User talk:Falconeye/Archive03

Previously on Falconeye

---

• September 2008 – December 2009
• January 2010 – April 2011
• May 2011 – August 2012
• September 2012 - December 2013
• ???

---

Skill histories

I appreciate the work you are putting into making sure that every skill has a skill history; this will make things much easier each time that ANet tweaks a skill (and, I hope, result in having more accurate skill histories). However, some of your contributions are making things more difficult in the meantime. Could I ask of you the following:

1. Please do not create skill history pages that are simply stubs. It's actually easier to see that they are missing if they don't exist.
2. Please do not link from the skill pages unless there is actual content on the skill history page; it gives readers the impression there is a link worth following.
3. Not every skill history involves a functionality change. The text I have been using is, This skill has changed since its introduction...

If you want to avoid the issues associated with points (1) and (2):

1. You can look at the history of the skill, grab the original content and the latest {{skill infobox}}.
2. If the skill hasn't changed, you can slap on the {{unchanged skill history}} tag instead of {{skill history}}.
3. If the skill has a long history, you can add the {{stub}} and people can backfill the intervening changes later on.

Thanks.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Just to add to what Tennessee said, you can also find the main Project page for it here. No worries if you make a mistake - I'm going through skill histories and double checking them for accuracy and consistency (most notably this article, which has been cleaned up). Tools regarding research for past revisions of skills can be found on the main project page I linked above. :)

Blue Clouded 22:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why did you mark Heart of Holy Flame/Skill history with {{unchanged skill history}}? The skill changed noticeably since its introduction (became a flash enchantment, for instance). A simple diff on the article's history shows that.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

There are good alternatives that allow you to prepare the wikiwithout creating article skeletons or prematurely changing data.

• You can use <!-- comment syntax --> to hide skill article edits until the changes are released.
• You can create a sandbox page in the Skill History project space before the update that includes the completed skill history. On the day of the update, you can move (without discussion) that page to the appropriate location.
  • If there already is a skill history article, you can use the comment trick above to add the data without changing how the article appears before the release.

The wiki's credibility is damaged unnecessarily by unfinished pages, premature skill updates, and/or linking skill articles to empty or misleading skill histories. Keep in mind that ANet has merely announced intended changes; things could be different after implementation. Thanks for your help. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 16:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Blank cost

Do we really need to spell out those costs as separate pages? It seems like you're trying to define the obvious. --JonTheMon 19:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ZV pages

Hey, could you be so nice and stop editing the Zaishen Vanquish quest pages unless someone makes an error and you want to fix it? The {{Location disambiguation}} does not belong on there, as the page already has 2 links to the explorable area article and if you haven't noticed Hong's edits, vanquish notes also do not belong on the ZV quest page. Kthx. --weby [TALK] @ 19:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think your edits are meant well Falconeye, but I agree with Hong and weby. I think the messages for zv's belong on the explorable pages as notes (with a link to the zv). Happy Editing! :-) Kaisha 22:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, as far as ZV's for explorable areas with a mission of the same name go, the Location disambiguation makes sense, but otherwise I don't think it's needed (like I said, every ZV page already has 2 links to the explorable area's page). And I realize now that the 1st message probably wasn't written in a very friendly tone, for which I apologize. --weby [TALK] @ 22:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Move requests for 200 articles: please centralize it

Please stop posting a move request on every single Zaishen quest article in the wiki. If you have a concern about the naming convention, then address it in a single place, allow time for the community to discuss it, and then (depending on the outcome) a bot can easily update all the necessary links and articles. There are lots of ways to handle a perceived discrepancy in how ZVQ articles are named short of changing 66 bounty articles, 69 mish articles, and the already 70 or so ZVQ articles (not to mention any other names that consistency has an issue with).

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:03, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Editcopy

While I appreciate you adding those links.

1. We don't add external links to the main page.
2. The internal links you added from the Community portal area, belong there and not on the main page. Hence, a link to the community portal is fine in it's self and we don't need links from both areas.

