mean with the objects infobox. I just did a quick test with those two lines removed and it does automate it but then again, not all objects are the same. Some are interaction-only, others only destructible and some rare one are both. I don't see the harm and specifying it when creating the pages and it avoids any potential mishaps. Skrittman (talk) 22:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Basically, you only need to specify if players can interact with or or destroy an object if those aren't the defaults. For example, if you could say not interact with an object and get a dialogue box and only destroy it, such as for Abandoned Asuran Supply Cart, then you'd put "interact = no" and "destruct = yes". If it's say a book, and you can interact with it and read it but not destroy it, you don't need to add anything in the infobox. However if you can interact with it and destroy it, then you only need to add "destruct = y". Does that makes sense? - Do_odleplex 22:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Kinda, but it just seems overly complicated for no reason I can see at the moment. I'll keep it in mind and play around with it next time I create an object page, maybe I'll understand things better then. Skrittman (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

It can be confusing yeah. If you're not sure, don't worry too much, my bot makes routine sweeps of the object and NPC infoboxes to make sure everything is good, it can fix things that got mixed up if needed. =) - Do_odleplex 22:21, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A and The

"A human's lament' is fine, but since "Human's Lament" is a proper noun as a name for a geographical location, grammar states that it shouldn't use a "the" since it's not a plural. Internal reading here and External reading here. - Do_odleplex 22:00, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

There's plenty of exemples in-game where geographical locations with proper names are referred to textually and vocally with a 'the' beforehand, such as the Black Citadel. I don't see the difference between the two here. Both exemples have two common nouns that form a full name. Skrittman (talk) 22:07, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

True, but it's also referred to in-game by many NPC's as "The Black Citadel", and general, I go with 1) what does the game go with and then 2) what makes sense according to US Grammar if nothing is indicated. Adding an article before "Human's Lament" which is a proper noun is not grammatically correct according to US Grammar. If you read what I linked I think it'll make sense more, if not talk to Greener, he's a teacher, and can probably explain it better. - Do_odleplex 22:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Kellach and Rissa

Appearance isn't everything. In the lore, they're already corrupted, that makes them Risen, not human/asura. We only denote multiple races if and only if we see the individual as those races in two separate instances. And for both Kellach and Rissa, we see them once, and as corrupted minions of Zhaitan; ergo, Risen. I didn't fully replace for Sickened Basilisk because I wanted to double-check something first (if they count towards Drake Slayer or Zhaitan's Bane). Konig (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, about "appearance isn't everything": Risen Troll and Risen Crow do not look rotten at all. For starters. Konig (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. Someone or something can be both corrupted by something and still be considered to be what their original race was at the same time, that is until they're fully transformed by it like Kellach is during the fight with him. I'd actually agree with labeling Sickened Basilisk as both Drake and Risen after thinking about it since it'd fit more what I was going for with Kellach and Rissa. As for both examples you linked, I'd chalk that up more to Anet not bothering to make models for them. They could've easily used the Risen Eagle model for the Risen Crow and it would've worked but there's none that would fit the troll. Skrittman (talk) 00:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

They cannot be two things mechanically. And there is no "partially corrupted" state that you're talking about - definitely not in mechanics, and definitely not in lore. You're either corrupted or your not. Just like you're either dead, or you're alive. You're either a dragon minion, or you're not. There is no "on the way to becoming one" per se. You are, or you aren't. And Kellach and Rissa are. And in Kellach's case, his model is very much not normal as he has the same purple undertone that Corrupted Tree has (which, similarly, is not rotten).

