User talk:Titus The Third

Royalties

I don't really like the current naming style of "Tyrian royalty (race)" because there's really no other royalty other than humanity, jotun, and dwarven (that we know of, in Tyria); and of those three, we got 0 of the last in GW2W, and four of the second. It wouldn't even be far fetched to simply have one Category:Royalty and have all human and jotun royalty. It would be better than creating a new Canthan royalty category which would have one entry for possibly years to come. Alternatively, if we wanted to keep them separate, I'd rather have Ascalonian royalty/Krytan royalty/Orrian royalty/Jotun royalty than the current naming. Your thoughts? Konig 16:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I think it's very important to differentiate between royalty and lineage of royalty. Wade's just a Duke - that's nobility not royalty. Konig 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The reason I made it this way was that I felt the gw1:Category:Tyrian_royalty was a little bit messy.

With the current situation, I agree it can seem silly. But I was trying to create a system that is "made for expansion". Because we might need it, you know, *cough* for when ArenaNet starts throwing out *cough* heaps of new royal family info... I definately _want_ to keep them separately, but I'm not sure if I can "defend" the current system. I agree though that Ascalonian/Krytan/Orrian/Jotun could be an alternative.

Regarding Commander Samuelsson, you're right. It's just my Family Tree "descendants" obsessiveness which is kicking in. Though, I do think it is (/could be?) of interest to keep all lineage of royalty within the same category. When I'm looking for "royalty" I would find it interesting to also immediately see lineages could take the throne sometime in the far far future.. And there's a huge difference between "nobility" and "lineage of royalty"! :) Titus The Third 16:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the Category:Royalty page. Looks much better and tidier now :)

I say we go for your suggestion (Ascalonian royalty etc.). And then we can add a "All human royalty in Tyria are descendants from King Doric. See also: Tyria/Kryta/Orr" at the top. Plus possibly a "This guy is not Ascalonian royalty, but he is a descendant of Mr Doric". Titus The Third 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Tyrian Royalty (race) is a pretty clunky way of categorizing them. Have you considered a heirarchical category beginnning with Royalty, then splitting it into Human Royalty, Jotun Royalty, Dwarven Royalty, etc.? Yes we may eventually need to differentiate between tyrian human royalty and canthan tyrian royalty, etc. but that's not for a long long way off. Psycho Robot (talk) 17:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Konig and I have already agreed to separete the categories as: Ascalonian royalty, Krytan, Orrian, Canthan, Elonian, Jotun and so on. Konig has said that he will make these changes himself quite soon. And we already have Royalty as a heirarchical category. Titus The Third 18:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

For the time being, I'm leaving Korag and Commander Samuelsson out of the categories since they're descendants of royalty, rather than being royalty (Korag is attempting to reclaim his heritage title of giant-king, but he isn't one). If we do end up adding them, then we need to do the same to Thrulnn the Lost, the descendant of Elder Thruln. Konig 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Same for Duke Barradin - though he would have a better standing, as when he was young he would have been with the title prince (until Adelbern took the throne). Konig 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thought on it, added those four NPCs to the categories otherwise only King Adelbern would be in an Ascalonian royalty one - so either merge the three human ones into [[:Category:Human royalty]] or add Dukes Barradin and Samuelsson. Konig 19:12, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I would choose to keep them in the category. Same for Korag and Elder Thruln really.

Since we know so very few members of the royal lineages, I think it will be appropriate to include all relatives with sort of hereditary right. From Wikipedia (as good a source as any these days): "A royal family is (...) and sometimes extended family. (...) in common parlance members of any family which reigns by hereditary right are often referred to as royalty or "royals". It is also customary in some circles to refer to the extended relations of a deposed monarch and his or her descendants as a royal family.". Titus The Third 21:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I had not seen that you'd originally used the {{gww}} template on that category page before Konig turned it into a see also section. I don't really like having a link on there at all, but if we do, best point it at the equivalent umbrella category on the gww imo. -Chieftain Alex 21:33, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I had considered that too, but I thought the GWW template looked weird on a category page, so I opted to list GWW's royalty categories instead. Konig 21:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This decision I will leave entirely up to you, great Legendary Wiki Gurus. I'm fairly new to doing all this posting, editing and categorization on the Wiki, so please feel free to let me know if I break any rules or something. I only hope to contribute :) Titus The Third 21:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit: I noticed now that you changed the GWW link to "GW1 Nobles". Looks much better now. Thank you both for all the work you put in, and for cleaning up my little mess! :) Titus The Third 22:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I've submitted thousands of random edits where I'm not sure if it should be one way or the other. Talk pages are a great place to ask other users, so you seem to be getting along fine so far!