I just wanted to be kind and let you know why I reverted you. :-) Kaisha 19:02, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Guide to killing Rotscale

I've moved your proposed addition to the Rotscale article to your user space:

• It's not ready for main space yet (you are still sorting out the details, including formatting and half the advice).
• It's not really appropriate for Notes and there should be some discussion about where to include it (perhaps a sub-page).

I imagine the wiki could use some more guide articles for defeating otherwise annoying bosses, but we mostly have relegated such advice to the talk pages up until now. While you (or we) are working out the details, let's leave it out of the main articles.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

It occurs to me that you could use the formatting of the boss-fight articles I've written for my own purposes. I hope you can improve the quality of the style, if not also the content with your Rotscale guide. (I'm not happy with how mine have turned out.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Ive been considering on merging elements of Rotscale, your Glint article, Earthbind/Stun Imminity, ect. into a page listing: the most powerful/annoying Monster Skills --> Bosses/Boss-like foes & creature types that are associated with them/frequently encountered using them --> the most effective skills/tactics used to counter them... all with as concised descriptions as plausible; a sorta quick list/link guide at a glance that especially deals with 10% of situationss that cant be easily dealth with 90% of tactics gleaned form experienced. --Falconeye 00:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something to be said for a Guide of guides that includes generalized tips that don't need to be repeated everywhere. I imagine that was what you were trying to do with guide to killing bosses (or whatever that stub was called); those are good things to sandbox until it's clear that (a) there's a need/demand and (b) they are in good shape (which is why a lot of my advice never makes it into mainspace). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Strongboxes

I appreciate you taking the time to make Strongbox articles consistent with those for the other gifts. On the whole, you have done a thorough job of it.

However:

• The miniatures are not disputed; we (at GWW) simply don't know which drops.
• Per ANet, each mini is unique to each type of box.
• Only one of two different EL tonics can drop from each type of box; ANet's phrasing makes it ambiguous whether it's 8 total ELs or only 2.
  • We do know that none of the boxes has three potential ELs

Please make sure your final updates reflect the currently available evidence by using ambiguous language (e.g. to be determined) instead of including combining disputed, plausible, and factual data (along with that which might be posted by those trolling). We can certainly wait to screens (if not here than on Guru or other sites) showing which mini/ELs drop from which boxes.

Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stun Immunity+Shiro/Dhuum

I literally just tested knocking down with various skill combinations on both Shiro and Tundra Giants. Shiro allows kd via Stonefist Insignia while the Tundra Giants do not. Ergo, "cannot be knocked down unless the duration of that knock down was enhanced." is not the same as Stun Immunity, ergo, Shiro and Dhuum do not have Stun Immunity. They have a mockery of the skill, possibly given via monster skills which give no description, such as Strong Natural Resistance. -- Konig/talk 21:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

As a heads-up, some redirects such as Delicious and Chocolate do not need to be created, as they actually conflict with the desired target when using the search option. The only other "Delicious" and "Chocolate" are the actual end-targets of the redirects. G R E E N E R 04:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

A good rule of thumb is probably: we probably don't need it.

Put another way: ask why we might need it. Are people typing the wrong thing frequently? In-game, do people refer to the redirect name rather than the main name? What will show up first in the search box's predictive text? The goal is to make things easier to find without a redirect; add the redirect if there's an issue that the redirect (or disambig helps solve). Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

What they said. You seem to have a passion for categorising and organising information. While that's not a bad thing most of the time, it can be taken too far. -- Hong 14:39, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

New guild categories - could you rename them please?

I think these categories need to be renamed: recruiting farming guilds sounds like a group that recruits farming guilds. I think what you mean is, Farming guilds that actively recruit or (more simply) Farming guilds that recruit.

However, the best choice is probably: Farming guilds. If we end up with 100+ guilds in each cat, then, sure, it might be sensible to distinguish. (OTOH, if we end up with only 2-3 member guilds, it might be better to drop the idea.)