Not bothering to make models or not, those models are not rotten. There's also Crazed Quaggan (Barrier Camp) which by lore should be risen (this discussion reminded me I also wanted to check them for triggering Zhaitan's Bane or not), but they are not rotten. Konig (talk) 00:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely such a thing as progressing corruption. Kellach appearing a bit purpleish and then being a rotting corpse in armor aren't the same thing at all. Most if not every mob associated to the Risen page are all enemies which are at the "rotting corpse" stage, so a distinction can be made. Skrittman (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

There is progression of corruption, yes, but there is no state where, mechanically, an NPC is two races. Ever. It's just not how Anet coded the NPCs. And even in lore, purple-skinned Kellach is still a risen just as rotten-skinned Kellach is a risen. We never witness "human Kellach". We just see "living Kellach that got corrupted but doesn't look rotten yet" and "living Kellach that got corrupted and now looks rotten." But both stages are 100% corrupted, risen, etc. Konig (talk) 00:29, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

The infobox is for documenting the mechanical facts of the game, those two story NPCs are mechanically Risen. The only exception to that rule was Sloth, due to an inquiry to Arenanet, even though their mechanical race is actually plant. Lore/Trivia/Fluff can go on the bottom of the page, not the infobox. As for the other NPCs, I'll poke somebody I know who hasn't finished the Risen achievements and see if they count. - Do_odleplex 00:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Technically all raid bosses, not just Sloth, are given a non-Sigil/Potion race mechanically no matter what, usually defaulting to plant. And I just tested them on my alt account, neither count to Zhaitan's Bane even though lore-wise they're corrupted. This is likely due to the quaggans being normal quaggan (not risen) before "dying and reviving" - to make them risen, they'd have to despawn the NPC and respawn as a new NPC (they could change the model but not the creature type). For drake, either oversight, or due to the model used. Lorewise they'd be Risen and not quaggan/drake, but mechanically they're quaggan/drake. Similarly, Kellach and Rissa are - in both lore and mechanics - risen the entire time we see them (at least afaik they both count towards Zhaitan's Bane). Konig (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Becoming corrupted doesn't make you not human or whatever else you were before anymore, though, at least not until you become a shambling corpse. This isn't about Anet's coding, it's more about a logical conclusion about what these NPCs are. The Sickened Basilisks may be weakened and corrupted by Risen influence but they still act and behave like regular drakes, same goes for Kellach and Rissa. Thus I think it's fair to classify them all as both. Skrittman (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

If mechanical races is what is more prominent, then each of those examples should still be labeled as Asura, Human and Drake since they all act and carry themselves more like it compared to regular Risen Asura, Humans and Drakes you see elsewhere in-game. Skrittman (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Actually it is about Anet's coding. Mechanical = what the NPC is programmed as being = what potions/tonics work on killing it faster. Also indicated by the various slayer achievements, and occasionally by drops for various achievements. - Do_odleplex 00:48, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but it can also be about both, hence why I added my second point right below. Skrittman (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Becoming corrupted doesn't make you not human or whatever else you were before anymore, though, at least not until you become a shambling corpse." Yes, it technically does, since a risen is not defined as "a shambling corpse" but "a minion of Zhaitan", and that is what Rissa and Kellach are by the time we both see them, and hear about them. And as Doodle said, this is about ArenaNet's coding. The only time we use lore over mechanics is when we're uncertain of mechanics. But even then, Rissa is outright stated to be corrupted by Scholar Yahala Scribepaw during Graveyard Ornaments, and Kellach the same in the instance before we met him. Konig (talk) 00:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate the point I made just above. Mechanically, in terms of behavior, speech and combat animations, Kellach and Rissa are still more akin to regular Asura and Humans. I still don't agree with the concept that once you become a minion to an other being, you cease to be human, even if you still have the appearance of one. Skrittman (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I mean, technically, Kellach doesn't have the appearance of a human. His skin is full of purple tendrils that ain't veins. No humans I know ever looked like that. Besides, they don't have any shouts and whatnot.

And if we want to get REALLY technical, then I'm not even sure there is such a thing as "human race" or "asura race". What we on the wiki classify as race and organization (which derives from GWW's Species and Affiliation, which in turn was derived from GW1's mechanical terms, family and army), ArenaNet has as the same damn thing by all appearances via slaying sigils, slayer achievements, and slaying potions. Technically, there is no "mechanical race" difference between bandits, White Mantle, separatists, and the multi-racial pirates.