eventually I've gone for a manual implementation of the gww template so that we can rephrase the wording. Whilst I agree that it looks wierd, it looks less odd to my mind than multiple section headers on a category page. -Chieftain Alex 22:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the way I originaly did it was adding three GWW boxes: for Tyrian, Elonian, and Canthan royalty (since I didn't know the Noble category existed). And that just looked completely messed up :P So, Konig really did improve it by changing it to the "See also" section. But you improved it one step further. Three's the charm! :) Titus The Third 23:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested in royalty...

I remember reading somewhere that there was a whole load of lore and backstory that ANet wrote for the Ascalonian royalty, the Guild Wars, Adelbern's predecessor (who nearly brought the kingdom to ruin), and the Royalists, most of which just never made it into the game. I can't see there ever being a reason to include it now, and I can't see it being important to any future storylines (too obscure and human-centric). You should petition ANet to release it! --—Santax (talk · contribs) 13:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You fancy a trip with me to Bellevue, Washington I hear? Waiving big "release Lore!" -signs in front of their HQ for a week... :P

P.S. I did think about creating a 'summary thread' on the forums based upon the various observations I've made though; with "critical lore questions to be answered". Sort of "bugs" in the lore world. Titus The Third 13:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Ha! "Lore bugs" is a good way of putting it. Btw, I may have found someone from ANet letting slip something we didn't know about Adelbern before in possibly the strangest place: Epic Rap Battles of Tyria says Adelbern was "elected by the masses". The fact that Ascalon was called a republic by one of the historical monuments has suggested before that Ascalon was in fact some sort of strange constitutional monarchy that elects its king. But I think that probably isn't the case in general, since then there wouldn't have been all that trouble with Duke Barradin's brother's successor to begin with.

Bonus new lore: apparently, the Dragon Empire got "overthrown" because of Ashu. People have suspected that the Ministry of Purity stuff *might* have led to more hardline emperors, but this is the first hint we've heard that maybe Usoku isn't of Kisu's imperial line at all. This one also calls Xun Rao "the biggest threat to Cantha" (these weren't aimed at players when they were written btw). I'm sure there's more like it in the other ones. —Santax (talk · contribs) 23:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Interesting little piece :) But in the unofficial way it's published, and how it's written, makes me take the whole thing with a grain of salt. I would presume that some artistic choices have been made. So, in this context, I don't know if "elected" means that there actually was a formal election. :) Anyways: as you say, the general case seem to be to follow primogeniture. :) Titus The Third 08:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I sure am. Which is why I made this (again: loads of credit to User:Chieftain Alex!). And so the question is: should it be added to the GW2 Wiki as an article? Obviously, the only direct tie it has to GW2 is Emperor Usoku (who's not even mentioned in-game, except for this and that).
On the other hand, just because Colin won't say a thing about Cantha; (the important past history of GW2, if I may add), doesn't mean we shouldn't, right!? :D Titus The Third 21:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Would that template work on GWW? I think it'd be an excellent thing to have there, but I think it'd be struggle to justify a mainspace article on it here since it's not really directly relevant to GW2. As you say, the only Emperors of all those who are relevant to GW2 (that we know of) are Usoku, and at a push, Kisu. And I'm becoming increasingly suspicious that Usoku's is actually a separate imperial dynasty put in place by Ashu's Ministry of Purity.

It is interesting how silent Colin chose to be on Cantha. I think it was a joke, possibly about how sick ANet must be of hearing requests for Canthan content, rather than a "I can't talk about that right now". But we can hope!