Can I leave it to you to make the changes? Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

All I did was follow the established pattern... should "Recruiting" be eliminated all together, or should they be renamed to something like this? --Falconeye 18:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Category

Notable guilds & Notable guilds/Recruiting

Category

Mature guilds & Mature guilds/Recruiting

Category

English speaking guilds & English speaking guilds/Recruiting

Category

American guilds & American guilds/Recruiting

Category

PvE guilds & PvE guilds/Recruiting

Category

PvP guilds & PvP guilds/Recruiting

Category

PvX guilds & PvX guilds/Recruiting

Category

AB guilds & AB guilds/Recruiting

Category

GvG guilds & GvG guilds/Recruiting

Category

Running guilds & Running guilds/Recruiting

Category

Farming guilds & Farming guilds/Recruiting

Category

HA guilds & HA guilds/Recruiting

Category

Social guilds & Social guilds/Recruiting

Category

Kurzick guilds & Kurzick guilds/Recruiting

I apologize: I completely missed this style table when I was first looking at this; near as I can tell, your naming appears to follow its convention.

Unfortunately, it's a very awkward style ...and no one has reviewed it in two years (and the general consensus on how to name/create cats is somewhat different). I prefer your suggestion above; it seems more sensible to use subcats for those subset of guilds that recruit actively. However, please don't do any renaming; there needs to be community discussion before changing a long-standing style (even if it's a demonstrably terrible style...and arguably, this one isn't terrible...just awkward).

So that leaves only these issues:

• Are you applying a tag that matches a primary activity? (i.e. don't use every possible tag; just the most well-suited ones)
• Some tags have special requirements; in particular, notable means recognized by ANet. (A tag which fits HRK...for anyone following along at home.)
• Is it really important to create a new category (even if it follows the convention)?
• Before adding a recruiting label, did you consider whether that's a primary criterion for recruiting new members?

For example, if a guild is a general PvE guild that does many things, I wouldn't add the farming label. Also: if the guild has mature members, but doesn't use that as part of its vetting process, I would label it Mature Guilds, but not Recruiting mature guilds (the first is true, but the second is misleading).

So, short story: I withdraw my objection to the cats you created (my concern is with the style guide). Also please consider whether all the tags you are using for your guild are essential and help clarify its purpose/goals rather than diluting it with too many tags. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:53, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I like to cover all plausible bases ^_^. I edit & maintian the HRK (& others) on behalf of Nealie (and others officers). By request, 1) I added those tags as part of our recuiting efforts; 2) most of our members have diverse interests and/or are currently active in said categories; 3) its ALOT easier/quicker to forward players ingame to HRK-page (spam-typing repetitive LFG is boring/annoying) and/or allows wiki users to hopefully find us more easily within thier search criteria. --Falconeye 19:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Templates

What are these for? Honestly, if for the feedback pages... I can only see issues. Nothing positive. :-( Kaisha 19:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I think Falconeye means to find a way to filter out certain suggestions from various auto-generated lists by adding relevant categories, e.g. suggestions that are obsolete due to certain updates; e.g. suggestions that were +/- adopted. I think that is an important and useful goal.

Unfortunately, the Feedback space includes a huge number of articles. And, several people who are very knowledgeable about wikicode went to great pains to set things up in a particular way (largely with authorization of the community through various discussions). That should not be taken lightly.

I think, therefore, if someone wants to jumpstart the process, they should create templates in their own user space and show how they could be used in their own Feedback area. Then, propose that the community adopt the templates. Discussions will abound; tweaking will take place; and the idea will evolve into something that has the consensus of the wiki.

Alternatively, you can create the templates in your own user space and use them to tweak your own feedback page. (Falconeye: if you look at my feedback home page, you can see an example of that; you can tweak your own to filter based on your own criteria without affecting mainspace.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Yea, I was wondering why they weren't created in the user space, if meant for his feedback only... I was wary that it might mean for the whole, cause imo some people don't like being told their suggestion is bad, etc. - even if it might be or not. It's not really something that I think the players should decide with other players, because that imo diminishes the usefulness of a feedback for players to give bad or good feedback/responses, etc. Kaisha 20:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Look again. This isn't about calling a suggestion good vs bad; it's about Outdated (meaning no longer applies to the game) or Successful (meaning already implemented). Of course, other words imply more objectivity (e.g. Implemented vs Successful). However, that issue is, imo, besides the point.