Bring this to Kellach and Rissa: Risen are innately coded to attack non-risen. You see this from time to time, where a risen will chance some poor ambient creature critter half a radar distance (you may also see branded, icebrood, and destroyers do this). This goes for whatever non-bandit humans and non-Inquest asura have too - Risen will attack them on sight. Allied to players or not. Ergo, if Kellach was listed as either Outlaw or whatever Seraph are listed as, the risen minions around Kellach would kill him. Same goes for Rissa. Ergo, mechanically, they must be set to something friendly to risen, if not risen themselves.

Other than model appearance, you have literally nothing to suggest they're not risen. In lore, they're 100% risen even if not rotten. In mechanics, all evidence points to them being risen bar someone going in and testing to make sure Zhaitan's Bane triggers on them (or baring that, slaying sigil/potion).

Kellach and Rissa have no speech. They have no behavior besides "spawn, attack player and player's NPC allies", and combat animations are pretty much the same for risen human/asura and normal human/asura models. Your argument holds zero weight.

In the end, if we label Rissa and Kellach as asura / human on top of risen, then we must do so for every single other dragon minion and otherwise transformed creature. Because, in the end, we see them spawn one time. And they are mechanically - and lorically - risen at that one time. Model appearance regardless. Konig (talk) 01:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean, no shouts, no speech? There's an entire scene where the PC talks face to face with both Kellach or Risa. In that scene, They both speak with a regular asura/human voice and behave like a regular asura/human, although slightly unhinged on Kellach's part. Combat-wise, they share next to nothing in common with the rigging used by Risen human or asuras, which are most often rabid thralls. They attack more like mages and soldiers of their race instead. Your ending point doesn't make sense anyway. Most other Risen are encountered in the final, definitive form of a Risen, so there's no need to classify them as both Risen and their original race, unlike Kellach and Rissa where it's more ambiguous. "Other than model appearance, you have literally nothing to suggest they're not risen." I never once claimed that Kellach and Rissa weren't Risen. My claim is that they can be a little bit of both, considering the circumstances we see them in. Skrittman (talk) 01:30, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I was talking about your typical greets, aggro, death, and disengage quote lines. There are risen, mordrem, etc. that speak normally, y'know.

And here we have the typical result when someone argues against me while being wrong, you're nitpicking wordchoice. When I say "you have no evidence to say they're not risen", I'm not saying you claimed they were "not risen" but that there's nothing to factually support your claim that they're also something other than risen (e.g., "not risen"). Stop focusing on semantics, you're not an idiot, you should know what I meant there.

Whether you want to argue it mechanics or lore, they're not human or asura. They're just risen. Even if they're not in the "final, definitive form of a Risen". They are 100% risen and no more human or asura any more than a risen thrall is. Konig (talk) 01:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's how you see it, that's fine but I disagree completely. Both mechanic and lore-wise, Kellach and Rissa are different than your typical thrall. Skrittman (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, since they likely both count as dragon champions. But they're still 100% risen. Konig (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Connections

Hey, thanks for adding and or fixing the connections in the area infoboxes. That was(as still is for some) sorely missing in a lot of places, and I appreciate you putting the time into that. - Do_odleplex 00:26, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Seconded, it's appreciated. —Ventriloquist 21:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Figured I'd contribute to it whenever I have time to kill. Skrittman (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

For areas with more than three connected areas, do you start from the north and work clockwise or anti-clockwise? Always second guess myself about those, heh. —Ventriloquist 21:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I do east-north-south-west. Alphabetical order basically. Any other way of doing it I attempted ended with me confusing myself and messing it up. Skrittman (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that makes sense. It really can get a lot confusing when dealing with middle-of-the-map areas. Thanks again! —Ventriloquist 21:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Image in the Infobox