I'm trying to think of other famous families more relevant to Guild Wars 2 history...Thackeray, maybe? We have Gwen, Keiran, Cordelius, Dylan, Logan, Phil...there's also the Marriners, who you can trace back as far as the Krytan civil war (no names that far back though). Pyre Fierceshot's lineage contains quite a few notables, such as Vatlaaw Doomtooth and Kalla Scorchrazor, as does Bhuer Goreblade, who is the descendant of Drug Gorefang and Ferro the Butcher. The only other ones I can think of are Knut Whitebear (descendant of Asgeir Dragonrender, married to Gaerta Whitebear, and father to Sigfast and Skarti) and Eir Stegalkin (mother of Braham Eirsson with Borje the Sun Chaser, daughter of Einar Cliffstrider). –Santax (talk · contribs) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting suggestions! :) I'll get right on it :)

As for the Imperial line: I'll try to copy the template over and put up the article there. And I guess I'll just add a "see also" under Usoku here on the GW2 wiki.

<rant warning> I must admit though that this way of separating "gw1 content" from "gw2 content" really frustrates me a lot lore-wise. 'Cause from a lore perspective: there is only one universe, only one coherent story. But, both how the game has been made - and such reflected on the Wikis - it often feels to me that interesting background lore for the universe we "live" in, is being deliberately kept away from us. Why didn't they just keep most of their GW1 lore content, and build further upon that. Sure, they've done that to some extent, but the "we wanted to create a whole new game" feels a little bit too present to me :/.

E.g. why isn't things like gw1:History of Tyria gw1:An Empire Divided etc. included among the many other books we find inside the Durmand Library? Why aren't any of the plaques for the God statues preserved and presented? The Historical Monuments...? (look to Elder Scrolls) I get it that they needed a richer story for the new playable races. But to remove previous human lore from the game, is not a very good way to create that needed balance :S. Anyways, I shan't </rant> no more... Titus The Third 23:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The sylvari obviously wouldn't have an equivalent of family trees, but the asura could have a "math genealogy" of masters and apprentices, like this project. Snaff's "descendants" would include Zojja, Kudu, and Taimi, and Oola's would include Blimm and Zinn. I guess if you included Livia as an apprentice of both Gadd and Oola, that would make her and Vekk science...cousins? That's probably a good example of why non-asura shouldn't be included.

Yeah, I do wish I'd seen more GW1 lore, especially in Orr. There were a couple of massive bombshells casually thrown around there (like the fact that Grenth is the son of Dwayna and Malchor), and then the rest of it wasn't very lore-rich at all. I think a lot of Arah was changed at the last minute though, that could be a partial explanation as to why. The History of Tyria wasn't included because it was heavily contradicted by GW2 lore (although it would have been nice to have seen some acknowledgement of that in-game), but I'll be gutted if they start retconning An Empire Divided. There was a lot wrong with Factions, but the lore was really interesting if you could find it. –Santax (talk · contribs) 02:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Something interesting I found. "[Logan Thackeray] is cursed with good looks and true Ascalonian blood." –Santax (talk · contribs) 11:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, for now I'll only be looking into characters who are related to eachother by blood. I already sketched up the Thackerays, but it looks a little thin (too short) tbh. The best family tree would be the Imperial line, all honour to An Empire Divided for being the best produced best written single piece of lore we have from the universe!

I agree that it would be a shame to see such works retconned, but at the same time; I would rather see 90% of An Empire Divided make it into GW2, than none of it!

As for Logan: interesting page there, but that Logan has Ascalonian blood isn't really that interesting. All the Thackerays' we know have Ascalonian blood: both from Gwen and Keiran. Titus The Third 13:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

(Reset indent) :"Would that template work on GWW?" No, it didn't work. :S Titus The Third 14:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit (@Santax): FYI I decided to just mash the various "small ones" together into one single article. Still a work in progress though. Titus The Third 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Faren's dialogue

Shouldn't his dialogue during Party Politics go on that page? Otherwise, we'd have to document his dialogue in every story instance he appears (and the dialogue often changes several times during that instance) on his page. And it'd be more useful in the context of the Party Politics page, because it tells us more about that story than it does about Lord Faren, which is the subject of his page. Sorry, I'm not sure that comment made sense haha. –Santax (talk · contribs) 08:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. Yeah, you're right. My bad. Should everything I added be removed, or just the dialogue part? Titus The Third 17:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Orrian runeset