The whole area of feedback is sensitive. None of us, including the original implementers, should proceed hastily into upsetting the current balance. Things might be imperfect now, but they work. It's important that we go through a well-vetted process so that whatever we end up with has the support of the community. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 20:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The Template:GW feedback infobox has a "resolved" parameter which, imo, would take the place of any successful/outdated template. --JonTheMon 20:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

True there, which would make these templates kind of useless imo. If one thinks their suggestion is outdated, they can delete it or update it. If it's resolved (or successful), they can use the infobox and mark it as such. Kaisha 21:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I would welcome more options than resolved: implemented suggests that it's in the game; outdated implies that something else happened that makes the idea moot now (but perhaps the submitter still prefers their idea); resolved tells me a problem has be fixed (but many suggestions are not about bugs or even things that don't work as well as originally thought).

For example, here are two resolved issues:

• Lots of people requested adding more ele heroes; those suggestions are outdated due to mercs and being able to change Razah's prof. However, many would have preferred more ordinary heroes.
• A lot of people requested making drinks spammable; that's been implemented.

This emphasizes my original point: none of us should attempt to add new features to the Feedback space without community backing. Falconeye's ideas for templates might be good (TEF), bad (Kaisha), or moot (Jon)... but they should remain in user space until there's substantive discussion followed by a groundswell of support. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 22:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow, my discussion page over the last few days has never been this active before! ^_^ --Falconeye 01:50, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

New EL Tonics

The dev updates states that each strongbox has 2 unique el tonics. We have a list to help us sort out what goes where. Make sure you check it before you start changing any relevant pages. Thanks :) --Moto Saxon 15:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop

Despite their name, the Nightfall Behemoths are not Behemoths. Likewise, the howlers are not Simians. Both of them are Beasts. Hell, we don't even know if simian is anything more than what vaettir or Shadow Army or Nightmare Horde are. To call the howlers in Elona "Simians" is even more speculation than assuming that "Simian" is an affiliation. So please stop adding things which have no basis to them. Konig/talk 23:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I think there is a list of Affiliations in affiliation, which I'm happy to say is corrected by Konig. I think it was my understanding that if they didn't have a "specific" affiliation, like some creatures - then they'd belonged to that region's wildlife. Hope this helps. Kaisha 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not corrected... just more accurate. We still don't know a lot and I bet 50% of what we mark down as affiliations are, in fact, not mechanical affiliations. Most NPC's affiliations are probably the default "region's good guys" and "region's bad guys" affiliations (the later we denote as "<region name> wildlife." Though some, like Charr, are certainly their own affiliation. Konig/talk 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking some might be done via regional. Kaisha 02:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Images on affiliation and creature type pages

While no where explicitly said, I'd like to note that prior to your additions lately, the images are either concept arts or renders - renders are preferred. Images like what you put on stone guardian are, imo, poor and shouldn't be placed. Likewise, if a render (e.g., white background) is used, do not thumb it, as that makes it look worse. Konig/talk 18:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Can you point to where there was a consensus? You have three responses: one strongly objecting (me), one with no opinion (Zesbeer), and one support (Hong). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Redirects

Dude, what is the point of making yet another zillion redirects? -- Hong 07:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Quest listing for love (but not money)

Thanks for adding the link to Beyond quests to the navbar. I've been trying to spotcheck all those articles and knew I was forgetting something critical... and that was it. (I got so involved in making sure that the quests were showing up in the right lists that I forgot to make sure that all the lists were present and accounted for.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

What should be done with Zinn's Task, Hearts of the North and others? Should the Non-Core/Multi-Campaign be treated as Beyond content? --Falconeye 01:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hearts of the North (like WiK before it and WoC after) is part of Beyond, so that shouldn't be an issue. I think Konig would argue that Zinn's Task is accidentally part of Beyond (technically released as its own thing, but, for all intents and purposes, we could treat it as Beyond now); I don't love that approach, but it might be the best we can do without creating a special category/section just for that one set of quests.