Please put the links for images at the top of the infobox instead of the bottom. By putting them at the bottom, you created a large number of duplicate arguments in template calls that I had to bot clean up yesterday as there were so many. So please make sure to put image links at the top and that there isn't already an image being used. - Do_odleplex 16:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nav templates

The bottom half of the wikicode to close the divs is important too! -Chieftain Alex 20:47, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not an expert when it comes to templates but I felt like dungeons should have one considering they have plenty of separate areas. I scrounged up a template from another nav and applied it here but I forgot to add this section. I wasn't sure what it did after previewing a bunch of times. Sorry about that, I guess. Skrittman (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Colossal Broodmother

I don't want to get into a revert war over this, but I will say this: When I'm reading an article in search of tips on how to kill a boss, I'm not thinking "how will the Pact Commander kill the beast as part of their heroic journey?" I'm thinking "How am I going to kill this thing?". So reading something which refers to me, the player who will actually be making these decisions, as a fictional character, is jarring and annoying. We should not be annoying our readers -- that's why we normally strive for objectivity. In this context, objectivity means saying "the player should do..." instead of either extreme of "I found that when I do..." or "The Pact Commander found him/herself deciding to..." —Idris 18:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I quite like using "the character". "The player" makes it sound like whilst I'm physically at my desk playing the LWS4 mission, a massive 20 foot spider is going to tap me on the shoulder and swallow me, then zip around the room at high speed... -Chieftain Alex 19:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The character is fine too although a bit too general at times, which is why I went with Pact Commander since it's the general term used for the player character. Using "the player" just feels way too blunt and overly personal, though. Skrittman (talk) 19:14, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Technically the player's character is no longer the Commander of the Pact, Logan is. That and based on what I've seen, it's common to use "players" or "the player", while "character" is usually when it's toon specific such as race or class, ie "if asura". - Do_odleplex 19:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I can see that. I'm okay with "the character" as an alternative to the too-personal "player". It's just that "Pact Commander" feels too distancing, you know? —Idris 19:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I like using "Pact Commander" for lore articles (obviously) and "the character" for others, as well. Btw Doodle, Logan is the Pact Marshal, not commander. ~SimeTalk 19:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah right, Logan took Trahearne's job, not ours. Either or, I'm more of a fan of "player" over "character" in general. - Do_odleplex 19:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

PC isn't the Pact Commander anymore true, but they're still being called Commander by everyone and their mother so yeah... I favor the use of character wherever it doesn't feel too broad-sounding (fits well on event pages for example), otherwise I use Pact Commander like on the Colossal Broodmother page. Skrittman (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Seeing as how not all players care or skip through the lore(and or the personal story), not all may know the Pact Commander refers to them. That's my hesitation on using that, along general consistency. - Do_odleplex 19:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point, and I think it might underlie why seeing "Pact Commander" irritated me to degree it did. Makes sense to see that name in a lore article about the fictional character, but when we actually intend to address the reader, it's important to go with a label they're guaranteed to recognise as themselves. —Idris 20:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. The article where it was used pertained to a NPC that is only found in a story mission that is part of the Living World, where the terms Pact Commander, or at least just Commander are pretty prevalent and commonly used by allies, thus it makes some kind of sense that it would be used in that context. I would however agree with your statements if we started replacing the term "character" in area or event pages with Pact Commander since you can do events in the open world without ever touching the story mode. Skrittman (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Even disregarding Doodle's point, I still think "Pact Commander" is inappropriate for walkthrough sections of story mission articles. The Commander isn't watching their skill bar to see when they have to press a button to avoid health loss; I am. Lore and mechanics are different things and should be worded that way. —Idris 21:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. You are watching the skill bar but it's the Pact Commander themselves that have been gobbled up in-game, not you personally IRL. The two usages aren't mutually exclusive. Skrittman (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I prefer "player character" for these things. Konig (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