'*Spent his whole day making Orrian runes for absolutely no good reason. *Bangs his head against the wall, in hope stupidity will fall out...* --Titus The Third 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Continue that if you can... I was thinking of doing that meself but am out of town atm. Konig 22:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, maybe if there was a point in doing so, I would. But is there? If we can't decypher it anyways, why make a runeset? Titus The Third 12:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: ...or were you referring to the bang head part? hahaha :P

I don't see how being so it of town keeps me from banging my head... Or why I'd do that myself. V t as for why transcribe: So we have a sample of Orrian syllabry appearance? Maybe we can poke Matt Medina enough times to get him to give us a translation chart. Having a transcription would be more convincing, IMO. Konig 16:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Point well made. I guess that's a good enough reason to continue the work. :) Been some busy days lately, but we'll see. BTW: who did the work on the NK runes? (edit: Tanetris did) Titus The Third 19:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

made a request on pulling the texture from GW.Dat, and bam. This ought to help. Konig 22:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Less eye bleeding version. Left and right sides are duplicated, but background differs so if one side is harder to see, compare to other side. I'll be home in about 5 hours so will begin translation if possible. Not likely a substitution cipher but ANet has used others so I'll check those out. If you don't beat me I'll upload the second for placement on a Orrian syllabary page naming it File:Orrian syllabary.jpg. Konig 23:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Other ciphers used before. Konig 23:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Lowercased the article/image name as per Erik Oevermar's dialogue. [1], [2], and [3] for locations I've begun a translation project for this. Konig 20:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

"Am I allowed to add (a very beautiful) illustration pic. to go with the dialogue?"

While there's no rule for or against, I'd say that a picture of the cinematic is more appropriate there, rather than the texture of something seen 3 episodes later (which technically counts as a spoiler!). Konig 22:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

But it's so pretty! :( Titus 22:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And thank you for beating me to asking that_shaman for extracting those textures. Konig 22:34, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"Do we show fan made content like this?"

Only fan-made content allowed, as I see it, allowed is fan recreations. E.g., the individual runes made for the languages, and File:Tyria world fan map.jpg. So that image, I'd think no. Konig 00:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it if you just move it to the talk page. —Dr Ishmael 01:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I fully agree. Moved it to the talk page :) Titus 02:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Wynne

Apologies for my terribad research re: Wynne's birth order. I feel like an idiot. Anyway, about the Firstborn article: your revert mentions that Wynne is dead. It's interesting trivia, but it's also a significant spoiler, and I don't feel that would be appropriate for this article, even if we were to add a spoiler warning. --Idris (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I've made the same mistake myself several times. Regarding spoilers: While I do understand your point, I'll have to disagree. The wiki is generally quite determined at documenting "the current state of the game", and that anyone who wants to avoid spoilers should navigate the wiki with extreme caution - warnings or not. Belinda is a great example of this. You won't have a chance to avoid learning of her death if you search her up, no warnings can stop that.

As for Firstborn: if you start reading "Details"/"Notes" about central characters, you got to be prepared for birth/death details. TL;DR: we don't omit info just because it's a potential spoiler. Titus 21:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see your point. I'll concede. I have another question, if you don't mind: what's so bad about the collapsible dialogue boxes? I liked them; they looked tidier and made the pages easier to scroll through, imo. --Idris (talk) 21:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Well. It seems to be the general opinion; they haven't been used for a looong time (it's just that the early PS haven't been cleaned up yet according to the most recent format). A few arguments against:

• Edit usability: It requires "complicated" code, which raises the treshold substantially for less-code-educated users to make edits and maintain the wiki. It complicates the edit job for everyone really. "KISS": Keep it simple stupid".
• Functionality: it hinders easy searching for words, characters (e.g. when looking through story steps for sources). Try pressing ctrl+F. You'll have to go down and find and click all "Show" links before you can search the contained text.
• Visual appearance: personally I find the show/hide setup visually appaling, without being able to explain exactly why. So, there is certainly different opinions there as well. Titus 21:48, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. (I'd already guessed you didn't like the visuals; I enjoyed your exclamations of disgust in your edit summaries. :p ) I'll give the talk page for that style guide a read, because I think my continued objections on the matter belong there rather than here. --Idris (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)