Are there lots of others? (I can't think of any that are truly cross-campaign and that don't fit neatly into Beyond or Festival). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zinn's Task is the only non-core, non-beyond, non-festival multi-campaign quest. TEF is right in how I view that - as something which became, rather than made to be, part of Beyond - however I do not see why it cannot be given its own category if we have a category and article for a single quest. Though I'd rather place it in Beyond. Konig/talk 02:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

So, Zinn's Task is either beyond or another category entirely... i have NO IDEA what valid category that should be... so i will use the precedent already set by The Last Hierophant and Norn Catering. ^_^ --Falconeye 06:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No, those are different than Zinn's Task. Last H is clearly part of EotN and is just weirdly classified by ANet; we're sort of stuck with that. Norn Catering is clearly part of HotN (no access to it otherwise). Zinn's Task is the only one where there's really any doubt. And I think Konig's idea is by far the best of any that I've seen: make it part of Beyond (either it's own thing, parallel to WiK and HotN...or ... possibly something else). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 06:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

If thats the agreement, then would you mind tagging the relevant pages as Beyond: Zinn's Task, i have no idea how to go about tagging them as you did. That and i think by now when any person/page says Core, its refering to content thats universally accessible, rather then PvE-only multi-campaign content (which seems to be the common trend of Beyond content). --Falconeye 07:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind retagging (although I'm going to wait to see what Konig says about calling it part of WiK or it's own thing — iirc, he suggested that ZT get its own category).

I think that Core got used in a variety of ways before and we are trying to return it back to the narrower definition you stated (universal rather than cross-campaign). There's relatively little that's true cross-campaign outside of Beyond (which, by definition, is now on its own instead of overlapping with everything else). — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 07:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Zinn's Task as part of the WiK, but they do overlap. Personally, I'd dub it "Zinn's tale" and slap Trial of Zinn in that, since it's not really part of the War in Kryta but parallel to it like the first portion of HotN - 3 tales that merged into one. How it is now, though, is fine, imo. Konig/talk 07:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused now: currently, it's treated as core even though it's not accessible unless you own the three original campaigns (P/F/NF). Shouldn't we change ZT (and its component quests) to Campaign=Beyond? — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 15:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Zinn's Task

[1] - instead of silently breaking GWW:1RR, would you mind explaining your edits? Again, Beyond clearly states that Zinn's Task is NOT part of Beyond (in fact, it predates Beyond by almost two years), so please change it back to Core or explain why you think that beyond is the correct category. Tub 17:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

On the topic of 1RR, there hasn't been a break, afaik. Falconeye changed the page, you reverted (1), he reverted (1). Nobody's reverted twice yet. --JonTheMon 18:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as i know Zinn's Task is part of GWB. It may have been introduced much earlier on than other GWB content but it has been added after EoTN and involves GWB story line with the Trial of Zinn and continueing in WiK. Wich also has yet to be reveiled and will most likely be a part of GWB as well later on is the one who messed with his golems. That it has been released 2 years earlier than WiK wich is when people started to become aware of GWB does not mean it isn't a part of it. If you still wanna stick to that early release then you can say it's been integrated into GWB after it's release. Damysticreaper 19:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The "main" discussion thus far has been above this one. Technically, it was not implemented as Beyond, but intentional or not, it effectively "became" part of Beyond in a sense. Core is not correct, as you must have multiple campaigns. Technically, Zinn's Task is all alone just as The Last Hierophant is all alone in the elite difficulty quests. Either it's creating its own category and list article - something that unlike the elite difficulty quests will not ever get expanded - or consider that it is "unofficially the first part of Beyond" - it's story is a part of Trial of Zinn's story and in turn a parallel to the beginning of the War in Kryta (just as Hearts of the North has part of its story that runs parallel to WiK).

To put it simply and in comparison:

• Hearts of the North, officially, is the content that takes place post-War in Kryta.
  • HotN's story, however, begins sooner and runs parallel (read: independent for a time) of the War in Kryta. As such, wiki now categorizes a piece of WiK content as HotN content for ease of documentation.
• Likewise, Zinn's Task is officially not Beyond content - it takes place pre-WiK.
  • However, part of that story which I dub "Zinn's tale" is War in Kryta, thus beyond, content. But, like the beginning of what wiki considers HotN, Trial of Zinn runs parallel to the War in Kryta.
• Conclusion: Sometimes, wiki organizes things with ease, consistency, and/or similarities in mind, rather than being technical and following how Anet organizes things. If we didn't, we'd be using Family and Army rather than creature type and affiliation - the former are less specific and potentially confusing terms.