^I'm okay with this. - Do_odleplex 22:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm still in the camp of the more general term "character" being used in pages about more open content and Pact Commander for story missions related stuff. But "player character" is already a bit better than just "player(s)". Skrittman (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Trivia or Note

Trivia are typically "fun facts", regardless of subject, while notes are typically "additional useful facts". Model change is less useful, and more fun. Konig (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's the case, it hasn't been implemented with that in mind throughout most of what I've seen of the wiki. And I would mostly agree with said implementation. Notes to me have always been "special in-game knowledge, changes, and tips" and Trivia everything else not covered by that. Skrittman (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The difference between notes and trivia is kind of vague and not really spelled out anywhere, so it's common to come across mistakes. My personal rule of thumb is that notes are for information you might need to play the game, whereas trivia is just interesting stuff you would never need to know. Things like model updates stradde the line between the two -- if the change is recent, you might need to know about it so you don't get confused; if it was two years ago, it doesn't really matter anymore. So I tend to put old updates under trivia, but I won't correct recent ones that have been filed under notes. That's just me, though. —Idris 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Junundu in Kaluun Ravine

We've just had an angry anon complaining about being unable to find Junundu to kill in Kaluun Ravine, so I went and checked: just as when I originally added the notes back in 2017, the Junundu foes are present when the event is down, and disappear when the event is up. I explained that these were my findings in today's edit summary. So why did you revert them? The only allied Junundu I could spot were named "House [whatever] Cadet"; if I missed an allied Junundu named "Junundu", then fair enough, but the note on enemy Junundu is correct, and I invite you to check for yourself. I'm going to revert your changes. —Idris 07:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I did check just now and I was indeed in the wrong. I don't know if there was an update post-POF that added wurm here outside of events and I wasn't aware of it but I was basing my knowledge off of when I ran through Kaluun Ravine on multiple occasions at the time of the launch of POF and I only saw allied Junundu during events that I can recall. Apologies. Skrittman (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's alright. Just remember in future it's a good idea to check again before changing a recent edit if it's been over a year since you last checked. ;) —Idris 07:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've just tweaked it again -- I disagree with your reasoning here. Junundu are fairly uncommon mobs, especially in Vabbi, and since they drop an item for a collection, players are going to specifically seeking them out. I think it's important to mention that they disappear during the event, otherwise we're going to get another edit like the one I linked at the start of my first comment here, where someone angrily removed the note on Kaluun Ravine because they couldn't find the Junundu we promised were there. —Idris 07:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll add a note stating that they disappear during the event. This way the information is out there and the use of the event tag remains consistent. Skrittman (talk) 07:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Heh, Konig's already jumped in with his own solution. Works for me. What do you think? —Idris 07:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. Good compromise and this way the event tag is used in a way that makes a bit more sense given the context. Skrittman (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Corsair ships

Let me guess. They're not literally human corsairs, therefore they don't count as members of the corsairs? They're NPCs and they're associated with the corsairs, that's good enough. —Idris 23:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't make an ounce of sense. They are simply constructs/modes of transportation and assault used by the Corsairs. That doesn't make them Corsairs. That's like saying Pact Airships are individual members of the Pact. They're not, they're simply vehicles created and used by the Pact. Skrittman (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I feel like you're being way too literal. Unless we've made a mistake in listing them as NPCs (in which case you'll have to bring it up with User:Sime, who changed it from object to NPC), then logically they belong to the "corsairs" group of NPCs. —Idris 23:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Them being NPCs doesn't make them human or sentient. They're still just ships. ArenaNet granting something that should be classified as an object NPC status shouldn't mean we throw logic out of the window. Skrittman (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