In effect (aka TL;DR): Officially it is not Beyond content, but it is highly tied to Beyond content, is not part of a campaign or expansion, is not core. It is, literally, alone. One of a kind in that those quests are the only ones that are multi-campaign and not tied to either Beyond nor a festival. As such, for ease of documentation, the wiki could (and should in my, TEF's, and Falconeye's opinion) be considered Beyond, as the only thing it lacks to be Beyond content is the fact that it came out before Beyond content (it does the same task that Beyond does). Konig/talk 20:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not only did it come out way before Beyond content, up until today anet states that beyond starts with WiK, not with Zinn's Task. It's an independent update, though (unlike Sorrow's Furnace etc) we can't just cram it into an existing campaign.

The argument that it's Beyond because of the storyline connection doesn't really hold; by that logic every quest involving the White Mantle should be Beyond, too. Though in that case nobody is arguing because they fit neatly in prophecies, where they belong.

Listing Core may technically be wrong, but since the requirements are listed right below that line in the infobox, that shouldn't cause too much confusion. Listing it as Beyond is also wrong, considering the official word. I consider Core the lesser evil.

Though, if neither is acceptable, we could trivially set campaign=Zinn's Task and have it end up in its own category, or set campaign=Multi campaign, and have it only end up in a category it's already in. Tub 01:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zinn's Task wasn't a story arc, unlike WiK, HotN, and WoC. Your statement that all WM-related quests should be of Beyond by the story argument is incorrect, as the WM are also a part of Prophecies and EN, and all WM-related quests are either Prophecies, EN, or Beyond (split between WiK and HotN). Beyond is effectively "post <enter game here>'s story" story. So something that "fit neatly in prophecies" can't be of Beyond.

I'll disagree that listing it as Core is the "lesser evil" in this scenario - it's more of a continuation of the games rather than something independent from any game in both immediate story and requiring. I'd settle for "campaign=multi campaign" as that's the most true, though it feels out of place - then again, it is an out of place quest. Konig/talk 01:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

There is no easy way to categorize Zinn's Task. It's not strictly Beyond, not really Core, and so forth. I think the lesser evil is finding a box that requires the least amount of shoehorning. ANet is inconsistent about all sorts of things ... and they don't really care if GWW has trouble with classification (nor should they); I don't think it matter much (in this single situation) what they have said about when Beyond started — it's a marketing/brand name to them. Our choices are:

1. ZT is part of beyond.
2. ZT is its own distinct campaign.
3. We call it Core
4. We create an other box, and ZT might be its only member.

I think the cons outweigh the pros in all cases, but I'm willing to go with Beyond b/c it has a connected storyline (via Zinn's trial). Core is my least favorite choice (I think it's the opposite of being Core: it requires owning all the major campaigns). But my stronger preference is that we make some decision and stick with it for at least 6-9 months before second-guessing ourselves.

(To be fair to Tub: Falconeye jumped the gun: this discussion should really be taking place on a public talk page. There was no rush to update ZT and its component quests this week; it can remain unclassified while we spend more time documenting WoC.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Im just trying to make All Quests fit neatly into the Main Quest Page, the Quest Lists Navbar, and all relavent quest lists and categories. As stated in Quest listing for love (but not money), Core is misleading, confusing & inconsistent; and thus until anyone can come up with a BETTER/OTHER option or can justify giving a single set of quests its own campaigns (itself misleading, confusing & inconsistent), Beyond is the best option we have (same like I did with Vanguard Foes and other stuff). --Falconeye 04:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

For future reference

You will not find any affiliation with just one or two NPCs in it. Likewise, don't create categories for just one or two NPCs. It is pointless.

Also, I suggest archiving some of your talk page. It's huge. Konig/talk 07:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ministry of Earth has at least three; and how do i go about archiving? ^_^ --Falconeye 08:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

It's still unnecessarily small for a category, and still highly unlikely to be their own affiliation, all things considered. As to archiving - just move the comments to a subpage, for instance User talk:Falconeye/Archive 1. Konig/talk 08:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Should i just slap Kisu with Canthan Imperial Family as a pre existing affiliation? From what i understand, the Celestial Ministry (and sub-divisions), the Imperial Guard, etc., all answer to him. --Falconeye 08:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think he may be of the same affiliation as the Imperial Guard - the Celestial Ministry is pretty much against him. Not in terms of combat or political intrigue, but they even cause issues for him. Konig/talk 08:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Works for me! Kind a like how the historical Chinese Imperial Family focused on the big issues, while outsourcing a Second Family to handle the "mundane day to day grind", and a third family as a "secret service". --Falconeye 08:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Zaishen quest renames

You are using Talk:Zaishen Challenge Quest as a justification for moving over 60 articles.

1. That conversation doesn't (at the moment) support any of those moves.
2. If and when it does, you can ask the admins to setup an automated process to move all relevant articles (there's no need to slap a move tag and invite 60+ discusssions; that's why the discussion remains in one location).

Accordingly, please remove the {{move}} tags and instead, first try to encourage other people to your point of view. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 11:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You just moved Zen Daijun (Zaishen quest). As per TEF, stop moving these articles before consensus has been reached. -- Hong 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Redirects again

As if to confirm that your mania for redirects is getting out of hand, you have now redirected a page to point to itself. Stop it, please. -- Hong 08:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

To not create a new section - regarding all of your Shiro redirects; most people will merely search "Shiro" rather than slapping on one of his way-too-many titles. I don't think any except most common are needed. Konig/talk 04:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Instead of making a new section - please stop creating redirects and making links to said redirects when said redirects are not even necessary in the first place. I'm talking of Tree, Stalker, and your links to Dragon Plant. Those are not really necessary to create; they're merely naming conventions used by the devs on certain creatures. They hold no mechanical, lore, or community value. Konig/talk 05:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Marking NPCs as Beyond

While I'm not opposed to marking NPCs in WiK and WoC as "Beyond" it is best to wait for the discussion to finish before acting. So please stop for the time being, especially when you're adding "Factions" or "Prophecies" to NPCs and they are not part of those campaigns - at least for the time being, let's just wait for a consensus on how to document. Konig/talk 07:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oroku

I get the feeling that posting here is pointless, but here goes anyway. I put the move request on the Oroku page, as opposed to doing it unilaterally, because I felt that there might be objections to the move. Sure enough, someone chimed in with a reason for keeping things the way they were. IOW, there was no consensus for moving, as you would have known if you had read the talk page. I've raised this on the admin noticeboard since I can't automatically undo the change.

Being bold is all well and good, but the fact that there are multiple posts on your talk page asking you to stop should be telling. -- Hong 17:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Official forum suggestions

I had an idea to incorporate the feedback suggestions into the official Guild Wars forum. As you and a a small group of others routinely suggest things, and the feedback space pretty much dead, it would be a better place to get our ideas visible and a better fit than the wiki. I posted a a topic here https://forum.guildwars.com/forum/forums/web/Would-it-be-possible-to-incorporate-Wiki-s-suggestions-into-the-forum/page/1#post3339 and if I could get your support, thanks! I think it will go nowhere but if some of us can jump on board maybe their stance will change or they can humor us! What do we have to lose!? Previously Unsigned 00:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Request

Please stop removing deletion tags without any sort of discussion. Its getting annoying. Konig/talk 08:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

When did i delete? When was a "less than 7" standard established? Im not surprised with Battlestar Galactica (may as well tag Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy), but Princess Bride, Resident Evil, etc... thats a cluster clicking if a curious reader wanted to find them all. ^_^ --Falconeye 08:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you deleted it on both [[The Betrayer]] and on [[:Category:References to comics]]. Less than 7 isn't a standard but to have anything smaller than that, especially for such a trivial category, is silly. In most cases, it's a single group or quest/mission that has a shared theme to it (Terminator, Resident Evil, TMNT, and Kill Bill). Personally, I find any sort of specificity outside of differenciating "popular culture" and "folklore & mythology" rather silly - well, except maybe in some cases, like where Keiran has a poem reference. Konig/talk 08:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh, I'm okay with categorizing references so that those who are curious can find them more easily. That said, Falconeye: before you create a new category (and especially before creating a subcategory), consider whether there's an existing category (or sub) that fits the bill. A reasonable rule-of-thumb is: if the list is short, it makes things worse to add a new one. So, seven is a reasonable rule of thumb. But sometimes, we shouldn't add a cat (or subcat) even if there are 20 items in the list; the context is important, too.