You're too focused on the lore perspective. You're right, in terms of lore and everyday common sense, a ship cannot be a member of an organization. But mechanically speaking, they're NPCs, so despite the illogic of it we still have a duty to document them as such, because we're not just describing the lore, we're describing the mechanics. It's not on us to argue about what a silly, illogical decision ANet made -- they still made the decision, so we document it. —Idris 00:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I've already accepted the fact that they're NPCs. The point of contention is their supposed affiliation. Classifying these ships as NPCs as ArenaNet did is something that was already done and am fine with, but they never specified "These ships are individual members of the corsairs." because it's an illogical statement. I understand and abide by the concept of writing things mechanically but logic and sense should still be taken into account wherever possible and this such a case. Plus, these three specific ships are already listed alongside the crews, what's the point in double-dipping and adding them as members. Writing the name down next to the crews is good enough of a representation. Skrittman (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I was thinking in terms of our automated members lists -- it's handy to have them automatically show up when folks are searching for "lists of corsair NPCs". That said, I've just taken another look at Corsair, where the member list is, and I realise we have a hand-written list of Corsair ships above it. That's a fair compromise. I concede. —Idris 00:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Since I had been tagged, I need to say that I changed them from objects to NPCs because they are labelled as epic rank enemies. I mean, I would leave them being objects but this is what they mechanically are ingame for some reason. ~SimeTalk 00:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Moving and deleting articles

Saw what you're trying to do with Pig. Just a heads up, you can move articles back to redirect pages without needing to delete them first so long as being created as a redirect is the only history that article has. We can't do that now since you've edited it to add a delete tag, but that's an easy mistake to make. :) I don't have the power to delete, but I've shuffled the articles about so Pig will immediately start functioning the way you wanted, and the marked-for-deletion page is now called Pig (delete). In the meantime, you might want to approach a bureaucrat about getting extended editor permissions -- you might find it useful? —Idris 05:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it worked like that. Good to know and thanks for smoothing things up. As for the permission thing, I'm not sure. I'm not really interested in that, at least not at the moment but thanks for suggesting it. Skrittman (talk) 07:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Just thought I'd let you know it's an option. Nobody really uses the rollback or patrol functions, but redirect suppression is very handy, and I recommend it if you plan on moving articles around like this in future. :) —Idris 08:33, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Revert wars

It'd be nice if you could discuss your disagreement with me instead of initiating a revert war. Regarding your edit summary: consistency is nice and all, but there's no harm in making exceptions, and "TP" is so very strongly associated with the trading post in this game that I feel like we need to make an exception in this case. If you would take a look at Trading Post, you'll see that I added an otheruses so that people in search of Thunderhead Peaks can still find their way there. —Idris 23:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Why would that be on me to explain myself here? You made the change in the first place without discussion in spite of going against the current way of doing things when it comes to creating abbreviations for zones. You could've made an entry on the talk page of the abbreviation but you didn't. I say to you, what's the harm in having the abbreviation page showing both Trading Post and Thunderhead Peaks? None. People who are looking for a quick way to get to the Trading Post get it and likewise for people like me who want to get quick access to Thunderhead Peaks. Skrittman (talk) 23:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not always necessary to start a formal discussion for every change -- adding your justification to the edit summary is usually enough, and I chose to do so via a revert instead of a normal edit because it would alert you to what I did, in case you disagreed and wanted to discuss it. Reverting a revert when you know an editor disagrees with you is bad form (this is not just my opinion; see Help:Reverting).

"Trading Post" is what I think people are going to be looking for much more frequently when they search for "TP", and redirecting straight there will reduce the number of clicks they have to make. Due to the otheruses I added to Trading Post, people searching for Thunderhead will have to make the same number of clicks regardless of whether "TP" is a disambig or redirect. —Idris 00:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Saving people a click (literally takes one second to click on where you want to go once on the abbreviation page) is way less important than maintaining overall consistency. I'm sorry but this reason sounds terribly ridiculous to me. Doing this the way you wish to would create the same problem you describe for someone like me. It's better and fairer that everyone gets the same treatment than to favor one over the other. And at the end of the day, having to click twice instead of once isn't the end of the world and certainly not worth breaking established ways of doing things as well as again, consistency which should be crucial. Skrittman (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I do think consistency is a good thing, but not when it makes things less convenient for our readers, and in my opinion such strict adherence to convention in the face of a better solution is what's ridiculous. But arguing over how stupid we think the other person's opinions are will not get us anywhere, so let's just focus on finding a solution we're both happy with. "Doing this the way you wish to would create the same problem you describe for someone like me." -- I don't understand what you're referring to here. —Idris 00:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