Keep in mind that the wiki's primary emphasis is documenting the game, not documenting popular culture's relationship with it. So, it looks strange that we have articles with an NPC who's in 5-6 game categories and 3-4 reference cats. It also increases the number of cats listed at the bottom...making it harder to find any one of them. So perhaps the best argument for only have a single references to popular culture category is so that the list of categories is never cluttered by categories about the trivia.

However, all of that is besides the point: if someone slaps a delete tag on something...or a move tag, then it's important to let people have a chance to discuss it before unilaterally removing the tag. You can disagree with Konig (or me or whoever). You can disagree strongly. But that doesn't make it okay to move forward; in fact, it means it's very much not alright to do so. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 08:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Alternative currency

An alternative currency is something that is used in place of gold, both when the price is too high to trade directly (e.g. armbraces for ecto) or as a convenience (e.g. 6 GotT for 5 zkeys). I have seen fewer than half a dozen examples (in-game or at the estimator or on trade sites) where someone is offering to use gold zoin as a substitute; that's about as frequently as I see people attempting to trade various other items in lieu of cash.

People will trade gold zoin for ecto, but that is using ecto as the alternative currency. Before adding to the list of alternative currency, we should see numerous offers involving zoins used as currency. The comparable numbers are hundreds of armbrace-based trades, thousands of zkey-based ones, or tens of thousands of trades ecto-based trades

This is the second time in two months that you have attempted to add gold zoins to the list, even though there is no new evidence that things have changed. Please consider carefully before updating the articles a third time. Thanks. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 01:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Moves

Consider this: There are pages on guildwiki.de linked to here... Moving or suggesting a move on a lot of pages could screw up the links to other pages linked to them, not only on here, but there (guildwiki.de) as well. If you get the okay to move pages, be sure to fix the redirect links on the other pages. Secondly, it might be better to get suggestions on moves of images, pages, etc. that have been here for a while, than to up and move them. Hope this helps to be something to consider. I had learned the hard way and wished someone had told me, before I made a lot of mistakes. 72.148.31.114 20:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

List of bosses

I know this type was started by 42. However, most reverted him. I don't recall why, but I know it was not something that was a good start. While some of this may be nice. It's best to know the mechanic and sort them by that more-so than the naming convention. Though I'd prefer list of bosses by campaign, region, and profession, over type. 72.148.31.114 04:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

On a different note, but on this topic - why did you create a page with only a move tag? This isn't the first time you've created pages suggesting them to be moved in your initial creation of the page, that just makes no sense... Konig/talk 04:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Its a reminder to go that route should no one disagree. --Falconeye 05:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are the only contributor to a page...and you just started it (within 7 days or so), why not (a) create it at the new name or (b) if you changed your mind, why not just move it? It's akin to creating User:Falconeye/Sandbx2 and tagging it to {{move}} to User:Falconeye/Sandbox2. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 05:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing other people's non-talk pages

re: this edit

You edited User:Armond's Guide to hard mode. However, that page is in his user space; he has not given permission to other people to edit it. He might or might not agree with the idea behind the edits, let alone the wording. It's one thing to edit someone's user page(s) to fix something that's broken; it's quite another to put words into their mouth. (For example, I very much doubt that Armond is likely to say, "Spirits are great!," even without the exclamation point.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 19:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's an opinion, if you want to comment on someone's hard mode design - do it via talk. Otherwise, It might be better to edit or create your own thoughts/ideas in your user-space. 72.148.31.114 20:22, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Archiving?

Do you want someone to help you archive this talk page? It's currently 144kb and some browsers/meta-editors start choking after 32kb. — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 23:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Do i checkbox the "Move subpages (up to 100)" as well? --Falconeye 00:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No, only if you want to archive those as well. (You might also want to split up the archive...or not.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)