What you're describing as inconvenient is a non-issue. Having to spend one more second of your life to scroll your mouse over to click where you want to go between two things (which I quickly did just to reaffirm to myself how insignificant it is) isn't an inconveniance. As per your latest question, the way you'd wish to change things is to remove Thunderhead Peaks from the abbreviation page and stick an otheruse on the Trading Post. So let's say I, who is also a reader and user of the wiki as you often describe, want to quickly reach Thunderhead Peaks via your method, I would have to click twice, recreating the problem you seemingly want to get rid of while people who want to quickly access Trading Post only have to click once. That is the definition of treating a group more fairly than another. The current way is both fair and consistent, needing both groups to click twice to reach their destination. Skrittman (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I still don't understand why you think my solution creates more clicks for Thunderhead:

Your solution: User types "TP" and ends up on a disambig page. If they're looking for Trading Post, they click once. If they're looking for Thunderhead, they click once.

My solution: User types "TP" and ends up on Trading Post. If they're looking for Trading Post, they're done. If they're looking for Thunderhead, they click once.

The person looking for Thunderhead makes exactly the same number of clicks in both scenarios. The reason I feel users in search of the trading post should be prioritised is because I think "trading post" is by a large margin the more common thing to search for. I would not be arguing in favour of this change if I felt they were only a slightly larger group. —Idris 00:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't expect people only looking to get to Thunderhead Peaks to know that there'll be an otheruse tag pointing to Thunderhead Peaks on Trading Post so that means they'll be mislead. It doesn't matter that Trading Post is the more popular of the two terms, everyone should be treated equally, and I don't see the way you're promoting as something that would achieve that. And since I do believe it is important enough, I'll bring back the fact of keeping consistency. I don't see or haven't been provided any valid reasons why Thunderhead Peaks should be an exception to the rest of the other zones here. Skrittman (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Simple question: Have either of you seen "TP" used in game for "Thunderhead Peaks" instead of "Trading Post"? Just curious. - Do_odleplex 01:07, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally use and have seen others refer to Thunderhead Peaks and other previous maps in abbreviated form before. Skrittman (talk) 01:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen TP used to refer to Thunderhead Peaks, though in fairness I haven't spent much time in that map yet. I posted a link to this discussion on the discord and got a few more opinions; consensus seems to be that creating a disambig is fair if TP is commonly used as an abbreviation for Thunderhead, but that "THP" actually seems to be more common. —Idris 01:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I've not seen it used but I've not been online much since Ep5 so not a good sample. That said, THP is likely to be far more common among vets, as THK was the go-to abbreviation for Thunderhead Keep in GW1 days. That said, on the occasions where one abbreviation is drastically used for one usage over another, we've always redirected to the massively more popular usage and utilized {{otheruses redirect}} on the targeted page. The wikipedia does this as well. Unless it's fairly popular to use TP over THP, I think it's best to keep TP redirected to the super popular usage for Trading Post. Konig (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems like consensus is leaning in favour of keeping "TP" as a redirect to Trading Post and creating a new redirect "THP" to Thunderhead. What do you think of that, Skrittman? —Idris 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally disagree but I guess this is a unique case since the other abbreviation its used for is a popular mechanic of the game so I suppose it would make more sense to make an exception for this one than on other cases where the pages covered aren't as major such as BS, CM or CS. Skrittman (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it really is just the huge mismatch in popularity between these two "TP" abbreviations that's causing the issue. Normally, I'd agree with you. :) I'll go ahead and make the changes. —Idris 03:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)